Face-Negotiation Techniques of LGBT Instructional Leaders : A Qualitative Study

Face-Negotiation Techniques of LGBT Instructional Leaders: A Qualitative Study

Krystal Gale Caballero, Jaymelle Keith De la Peña, Thricia Futotana, Jullius Ken Navarra, *Dr. John Erwin Pedroso, Bonifacio Gaverza

College of Education, West Visayas State University, Philippines

Corresponding Author*

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.808015

Received: 16 July 2024; Revised: 25 July; Accepted: 29 July 2024; Published: 27 August 2024

ABSTRACT

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Instructional Leaders are professionals who are also members of the LGBT community. They have the essential skills required for effective educational leadership aimed at improving student learning outcomes. This qualitative descriptive study examines how LGBT instructional leaders interact with their stakeholders hence, this research utilized a semi-structured, researcher-designed interview guide which was conducted either online or in person together with the five LGBT instructional leaders who were selected through a purposive sampling technique. The collected data was analyzed using thematic analysis which revealed three main negotiation techniques, namely: autonomous, altruistic, and mutual face. Consequently, LGBT instructional leaders navigate their roles by balancing professional responsibilities, moral development, knowledge dissemination, and by setting appropriate boundaries in their interactions with their stakeholders.

Keywords: Instructional Leadership, Education, Stakeholders Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.

INTRODUCTION

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Instructional leaders are members of the LGBT community who have leadership skills meant to help address the challenges on the core activities of the school; thus, LGBT instructional leadership happens when those in position know how to effectively implement practices and interventions to help improve student learning (Shaked et al., 2018; Lee 2020; DeWitt 2020). Context is very important as it shapes Instructional Leadership (Gawlik, 2018) and prior research finds a middle ground in the leadership in educational systems which are seen through their influences in terms of management and interventions for effective student learning (De Nobile, 2018; Garza, 2018). Previously published studies about educators in the LGBT community have stated that they are under the shackles of certain stigmas which gives an impression that they generally have negative experiences while on the field (Brett, 2022; Lee, 2019). Moreover, various researchers have described the occurrences of duplications of identity, the threat to their opportunity to teach, and the effects of religion on the inclusivity of the school environment (Haddad, 2019; Nie & Price, 2021; Peter et al., 2018). Despite all these negative dilemmas, it has been found out that despite being sexually different inside the heteronormative society and places, they are deemed to be resilient due to experience, and that they are fully equipped with leadership skills equal to those of heterosexual ones (Lee, 2020b).

Studies with regard to LGBT Instructional Leaders are deficient in a sense that articles about Instructional Leaders are focused on the general population of educators who may or may not be members of the LGBT community. To add, prior researches about it are mostly concentrated on the disadvantages and misfortunes of being a member of the LGBT community and its potential repercussions while in the field of education such as the inequity, and the hardships when working abroad as a teacher (Wright, et al., 2019; Wright & Villaflor, 2019). Usual researches are limited to the hardships, as previously mentioned, and as much as articles about teacher leadership do exist, it is unsatisfying since it was only a generalization of the vast majority. Hence, this paper will primarily focus on understanding the broad experiences of LGBT Instructional leaders within the heteronormative spaces who have capabilities and skills to be a leader as posited by Lee (2020b).

This qualitative-descriptive study is outlined by the face-negotiation theory, by Stella Ting- Toomey, which describes how individuals negotiate with regards to their ‘’faces’’ which is defined by a person’s self-conception on how they want others to see them and as to how they would interact with others in return (Suryandari & Hidayatullah, 2020). According to the theory, such interactions may result in different face concerns such as: 1) self-face, where a person would want to save their own image; 2) other-face, where there is a concern for the other party’s image above their own; and 3) mutual-face, wherein the images of both parties are considered and protected (Nnagboro, 2023; Gu et al., 2021). For LGBT instructional leaders to improve their ability to build relationships and communicate efficiently with their stakeholders, they must be aware of their current perception of how they would negotiate with them. Whether they are homosexual or straight, it requires negotiation between stakeholders and instructors in a collaborative learning atmosphere in order to better understand and show their true identity (Thomas et al., 2018). The conflict between one’s impression of being unique and their inability to fit in with their gender roles is a problem for many (Perry et al., 2022). This paper seeks to examine how LGBT instructional leaders negotiate with their stakeholders which shall help several institutions to strengthen inclusivity and equality in education by understanding their stakeholders. Hence, this research seeks to answer the question, “How do LGBT instructional leaders face-negotiate with their stakeholders?”

METHODS

Research Design

This study utilizes a qualitative- descriptive research design which seeks to gather the negotiation techniques between instructional leaders and their stakeholders in specific institutions which will allow researchers to learn various concerns from the point of view of the research informants and to understand their meaning and justifications (Hennink et al., 2020). Anchored on the constructivism epistemology that places emphasis on the learner as the focus of data collection and comprehension. This highlights the fact that a research design offers a framework for data gathering and analysis (Flick, 2022). In addition to providing researchers with a rich framework through which they can investigate the ways in which people experience the world depicted in their accounts, it demonstrates the value and utility of using narrative as a research tool in a variety of teaching and learning settings and addresses complexity and human-centeredness issues (Mertova & Webster, 2019). Moreover, this study is outlined by the negotiation theory, by Stella Ting- Toomey, stating the importance of interaction to understand the culture of others (Vente et al., 2020).

Informants and Sampling

This research employed a purposeful sampling technique in determining the information via the inclusion criteria. The informants who would be able to provide information relevant to the kind and scope of the survey were chosen and identified thanks to the purposive sampling technique (Palinkas et al., 2019).

The research inclusion criteria are as follows: (a) informants must be a self-identified LGBT member, (b) have at least five years of experience as an instructional leader. and (c) informants may either come from private or public schools within Iloilo, Philippines.

As qualitative descriptive research which is aligned with pragmatism, the research process is mainly guided by the objectives and aims of the study (Doyle et el., 2019). Hence, determining the amount of the sampling is not the primary goal of this qualitative research, but to collect data and identify the themes in accordance to the context and goals of the study (Doyle et el., 2019; Islam&Aldaihani, 2022).

Considering that this study deals with the understanding of the cases of the lives of the Instructional leaders under a sensitive environment, where negative experiences existed within the heteronormative spaces (Brett, 2022; Lee, 2019), there are only 5 willing informants who fit the aforementioned criteria.

Table 1: Profile of informants

Instrument

A semi structured interview guide questionnaire is a researcher made interview guide that was utilized to identify LGBT instructional leaders’ negotiation practices. This type of interview is a technique to learn more about a profession in an organization, a field, or a position from someone. This will enable open-ended data to be gathered, as well as an exploration of the informant’s thoughts, feelings, and viewpoints about a particular topic and an in-depth look into sensitive and often personal topics (DeJonckheere & Vaughn, 2019).

Data Collection

Informants were initially contacted and unless they request for a formal letter of permission to be sent to the principal, informants themselves will receive a formal letter inviting them to voluntarily participate in this research as well as the requirement of the acquisition of their consent. Furthermore, depending on the convenience of the informants, interviews using the semi-structured interview guide questionnaire will then be conducted online through messenger chats or face-to-face interviews, and they may last for around fifteen minutes.

Also, to protect their identity, pseudonyms will replace their real names (Arifin,2018;Fleming & Zegwaard, 2018 ). After the interview, researchers will transcribe and encode acquired information from the informants. Only then can the researchers interpret the information with the help of the theories utilized.

Data Analysis

Thematic Analysis will be utilized in scanning all the information gathered. The process of searching for LGBT instructional leaders and inquiring from them will continue until information redundancy starts emerging (Braun & Clarke, 2018) . Additionally, there are six steps involved in performing a thematic analysis: getting familiar with the data, establishing preliminary codes, seeking themes, assessing themes, organizing themes into categories, and producing the final output (Kiger & Varpio, 2020). Hence, experiential themes will be used as it is all about the participants’ intents, aspirations, fears, feelings, and beliefs as they go through their experiences. (Wiltshire & Ronkainen 2021).

Furthermore, the informants will be identified by their pseudonyms and names in the exact quotes used to convey the study’s findings. (Arifin, 2018) Informants were notified that their actual year of experience in their profession would be used for the purpose of reporting the data from the interview. Any document which contains the informants’ personal details were kept, and with no access to anyone other than the researchers.

RESULTS

LGBT Instructional leaders use face-negotiation techniques in order to improve their ability in building relationships with their stakeholders. Three (3) main themes emerged namely: (1) Autonomous, (2) Altruistic, and (3) Mutualistic Face negotiation techniques.

By Being Autonomous

LGBTQ instructional leaders have responsibilities in their stakeholders. They are independent and have the power to make their own decision. To imply it autonomously, they are (1) Egoistic (2) Self-expressive and (3) Volitional.

Self-Centering

LGBTQ instructional leaders have to maintain and enhance oneself. Maintaining self-centered characteristics include (1) Protecting and (2) Masking.

1. Protecting

LBTQ instructional leaders are responsible to protect their stakeholders.

Langging: “Indi mag accept fb requests because you don’t know what your students and their parents intentions are.”

[Do not accept Facebook request because you don’t know what your students and their parents intentions are.]

2. Masking

Despite being an LGBTQ, instructional leaders need to be in different persona, they masked their true identity for respect.

Langging: “Whenever you are in the classroom despite being gay, you need to wear a mask, act in accordance to the academe and respect will just follow. Once you enter the school, you enter a different persona. Separate your whims or whatever.”

Authenticating

LGBTQ instructional leaders have to express themselves with their stakeholders. This will pleasantly show their true gender identity within the school premises. By being self-expressive they were (1) Projecting and (2) Impressing.

1. Projecting

LGBTQ instructional leaders want to send out or forward something to their stakeholders.

Pam: “I don’t practice my sexuality as gay. As in straight ang akon gina project sa akon mga students as well as with the parents.”

[I don’t practice my sexuality as gay. I project myself straightly to my students as well as with the parents]

Pam: “Gina pakilala ko na ya kagulingon ko through my actions. Way ko na ya gina pakita through verbal. Way ko gina hambal”

[I introduced myself through my actions. I don’t show it verbally. I don’t tell]

2. Impressing

LGBTQ instructional leaders are regarded as a fundamental factor to facilitate learning inside the classroom. What they imply gives the stakeholders the idea on what they are going to portray.

Pam: “Authoritative sakon, very straight forward… nagaka intimidate [and] nahadlok sila, once makilala na nila ako nagakadula na.”

[I’am authoritative and very straight forward, they get intimidated and scared, but once they get to know me it disappear]

Langging: “I was regarded as strikto in my past school”

[I was regarded as authoritative in my past school]

Deciding

LGBTQ instructional leaders have the power to choose.

1. Liberating

LGBTQ instructional leaders are free from favor towards either or any

Steve: “I usually do not capitalize or let my sexual orientation get in the way of my teaching and other professional business.”

Langging: “I do just what I am to do.”

Joguar: “I have no specific negotiation practices with the stakeholders concern based on my sexual preference.”

By Facilitating Altruistically

LGBT Instructional leaders exhibit other-face concerns as posited by the Face-Negotiation Theory by Stella Ting-Toomey. With this face concern, LGBT instructional leaders selflessly care for the welfare, needs, and concerns of their stakeholders. By being altruistic, they become (1) Strategic, (2) Inspiring, and (3) Compassionate kinds of leaders.

Strategizing

LGBT instructional leaders ensure that they bring the best kind of service to their stakeholders without compromising effort even if this does not necessarily mean that they get something back in return which is why they make sure to create significant strategies to bring about such goals. By being strategic, they exhibit (1) Creating , and (2) Managing.

1. Creating

LGBT instructional leaders expressed their idea of making a creative strategy in order to successfully create a conducive environment for their stakeholders.

Langging: ”It is a participative, chill, interactive class…I don’t want my students nga mabudlayan, I want everyone to feel good. The school must be an environment that is comfortable for the students.”

[It is a participative, chill, interactive class… I don’t want my students to have a hard time, rather, I want everyone to feel good. The school must be an environment that is comfortable for the students.]

Joguar: “I am a facilitative kind of leader or teacher. Making my teacher develop awareness among themselves and helping them develop critical learning skills.”

2. Managing

One of the roles of LGBT Instructional leaders is to improve institutional management including how the curricula should work. With the adaptation of efficient learning strategies like student-centered learning, LGBT Instructional leaders became distinct, well-embraced professionals in their field because of their impact in creating a much more effective learning environment.

Langging: ”You must be an effective, efficient teacher in the classroom…Learner Centered [because] I focus on my students”

Inspiring

LGBT Instructional leaders inspire their stakeholders to do better because of the decisions and actions they do in order to promote professional and individual growth such as the (1) Impartmenting, and (2) Encouraging that they give to their stakeholders.

1. Imparting

Imparting values is one of the efforts being played by LGBT Instructional leaders in order to foster and manifest growth for their stakeholders.

Pam: ”[I want to the following values] to be a good citizen, honest, respectful, generous and kind.’’

Joguar: ”As a department head I want to embark on the value of honesty, dedication and commitment for my teachers.”

2. Encouraging

It is part of LGBT Instructional leaders’ role to facilitate a conducive workplace that encourages positive growth for its stakeholders. It is selfless, realistic, and nonassertive by nature because the goal is to help everyone improve and grow with respect to how their respective stakeholders function.

Langging: “I encourage everyone [my co-workers] to do this [or] do that but if they don’t want to it’s okay… I remind other gay preservice teachers that he has to be a role model in order to be respected ”

Compassionating

LGBT Instructional leaders care for their stakeholders even if it means that they would be at risk in return, therefore, it is realistic that they have the capability to be compassionate. Such compassion is exhibited in LGBT Instructional leaders’ (1) Discovering , and (2) Concerning.

1. Discovering

In order for LGBT Instructional Leaders to fully know what kind of approaches or strategies they should apply in order to facilitate their stakeholders, they first need to be sure of who and what they are dealing with. LGBT Instructional Leaders try their best, even when it’s risky, just to be certain of their stakeholders.

Pam:”gusto ko sila makilala tanan. Sometimes wrong ni siya pero muni siya ang pinaka effective ko nga paagi— I drink with them once, once lang. The main purpose is not for lakwatsa but to get to know them kay once ara na sila sa influence sg— sorry gid ha, sg liquor— hubog na sla slight —ako mana gamanage sila— ara na gaamat2 na gwa mga frustrations nla, gaopen na sila”

[I want to get to know everyone. Sometimes this is wrong but this has been my most effective means — I drink with them once for the purpose of understanding them because, I am really sorry for this but I also am the one managing them in this situation, when the liquor kicks in, this is when they start to share their frustrations and open up their sides.]

2. Concerning

Because LGBT Instructional Leaders care, they are all ears and open-mindedly receive the feedback of their stakeholders with full respect. Above all, it is still the role of LGBT Instructional Leaders to have a strong and proper relationship across everyone in their school.

Pam : [managing them in this situation, when the liquor kicks in, this is when they start to share their frustrations and open up their sides.]

By Exhibiting Mutualism Between Stakeholders

Highlighted in Face-Negotiation Theory by Stella Ting-Toomey, Self- Identified LGBT instructional leaders postulated face concerns which Ting-Toomey emphasized as third orientation in which both parties are equally important, as well as their relationship’s public image. In connection to the theory, they become (1) Respecting, (2) Regulating , and (3) Nurturing type of instructional leaders.

Respecting

LGBT Instructional leaders, by responsibility and personal practice, make sure they respect their stakeholders by exercising (1)All-Embracing, and (2) Reciprocating.

1. All-Embracing

Exhibiting respect means that LGBT Instructional Leaders also value the differences of each and everyone by practicing inclusivity where everyone is valued and validated.

Joguar: ” Be respectful to everyone”

Pam: ” respect capacity sang tanan…[and] ang differences sg kada isa” [Respect everyone’s capacity and differences]

2. Reciprocating

Respect, according to LGBT Instructional leaders, is not just a one-way deed. It has to be reciprocated by both parties as a social responsibility.

Langging: ”If you want to be respected, be respectful”

Regulating

Boundaries help develop LGBT Instructional leaders’ relationship with their stakeholders which affects their interactions with them. Therefore, there are (1) Limiting and (2) Belonging, seen in their interactions.

1. Limitating

LGBT instructional leaders place limitations in their relationship with their stakeholders in order to help the system go smoothly specifically, in Teacher- learner relationship.

Pam: “Sa gwa pwedi kita maging friends, pero kung ara kana sa classroom you have to respect me as a teacher.” [ In none classroom set-up, we are friends but if we are in the classroom you have to respect me as a teacher]

Langging: ‘’Pwede maging friends ang students, and parents [as a teacher] basta may demarcation line.’’

[It’s okay to be friend with students and parents as a teacher, but it must have a demarcation line]

2. Belonging

The Closeness of LGBT Instructional leaders and their stakeholders affect how they interact with each other. Such belonging within their relationship enables interactions that may foster a better relationship between them.

Pam: “when i am dealing with my students who are close to me, te naga-go ako sa gay language , pero if I am not … normal’’

[ When I am dealing with my students who are close to me, I’m use gay language but if I am not, just normal language]

Nurturing

In order for effective learning to happen, LGBT instructional leaders used various teaching styles which is a great breakthrough for the stakeholders to interact and be accommodated.

1. Communicating

Using proper and appropriate communication can make the LGBT instructional leaders more beneficial and critical when facing the stakeholders.

Kyle: ”using assertive communication style because it aims both sides to winning a situation and balance one’s rights with the rights of others. ”

2. Collaborating

LGBT instructional leaders are developing full potential in socialization and a learner centered environment in non- classroom and classroom settings.

Pam: “no dull moments with sir pam, as much as possible interesting [the class]”

Table 2. Demonstration of Meaningful Categories of the Study

DISCUSSION

To strengthen their ability in establishing relations with their stakeholders, LGBT instructional leaders employ face-negotiation techniques. When LGBT instructional leaders face-negotiated with their stakeholders, three (3) significant themes emerged: (1) autonomous, (2) altruistic, and (3) mutualistic techniques. Nine (9) meaningful categories namely: (1) Self-Centering, (2) Authenticating, (3) Deciding, (4) Strategizing, (5) Inspiring, (6) Compassionating, (7) Respecting, (8) Regulating, and (9) Nurturing.

This study found that LGBT Instructional leaders fulfill their responsibilities in special, and even risky, means. This is characterized by the leadership attribute of LGBT Teachers who are identified to be good at connecting with people and at the same time, compassionate and inclusive, yet big risk-takers (Lee,2020a). With such personalities, they are able to be effective in their responsibilities such as implementing purposeful learning and instruction strategies, and in building strong relationships between stakeholders (Harris et al., 2018; Campbell et al., 2018). Each interactions imbed a certain face-concern depending on the situation ranging from a concern for oneself alone, the other person, or for both parties, mainly because there is an image that has to be protected (Gu et al., 2021) and one way for LGBT Instructional leaders to do this is by sharing compassion but at the same time setting the line of respect.

LGBT Instructional leaders being Autonomous individuals, protect themselves by setting boundaries between their stakeholders in social media platforms. Entailing boundary upon professional career unto personal life is beneficial because internet technologies enable consumers to take part in other communities through activities, thus the evidence shows that using social media can be dangerous if there is no boundary on it (Hanckel et al., 2019; Greenhow, 2019; Sun et al., 2019;). Moreover, LGBT Instructional leaders masked their true identity whenever they were physically interacting with their stakeholders. As professionals in the field of education, they should embody professionalism as formal looks and appearance and may include the formal approach to the student inside of the classroom and investing in the development of good social settings that will help secure their sustainability which clearly demonstrates respect for students (Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers,1998; Kashem, 2019; Thompson, 2018). However, masking can be associated with “role playing,” because they tend to pretend to be someone else in order to gain respect for their student and it seems like they show discrimination among themselves which, nevertheless, authenticity can never be disrespectful thus, LGBT teachers should be convinced to partake in the profession alongside bringing their empowered, visible, and real selves.(Thompson& Goldstein, 2019; Doane et. al., 2020; Brett, 2022). They are authenticating in which their action reflects their identity inside of the classroom that can eventually lead to students to establish their own thoughts about that certain individual (Noonan, 2019; Hanna et. al., 2020). As students have the ability to make evaluative judgments about their teacher and these assumptions are sometimes because of their impression of their teacher (Joughin et. al. 2018). Additionally, exhibiting an authoritative leadership style that is benevolent has been seen to be effective in countries that are collectivistic and gender inclusive when it comes to social roles such as the Philippines. (Zabolotniaia et al., 2019; Broomhall & Phillips, 2020; Iqbal et al., 2021). There have been similar patterns found in the actions of LGBT Instructional leaders when doing their role unbiased despite the gender and sexuality differences. This may be because fairness has been an integral part of the classroom and teachers’ assessments (Rasooli et. al., 2018) making it still a responsibility for the LGBT Instructional leaders to practice.

The ability of LGBT Instructional leader to be selfless has also been a major characteristic that has been seen in their strategies in fulfilling commitment to student development and curricula and at the same time having the ability to see such impacts on their stakeholders (Lee,2020a; Lee,2020b; Garza, 2018; De Nobile, 2018). One strategy is by being facilitators of knowledge through learner-centered education which enables students to be an active learner by utilizing learners’ own skills and self in the acquisition of learning (Darsih, 2018) however, this demands an appropriate environment that optimizes student learning through different opportunities in order for it to be effective (Darsih, 2018; Stronge, 2018; Doyle , 2018), which can be supplemented by LGBT Instructional leaders’ creativity brought by interactions (Han & Abdrahim 2023;Rajagopalan, 2019) but with moderation on held beliefs as it has been found by Bereczki & Kárpáti (2018) that several beliefs may hinder creative development . The said interactions also hold inspiration to their stakeholders which positively foster them through the support given to them (Frisby, 2019; Mercer & Dörnyei 2020) and the democratic motivation to show respect to their stakeholders (Rajagopalan, 2019). There were also similarities within LGBT Instructional leaders’ statements wherein they said they impart values to their stakeholders to develop them (Keçici, 2019; Osman & Warner, 2020) but then, Barni et al., (2019) found that values itself play an important role in the drive of teachers’ self-efficacy. Additionally, LGBT Instructional leaders’ were seen to be compassionate through their capability to build strong relationships (Lee, 2020b; Campbell et al., 2018), which is possible because leadership is a communication based activity which is reflected on the demands on their roles (Code of Ethics for Professional Teacher, 1998) to properly build relationships and rapport by being visible and accessible to their stakeholders which makes them socially and emotionally intelligent by being polite (Johnson & Hackman, 2018; Garza, 2018; Wieczorek & Manard, 2018; Lee, 2020a; Naiditch, 2018). However, this selflessness of LGBT Instructional leaders can even endanger their professions because of their unconventional methods to build relationships which is brought by their character of being risk-takers (Lee 2020a; Lee, 2020b). Drinking, which has been found to be one of their ways to connect with their stakeholders, makes people become socially agreeable and emotionally expressive because of the alcohol that serves as a social lubricant (Derrick et al., 2022; Orehek et al., 2020). But such a measure is a violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers (1998), article III, Section 3, stating that “a teacher must refrain from activities that show dishonor, including drunkenness, because teachers are viewed with reasonable social recognition’’. Despite the awareness of its immorality, there is a belief that the outcome outweighs in which exhibits the Trolley Dilemma, or Trolley Problem thought experiment , which reflects on the individual’s moral judgements like: 1) norm judgements that identify what is acceptable, appropriate, and forbidden; and 2) the wrongness judgements of morality that expresses that the action or decision was morally wrong (Malle, 2020; Editors of Merriam-Webster, 2020).

LGBT instructional leaders also exhibit mutualism as they both gain benefits with their stakeholders in some of their actions. Research shows that positive teacher student relationships are associated with benefits for LGBTQ students such as greater school engagement, better academic performance, and overall better social-emotional well-being (Colvin et al., 2019; Day, Fish et al., 2019; Day, Ioverno, et al., 2019). Knowing how to create an appropriate learning environment and at the same time keeping it engaging for the students is one of the best ways a teacher can be effective in their classes (Stronge, 2018; Darsih, 2018). According to (Day, Fish et al., 2019; Day, Ioverno, et al., 2019) positive school climate is linked with important measures of school success such as academic achievement, high morale, staff productivity and overall better social-emotional well-being. In accordance with Face-negotiation theory and politeness theory, humans by nature have a face or self-image to either save or lose in social situations, and because of such, they may consider saving both parties’ images (Gu et al., 2021; Naiditch, 2018). The golden rule of the fundamental ethical principle quoted “do to others as what you would have them do to you” is in parallel to the informant answer of “if you want to be respected, be respectful” (“Definition of Golden Rule,” n.d.). Additionally, the golden rule can be applied in accordance to being polite in social situations which enables LGBT Instructional leaders to acquire a positive or negative image (Naiditch, 2018). Organizations must promote and respect the right of others without waiting for certain laws to exist before doing an action (Thoroughgood et al., 2020). Moreover, Filipinos, who are collectivistic by culture, have the social responsibility to perform standard behavior where both parties can mutually have peace and avoid conflict which speaks of an individual mutual-face concern (Arutal et al., 2019; Broomhall & Phillips, 2020; Gu et al., 2021). Article VIII, section 2 and 3 of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers states that teachers must deal with students without bias therefore supporting the argument that instructional leaders must be inclusive and respectful as a responsibility of their job. In this study, informants believed that every individual is unique to each other and that discrimination can result in ruminative thoughts, decreased productivity, and undermine confidence and this is in conflict to the purpose and role of an LGBT instructional leader who were discovered to be effective in building positive learning and relationship across school (Thorough good et al., 2020; Campbell et al., 2018). According to Zaki (2020), interpersonal relationships and emotions play a part in how humans by nature interact with each other. When LGBT Instructional leader is able to come out, it gives those who work for them permission to do the same (Lee, 2020a). By that interaction, relationships will build if individuals have common characteristics and exposure thus (Silvano, 2018) concluded that Gay lingos is a common language that binds individuals of shared experiences together. Being assertive means that one knows how to fight for one’s own right and that a person is confident, positive, assured and determined (Maloney & Moore, 2020; Samfira, 2020). This claim is strongly supported by Samfira (2020) which states that assertive communication style in school set up, enables open communication for its stakeholders.

This study provided a view and understanding of how Instructional leaders operate and negotiate with their stakeholders, focusing on the members of the LGBT community which was not highly stressed by the previously published papers whether may it be in the fields of education, instructional leadership, or the LGBT community. Moreover, this study supplied information that shed a neutral light about their experiences rather than the usual negative discussions giving the idea that the members of the LGBT community can work and function in the society, specifically in institutions, without them being stereotyped as disadvantaged and invalidated. This paper, however, has only successfully reached out to five informants out of the total thirteen that have fitted the criteria despite the efforts due to different reasons, mainly about the sensitivity of the topic of this paper. Nevertheless, they’re taking risks and setting common goals in order to have an organized and progressive institution. Researchers highly suggest for future researchers to have more informants in order for the study to run progressively because with more informants, more data will be acquired and point of view to be studied.

CONCLUSION

Face negotiation techniques of LGBT instructional leaders: A qualitative study includes that they were independent, selfless and mutualistic. They fulfill their responsibilities in dealing with their stakeholders while setting boundaries and limitations professionally. They also masked their real identity whenever they were physically interacting with their stakeholders. Moreover, they never fail to develop and impart moral values and knowledge to their stakeholders selflessly that prop them as an inspiring individual.

REFERENCES

1. Arifin, S. R. M. (2018). Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Study. International Journal of Care Scholars, 1(2), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.31436/ijcs.v1i2.82
2. Aruta, J. J. B. R., Barretto, I. D. E., Shin, Y., & Jang, A. (2019). The Experience of Power in Teacher–Student Relationships in Collectivistic Psychological Studies, 64(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-019-00523-0
3. Barni, D., Danioni, F., & Benevene, P. (2019). Teachers’ Self-Efficacy: The Role of Personal Values and Motivations for Teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01645
4. Bereczki, E., & Kárpáti, A. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about creativity and its nurture: A systematic review of the recent research literature. Educational Research Review, 23, 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.003
5. Berger, A. A. (2018). Media and Communication Research Methods. Sage Publications. https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6CFoDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Berger,+A.+A(2018).+Media+and+communication+research+methods:+An+introduction+to+qualitative+and+quantitative+approaches.+Sage+Publications.&ots=A0jHzEXEV6&sig=tCCa13LwrLYN50iRmugL3KLcFHM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Berger%2C%20A.%20A.%20(2018).%20Media%20and%20communication%20research%20methods%3A%20An%20introduction%20to%20qualitative%20and%20quantitative%20approaches.%20Sage%20Publications.&f=false
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846
7. Brett, A. (2022). Under the spotlight: exploring the challenges and opportunities of being a visible LGBT+ teacher. Sex Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2022.2143344
8. Broomhall, A. G., & Phillips, W. (2020). Collective harmony as a moderator of the association between other-referent upward counterfactual thinking and Cogent Psychology, (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1714833
9. Campbell, P. J., Chaseling, M. J., Boyd, W. C., & Shipway, B. (2018). The effective instructional leader. Professional Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1465448
10. Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers, Resolution 435, 1998, 11th Cong. (1998)
11. Colvin, S., Egan, J., & Coulter, R. W. S. (2019). School Climate & Sexual and Gender Minority Adolescent Mental Health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(10), 1938–1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01108-w
12. Darsih, E. (2018). LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING: WHAT MAKES IT EFFECTIVE. Indonesian EFL Journal, 4(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v4i1.796
13. Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. J. (2019). Gay‐Straight Alliances, Inclusive Policy, and School Climate: LGBTQ Youths’ Experiences of Social Support and Bullying. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S2), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12487
14. Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Russell, S. J. (2019). Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth: Addressing educational inequities through inclusive policies and Journal of School Psychology, 74, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.05.007
15. De Nobile, J.(2018). Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1411902
16. Definition of golden rule (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved May 29, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/golden%20rule
17. De Jonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L. M. (2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057
18. Derrick, J. L., Testa, M., Wang, W., & Leonard, K. E. (2022). Elixir of love or venom of violence: When does a drinking event result in couple intimacy or couple conflict? Addictive Behaviors, 136, 107488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107488
19. De Witt, P. M. (2020). Instructional Leadership: Creating Practice Out of Theory. Corwin Press. Doane, A. S., Ehlke, S., & Kelley, M. L. (2020). Bystanders Against Cyber bullying: a Video Program for College Students. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00051-5
20. Doyle, L., McCabe, C., Keogh, B., Brady, A., & McCann, M. (2019). An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing Journal of Research in Nursing, 174498711988023. doi:10.1177/1744987119880234
21. Doyle, T. (2018). Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment: A Guide to Facilitating Learning in Higher Education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
22. Editors of Merriam-Webster. (2020). What is the ‘Trolley Problem?’. Retrieved May 29, 2023, from https://merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/trolley-problem-moral-philosophy-ethics
23. Fleming, J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2018). Methodologies, Methods and Ethical Considerations for Conducting Research in Work-Integrated Learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 205–213. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1196755.pdf Flick, U. (2022). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design. In SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278
24. Frisby, B. N. (2019). The Influence of Emotional Contagion on Student Perceptions of Instructor Rapport, Emotional Support, Emotion Work, Valence, and Cognitive Learning. Communication Studies, 70(4), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.1622584 Garza, R. (2018, March 1). Defining Instructional Leadership in Principal Evaluation From Guiding Principals: State Efforts to Bolster Instructional Leadership on JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep34427.5
25. Gawlik, M. (2018). Instructional leadership and the charter school principal. School Leadership & Management, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1439467
26. Greenhow, C., Galvin, S., & Willet, K. B. S. (2019). What Should Be the Role of Social Media in Education? Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219865290
27. Gu, T., Guan, Z., Tang, J., & Wu, D. (2021). Comparisons of the Different Views of Face Negotiation Theory. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211209.421
28. Haddad, Z. (2019). Understanding Identity and Context in the Development of Gay Teacher Identity: Perceptions and Realities in Teacher Education and Education Sciences, 9(2), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020145
29. Han, W., & Abdrahim, N. A. (2023). The role of teachers’ creativity in higher education: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, 101302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101302
30. Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., Byron, P., Robards, B., & Churchill, B. (2019). ‘That’s not necessarily for them’: LGBTIQ+ young people, social media platform affordances and identity curation. Media, Culture & Society, 41(8), 1261–1278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719846612
31. Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S., & Zijlstra, B. J. H. (2020). Assessing the professional identity of primary student teachers: Design and validation of the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100822
32. Harris, A., Jones, M., Adams, D., & Cheah, K. S. (2019). Instructional leadership in Malaysia: a review of the contemporary literature. School Leadership & Management, 39(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1453794
33. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods. Google Books. https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_InCDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1& dq=Hennink,+M.,+Hutter,+I.,+%26+Bailey,+A.+(2020).+Qualitative+research+methods(2 nd+ed.)+Sage.&ots=3ufPhTr4ky&sig=oiLZCX_qeY1oM2T3RVCTR1OX7B0&redir_esc= y#v=onepage&q&f=false
34. Islam, Md & Aldaihani, Faraj. (2022). Justification for Adopting Qualitative Research Method, Research Approaches, Sampling Strategy, Sample Size, Interview Method, Saturation, and Data Analysis. Journal of International Business and Management. 5. 1-11. 37227/JIBM-2021-09-1494.
35. Iqbal, Z. A., Abid, G., Arshad, M., Ashfaq, F., Athar, M. M., & Hassan, Q. (2021). Impact of Authoritative and Laissez-Faire Leadership on Thriving at Work: The Moderating Role of Conscientiousness. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(3), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11030048
36. Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). Leadership: A Communication Perspective, Seventh Edition. Waveland Press.
37. Joughin, G., Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2019). Threats to student evaluative judgement and their management. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(3), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1544227
38. Kashem, M. A. (2019). The Effect of Teachers’ Dress on Students’ Attitude and Students’ Learning: Higher Education View. Education Research International, 2019, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9010589
39. Keçici, S. E. (2019). Reasons for Choosing the Profession of Teacher. Asian Journal of Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2019.53.447.453
40. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2020.1755030
41. Lee, C.(2019). Fifteen years on: the legacy of section 28 for LGBT+ teachers in English schools. Sex Education, 19(6), 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2019.1585800
42. Lee, C.(2020a). Courageous Leaders: Promoting and supporting diversity in school leadership development. Management in Education, 34(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020619878828
43. Lee, C.(2020b). Why LGBT Teachers May Make Exceptional School Leaders. Frontiers in Sociology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.00050
44. Malle, B. F. (2021). Moral Judgments. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-072220-104358
45. Maloney, M. E., & Moore, P. J. (2020). From aggressive to assertive,. International Journal of Women’s Dermatology, 6(1), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.09.006
46. Marín, V. I., Carpenter, J. P., & Tur, G. (2021). Pre‐service teachers’ perceptions of social media data privacy policies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13035
47. Meihami, H., & Salīte, I. (2019). EFL Teachers’ Cultural Identity Development through Participating in Cultural Negotiation: Probing EFL Students’ Perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 21(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2019-0009
48. Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging Language Learners in Contemporary Classrooms.
49. Mertova, P., & Webster, L. (2019). Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method: An Introduction to Critical Event Narrative Analysis in Research, Teaching and Professional Practice. https://www.amazon.com/Using-Narrative-Inquiry-Research-Method/dp/1138354813
50. Naiditch, F. (2018). Respect and Politeness in Different Cultures. Sociocultural Aspects of English Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0679
51. Nie, F., & Price, A. M. (2021). Is safe space safe? Being gay and college faculty across religious moral communities. Journal of Beliefs & Values-studies in Religion & Education, 42(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2020.1816398
52. Nnagboro, C. C. (2023). Cold Calling in the Classroom: Exploring Student Perceptions of Instructor Communication using the Face Negotiation Theory [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Kentucky. https://doi.org/10.13023/etd.2023.142
53. Noonan, J. P. (2019). An Affinity for Learning: Teacher Identity and Powerful Professional Development. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118788838
54. Orehek, E., Human, L. J., Sayette, M. A., Dimoff, J. D., Winograd, R. P., & Sher, K. J. (2020). Self-Expression While Drinking Alcohol: Alcohol Influences Personality Expression During First Impressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219843933
55. Osman, D., & Warner, J. R. (2020). Measuring teacher motivation: The missing link between professional development and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92, 103064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103064
56. Palinkas, L. A., Mendon, S. J., & Hamilton, A. B. (2019). Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations. Annual Review of Public Health, 40(1), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044215
57. Perry, S. J., Hunter, E. M., Corrington, A. R., & Hebl, M. “. R. (2022). Facing an Unexpected Negotiation Partner: the Impact of Hiring Manager Gender Role Violation on Job Candidates. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09863-7
58. Peter, T., Taylor, C., & Short, D. (2018, May 11). Religious Belief and the Queer Classroom: Measuring the Impact of Religious Affiliation on LGBTQ-Inclusive Education Practices. https://cdm.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/42910 Rajagopalan, I. (n.d.). Concept of Teaching. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1245288
59. Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C. (2018). Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.008
60. Samfira, E. M. (2020). Assertive Communication Skills in Universities. Questa Soft. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=853178
61. Silvano, M. M. (2018). Morphosyntactic analysis of the tandaganon gay Language. International Journal of Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Research, 5(8), 4042–4050.
62. Shaked, H., Glanz, J., & Gross, Z. (2018). Gender differences in instructional leadership: how male and female principals perform their instructional leadership role. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1427569
63. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of Effective Teachers, 3rd Edition. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509061
64. Sun, Y., Zhou, X., Jeyaraj, A., Shang, R., & Hu, F. (2019). The impact of enterprise social media platforms on knowledge sharing: An affordance lens perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(2). https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEIM-10-2018-0232/full/html?casa_token=MR0Ze6Qv-WUAAAAA:Qlt_nEfKlPxWpFTiedDMQGQl6qLCiyf-G6aHndD9lSq PFaPrELVzK9xsGbR3oi70yFci_8efOY-U-SfglbelDn0k6W41Dzxi5lP1l5j3NJZyQOQs967 S
65. Suryandari, N., & Hidayatullah, P. (2020). Face Negotiation Theory in Lived Experiences of Female Sex Workers in Former Dolly. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 510. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201219.093
66. Thomas, S., Eastman, J. K., Shepherd, C. D., & Denton, L. T. (2018). A comparative assessment of win-win and win-lose negotiation strategy use on supply chain relational outcomes. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(1), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-10-2016-0238
67. Thompson, B. N., & Goldstein, T. R. (2019). Disentangling pretend play measurement: Defining the essential elements and developmental progression of pretense. Developmental Review, 52, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2019.100867
68. Thompson, C. S. (2018). The Construct of ‘Respect’ in Teacher-Student Relationships: Exploring Dimensions of Ethics of Care and Sustainable. Journal of Leadership Education, 17(3), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.12806/v17/i3/r3
69. Thorough good, C. N., Sawyer, K., & Webster, J. (2023, January 18). Creating a Trans-Inclusive Workplace. Harvard Business Review.
    https://hbr.org/2020/03/creating-a-trans-inclusive-workplace
70. Vente, S. (2020, March 30). The current state of automated negotiation theory: a literature review. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.02614
71. Wiezorek, D., & Manard, C. (2018). Instructional Leadership Challenges and Practices of Novice Principals in Rural Schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 34(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1172786
72. Wiltshire, G., & Ronkainen, N. J. (2021). A realist approach to thematic analysis: making sense of qualitative data through experiential, inferential and dispositional themes. Journal of Critical Realism, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2021.1894909
73. Wright, C. Y., & Villaflor, P. C. (2016). Diasporic queer in classroom: The resiliency of Filipino gay teachers in international schools. Journal of Sciences. Technology and Arts Research, 4(1).
    Zabolotniaia, M., Cheng, Z., & Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z. (2019). Influence of leadership style on employees’ innovative activity. Polish Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2019.20.1.41
74. Zaki, J. (2020). Integrating Empathy and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050830