Murdoch University

School of Education

South Street

MURDOCH WA 6150

Phone: (08) 9360 2378

Fax: (08) 9360 6296

Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association of Research in Education, Notre Dame University, Perth, 5^th December, 2001.

Ask teachers what they like about their jobs and invariably their responses revolve around their satisfaction, or lack of satisfaction, with human relationships; relationships with their students and/or with their colleagues. Interpersonal relationships in the workplace are extremely important to teachers, as they are for many other employees, but rarely do we read studies of the social dimensions of work in an educational setting. This article seeks to address this issue through an investigation of workplace relationships in an urban primary school, and the meanings that teachers attach to these relationships.

Teaching is no longer the isolated profession it was once seen to be. With school-based management already an accepted reality in schools today, teachers’ work has expanded to include a significant component of non-teaching tasks related to curriculum and policy development (see Jarzabkowski, 2000; Cranston, 2000). These kinds of tasks, by and large, are collaborative, to the extent that the individualism that once characterised primary teachers’ work in Lortie’s (1975) time is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. However, it is interesting to note that even over twenty-five years ago Lortie warned "against a too casual view of the significance of peer relationships" (p. 192). If peer relationships were important in 1975, they can only be more so now that collaborative work is an accepted component of the position of a teacher.

This article reports on research into the social dimensions of the school as a workplace for adults. The topic is approached from a cultural perspective and explores the notion of collegiality as a form of teacher culture. The first section outlines some of the theory of collaborative cultures, noting by and large the absence of a social dimension. However, attention is drawn in the second section to the fact that social and emotional support are important aspects in the lived experience of teachers in schools, as some researchers readily acknowledge. The research underpinning this article is also briefly explained. Data to describe the social dimensions of life for teachers in one primary school are then outlined, and this is followed up with an account of the teachers’ perspectives on why social interaction is important to them. Such views are then analysed to provide a strong argument for the need to incorporate social dimensions into existing concepts of collegiality in schools.

Without entering into the debate of defining and describing culture, a debate with a long and involved history, the research upon which this article is founded is based on the understanding that teachers, in collaboration with their colleagues, negotiate and contest workplace culture throughout their working lives in the school. As Cooper (1988, p. 46) suggests, "[c]ultures are not made; they are born and grow", a statement which argues against the notion that culture can be artificially manufactured. In the same way, school leaders do not have the sole ability or responsibility to affect changes in organisational culture. Angus (1995, p. 73) maintains that "leaders have no monopoly on the development of organisational meaning", rather, everyone, "whether they like it or not", is a part of the process of developing meaning within the workplace. Collegial practices in schools are therefore activities in which culture is being developed. Culture evolves in a particular way when teachers spend time working together.

Hargreaves (1994) suggests that school culture can be viewed from two aspects, content and form. He posits that the content of teacher culture can be seen in what teachers say, do and think, being based on shared values, beliefs and assumptions of the teaching group. This sits well with the more traditional definitions of culture. It is Hargreaves’ form of culture that is more important to this research.

It is important to note that teacher cultures may not necessarily be stable. The form of the culture, the relationships among teachers, may change over time. Hargreaves posits that changes in the content of culture may be contingent on prior or parallel changes in the form of culture. That is to say, changes in staff relationships affect the beliefs, values and attitudes of the teachers in a school. This suggests that the form of culture is a very powerful and significant element in the life and work of teachers in schools.

Unfortunately, traditional notions of collegial school culture do not pay much heed to the social relationships that develop in schools. While several authors acknowledge the advantage of positive personal relationship, they do not believe that such relationships contribute significantly to the core work of teachers, that is, teaching and learning. For example, Ihara (1988) acknowledges that affection among colleagues would promote cooperation and support, but he maintains that it is not a necessary component of collegiality. Sergiovanni (1990) makes a similar point, stating that congeniality and collegiality are very different.

Nias (1998), on the other hand, appreciates that the social and emotional dimensions of collaborative cultures are important. Her research provides strong grounds for justifying an expanded view of teacher collegiality, much as my research does, in arguing that

While it is not the intention of this article to make a close connection between the development of social relationships and positive student outcomes, it is expected to link such relationships to an emotionally healthy workplace, which may foster closer collaboration among teachers to the ultimate benefit of students. This article explains what social relationships mean to individual teachers and explores how they contribute to collegiality among teachers. As will be demonstrated, from a teacher’s perspective, personal relationships are a lot more important in developing collaborative work practices than many researchers realise.

Teachers can gain much satisfaction from collegiality. Most obviously they seek support from their colleagues. Current writings on teacher burnout make the point that this condition largely results from emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and a feeling of lack of personal accomplishment (for example see Byrne, 1999; Maslach, 1999). However, there is now strong backing for the notion that social support from colleagues can reduce teacher stress and burnout (for example see Maslach & Leiter, 1999; Nias, 1999; Schwarzer & Greenglass, 1999). Nias suggests that collegial relations appear to strengthen the moral perspectives and values of teachers and thus have the ability to reduce burnout. One reason for this is the development of a collegial culture characterised by mutual support and care in which

Fenlason and Beehr (1994) refer to two kinds of social support offered in the workplace: instrumental support and emotional support. The former is characterised by rendering tangible assistance such as physical aid, advice or knowledge to complete tasks. The latter is characterised by caring behaviour and sympathetic listening. These two kinds of support often appear to be linked in schools. Nias (1998) notes that teachers gain a lot from talking and listening to colleagues whom they respect for their skills in teaching. However, it is also important that these people be non-judgmental and easily accessible.

Talking and listening are activities greatly valued by teachers and their colleagues as a means of sharing emotional experiences (Nias, 1998). Particularly in times of frustration or despair, teachers need someone to listen and understand. As well as in their low times, teachers also want the opportunity to share their excitement and successes. However, Nias (p. 1260) notes that teachers in English primary schools find it even more difficult to share their successes than their failures, "encountering in their schools an expectation that neither joy nor anguish would be publicly shared". This may, of course, be more particular to English society than Australian.

Nias, Southworth and Yeomans (1989) noted that in schools displaying cultures of collaboration, teachers spent a great deal of time talking to one another. Their talk revolved around both themselves and their teaching. Nias et al see this talk as a medium through which shared meaning could be established and then continue to be reinforced. They see three benefits from this kind of teacher talk. First, it is a process that reveals individuals’ attitudes, values and beliefs. Teachers thus get to know one another much better, both personally and professionally. Second, this kind of talk is also based on trust and can therefore lead to mutual openness. The sharing of lives involves the sharing of emotions and people come to understand others more deeply and develop reciprocal, trusting relationships. Third, the development of a shared language enables exchanges to convey complex ideas. A cultural language develops amongst group members.

Both Nias (1998) and Pollard (1987) acknowledge the value of humour and laughter among teachers. Humour reduces tension, induces relaxation, promotes and maintains a sense of social cohesion and staff morale and promotes individual confidence. Acker (1995) and Nias et al (1989) observed humour as a part of the teacher cultures they studied. Ben-Peretz, Schonmann and Kupermintz (1999, pp. 155-156) comment that in elementary schools

Jansen’s (1994) study of humour in educational leadership reveals that principals also see humour as offering a counterbalance to the seriousness of education. She described humour as a "buoy" which lifts the spirits of school leaders. However, humour does even more than this. Jansen (p. 16) notes that "[a]t the crucial social level, humour was seen as a marvellous adhesive, a bonding agent which strengthened relationships and held teams firmly together". Principals in her study suggested that a self-deprecating sense of humour was also essential, such that one could laugh at oneself, and also allow this privilege to others.

Humour and laughter are components of play. Consistent with the emotional/rational dichotomy, work and play are usually seen as opposites (Dandridge, 1988; Fine, 1988). The Protestant work ethic of western society stereotypes work as serious, structured activity designed to achieve instrumental goals, and play as fun, lighthearted activity for personal enjoyment. Play is seen as "affective" – related to emotions, but work is seen as "effective" – related to production and outcomes (Dandridge). In reality many work activities are intertwined with elements of play and humour. Nias, Southworth and Campbell (1992) also comment on how humour often accompanies teachers’ collaborative activities. Dandridge (1988) sees that activities such as ceremonies, customs and rituals can bring work and play together into one experience. The ritual patterns of celebrations within an organisation are important in this regard.

"The world of work is also a world of play and expressive behavior" (Fine, 1988, p. 119). Fine sees the integration of work and play as expressing the same value system and assisting workers to adjust to the work environment. He sees work and play as mutually reinforcing. Play at work "contributes to increased satisfaction and productivity by changing the definition of the work environment from an institution of coercive control to an arena in which the workers have some measure of control over the conditions of their employment" (Fine, p. 120). Woods (1984, p. 190) maintains that "it is through laughter that teachers neutralize the alienating effects of institutionalization; that they synchronize the public and the private spheres". Through laughter the private and the public self of the teacher can be reintegrated.

Provided that joking does not subjugate or belittle colleagues, a variety of benefits can be obtained from its incorporation into the workplace. First, a sense of community and social identity is created.

Colleagues are seen as real people in the sharing of ‘play’ activities. In viewing colleagues from this perspective, added benefits such as improved cooperation, communication and emotional commitment are derived (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Fine, 1988). Fine’s workers found their work environment to be pleasant primarily because of the interpersonal relationships they formed and the freedom of expressive behaviour that that permitted them. Task effectiveness is also seen as an unexpected advantage of the integration of work and play. This is thought to stem from improved motivation and personal engagement, an increase in creativity and a reduction in tension (Ashforth & Humphrey). This may be significant in considering the collaborative activities in which teachers partake on a regular basis. Elements of humour and play that arise naturally out of collaborative tasks may result in added creativity and better generation of ideas from the group, as well as contributing to the emotional health of the staff group. Nias et al (1992, p. 210) note

It is the staffroom where such social and emotional activities usually take place. Therefore to conduct research that investigates the social dimensions of collegiality requires a researcher to get "up close and personal" with the staff group. The next section outlines how the research for this article was undertaken.

A study focusing on teacher culture and social relationships called for an in-depth, long-term association with members of the organisation. Therefore, an ethnographic approach was chosen. A single case was chosen for the purpose of intensive study. Through participant observation, data were gathered in the form of fieldnotes, taken largely from observed interaction in the staffroom before and after school and in recess and lunch breaks. I also attended a variety of professional and social events with the staff, both in and outside school hours. Over 80% of the professional staff also agreed to formal interviews, material which when cleared by participants, provided further data for triangulation. In total I spent over one quarter of the school year on site, these days being spaced throughout the period of one academic year. During this time I tutored individual students, did relief teaching, covered library books, staffed the front office and took on other sundry tasks. It could be said without too much hesitation that I came to know the participants and the context of the setting quite well during this time.

St Cecilia’s School, a primary school in the suburban region of a large Australia city, operated under the auspices of the Catholic Education Office. Enrolment at the school during the period of the research was fairly stable at around 370 pupils. St Cecilia’s drew its enrolments from the surrounding middle to lower-middle class suburbs. Approximately 12% of students were identifiably of non-Australian background, representing a variety of nationalities. Less than 2% acknowledged Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage.

The school had a full time, non-teaching, female principal and a male assistant principal with 60% release time, mainly devoted to coordinating religious education. Fourteen other full time teachers and six part-time teachers were employed, bringing the total professional staff composition to the equivalent of 19.6 full time persons. Female staff members outnumbered their male counterparts at a ratio of just over four to one. Staff ranged in age from 23 to 58 with the average age being 44 years. Staff turnover was fairly low, with a few very long serving staff members, although the average length of service at this school was six years. These statistics are possibly quite relevant to the development of the collegial culture at St Cecilia’s and the desire of most members to build and maintain community among staff.

Little has been written about the social aspect of the school as a workplace for adults. This section contributes to an understanding of the value of social interaction for community building in schools. The staff at St Cecilia’s School was observed to have several social rituals such as the celebration of members’ birthdays, Friday afternoon drinks, social outings and special lunches and dinners. A social committee was responsible for the organisation of such activities. The fieldnote below, taken from an observation of a staff meeting held early in the year, records the committee’s annual formation.

Although there were officially recognised social activities for staff, the most common form of socialising was that which occurred during the school day in between teaching periods. The first informal gathering of the day commenced in the early mornings. The staffroom door was usually opened around 8:00 am, and any time after that, teachers would drift over to the staffroom. Except for tuckshop day, which was Monday, teachers brought their own lunch to school, and therefore would go to the staffroom to deposit it in the refrigerator. Some teachers would then stay on to have a cup of tea or coffee, and during this time would chat to their colleagues.

Recess and lunch times were also important occasions for social interaction. The teachers, the principal and the assistant principal always came to the staffroom during the two official breaks unless they were on duty or had pressing matters to which they needed to attend. This was not the kind of staff where teachers stayed in their rooms, eating their lunches in private while doing preparation or marking.

During the break times, topics of conversation were wide ranging. Current affairs were popular, but talk also extended to both the professional and the personal arenas. Talk also centred on students and their families. Teachers’ own families were often topics of discussion too. The two excerpts from fieldnotes, taken a day apart, show the variety of topics covered during break times.

One of the most common social events in many organisations is the celebration of members’ birthdays. At St Cecilia’s birthdays were celebrated on the day they occurred, or as close as possible to the event if it fell on a weekend or holiday. One staff member from the social committee took responsibility for writing down in chronological order the birth date of each teacher and ancillary staff member. People were then asked to nominate a couple of these dates throughout the year upon which they would contribute some food for a shared morning tea. Below is an observation of a typical birthday celebration.

A very popular social activity for many organisations, particularly schools, is "Friday afternoon drinks". To celebrate the end of the working week, teachers at St Cecilia’s School gathered in the staffroom anywhere from about 3:30 pm onwards for drinks and snacks. There was a standing invitation to all staff to join but members of the ancillary staff did not usually participate. Numbers of attendees varied each week depending on commitments, but seemed to average around eleven or twelve. There appeared to be a core group who regularly participated in this social activity. Both the principal and the assistant principal usually attended, suggesting that they both saw joining in such social activities as important, although the principal was not always able to stay for long periods. The staff saw Friday afternoon drinks as a ritual, as the following teacher commented.

Most formal social activities in which the staff of St Cecilia’s School participated involved food and eating, as noted by Valentine and McIntosh (1991) in their research in female-dominated workplaces. One such event was the sharing of lunch on pupil-free days. The custom at St Cecilia’s School was that on these days once a term the staff would join together for lunch. This was sometimes held at school with a barbeque or it might be celebrated off the premises at a restaurant. The principal encouraged teachers to make the choice about the organisation of lunch. During the year I observed and participated in two such lunches at school and one at a local restaurant on pupil-free days.

Another important ritual at St Cecilia’s was the end-of-year lunch, which was held on the last day of school after students were dismissed around midday. All teachers and ancillary staff attend this lunch, which is always held at a local restaurant. The principal suggested that this was one of the most important functions of the year for staff.

My observation of this event concurs with the principal’s statement. The end-of-year lunch was a laughter filled occasion.

Staff also gathered for dinners on other occasions. One such dinner was held to mark the end of an externally provided professional development course, in which many staff had participated over a series of weeks after school. Social activities such as this, held after school hours and off school premises, are less likely to attract a large complement of the staff, owing to family commitments. Other social outings were also organised during the year the research was conducted. Of particular interest was a race day organised by the social committee for one Saturday afternoon. This family day was well attended by staff. It is on occasions like this that people also get the opportunity to meet the partners of their colleagues. There were also celebrations for one-off special occasions. One such event in which I participated was the retirement dinner for a long serving staff member. This was held at the school at the teacher’s request and was a particularly collegial activity, generating some intense emotions for the teacher herself, and many others.

Most of the staff also participated in a football tab, a minor form of gambling where each participant must try to select the winners of weekend football games. One of the male teachers organised this annual event during the football season. The "footy tab" generated a lot of interest and discussion during the season, staff debating the likelihood of winners on Fridays and checking each Monday to see how competitors had fared and who had won the weekly cash prize.

Many of the teachers admitted to having no knowledge of the game or the form of the teams and just participated for social reasons. The zero score of one of the female teachers generated a lot of laughter one week. It was also a standing joke that one of the other female teachers used patterning on the score sheet to select her weekly winners. When this particular teacher on several occasions won the weekly prize, no one was more surprised than she was.

As is evident from the discussion above, the St Cecilia’s School workplace had an active social dimension to it. Teachers organised and participated in a variety of events with their colleagues. Although not all staff members joined in all activities, there was a strong core group of very social beings who seemed really to enjoy the company of their workmates and encouraged participation in social events. The principal and assistant principal were also regular attendees at almost all social functions, although they did not take responsibility for organising the events. A social committee made up of teachers took on this responsibility. Why people chose to participate in an obviously voluntary part of workplace life is discussed below.

It is evident that many staff at St Cecilia’s enjoyed one another’s company. Social activities were a way of connecting with the personal side of their colleagues, not just the professional, as suggested by Ashforth and Humphrey (1995). That point was made clearly in the statement below.

Most staff spoke very positively about the social aspect of the school. Perhaps one of the most interesting comments about socialising with colleagues was the idea that it promoted better working relationships. A couple of teachers specifically made this point, while others merely indicated it in their statements of support for the social activities of the community.

There was a feeling that an atmosphere of friendship could contribute to a workplace where staff felt comfortable, and that would have a positive influence on work in general.

Many teachers explained that through participation in social activities they came to know their colleagues more personally, and they believed this to be a good thing. They felt that social activities gave them the opportunity to relate better to other staff members as people, not just as teachers. This strongly supports the research of Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) who maintain that such activities both foster ‘groupness’ and reduces stereotyping colleagues as role occupants.

One staff member made the point that it was not so much the social outings that were important but that every opportunity to come together socially was valuable. She strongly favoured the social opportunities that were afforded by staff joining together at break times, particularly the ability to express emotions and laugh together.

A positive outlook or a happy disposition could be emotionally contagious, according to some teachers.

Staff at St Cecilia’s really appreciated the social dimensions of their work lives. One teacher made the observation that those who joined social activities regularly were also the more collaborative members of staff. This perhaps reflects the personalities of these teachers. Those who enjoyed socialising together also enjoyed working together, and vice versa. By and large my observations would support this notion.

Regardless, it is fairly obvious that these teachers themselves saw value in fostering social relationships for various reasons. The section below discusses the need to incorporate social dimensions more overtly into the concept of collegial cultures.

From the data above it is easy to see that social activities add another important dimension to staff relationships in schools. For St Cecilia’s staff, they afforded several unique benefits. First, it allowed them to get to know one another on a more personal basis, and this then gave them a better understanding of each other. Most teachers saw this as very important, which suggests that the building of personal relationships at work was something desirable and beneficial. Leading on from this is the belief that in knowing one another better, there is more chance that stronger collaborative relationships can be developed. This supports comments by Fine (1988) and Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) that social sharing can lead to improved cooperation, communication and emotional commitment. It is also obvious that participating in social activities like staffroom banter and Friday afternoon drinks can reduce tension.

This has implications for improving emotional health in schools. When teachers are able to share their concerns about teaching with their colleagues in an open and non-threatening environment, emotional stress may be reduced. When colleagues make an effort to create a positive and supportive workplace, the emotional pressures associated with teaching may decrease. Social interaction among staff increases the likelihood that emotional support will be available when needed by individuals. In this way, individual staff members may benefit directly, but the organisation also receives the benefit of an emotionally healthy staff.

What could clearly be seen from the data was that many teachers at St Cecilia’s School valued highly the social aspects of their relationships with other staff members. They felt that it was important to know them on a level deeper than ‘teachers’, to know them as ‘individuals’. In this way they could be more understanding of one another, and could provide the personal and professional supports necessary for good working relationships to be maintained. Working relationships were perceived to improve through the development of social and emotional relationships. This research supports the work of Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) in suggesting that such social experiences create shared memory for a group, develop a sense of community and build relationships based on appreciation of peers as individuals rather than stereotyped role occupants.

For teachers in schools, collegiality is more than the work they do together. It extends beyond the strict boundaries of work and into the social realm. Teachers value their social interactions because it is through the social that supportive relationships are developed, that community is created. The sense of community is important if a culture of collaboration is to be successful. While Ihara (1988), Hargreaves (1994) and Sergiovanni (1990) may disregard the influence of congeniality, this research challenges the assumption that it is irrelevant to the pursuit of a collegial culture. In support of Campbell and Southworth (1992), this research brings to prominence the importance of personal relationships in fostering collaborative practices in schools.

It is posited that, at least from the perspective of the teachers in this study, successful and comfortable personal relationships are in fact necessary for genuine collaboration to take place. Hargreaves (1994, p. 192) maintains that collaborative cultures "emerge primarily from the teachers themselves as a social group". This suggests that such a culture arises out of the social group. Collaboration must necessarily be seen as both enjoyable and rewarding for teachers, otherwise the practice would not continue. Therefore, the state of staff relationships becomes very important as a foundation for genuine collaboration in primary schools.

Of course, school-wide collegiality is not something that can develop overnight. It requires that school leaders and a body of teachers support it. While a principal can mandate that certain activities be conducted collaboratively, for collegiality in its fullest understanding to develop requires that a core group of teachers builds a community to support it. Principals have little control over social practices of their staff. It is the teachers who value community who will cultivate social relationships with their colleagues, with the ultimate benefit being that collaborative practices may become more successful. Collaboration in primary schools is intimately linked with personal and social relationships and cannot in practice be readily separated.

Teachers’ work in the 21^st century has incorporated new dimensions of collaborative activities, brought about largely by the introduction of school-based management practices. Teachers increasingly find themselves being required to work in groups and on project teams and committees to further the educational goals of their schools. Concepts of collegiality and collaboration need to acknowledge new dimensions so as to keep up to date with the lived practices of school life for teachers, part of which involves their interest in the development of healthy social relationships with colleagues.

The research upon which this article is based identifies the significant contribution that social interaction plays in fostering collegial cultures in the primary school. It has been shown that when staff members have a variety of opportunities to come together in an informal manner and this occurs on a regular basis, community building can take place, the benefits of which can flow on to create a more productive working environment. Both individuals and the school community can benefit from the creation and maintenance of an emotionally healthy workplace.

Acker, S. (1995). Carry on caring: The work of women teachers. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(1), 21-36.

Angus, L. (1995). Cultural theory in educational administration. In C. W. Evers & J. D. Chapman (Eds.), Educational administration: An Australian perspective (pp. 60-80). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Urwin.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97-125.

Ben-Peretz, M., Schonmann, S., & Kupermintz, H. (1999). The teachers' lounge and its role in improving learning environments in schools. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 148-164). London: Falmer Press.

Byrne, B. M. (1999). The nomological network of teacher burnout: A literature review and empirically validated model. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 15-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, P., & Southworth, G. (1992). Rethinking collegiality: Teachers' views. In N. Bennett, M. Crawford, & C. Riches (Eds.), Managing change in education: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 61-79). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Cooper, M. (1988). Whose culture is it, anyway? In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 45-54). New York: Teachers College Press.

Cranston, N. C. (2000). Teachers as leaders: A critical agenda for the new millennium, Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(2), 123-131.

Dandridge, T. C. (1988). Work ceremonies: Why integrate work and play? In M. O. Jones, M. D. Moore, & R. C. Snyder (Eds.), Inside organizations: Understanding the human dimension (pp. 251-259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fenlason, K., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress: Effects of talking to others. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(2), 157-175.

Fine, G. A. (1988). Letting off steam? Redefining a restaurant's work environment. In M. O. Jones, M. D. Moore, & R. C. Snyder (Eds.), Inside organizations: Understanding the human dimension (pp. 119-127). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.

Ihara, C. K. (1988). Collegiality as a professional virtue. In A. Flores (Ed.), Professional ideas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jansen, M. (1994). Seven gifts and silvery laughter: Humour in educational leadership. The Practising Administrator, 16(4), 14-17.

Jarzabkowski, L. M. (2000). A case study of collegiality. Leading and Managing, 6(1), 21-36.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maslach, C. (1999). Progress in understanding teacher burnout. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook for international research and practice (pp. 211-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1999). Teacher burnout: A research agenda. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 295-303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nias, J. (1998). Why teachers need their colleagues: A developmental perspective. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 1257-1271). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Nias, J. (1999). Teachers' moral purposes: Stress, vulnerability, and strength. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 223-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Campbell, P. (1992). Whole school curriculum development in the primary school. London: Falmer Press.

Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary school. London: Cassell Educational.

Pollard, A. (1987). Primary school teachers and their colleagues. In S. Delamont (Ed.), The primary school teacher (pp. 100-119). London: Falmer Press.

Schwarzer, R., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Teacher burnout from a social-cognitive perspective: A theoretical position paper. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 238-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in schools. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Valentine, P., & McIntosh, G. (1991). Food for thought: Realities of a women-dominated organization. In J. S. Gaskell & A. T. McLaren (Eds.), Women and education (2nd ed.) (pp. 61-79). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.

Woods, P. (1984). The meaning of staffroom humour. In A. Hargreaves & P. Woods (Eds.), Classrooms and staffrooms (pp. 190-202). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.