Vice Principal Mr. Leonard Curry entered the main staffing office of the Academy and ordered a young teacher to get out into her class. Her quiet gentle response was, ‘I do not have a class now, sir.”
“What!’ was his rebuttal insisting that the schedule had been changed and it was her period to be teaching a 10th grader’s Biology class. She replied by asking if it were ethical for her to be informed in such a manner pointing out that a memo is the acceptable mode of transmitting such changes. This was followed by a gentle explanation she wanted to perform her duties without conflict.
Further he said that it was her responsibility to check out changes on the teacher’s assignment notice board from time to time. She reiterated that that was an unconstitutional approach since it was not stated like that in the bylaws of the school. They continued to argue with the principal threatening her with suspension for insubordination had she not complied. A disciplinary report was eventually filed for insubordination and disobeying the rule of law.
Impact on credibility—Principal-Mr.Cury displayed a tendency towards an autocratic leadership style. Once how to address the issue was lawful inscribed in the bylaws stipulating a particular way to inform about staffing changes it had to be adhered to. It would appear that the young teacher reminding him of it antagonized the situation. This is a challenge to his credibility.
Communication-It is clear that there was a change of command in terms of communication. The principal seemed to have erred. His reaction is to blame the young teacher for his mistake by imposing a penalty on her for his mistake. This is often a management strategic adopted in a autocratic culture.
Power of influence—in this situation the power of influence lay in the position or status of principal. The principal used it to make himself look respectable while casting blame onto unsuspecting immature teacher.