Using Founder’s syndrome to explore leadership in one Zimbabwean school funded by tourism

ABSTRACT

In Zimbabwe, a range of actors are involved in education due to ongoing challenges of resourcing and funding schools. There are complex socio-political arrangements that result from private–public partnerships in the education system. Some schools are created and funded by individuals, and little is known about the tensions these funding structures create for school leaders and teachers. This qualitative study examined one school in Matabeleland North, using semi-structured interviews and observations across one term. It argues there are complexities created through the position of being a school ‘founder’ that shape a school’s administration and leadership structures. Using the example of the school principal's role and two tensions that result from relationships between the principal and school founders, this paper argues that more attention needs to be made towards the arrangements of school funding and the conflicts and tensions that result from complex relationships of power between school founders and teachers.

KEYWORDS:

• Zimbabwe
• philanthropy
• school tour
• school founder
• Founder’s syndrome

Introduction

Private–public partnerships are shaping the provisioning of education in many countries across the globe (Ball and Youdell 2007). Philanthropy, from large-scale venture philanthropy to smaller scale donors, is changing the administration, leadership and formation of education (Rowe and Perry 2020; Yoon, Young and Livingston 2020). In line with the rise in philanthropy, some schools are privately founded and developed by individuals, who extend their development role to one of leadership (Lacy, Peel and Weiler 2012; Thomas and Lacey 2016). The way an individual – such as a school founder – can shape the administration and governance of a school is of interest given the increasing reliance on philanthropy and philanthropic funding of education systems.

The Zimbabwean education system has experienced a range of economic and political crises since the late 1980s. As it stands, many schools have very few resources and struggle in terms of staffing and retention of qualified teachers (Madziyire 2015). The system has grown to rely on external sources of funding such as school fees, parental donations, fundraising campaigns and philanthropic funds. Alongside the growth of external funds has been the rise of alternative models of school funding such as the funding of schools by mines (Nhavira 2019), community-funded schools in new settlement areas (Mwiinde and Muzingili 2020) and funding through tourism (Smithers 2022).

This paper details one such occurrence of a school funded through tourism. We use the concept of founder’s syndrome to explore the tensions for the school community that form part of the arrangements of philanthropically funded schooling. In using founder’s syndrome, we hope to illuminate its usefulness for exploring the complexities of schools funded through tourism, and, at times, conflicting governance structures.

Literature review

Schooling in Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe’s education system is in the midst of a continuing crisis (Chitiyo et al. 2010; Hove and Ndawana 2019). The crisis has origins in the colonial structure of schooling, which created a small, two-tiered system that prioritised the education of white students and was designed with most students not progressing beyond primary school (Abraham 2003). Upon Zimbabwean independence in 1980, schooling – both primary and secondary – became ‘open for all’ and government resourcing and existing infrastructure were unable to keep pace with the levels of demand (Chitiyo et al. 2010). Alongside the large number of student enrolment increases, Zimbabwe entered a sustained period of extreme economic crisis, meaning government fiscal support of education, and the potential to solve under-resourcing, was not available (Madziyire 2015). At present, most schools outside of urban centres face shortages of furniture, curriculum materials and other infrastructure.

As a remedy to the under resourcing of schools, the concept of ‘satellite’ schools was developed (Hlupo and Tsikira 2012). Satellite schools are schools that do not meet the standards to be ‘registered’ by the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MOPSE). They might use community-built infrastructure or existing infrastructure such as farm buildings and could be described as ‘up-and-coming’ schools (Tarisayi 2019, 49). Satellite schools often have an acute shortage of resources and have been critiqued for maintaining inequitable access to schooling rather than expanding access (Chimbunde 2021). Satellite schools often face challenges in providing housing and textbooks, and they also experience increased school dropouts (Chimbunde 2021; Mutanga and Kapoka 2021; Mwiinde and Muzingili 2020). In terms of leadership, there can be tension between the satellite school leader and the school they are administratively attached to, and also between the school leader and local community leaders (Tarisayi 2019). As a remedy to a lack of resourcing, there are reports of satellite schools receiving funding and infrastructure from NGOs and other private sources (c.f. Mutanga and Kapoka 2021; Smithers 2023; Tarisayi 2019).

The range of private actors in Zimbabwean schooling is, in part, a solution to the economic instability which results in inconsistent and inadequate government funding. For non-government schools there are a range of differing classifications that highlight the complexity of school funding arrangements in Zimbabwe: church/mission, mine, private company, farm, trust, private individual and other (Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MOPSE) 2019). Some studies examine the funding of schools through mines (Nhavira 2019) and there is evidence of the Zimbabwean diaspora funding schools and sponsoring children (Mutambasere 2022). There are also partnerships between tourism companies and schools, with tourism companies providing resources, funding and sponsorship of children as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. To date, studies have largely reported these relationships from the perspective of tourism companies (c.f. Gohori and van der Merwe 2022; Mutana et al. 2013). These partnerships usually include some benefits for the school from small scale donations of resources to large involvement, such as the funding of school infrastructure. Concerningly, there are partnerships which require some form of reciprocal exchange, in which the school must allow tourists to visit in order to receive funding (c.f. Smithers 2022). These partnerships are not yet well understood or well-documented.

School founders and founder’s syndrome

Previous research has examined the role of school founders in charter schools (Thomas and Lacey 2016), and in multi-academy trusts (Greany and McGinity 2021). With some research conducted on leadership in private schools in Zimbabwe (Bush et al. 2019; Muderedzwa 2022), there is not yet a study that examines the relationships between school leaders and school founders in schools funded through tourism. The present paper examines school leadership in relation to school founders and founder’s syndrome.

Founder’s syndrome has previously been defined as the presentation of interfering behaviour by a school founder, driven by their desire to sustain a successful enterprise (Ceaser 2018; Thomas and Lacey 2016). Block and Rosenberg (2002) describe the term:

Founder’s syndrome refers to the influential powers and privileges that the founder exercises or that others attribute to the founder. The use of the word syndrome further suggests unhealthy organizational situations in which founders are more heavy-handed and indifferent about the imbalance of their control over organizations. (354)

Usually, school founders establish not-for-profit educational institutions from an entrepreneurial ideal, so the founder can address a perceived deficit in the current education system (Carman and Nesbit 2013). Whilst the motivation behind the establishment of a school is sometimes altruistic, it is common for founders to act on their perceived ideal, without consulting the expertise of the needs of the students, from a pedagogical, cultural and socio-economic perspective (Ceaser 2018; Insaidoo 2018). Moreover, these schools are usually established with an egalitarianist standpoint, which can lead to contrasting staff feelings if the school founder continues to dictate decisions made on behalf of the school (Block and Rosenberg 2002).

Thomas and Lacey (2016) outline that a successful founder requires a balanced skillset and understanding of educational curriculum and pedagogies, business management experience and interpersonal skills. The conflicting priorities of academic, business management and leadership roles are also attributed to the detrimental stress levels of the founder (Carman and Nesbit 2013). It has also been suggested that a founder’s perception of personal ownership towards the school is more likely to lead to the founder developing paternalistic attributes towards the running of the school (Carrasco and Gunter 2019).

Carman and Nesbit (2013) caution that financial stress is the most significant concern for school founders; furthermore, this heightened financial focus often conflicts with the philanthropic purpose for which the school was established (Thomas and Lacey 2016). Founders have more freedom than publicly run and funded schools when applying for school funds and resources (Good and Nelson 2021); however, teachers will face significant challenges in addressing the well-being and educational demands of their students if the school founder’s influence is focused on the financial stability of the school (Carrasco and Gunter 2019). Courtney (2015) argues that school founders can be problematic when they influence the educational outcome of students and staff. The personal investment of the founder is attributed to the proprietorship persona which has been reinforced through inequitable decision-making in the ownership role (Ceaser 2018). The impact of a school founder’s influence, therefore, requires further examination (Courtney 2015). To date, the studies on founder’s syndrome, particularly in schooling, are emerging and warrant further examination to determine the impact of the founder on the organisational success of schools, their staff and students.

Methodology

Case study site

The research site for this project was one satellite school in the Matabeleland North province. The school was selected due to the number of tourist visits it receives each year, with 126 visits in 2019. The school, Matopo School (a pseudonym), is funded through a charitable foundation created by a tourism company, and it receives one-off donations from a variety of sources such as other charitable foundations and fees-per-visit from another tourism company. The school hosts groups of tourists for 2–3 h at a time in exchange for funds (see Smithers 2022 for a detailed explanation).

Matopo School is funded through a charitable foundation associated with a tourism company. The two founders of the tourism company are Alison and Thompson, and they are also the founders of Matopo School. Thompson lives in the area near to the school, whilst Alison lives overseas and visits a few times a year. They have hired a school principal and a deputy principal and as well as two teachers designated as ‘senior teachers’.

The school has a complex funding arrangement that incorporated three different tour companies that had various configurations of a school tour with varying levels of funding provided to the school; however, the main process of the tour remained the same across the companies. The companies involved in this type of tourism mainly cater to white Americans aged over 50. The implications of the tour on classes and learning time have been explored elsewhere (see Smithers and Ailwood 2022).

Research methods

The project involved research at the school for 13 weeks (one school term), with the first author attending school 3 days a week and attending a local non-government organisation involved with the school’s funding 2 days a week. The project received ethics approval from the University of Newcastle research ethics board (approval number H-2018-0447). The project could be described as an ethnographic style project with the researcher participating in the daily life of the school, writing field notes, conducting art-based interviews with children and conducting semi-structured interviews with the school community. Over the course of the project, 12 adults were interviewed which included teachers, school leaders, school founders and tourism workers. These interviews lasted between 40 and 90 min, with questions asked regarding the participants’ work and their experience of the school tours. All organisations, businesses and people referred to in this paper have pseudonyms, with all participants provided with the choice of pseudonym.

During the period of fieldwork, the first author was struck by the seeming complexity and misunderstandings surrounding the school governance structure. To examine this further, every occasion a school founder was mentioned were extracted from the interviews and field notes. Although the process of extraction could be considered coding, the analysis was a more in-depth process than just an extraction of data. The process was like that described by MacLure (2013), in which data analysis ‘involves poring over the data, annotating, describing, linking, bringing theory to bear, recalling what others have written, and seeing things from different angles’ (174). Once all interview extracts were compiled, we also used the first author’s field notes to contextualise and understand the relationships between the school founders, teachers, and tourism workers. Using the concept of founder’s syndrome to explore the data and see things from different angles, two critical incidents highlighted the tensions inherent in a school created by an individual.

Findings

In the following discussion, we outline the somewhat conflicting role of the school principal, as it was presented and represented throughout the fieldwork. Then, we discuss two tensions that exemplify the challenges of leadership in a school funded through tourism. The first tension explores the idea of ‘who leads?’ in which we examine the high level of oversight the founders had over not just the school principal but also the teachers. The second tension examines the idea of the ‘vision’ of the school and how the school founders measured worth based on an individual’s perceived conformity with the school founders’ vision.

The role of the school principal

Throughout the research, there seemed to be conflicting opinions and actions regarding the role of the school principal. The school principal seemed to be responsible for the day-to-day management of the school, for example, the principal organised meetings with teachers, management of special events, meetings with parents and any outside of class disciplinary actions. These actions are all within the usual remit of a school principal or leader. Of interest, is the role the school principal played and the interactions with the school founders. Embedded in the structure of the school were multiple people who had a stake in the development and organisation of the school. These people are represented in Figure 1, alongside the funding arrangement, for the reader’s reference.

Figure 1. Diagram of funding and people involved.

The differing stakeholders discussed the leadership structure and organisation of the school in differing ways. There were conflicting views about how much institutional oversight and power the school principal held. For example, one person interviewed, Mary, felt the principal was merely a symbolic role. Mary worked with multiple schools in the local area as part of her role with a non-government organisation that distributed funds for charitable organisations – she was not immediately involved in the day-to-day of the school. Her perspective of the school leadership arrangement was this:

I don't know how much responsibility [the school founder] gives the headmistress. Cos she should be the one … but I think she is a token head. (Mary)

In her interview, Mary also identified how she felt the school was mismanaged and detailed the alternate arrangements she would make if she were responsible for the school. Some of her reflections seemed to come from a paternalistic and controlling position. The comments she made in her interview were part of the impetus for this paper, in that the first author began to question the image that had been presented to her by the school founders.

Alison, the school founder who did not live in Zimbabwe, positioned the founders’ role as one of hands-off nature:

But in terms of actual school stuff, I very much leave it to the school principal and the other teachers. If there is anything we are concerned about obviously we would step in. But I don't have the time to follow all the detail and the school principal wouldn't have the time to convey it back to me. And Thompson doesn't have any time at all, so I tend to update myself when I go out there. Which is two or three times a year. Obviously if they have any problems they come to me, or Thompson. In terms of more strategic decisions, as to whether we employ an extra teacher, which way we go, whether we become a private school or not, all of those decisions are discussed at trustee level. (Alison)

At the time of the fieldwork, the idea of ‘trustees’ was not clear, as there were references to either the school board or the trustees and these terms were used interchangeably. Upon further examination of the school policy documents and website, it became apparent that the trustees included three people: the two school founders Alison and Thompson, and an additional member, Alison’s husband. Although Alison identifies ‘trustees’ as a source of decision making, there is little influence outside of the founders on the running of the school – a situation that Blok and Rosenburg describe as, ‘unhealthy organisational situations in which founders are more heavy-handed and indifferent about the imbalance of their control over organisations’ (354). None of the trustees have educational qualifications or experience in managing schools.

There were conflicting statements within Alison’s perspective of her role. On one hand, she identified leaving day-to-day management to the principal, but she also identified needing to guide the school principal:

I deal a lot with Mrs [headmistress] now. I think I've exchanged three or four emails with her today already.

Yeah, we can't micromanage, and Thompson is way too busy at the moment on construction to be involved in all the day to day stuff. But sometimes I think the teachers will need a little bit of guidance and Mrs [headmistress] is always … she takes on board suggestions and tries to do things, things the right way. Is my understanding, but I think a few more conversations to be had [with her].

Thompson, the other school founder also gave, at times, conflicting reports. He identified the hands-off approach to leadership:

I try and stay out of things, even when they go wrong. I would like them to self-medicate. If they see that they have done a mistake, they should be able to identify the mistake. If you cannot identify your mistakes, then you have a problem.

Thompson also identified how he was involved in a feedback role and day to day arrangements:

It will change, it is a process. I am starting going into class now, and listening to them and criticise some of the things, and say you know, “the teacher could have made a joke about this”.

There seemed to be a leadership structure where the school principal was responsible for many day-to-day activities but also experienced heavy oversight from Thompson and Alison. As in other studies that explore school founders, the staff were often watched and surveilled (Ceasar 2018; Thomas and Lacey 2016). Using founder’s syndrome as a conceptual framing, Thompson and Alison appeared to want an egalitarian approach whereby the school manages itself; however, the leadership is hierarchical and based on the wants and needs of the school founders. Indeed, there appeared to be a mistrust of the principal and a refusal of her previous teaching experience, whereby the school founders felt she needed a high level of oversight.

Ceasar (2018) identifies ‘leaders who suffer from founder’s syndrome are highly defensive, they do not lead well, leading to role confusion for other members, greater tension and organisational disruption’ (460). In considering the conflicting role of the school principal, it seems that on some level the founders are engaging in practices that could be considered founder’s syndrome, leading in particular to role confusion and tension. Although the role of the school principal was contested, the arrangements were clear to the teachers. They experienced a very founder-focussed leadership style and felt they had little autonomy, and that the school principal was influenced heavily by the school founders. The culmination of the image and resulting governmentality resulted in two tensions that played out across the fieldwork. These tensions were a lack of autonomy for teachers and the blurring of professional and personal boundaries. In the following sections these ideas and tensions are explored.

Tension 1: who leads?

During the term, there was a national ‘stay-away’ during which residents were encouraged to stay at home, refuse to work and not attend school as a form of nonviolent protest regarding an announced fuel price rise. The government response included mass arrests, harassment by police and army personnel, violence and a nationwide internet shutdown. The teachers at Matopo School arrived at school on the first day of the stay-away and decided, due to safety concerns, to send the children home. It was decided that the teachers would also return home as there had been reports of violence elsewhere. On the walk to the main road to get to the nearby town, we encountered the school founder Thompson. An extract from the researcher’s diary highlights this:

We also passed Thompson who was driving into the school. He stopped and said that he had been in town and nothing was happening and there had been no need to close the school. He said, “enjoy your holiday” and drove off in a spray of dust. This caused me to have conflicting feelings about the situation, as I thought maybe it is not so bad. Thompson had said he felt it was mostly the internet that had caused such an uproar and whispers among people. (Researcher diary)

The teachers were rebuked for participating in the national stay-away, despite their concerns for their safety. After the national stay-away, there were continued teacher strikes across Zimbabwe. The teachers were told repeatedly that they were not allowed to participate in national stay-aways or any teacher strikes. During the month of January children’s attendance at school was variable, often depending on whether other teachers were striking:

Somebody had mentioned that I hoped children would be at school tomorrow, and Greg expressed shock saying, “The school in town has no teachers! You should stay away!” and Tabitha in an exasperated tone replies “Tell that to Thompson!” (Researcher diary)

The school principal brings up the strike planned for today and makes it clear that Thompson wants all the teachers at work, and to not listen to rumours. She says, “we will not listen to rumours until they come down here to little Matopo School”. (Researcher diary)

Today there was a nationwide strike of teachers, but the teachers of Matopo School had to work. They said they would be at school as they were not government workers and Thompson wouldn’t like them to strike. (Researcher diary)

Thompson, the school founder, had a high level of control and surveillance over the school. He lived nearby to the school and frequently arrived unannounced to perform maintenance work or to continue building projects at the school. Although the teachers identified themselves as not government employees, two were paid by the government with salaries subsidised by the school. The response to the strike was symbolic of a broader sense of a lack of autonomy, explained by Astrid:

For every major thing that we are doing here, it has to pass through Thompson.

Other teachers also felt the hierarchy was very clear cut:

[The school founders] are having heavy involvement. Because those are the people who are paying us, those are the people who are building the school. Those are the people who are buying the furniture for the school, and actually they are a lot of things. Those are the people who are sourcing the donors, the sponsors for the sponsored children. So I think they are heavily involved. (Zibusiso)

Zibusiso highlights the multiple roles the school founders played in the school. Thomas and Lacey (2016) identify the sourcing of finances and infrastructure as a source of stress for school founders; however, in their study the school founders were also school leaders. In the case of Matopo School, the school founders had a similar level of control whilst also employing leaders in the school – creating governance structures that were confused and unclear.

There were some benefits to being a founder run school rather than a government school. Bridget had worked for government schools previously and identified a benefit as having less bureaucracy and red tape:

He decides I just want to do this, he does it. He does not have to go a long way, or to ask. He has the final say, “I want to do this” and he has done it. I think that is the difference … I have never seemed him interrupting, most of the times when he wants to inquire anything about the teaching or the school, he goes to the principal. He does not come to the teachers. If he has any complaint, again he does not come to the teachers, he goes to the principal, “I have a complaint on such such a thing please may you bend this, please may you do this.” Like the other time when we had the stayaway, although it was not good at his side, but he never came to us. He went to the principal and told her, “please next time you do not do this, remember you are a private school. This this this.” (Bridget)

Bridget identified that although Thompson did not specifically discipline teachers, he would discuss any issues with the school principal. Although the message was conveyed by the school principal, she often positioned Thompson as the reason for any changes to policies or procedures. The positioning of these messages created a hierarchical structure where the school founders dictated many of the movements of the school, despite feeling they did not control the day-to-day management of the school.

There seemed to be a pervasive mistrust of the staff and of the school principal’s ability to lead the staff. One incident involved the principal’s absence, in which it was assumed the teachers were not performing their duties:

The principal apologised to the teachers in the morning meeting as she had not told Thompson that the school would be participating in the national clean up (first Friday of every month, for two hours) and he had thought the children/teachers were just playing because she was not at school. (Researcher diary)

The founders appeared to have a level of surveillance over the teachers and the school principal, which extended beyond the remit of a ‘school trustee’. A high level of surveillance and control is symptomatic of founder’s syndrome and a hierarchical leadership style, in which the school founders were perceived as in complete control of the school.

Another example of the role confusion was on a day the school principal was absent:

In the teachers' meeting the main focus is on the fact that the school principal is away and that Thompson will be in charge. The teachers are not allowed to be seen not doing work because the school principal is away. I find it strange that Thompson will be the principal whilst the principal is away, is that not what deputy principals are for? (Researcher diary)

The conflicting roles meant the staff felt they were not trusted. They talked in their interviews about the level of control the school founders had over the school, and their day-to-day working lives.

The school founders also intervened in several instances and rebuked the staff where they saw fit. For example, on the last day of fieldwork, there was an event which highlighted the unhealthy control the founders held over the school:

Thompson came by and I noticed how different he is talking to the teachers, compared to when we had the interview or have talked one-on-one. He had a much more authoritative tone, it felt almost condescending. In his goodbye speech to me he digressed into telling the teachers they need to always be improving their qualifications, because if someone comes who is more qualified, he will replace them. It was quite harsh and a really weird digression from the main topic. (Researcher diary)

The behaviour of Thompson is similar to the behaviour reported by previous researchers (Ceaser 2018; Lacey, Peel and Weiler 2012), which includes at times intimidating and controlling behaviour. One of the concerns raised by others who have published about founder’s syndrome is the level of control the school founders have over their staff, and of the school. We also highlight this as an issue of concern, as it disrupts the structure of the school leadership, potentially leading to role confusion and tensions within the school staff.

Tension 2: the idea of a ‘vision’

In their interviews, the school founders identified how they had a particular idea of the school, which controlled their perspective of those who worked for them:

The important thing for us, for Matopo School, is for the kids to have a good education and you know, we've tried to appoint good teachers, and enthusiastic teachers, and the main thing will be, being results it's … we are not doing this just for ah, just for the fun of it. You know, we want the kids to have the best shot possible at being educated. (Alison)

We are trying to help the community, not our staff. That is where we are having issues, they don't understand that. (Thompson)

In her interview, Alison detailed the founders’ experience with the previous school principal, who she described as ‘not getting it’:

He basically said that we should, well, our next spending should be to buy him a 4 × 4 so he could drive to school in the morning. And from that point onwards I just thought, “you know what, you just don't understand. You don't get it.” And, yeah he was gone a month later. Once he realised he wasn't getting his pay rise and his shiny new car, he resigned.

The idea that some people ‘got it’ and did not ‘get it’ was pervasive. When describing an interaction with a child in the school, Alison detailed the following:

And, in a really quite shy voice, bless her she just said “thank you Alison for the sponsorship scheme, because we never dreamed that we would have an education. None of us thought we would go to a school with computers.” And that just really, really hit me. The fact that she just understood. And I imagine a lot of them understand. That this is an opportunity and, you know, what they make of it is up to them. And I just love the fact that she got it. (Alison)

The creation of a ‘vision’ whereby people can be delineated into getting it/or not getting it is another element of founder’s syndrome which has not yet been fully explored in the research literature (although there are reports of teachers being fired for not complying to school visions, c.f. Courtney and Gunter 2015). At Matopo School, the teachers were judged according to compliance to the ‘vision’ of the school founders.

The compliance with the ‘vision’ played out unexpectedly. In the interview questions, a final question was asked of every interviewee, ‘is there anything else you would like to add?’. In all of the interviews with teachers, they identified that they would like to be supported further by the charitable foundation supporting the school:

Since we are receiving too much visitors at our school, we are looking forward to one well-wisher who will come and say, “No, I am here to also look at the teachers’ requirements”. Like now we are studying, you will be studying, maybe the salary that you are getting is not enough for you, you are working for a family, you need to pay your own school fees, need to pay the kid’s school fees, sometimes you want to start, you want to research you don't have a laptop, you are using a phone, now you think with this little money I can't afford to buy a laptop. (Bridget)

What I would want to talk about, maybe it's about the teachers’ salaries. With us, you will find that the salaries are too low. (Precious)

I think the sponsors, if maybe they could have also looked at the welfare of the teachers. I think that could have also helped, or even to say if they don't give monetary terms, to say you guys because they always recommend the good job we are doing here … They expect us to take good care of the children here, but my child is staying at home because I can not afford to pay fees. (Zibusiso)

Three extracts are shown here, but there were instances in each teacher interview. The funding arrangement created expectations from the teachers that placed the school founders in a somewhat impossible position. They could either use school funds to provide charity to the teachers or they could deny the teachers. Either option is not ideal. In the first option they are potentially using funds raised for children and the school in a manner that the donors would not like. In the second, they are potentially creating resentment as the teachers cannot understand why the school will not support them. The school founders chose the second option and identified their ‘vision’ was not to support the teachers, but to support the community and children at Matopo school. The school founders detailed this:

And that is one thing that we are trying to, uh, just cos there was the first time when the tourists were coming, “oh I need this” and I said “it is not about you, the most important person at the school is the kid. You don't even exist, and if you receive something as a gift, from a tourist, you know it is for the school. Not for you.” Unless we hear that it is just some relationship where they want to help you. Otherwise we will assume that the gift has been given to the school. So it took a while, because people they try and resist that. You know, why cannot I not ask for what I want from them? (Thompson)

We are trying to help the community, not our staff. That is where we are having issues, they don't understand that. They see now we are taking kids to Zambia, to the hospital, we are helping the community and the kids who go to our school. They've got kids at university and all that, we are not following every kid. I don't get help, I don't take money from the charity to go and help my kids. (Thompson)

And then I still hear that, you know, all these comments about nurses’ cottages being better than theirs, and they want better teachers’ cottages. Yeah, and then this about the sponsorship as well and then they'll still come to Thompson with minor things, about, you know, a door handle not turning properly, and this-that-and-the-other. And nobody will actually think, you know what? I'll sort this out myself, or I'll go and get a plumber to sort out a leak, they will all come to Thompson and expect him to sort it. So, yeah, I think that there is a lot of dependency. (Alison)

They [pause] it is one of those, you know, that is why it is a dream gone wrong. The fact that they are already getting a salary, and a reasonably good salary by our standards. (Thompson)

The creation of a school funded through tourism creates complexities in the relationships between school founders and teaching staff. There was a tension in that the teachers felt unappreciated and ignored by the founders, when they could see the founders raising funds to support the community and not them. Some of the teachers had asked for assistance but had been labelled as not understanding the ‘vision’, or not conforming to the ideals of the school. It is interesting, and perhaps a symptom of founder’s syndrome, that the discussion of teachers was not based on their ability to teach, classroom management, assessment techniques or any pedagogical tools. Rather, the teachers were judged based on their compliance with the founders’ vision of the school.

Discussion

This paper has explored the arrangements in one school funded through tourism partnerships. In the interviews, and across the course of the fieldwork, there was an ideal of the school being ‘little’, of small origins, and humble. Those who were employed at the school since its inception, the two school founders and one teacher, were sometimes referred to as the ‘pioneers’ of the school. The image also played out in the discussions by the two school founders, Alison and Thompson, when they described the staff members who ‘got it’ or did not ‘get it’. In positioning their staff as either understanding the vision or not, the school founders were conforming to the ‘kingdom’ approach to school management as characterised by Greany and McGinity (2021). The kingdom approach aligns with founder’s syndrome and is characterised by a charismatic leader, rapid decisive responses and autocratic decision making. Particularly, Greany and McGinity (2021) highlight this approach as having a ‘reliance on known and trusted people’ (333). In the case of Matopo School, the school founders had an established idea of their ‘vision’ and those who did not conform with the vision were seen as misaligned with the schools’ values and ethos.

Using founder’s syndrome to explore the data, this paper has illuminated the complexities of leadership in Matopo school. Using the complexities of the position of the school principal as a foundation, we have explored two tensions that arose from the funding arrangements in the school. The first identified the level of oversight the school founders have, including Thompson acting as principal on days when the school principal was on leave. The second identified the ramifications for staff who did not comply with the ‘vision’ the school founders held. These two tensions highlight both the additional expectations placed on teachers at Matopo school, in terms of surveillance and conformation to the vision, but also to always be ‘on’ and ready to meet the expectations of the school founder.

In some ways, the school founders engaged in behaviours that exemplify founder’s syndrome, such as complete control of the school’s trustee board. There were also unclear arrangements regarding the leadership of the school. These findings are consistent with other studies that identify higher levels of control in schools that are run by founders (Ceaser 2018; Thomas and Lacey 2016). It remains unclear whether Alison and Thompson realised they were engaged in practices that promoted a hierarchical, unclear structure, as by their own accounts they aimed to create a self-sufficient school. Further research should explore the extent to which this situation is common in schools created by school founders.

Conclusion

For satellite schools in Zimbabwe, philanthropic partnerships have been suggested as a tool for increased resourcing and infrastructure (Mutanga and Kapoka 2021). In considering a school created by a philanthropic partnership, we have identified the complexities for a school leader working with school founders. As reported by others, we found the school founders to engage in intimidating and controlling behaviour and they also held a high level of control over the school (Ceaser 2018; Lacey, Peel and Weiler 2012). The behaviour and control of the school founders raises important concerns about the governance of private schools, particularly when these schools are founded by people with no educational background or expertise. Such concerns have been raised by others, with the influence of public–private partnerships on governance structures receiving increasing scrutiny (Lunde 2024; Wilkins 2017).

The school founders had a high level of control in Matopo School and were instrumental in developing the school. The arrangement created leeway for creativity in the use of funding and enabled the school to implement projects quickly due to a lack of bureaucratic procedures. This mirrors some arguments made for Multi-Academy Trusts in the United Kingdom, in which ‘the academies programme is celebrated by some as a positive form of producer capture since it is designed according to a depoliticising logic with a strict focus on securing technical proficiency in and oversight of internal operations’ (Wilkins 2017, 181). Although this arrangement benefited Matopo School, there is no doubt that such arrangements have the potential to further deepen inequalities. If schools are increasingly relying on private sources, such as philanthropic funding or tourism donations, then it becomes a matter of who has the resources and connections to source these donations.

Founder’s syndrome, as it stands, appears to be an underdeveloped area in education and not-for-profit research (Ceaser 2018). In adding to the continuing conversation, this paper troubles the idea of founder’s syndrome as just a hierarchical relationship whereby the school founder(s)’ judgement rules the arrangements of a school. The leadership structure at Matopo School was hierarchical, with the founders at the top, but also enabled the school principal to have some day-to-day control, which is contrary to the structures reported elsewhere in investigations of founder syndrome, where school founders usually take positions of leadership (c.f Ceaser 2018). Indeed, the school founders in this study seemed to occupy a hybrid role where they did not see themselves as school leaders, although they were acting in those roles. Although the work in this space is in the nascent stage, founder’s syndrome could be used to explore the multiple and diverse ways that changes to school funding arrangements are shaping relationships with and between school leaders and founders.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australian Government Research Training Stipend.

Notes on contributors

Kathleen Smithers

Kathleen Smithers is a lecturer in the School of Education at Charles Sturt University, Australia. Kathleen has worked on a number of projects, including Virtual Reality in Schools, school improvement, and precarity in Higher Education. With a focus on equity in all her projects, her doctoral thesis investigated development tourism in schools in Zimbabwe.

Kasey Hillyar

Kasey Hillyar is a doctoral candidate and lecturer in the School of Education at Charles Sturt University, Australia. Kasey's interest area is using simulation technologies to prepare Initial Teacher Education students for professional experience opportunities.