Reflection-in-action occurs without the luxury of time to carefully weigh underlying factors of a situation. To explain reflection-in-action, Schön (1987) used the example of how jazz musicians improvise in “…an immediate and wordless response to the unexpected …in which participants invent on-the-spot responses” (p. 31). Similarly, professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, managers, and principals routinely improvise as they respond to unexpected events and situations. Swartz and Perkins (1989) described this as tacit metacognition, which they theorized as preceding progressive steps of awareness, strategic, and reflective thinking. Schön (1987) stated that reflection-in-action “…hinges on the experience of surprise” (p. 56), which causes a person to reflect on what they know about a situation before responding in an “...on-the-spot experiment in which a new and tentative understanding is tested” (Schön, 1987, p. 56). Unexpected situations, whether pleasant or unpleasant, are typically responded to in a spontaneous and routine manner (Seo & Barratt, 2007) that is “…in some measure conscious…, but may not occur in the medium of words…” (Schön, 1987, p. 56).

While the inclusion of reflective practice in principal preparation programs has been strongly advocated (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; McCotter, 2009; Osterman, 1998), the research literature related to principal reflection is lean (Day, 2000; McCotter, 2009; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Wright, 2008). It is commonly accepted that experienced principals are better decision makers than beginning administrators (Rich & Jackson, 2006) and over time they “…build up a collection of images, ideas, examples and actions that they can draw upon” (Smith, 2001, p. 8). However, the research literature on the tacit knowledge that principals automatically access is still emerging.

Other Professions. Silver (1986) suggested that the field of educational administration would benefit from developing a codified record keeping system similar to those employed in professions such as “…architecture, engineering, law, and medicine…” (p. 161). “A professional’s knowing-in-action is embedded in the socially and institutionally structured context shared by a community of practitioners” (Schön, 1987, p. 33). For example, current research on hospital emergency room procedures has led to development of checklists and protocols that have become accepted practice (Croskerry, Wears, & Binder, 2000). Metacognitive strategies are also being taught to resident physicians to improve decision-making (Bond et al., 2004). Others (Boud & Walker, 1998; Ferraro, 2000), however, caution that a trend toward using checklists to solve urgent matters will not be effective in educational settings where rigid protocols may not fit diverse situations.

The connection between values and behaviors is prominent in the literature on school leaders (Begley, 2006; Goldman, 1998; Lazaridou, 2007). Research on problem solving has shown that when faced with complex situations, school leaders rely upon personal values to influence their responses (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Mumford, Gessner, Connelly, O’Connor, & Clifton, 1993). In emphasizing the importance of a leader’s values, Burns (1978) stated that outstanding managerial performance is characterized by the presence of honesty, fairness, equal respect for individuals, autonomy, and democratic governance. Similarly, Begley (2006) proposed that self-knowledge, moral reasoning, and sensitivity to others are prerequisites for authentic leadership by school principals. Begley (2006) found four motivational factors that influence principals’ decisions—self-interest, consensus, consequences, and ethics— and suggested that principals need to reflect on them in order to understand their intentions.

The literature is rich with research regarding the trust relationship between leaders and subordinates (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Ciancutti & Steding, 2000; Hsu & Mujtaba, 2007; Turk et al., 2010). Within this construct a substantial and growing body of research exists focusing on the principal-teacher relationship (Brewster & Railsback, 2003; Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Gimbel, 2003; Hallam & Hausman, 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Tschannen-Moran (2001) found that teacher-principal collaboration was strongly related to trust. Effective relationships among school stakeholders—principals, teachers, and parents—are pivotal for schools to be successful (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Hallam & Hausman, 2009). Relationships of trust between teachers and principals take time to develop (Ciancutti & Steding, 2000), yet are essential for collaboration (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). “Clearly, in this era of accountability and the pressures that accompany it, there is a premium placed on the interpersonal skills of school leaders” (Hallam & Hausman, 2009, p. 403).

Several factors are seen as critical in the development and sustenance of trust relationships between teachers and principals. These include a principal’s approachability and listening skills (John & Taylor, 1999), the absence of suspicion in the principal’s motives (Ciancutti & Steding, 2000), sensitivity to others (Begley, 2006), and equitable treatment of staff members (Burns, 1978). According to Turk et al. (2010), “When people are honest, not only with each other, but also with themselves, the bonds of trust become that much stronger” (p. 1).

Following approval of the research project by a university Institutional Review Board, criterion sampling strategy was used to recruit 15 experienced public school principals for this study. Participants known as successful principals were identified by consulting with school leaders and university professors. The experience level of the participants ranged from 5 to 20 years as an administrator. Of the 15 participants, 7 were from the elementary level and 8 from secondary, 9 were female and 6 were male, and 2 had recently been promoted to central office positions. All of the principals serve in the greater Seattle area.

Open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted with individual participants at their place of work. Interview questions were designed to collect data related to each of the three research questions. The interviews were structured so that participant responses could be analyzed to identify emerging themes and categories. Collected data was transcribed following each interview to facilitate the coding of responses, which also contributed to subsequent interviews. While the first few interviews were recorded, as recommended by Creswell (1998), the researcher abandoned this strategy in favor of note-taking when interviewees expressed discomfort.

Picture yourself leading a faculty meeting when unexpectedly a teacher angrily attacks you verbally. There is a sudden silence and you can feel all eyes in the room turn to you. What thoughts are going through your mind in the seconds immediately following the verbal attack?

The first theme includes statements that describe the reflective thoughts principals would have in response to an unexpected verbal attack during a staff meeting. Responses coded as Self Talk made up 30% of the data, which was expected considering the focus of the interview questions. Three categories (managing surprise, poise, and assessing scope) were identified in the data analysis for this theme.

Managing surprise. Seven of the fifteen participants described how they would mentally process the initial shock of being verbally attacked in public. These descriptions were coded in the Managing Surprise category. As the interview questions emphasize (see Table 1), identifying what principals reflect on as potentially volatile situations unfold is the primary purpose of this investigation. An example of a principal’s response that was coded for this category follows:

Statements included in Managing Surprise were often similar to those coded for Poise.

Poise. The Poise category includes the comments of 10 participants that describe the importance of a principal maintaining their composure in the face of a verbal attack. Being “poised under fire” was something these participants stated they would instantly think about in such a situation. All seven of the principals whose comments were coded in the Managing Surprise category, also made statements regarding the importance of exhibiting poise in such situations. Following is an example of a principal’s reflection about maintaining composure: “I would make eye contact with the person making the attack and try to act poised. Showing my emotions makes me feel out of control, so it is important that I act calm.”

Assess scope. Included in the Assess Scope category are 10 coded statements that referred to principals’ efforts to determine how serious a problem he or she was facing. In the first seconds following an ambush these participants stated they would immediately reflect on the depth of the problem. Several of the participants also made comments that were coded as Managing Surprise (6 participants) and Poise (5 participants). One principal’s response was simply, “Where did this come from? What is driving this outburst?” Another example from this category captures the need for a principal to determine how broad a concern is among staff, which was a clear pattern in the data:

Assess Scope is related to Scanning, a category in the Strategies theme, which describes how principals assess the depth and breadth of staff opinion (Back, Furniss, & Blandford, 2007).

The Strategies theme includes the actions a principal considers when facing an unpleasant situation. While both the Self Talk and Strategies themes focus on how a principal would deal with a surprise situation, Strategies deals more with practiced techniques and expertise that immediately follow the initial problem analyses described in the Self Talk categories. The five categories that comprise Strategies (scanning, acknowledge, engage others, ask questions, and delay) included the highest number of coded responses in this study (see Table 2).

Scanning. Scanning is a pattern of principal comments that described the reading of non-verbal cues of staff members to determine the scope of a problem (Back, Furniss, & Blandford, 2007; Schön, 1983; Smith, 2001). Related to the Assess Scope and Ask Questions categories, Scanning describes the specific techniques that 8 participants said they would use as they were formulating a verbal response. All 8 of the principals who identified Scanning techniques also made separate comments that were coded in the Assess Scope category. An example of a Scanning response follows:

Similarly, another principal described scanning by stating, “I would look for nonverbal cues from leaders on the staff. Their eye contact, facial expressions, head nods, and eye rolling would quickly tell me how much trouble I was in.”

Acknowledge. The Acknowledge category includes statements in which a principal’s initial interaction with the disruptive person would be to acknowledge their comment in a non-confrontational manner. Acknowledgement was identified by 7 participants identified as an appropriate response in such a situation. For example, one principal stated that she “… would acknowledge the person’s comment and emotion, and ask for further clarification. I would try to validate their underlying value, such as, ‘I know you are trying to make it better for kids.’”

Engage others. The third category, Engage Others, includes statements where the principal would reflect on broadening the discussion to include other staff members. Often described as an option following assessing the scope of the problem, this strategy was identified by 6 of the 15 participants. A particularly interesting comment follows in which one principal described an actual situation where he sought to engage others that allowed something to be communicated by a staff member in stronger terms than he felt he should use in that setting:

For this experienced principal the memory of that episode would quickly come to mind in similar situations. Another principal stated simply, “I would broaden the discussion to the entire staff.”

Ask questions. The third category in the Strategies theme, Ask Questions, is comprised of statements in which principals describe how they would seek further information from the concerned individual so that all present could better understand the issue. Typically, this reflection was seen as preceding efforts to engage the broader faculty in discussion. Of the 7 participants who identified Ask Questions as an appropriate strategy, separate statements were also coded as Scanning (4), Acknowledge (3), and Engage Others (3), which is an example of conceptual linkage that was found among the categories and responses in this study. As the following principal quote exemplifies, responses coded for one category may be related to those in another: “I would ask the person to explain further in order to buy some time so I can settle down and get beyond the shock of a public attack.” This principal described asking questions as a way to slow down the action so she could mentally process the shock of the unexpected outburst, which also fits the pattern of comments coded as Managing Surprise.

Delay. The fifth category in Strategies, Delay, includes strategies a principal would consider in order to table the issue for another time. Delay was reported by 6 participants as something they would consider as an option if a difficult staff meeting situation unfolded. Among the comments coded for the Delay category is the following: “I always have a backdoor…” which this principal explained as a practical technique for delaying complex issues for future discussion.

A pattern of comments emerged through the interviews in which principals referred to personal or professional values and ethics to explain why they would think or act in a certain way. This theme was labeled Values and along with a theme called Trust, which will be described below, includes comments made during interviews that provide rationale for principals’ reflection-in-action. Typically embedded within statements regarding what they would do, Values (and Trust) statements provided reasons why they would consider certain responses. Three patterns of responses were identified as categories for the Values theme—beliefs, dignity, and humility.

Beliefs. Included in the Beliefs category are statements made by 3 participants that referred to personal values and/or professional ethics. Each of these principals also made separate statements that were coded in the Dignity, Humility, and Authenticity categories. The following quote is an example of a statement that identifies a relationship between beliefs and prescribed techniques:

Another principal stated, “I believe in shared leadership. There is safety in it; someone always has your back.”

Dignity. The concept of dignity was identified by 5 principals as providing rationale for a thought or action. Protecting the dignity of staff members, especially the individual who is speaking out in anger, was emphasized by these participants. The following quote is an example of a principal’s concern about dignity: “I want to save face for both of us. Face saving is important for all in the room. Even crackpots need to have dignity.”

Humility. The third category in the Values theme, includes statements that relate to a humble, service-minded response to conflict. These comments were often similar to codings in the Trust theme, but referred more directly to a personal style. Staying humble as they faced a difficult situation in a staff meeting was identified by 7 participants as an element of their self-talk in a crisis situation. One participant said, “I don’t know everything. Being honest about that—if I just name it and say it—is important for a staff to witness. When you try to pretend you are something you are not, they see through it.” Another participant stated, “This is an opportunity to show everyone in the room your willingness to listen, your care, your non-defensiveness, and your vulnerability.” Both of these quotes were embedded within descriptions of why the principals would act in certain ways and were closely related to those identified for the Trust theme.

Trust that staff members feel toward the principal was frequently mentioned by participants as an important dynamic on which they would reflect when confronted at a staff meeting (see Table 2). This theme emerged during the interviews as the data revealed that principals do indeed reflect on trust issues as they “think on their feet.” Two categories were identified in the Trust theme—Authenticity and Leadership Capital.

Authenticity. Authenticity refers to the principal’s forthrightness and sincerity throughout the staff meeting episode, as opposed to a reliance on prescribed techniques that could be seen as contrived. This leadership quality was mentioned by 9 of the 15 principals interviewed in this investigation. As one participant stated, “When trust is present between a principal and staff the principal has more latitude on how to respond to tricky issues and makes them less serious when they do occur.” Another principal explained, “If I am being transparent, vulnerable, and open with staff over time, situations like this one are avoided and are less serious when they do occur.”

Leadership Capital. Public conflict was identified by 6 participants as a high stakes matter for principals that can enhance or erode one’s ability to lead. While all six of these principals also made statements that were coded in the Authenticity category, separate statements labeled as Leadership Capital focused specifically on potential long-term consequences of a staff meeting conflict. Included in this category were statements regarding how such situations present risk for principals and put under a spotlight how they handle their position power. The risk faced by the principal as a potential conflict unfolds is captured in the following quote:

Interestingly, these principals stated that trust would be enhanced by not accessing their position power as a response to a public attack. Rather than confronting the disruptive individual in public, these principals stated that a non-confrontational response in which the principal listened calmly and then facilitated discussion among the entire group. While two participants stated that they would confront in public a chronic saboteur, both clarified that they would be expected to do so by the group. In general, the participants stated that the risks of applying position power make a choice to facilitate a democratic process most appropriate. The following quote exemplifies the statements in the Leadership Capital category: