University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Strategies for relationship and trust building by successful superintendents: a case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Strategies for relationship and trust building by successful superintendents: a case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
STRATEGIES FOR RELATIONSHIP AND TRUST BUILDING
BY SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS: A CASE STUDY

by

Leann L. Huang

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Leann L. Huang

ii
DEDICATION

To my mother, P.J. Huang:
Thank you for encouraging me to be a life-long learner!
Without your love and support, this dissertation never would have been completed.

To my father, L.C. Huang:
Thank you for reminding me to relax!

To my brother, H.S. Huang:
Thank you for putting things into perspective and helping keep my focus on the end goal!

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Michael F. Escalante, my dissertation
chair, for his guidance and commitment to this study. It has been my privilege working
with you. I would also like to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. John Garcia, members of
my dissertation committee, for their insight and support.
I would like to acknowledge the dedication and contribution to this study by
members of my thematic dissertation cohort: A. Pestonji-Guerrero, J. Garcia, R. Valdes,
A. Jimenez, K. Foersch, S. Howland, M. Smith, and C. Green. I would also like to
acknowledge the invaluable interview contribution of Abajo Unified School District’s
Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson to this study.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family, friends, coworkers, and colleagues for
their encouragement and patience during this journey.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

ABSTRACT vii

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Importance of the Study 4
Summary of the Methodology 5
Limitations of the Study 6
Delimitations of the Study 6
Assumptions of the Study 7
Definitions of Terms 7
Organization of the Study 8

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10
History of the Superintendency 10
Superintendent Role Conceptualizations 10
Educational Reforms and its Impact on the Superintendency 13
Current State and Challenges of the Superintendency 15
Superintendent Training and Preparation Programs 18
Conceptual Frameworks 19
Lack of National Curriculum 27
Formal Training Programs 28
Informal Training Programs 33
Entry Period 34
Board-Superintendent Relationship 35
Importance of Communication 37
Conclusion 39

v
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 41
Research Team 41
Research Questions 43
Research Design 44
Population and Sample 44
Superintendents 44
Board President/Board Member Designees 46
Instrumentation 46
Pilot Testing 46
Superintendent/Board President or Board Member Designee Surveys 47
Superintendent/Board President or Member Designee Interview Guides 48
Data Collection Procedures 48
Data Analysis 49
Ethical Considerations 49
Summary 49

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 51
Demographic Profile 52
Research Question One 57
Research Question Two 63
Research Question Three 77
Summary 84

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86
Summary of Findings 87
Implications for Practice 93
Recommendations for Future Research 94
Conclusion 94

REFERENCES 96

APPENDICES 99
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey 99
Appendix B: President/Board Member Designee Survey 102
Appendix C: Research Questions Alignment Matrix 105
Appendix D: Superintendent Interview Guide 106
Appendix E: Board President/Board Member Designee Interview Guide 108
Appendix F: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 110
Appendix G: Board President/Board Member Designee Recruitment Letter 111

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Synthesis of Conceptual Framework 43
Table 4.1: Total Number of Student Enrollment 53
Table 4.2: Number of School Districts per County in California 53
Table 4.3: Types of School Districts 54
Table 4.4: Superintendent Participant Gender 55
Table 4.5: Attainment of Doctorate Degree by Gender 55
Table 4.6: Initial Challenges at the Start of Entry Period 59
Table 4.7: Methods/Strategies of Communication (Used and Preferred) 63
Table 4.8: Frequency of Communication Methods/Strategies Used 69
Table 4.9: Review of Entry Plan with the Board during Entry Period 72
Table 4.10: Clear and Direct Feedback from Board 74
Table 4.11: Overall Relationship during the Entry Period 74
Table 4.12: Perceived Level of Board’s Trust in Superintendent 76
Table 4.13: Review of Entry Plan with the Board during Entry Period 78
Table 4.14: Professional Experiences for Superintendency Preparation 81
Table 4.15: Factors that led to the Superintendent’s Success 83

vii
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to identify strategies and behaviors that successful
superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with their boards within their
entry period. The three research questions were developed to guide this study:
1. What strategies and behaviors were successful superintendents using to build
strong relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How did superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal and informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for
entry into the superintendency?
This study was conducted by a cohort of researchers from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. A qualitative approach, using
surveys and in-depth interviews, was used in the collection and analysis of the research
data. Data analysis revealed that most successful superintendents had an entry plan and
used multiple methods of communication to establish trust. Additionally, successful
superintendents were strategic in their use of leadership strategies to establish a strong
relationship with their board and relied on self-evaluation and self-reflection to evaluate
their success as superintendents. Lastly, prior experiences, interpersonal skills, and
trustworthiness were identified as factors for success.
This study validated the importance and implications for aspiring and/or
transitioning superintendents to understand that the entry period is a challenging and
critical time. A successful transition during the entry period is possible through building
trust and a strong relationship with the board. This study also provided insight for
university program developers interested in creating a strong superintendent preparation

viii
program. It was found that superintendents regarded their informal training to be more
beneficial than their formal training. Additionally, this study showed strong evidence of
the use of business leadership strategies by superintendent participants.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background
The responsibilities of the superintendent have increasingly become more
complex due to accountability mandates and regulations placed on the school districts.
Since 1865, five distinct role conceptualizations have been identified and developed; the
first four are identified by Callahan (1966) and the fifth by Kowalski (2005). All of these
roles (teacher scholar, business manager, statesman, applied social scientist, and
communicator) were triggered by social events, as superintendents face changes to
address social, professional and educational needs. Current superintendents are expected
to take on all five roles and to know when to transition among the roles. Responsible for
implementing and enforcing both federal and state mandates, as well as maintaining the
financial, academic, political, and social aspects of the school system, it is now harder
than ever for superintendents to become successful in their job. As a result, the short
tenure of superintendents has become of concern.
The instability of superintendent leadership, as observed by Whittle (2005)
contributes to the problem of low student achievement that many school districts
currently face (as cited in Waters & Marzano, 2006). Waters and Marzano (2006) posit
that superintendents with longer tenure are more likely to affect change. Other problems
superintendents encounter include dysfunctional operational systems, and declining state
and federal funding (Quinn, 2007).
Over the years, the superintendency has evolved to work like a business where
superintendents are expected to possess the skill-sets and experiences such as those of the
Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) in the Business industry (Quinn, 2007). Such skills are

2
especially crucial in developing and maintaining a strong relationship with the board,
since the tenure of the superintendent is dependent on the board’s satisfaction with the
superintendent.
The lack of a national curriculum for superintendent preparation makes it difficult
for aspiring and current superintendents to access specific trainings to develop the skill-
sets needed to be successful. In addition, differences of opinion about superintendents as
instructional leaders led to inconsistent state policies of preparation and licensure of
superintendents (Kowalski, 2005). Over the years, there has been a push for non-
traditional superintendents, especially by the Broad Superintendents Academy. Non-
traditional superintendents are those whose prior experience is not from education and
are from other fields such as the military and business.
The Entry Period, the first 90 to 100 days in a new leadership position, determines
the success of the leader in the long term (Lytle, 2009). This is a period of opportunity
for leaders to establish a working relationship and a detailed understanding of the new
job role. This is the time for the superintendent to demonstrate to the school board of
his/her capabilities, and to build trust with the school board. The school board’s
increased involvement in the daily operations and administration of the district has made
it ever important for the superintendent to cultivate a strong relationship with board
members. Relationship building may be the most important thing a superintendent can
do to ensure a successful transition (Sanaghan & Lytle, 2008) and to help determine the
real and perceived roles of the superintendent. Deciphering the roles of the
superintendent can prevent role confusion, which has been cited by Mountford (2004) as
the reason for difficult school-board relationships.

3
The 2010 decennial study results indicate that effective communicator was the
role most heavily emphasized by school boards (Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young, &
Ellerson, 2011). Kowalski et al. (2011) observe that poor communication can adversely
affect the best intentions of superintendents. The time superintendents spent
communicating directly with school board members has increased since 2000 (Glass,
Björk, & Brunner, 2000). With the advancement of technology, other forms of non-
direct communication (e.g. texting, group phone call, email) are utilized. Townsend et al.
(2007) believe that a superintendent’s success of stems from communicating with trust
and integrity and providing equal access to information to all board members. Through
effective communication, a superintendent can build trust with board members.
One form of communication is the board’s evaluation process of the
superintendent. Regular written evaluations keep the lines of communication open and
provide clarity of goals needed to move the organization forward. The entry plan is
another communication tool between the superintendent and the school board. An entry
plan can serve many purposes, including building a strong relationship with the school
board.
In order to be successful, superintendents need to utilize a variety of strategies
and demonstrate behaviors that allow effective communication and trust building with
their school boards during their entry period. The entry period serves as a crucial period
of time used by the school board to determine the tenure of a superintendent.
Statement of the Problem
Within the current educational climate, the superintendent as a leader must
navigate multiple challenges such as increasing federal and state accountability,

4
decreasing resources, contentious union relationships, special education litigation,
changing community needs, and the volatile politicalization of the school board. These
factors can strain the relationship between superintendent and school board, leading to
attrition and frustration of the superintendent. What strategies and behaviors are
successful superintendents using to build strong relationships and trust during their entry
period?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify strategies and behaviors that successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards within
their entry period. To examine the strategies and behaviors successful superintendents
utilized, the following research questions were developed by the research team:
1. What strategies and behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal and informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry
into the superintendency?
Importance of the Study
The lack of research regarding successful leadership strategies for new
superintendents in developing a strong relationship with the school board validates the
need for this study. This study’s findings provide valuable information for
superintendents (aspiring, new, and veteran) and school board members. This study
serves as a guide for incoming superintendents to create a positive relationship with their

5
school board. It also informs school board members of certain characteristics to look for
in hiring a new superintendent to ensure a successful working relationship.
A national curriculum for superintendent preparation currently does not exist.
Although over 600 institutions offer courses and/or programs for educational
administrators, not all have programs specific to superintendent preparation. The
strategies and behaviors identified by this study will be beneficial for universities looking
to create strong superintendent preparation programs and for policymakers in establishing
requirements for current and new educational leaders. The findings will be useful in the
creation of professional development courses by educational organizations such as the
American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and the Association of
Supervision and Curriculum and Development (ASCD). Lastly, the findings contribute
to the research in the field of educational leadership and can serve as a catalyst to
research additional best practices for new superintendents.
Summary of the Methodology
A qualitative approach was used in the collection and analysis of the research
data. Information was collected from the superintendent and the board president (or
board member designee as determined by the superintendent) to gain a complete picture
of the relationship between the superintendent and the school board. Data collection took
place in two phases: phase one consisted of data collection through surveys, and phase
two consisted of data collection through structured interviews. Both the survey and
interview guide address the three research questions and are guided by the conceptual
frameworks of Bolman and Deal (2008), Watkins (2003), Hurley (2006) and Covey
(2006). Topics covered involve use leadership styles, communication strategies, and

6
entry plans by the superintendent during the entry period. Survey questions were closed-
ended, and interviews were audio-recorded and coded for analysis. Information
collected, along with what is known from research literature, was used for triangulation.
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations apply to this study:
1. Results of the study were limited to the voluntary participation of superintendents
and board president/board member designees;
2. Results of the study were limited to the number of participants surveyed and
interviewed;
3. Results of the study were limited to the time for the study;
4. Results of the study were based on qualitative data that relied on the reflections of
superintendents and board president/board member designee during the
superintendent’s entry period;
5. Validity of the study was limited to the reliability of the instruments used; and
6. Validity of the study was limited to the manner in which personal interviews were
conducted by each member of the research team.
Delimitations of the Study
The following delimitations apply to this study:
1. Superintendents were external hires from California working in districts with an
average daily attendance (ADA) of at least 2,000 students;
2. Superintendents worked in a district with an Academic Performance Index (API)
of at least 800 with any growth over a three-year period OR in a district with an

7
API under 800 that has had at least a net growth of 30 points over a three-year
period (either within their current district or previous district);
3. Superintendents were recommended by an executive search firm;
4. Selection of board president/board member designee was based on the
superintendent’s discretion; and
5. Selection of superintendents and board president/board member designee for
personal interviews was based on the survey response and areas of interest of the
researcher.
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were made in this study:
1. Instruments for this study were valid and reliable;
2. Participants (superintendents and board presidents/board member designees) were
able to recall their perception of the superintendent’s performance during the
entry period with accuracy and provided truthful and credible responses;
3. Depth of all interview responses was limited to time constraints;
4. Superintendent and board president/board member designee surveys and
interviews would provide useful information in identifying strategies and
behaviors that impact superintendent-board relationships; and
5. Superintendent leadership had an impact on the district’s API.
Definitions of Terms
This study uses various terms specific to the experiences of entering
superintendents. The following terms and phrases are defined in relation to how they are
used in this research:

8
1. Academic Performance Index: A single score assigned to a school between the
range of 200 and 1000 indicating student achievement on state assessments by the
California State Department of Education;
2. Accountability: A mandate that holds districts, school, administrators, and
teachers responsible for student performance;
3. Entry Period: The first 90 to 100 days of superintendent in a new position within
a school district (synonymous with the transition period);
4. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: A federal legislation that establishes rules for
the states’ accountability system to ensure academic growth for students in all
subgroups;
5. School Board: An elected governance team that oversees the functions of a school
district, and hires and evaluates the superintendent; and
6. Superintendent: An appointed chief executive officer of a public school district
who is accountable to the school board.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter one provides an
overview of the study and consists of the following sections: the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study and its importance, the methodology, limitations,
delimitations, assumptions, and definitions of terms used. Chapter two provides a
comprehensive review of the literature related to the conceptual frameworks of effective
leadership. The literature base provides the foundation for the study relevant to the
leadership strategies and behaviors of successful superintendents. Chapter three
describes the methodology of the study, including the research design, data collection

9
techniques, instruments, and analysis of the data collected. Chapter four presents the
findings from the data collection and the analysis of the data, along with a discussion of
each research question and related findings. Chapter five summarizes conclusions of the
findings and implications for future research. This final chapter presents valuable
information for program developers for superintendent preparation and current and future
superintendents. References and an appendix follow the final chapter to conclude this
study.

10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
As public education continues to change and evolve, so have the responsibilities
of America’s school superintendents. The increased responsibilities and demands of
superintendents to effect change have affected the tenure of the superintendent’s job.
Securing early wins during the entry period of one’s superintendency can help build the
superintendent’s credibility and create momentum (Watkins, 2003). Failure to do so is
likely to lead to an uphill battle.
This chapter reviews the literature from books and professional journals in the
field of education and business. It begins with an overview of the history of the
superintendency, followed by a discussion of the current state of the superintendency and
critical issues faced by current superintendents. This chapter then examines current
training and preparation programs, which stems from conceptual frameworks and
theories of leadership from both the field of education and business. It then concludes
with an exploration of the importance of maintaining strong board-superintendent
relationships, especially during the entry period.
History of the Superintendency
Superintendent Role Conceptualizations
The history of the Superintendency parallels the development of the public school
system; the position of the superintendent was created during the late 1830s (Callahan,
1966; Kowalski, 2005). Over the past 150 years, the expectations of superintendents
have become increasingly more complex, demanding, and extensive (Kowalski, 2005;
Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Kowalski et al., 2011). The expectations and responsibilities of
the superintendents continue to increase. Since 1865, five distinct role

11
conceptualizations have been identified and developed. Callahan (1966) identified the
first four role conceptualizations of the school district superintendents: teacher scholar,
business manager, statesman, and applied social scientist. As America transitioned into
the Information Age, Kowalski (2005) identified the fifth role conceptualization – the
superintendent as communicator. All of these role conceptualizations were triggered by
social events, as superintendents face changes from forces within and outside the
profession to address social, professional and educational needs.
Callahan (1966) categorized the timeframe from 1865 to 1910 into four distinct
periods. From 1865 to 1910 (around the time of the Civil War), the superintendent was
seen as the teacher scholar- an educational leader and a teacher of teachers.
Superintendents served as lead educators subordinate to the board members, but superior
to principals, teachers, and pupils (Kowalski et al., 2011). They authored professional
journal articles about philosophy and were the most influential members of the National
Education Association (Kowalski, 2005). Superintendents left the management functions
to the school members and were not publicly associated with management or politics.
From 1910 to 1930 (influenced by the Industrial Revolution), the superintendent
was seen as a business manager. More emphasis was placed on the superintendent’s
managerial skills rather than teaching skills, as the school board embraced the belief that
innovations applied in industries to produce technical efficiency could also be effectively
applied to public schools. Superintendents dealt with budget development and
administration, standardization of operation, personnel management, and facility
management (Kowalski, 2005). The public’s perception of the superintendent’s role as a

12
business manager was changed by the great stock market crash, which significantly
decreased the public’s confidence in businessmen and business-like tactics.
From 1930 to1954 (triggered by the Great Depression), the superintendent was
seen as a statesman in a democratic school. Acting as a political strategist,
superintendents needed to engage in political activity to lobby state legislatures for scarce
fiscal resources. By the 1950s, superintendents were criticized for being too focused on
political philosophy, rather than on emerging social sciences.
From 1954 to 1966, the superintendent was seen as an applied social scientist.
Societal and professional forces changed the public’s view of the superintendent. These
forces included growing dissatisfaction with democratic leadership after World War II,
rapid development of the social sciences in the late 1940s and early 1950s, monetary
support from the Kellogg Foundation for research in the area of the social sciences, and a
reappearance of criticisms of public education in the 1950s. The criticisms were due to
demographic changes that required the nation to adjust to an increase in school-age
children and the creation of new school districts in newly established suburbs (Kowalski,
2005). Superintendents were encouraged to solve problems in education by relying on
empiricism, predictability, and scientific certainty (Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al.,
2011).
New expectations of the superintendent emerged as society moved away from a
manufacturing base to an information base (Kowalski, 2005). Starting in the 1980s, the
superintendent was seen as a communicator. Communication was historically considered
a skill that tends to be role specific. However, the need for superintendents to assume
leadership in the process of school restructuring and the need to change culture as part of

13
the restructuring process made it clear that superintendents had to take on the role of
communicator, instead of just simply possessing it as a skill. As a communicator,
superintendents were expected to engage others in open political dialogue, facilitate the
creation of shared visions, build a positive school district image, gain community
support, and provide frameworks and programs to keep the public informed (Kowalski,
2005).
Current superintendents need to take on all five different role conceptualizations
(teacher scholar, business manager, statesman, applied social scientist, and
communicator) and are expected to gauge when to transition among these roles. In the
2010 Decennial Study, Superintendents were asked to identify the level of emphasis
placed on the five different roles by the school boards. The highest level of emphasis was
placed on being an effective communicator, followed by manager, instructional leader,
statesmen/democratic leader, and applied social scientist (Kowalski et al., 2011). The
study also confirmed the expectation on superintendents by the school board to fulfill
these roles.
Educational Reforms and its Impact on the Superintendency
Widespread concern for the condition of public education launched the most
intense and sustained effort to reform public schools in American history. Tasks forces
and national commissions met to examine the current state of education. Public schools
were criticized for their teaching, testing, and learning, as well as their organization,
management, and governance (Hoyle, Björk, Collier, & Glass, 2005). The three
successive waves of educational reform reports, since the 1980s, have changed many
aspects of public education – the purpose, condition, and performance of public schools

14
(Hoyle et al., 2005). These reforms have also had a significant impact on the definition,
preparation, selection, and evaluation of the job of a superintendent.
The first wave of educational reform reports, from 1982 to 1986, focused on
increasing accountability (Hoyle et al., 2005). It was initiated by the release of A Nation
At Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), which informed the
public that American students were falling behind students in other countries in learning
the math and science skills crucial for the American economy. The reform focused on
improving student performance on standardized tests, assessing school-level performance
and progress, increasing graduation requirements, lengthening the school day and year,
and changing teacher licensure requirements. Such reform efforts shifted policy-making
from the district to the state level, and reinforced a centralized bureaucratic control of
schools (Hoyle et al., 2005).
The second wave of educational reform reports, from 1986 to 1989, continued to
focus on student performance and school accountability. In addition, there was a push to
address the needs of all children as reports brought to light an increase in the numbers of
Hispanic and Asian students, students from lower-income families, and students with
special needs. Agreement among reformers that school bureaucracies contributed to low
academic performance and high failure rates in students led to the launching of
decentralization initiatives to increase teacher professionalism (Hoyle et al., 2005).
The third wave of educational reform reports, from 1989 to 2003, criticized
previous reports for placing too much focus on structural and professional issues rather
than on the wellbeing and learning of all children (Hoyle et al., 2005). The three federal
reform initiatives that were passed (America 2000: An Education Strategy, Goals 2000:

15
Educate America Act, and No Child Left Behind Act) emphasized the importance of
differentiating teaching to improve student learning, especially for at-risk students. The
No Child Left Behind Act continues to have an impact on public education, as schools
attempts to fulfill its provisions by 2014.
The reforms on America’s public school system called forth changes in
accountability, as well as teaching and student learning. To meet the public’s demand for
improvement, leadership changes in the district and school-level are inevitable. In fact,
such reforms demand that superintendents, as well as other educational leaders, be
subjected to a different and a more rigorous set of management and leadership
requirement (Hoyle et al., 2005). The role of the superintendent, as a result of the
educational reform movement, has been forever changed.
Current State and Challenges of the Superintendency
Married, middle-aged White males dominated the superintendency during the first
100 years (Kowalski et al., 2011). Since the 1980s, researchers have noted considerable
changes in this superintendent profile, especially with regards to gender. The percentage
of female superintendents has increased over the past two decades; the percentage
increased to 6.6% in 1992, 13.2% in 2000, and then to 24.1% in 2010 (Glass et al., 2000;
Kowalski et al., 2011). Researchers also found that women were more likely to be
superintendents in large urban districts than in districts generally (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Kowalski et al. (2011) also noted an increase in the percentage of superintendents of
color over the past 30 years. Despite the increase, 94% of the 2010 Decennial Study
participants were white. Superintendents of color often have difficulty accessing the
superintendency and are more likely to work in large urban districts, where districts tend

16
to be more overwhelmed with low student performance and other problems (Kowalski et
al., 2011). As indicated by the researchers’ findings, the superintendent position in urban
school districts tends to be occupied by female superintendents and superintendents of
color.
The modal age for entering the superintendency is between 56 and 60 years old.
With respect to the median age of superintendents, Kowalski et al. (2011) found a 50%
increase in superintendents younger than 46 and a 126% increase in superintendents over
age 60 within the last ten years. Kowalski et al. (2011) also reported that only 50.7% of
the respondents planned to continue to be superintendents in 2015. This finding indicates
a significant number of career exits (including retirements) in the next five years. An
abundance of superintendent openings means increased opportunities for aspiring
superintendents and current superintendents, as well as increased pressure for school
boards to recruit the most qualified superintendent for their district.
In the 2007 State of Superintendency study, superintendents were asked to
identify the top three disincentives for those considering superintendency as a career
(Sutton, McCord, Jordan, & Jordan, 2007). Funding for public schools was ranked first
(54%), followed by family sacrifices (46%) and school board relations/challenges (44%).
Open-ended responses revealed that stress and pressure were also identified as
disincentives, along with diminished local control and support. School board relations
and challenges can be eliminated or their impact as a disincentive decreased if
superintendents possessed the strategies to develop and maintain a strong working
relationship with the school board.

17
Superintendents, especially those in urban school districts, encounter many
challenges. The critical problems superintendents face include, but are not limited to: 1)
low student achievement, 2) high dropout rate, 3) dysfunctional operational systems, 4)
labor issues, and 5) declining state and federal funding (Quinn, 2007). In order to
overcome such problems, superintendents are expected to possess specific skills and
training traditionally required of administrative positions in other sectors.
Superintendent as Chief Executive Officers
Over the years, the superintendency has evolved to work like a business;
superintendents are expected to possess the skills-set and experiences such as those of the
Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) in the Business industry. According to Quinn (2007),
the skills and experiences that superintendents now share with CEOs include:
 Experience in managing large and diverse operations;
 Experience in leading large scale change and culture change;
 Skills in strategic visioning, planning, and accountability;
 Skills in systems and operational management; and
 Expertise in financial management.
It would make sense that superintendents are viewed as CEOs, since many urban school
systems are comparable in size to America’s biggest companies. In fact, the New York
Department of Education ranks among the top of the Fortune 500 list, alongside with
Continental Airlines. Also, it should not be surprising that some superintendent positions
are now filled with non-traditional superintendents from the business sector. Non-
traditional superintendents will be further discussed in the Superintendent Preparation
and Training Programs section of this chapter.

18
Whittle (2005) asserts that CEO stability constitutes a large percentage of their
successes (as cited in Waters & Marzano, 2006). This line of thinking can be used to
examine superintendents’ successes in school districts. CEO stability in major
corporations (e.g. General Electric, Federal Express, Microsoft, and Dell) is contrasted
with superintendent stability in large urban districts (e.g. Kansas City, Washington D.C.,
and New York City). Years of tenure for the above-mentioned successful corporations
range from 11 to 35 years, while the years of tenure in the school districts ranged from
1.4 to 2.5 years. The short-spanned tenure of school superintendents results in frequent
change of leadership. Over the past two years, Kansas City was led by 14
superintendents, Washington D.C by 9 superintendents, and New York City by 8
superintendents. Such instability of superintendent leadership can account for the
problem of low student achievement that many school districts currently face.
Performance of school districts would be enhanced if the stability of superintendents
were to parallel that of the stability of CEO leadership (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Superintendents who are able to extend their tenure are more likely to effect change, and
superintendents who have strong relationships and trust with their school board are more
likely to have longevity in their position. Therefore, superintendents who maintain
strong relationships with their school boards are more likely to bring about positive
change in their school districts.
Superintendent Training and Preparation Programs
Leadership, as defined by Northouse (2007), is “a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p.3). The main
components of this definition of leadership are: 1) leadership is a process, 2) leadership

19
involves influence, 3) leadership takes place in a group setting, and 4) leadership
involves setting goals.
The leadership style of superintendents requires a broad range of skills.
Leadership skills can be defined as the ability to use one’s knowledge and competences
to accomplish a set of goals (Northouse, 2007). Some of these skills include conceptual,
technical, and human relations (Northouse, 2007; Glenn, Hickey, & Sherman, 2009).
Conceptual skills are needed by superintendents to deal with higher-level skills such as
planning, decision-making, and problem solving. Technical skills are needed to engage
in the various functions of the position, while human relations are needed to interact
effectively with stakeholders. Additional skills critical to a superintendent’s success can
be derived from other leadership theories.
The lack of a national curriculum for Superintendents has resulted in different
formal and informal training programs. Formal programs include those that are
sponsored by national, state and regional superintendent membership organizations and
foundations. Informal training programs include peer mentoring and self-study of books,
journal, and web-based informational sites. Formal and informal training for
superintendents are based on numerous leadership theories and framework, including
those of Bolman & Deal (2008), Watkins (2003), Hurley (2006), and Covey (2006).
Conceptual Frameworks
Bolman and Deal: Reframing Organizations
Bolman & Deal’s (2008) frames of leadership can be used to analyze and manage
organizations effectively and from different perspectives. The framework is based on the
premise that organizations are hard to understand and manage because they are complex,

20
surprising, deceptive and ambiguous. Organizations are complex because of the people
involved in them. Organizations are surprising because expectations often differ from
results, and also deceptive because they camouflages the surprises. Altogether,
complexity, unpredictability, and deceptiveness of the organization make it ambiguous.
The four frames of leadership are designed to help provide clarity in a world of messes
that includes complexity, ambiguity, value dilemmas, political pressures, and multiple
constituencies. The frames are: 1) structural, 2) human resource, 3) political, and 4)
symbolic.
The structural frame focuses on the architecture of the organization by ensuring
that people are in the right roles and relationships. The success of structural leaders is
attributed to having the right design for the situation and having the ability to implement
structural changes. Structural leaders are architects and analysts who:
 Do their homework;
 Rethink the relationship of structure, strategy, and environment;
 Focus on implementation; and
 Experiment.
The human resource frame focuses on the relationship between people and
organizations, and centers on what organizations and people do to and for one another.
Organizations need people for their energy and talent, and people need organizations for
the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Human resource leaders deal with issues by changing
people through training, rotation, promotion, or dismissal. Human resource leaders are
catalysts and facilitators who:

21
Communicate their strong belief in people and put people first,
 Maintain visibility and accessibility; and
 Empower others.
The political frame focuses on understanding other’s concerns and interests in
order to gain influence. It involves the process of realistic decision-making and the
allocation of scare resources. Under the political frame, conflict is considered normal
and inevitable, and has its own benefits. One such benefit is that it challenges the status
quo and encourages change. Political leaders are advocates and negotiators who:
 Clarify what they want and what they can get;
 Assess the distribution of power and interests;
 Build relationships and networks; and
 Know how to use their power judiciously.
The symbolic frame focuses on an organization’s culture and how people make
sense of the world they live in. Culture is defined by Schein (1992) as “a pattern of
shared basic assumptions that a group learned as it solved its problems of external
adaptation and integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and
therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and deal in
relation to those problems” (p.12). Cultures within an organization develop over time
and can be deeply rooted (Watkins, 2003). Symbolic activities are considered the
building blocks of culture, which shapes an organization’s identity. Symbolic leaders are
prophets who:

22
Lead by example;
 Use symbols to capture attention;
 Frame experience by offering plausible and hopeful interpretations;
 Communicate a vision that addresses the challenges of the present and
incorporates hope for the future;
 Embed the vision in stories; and
 Respect and use history.
Each of the four frames is incomplete by itself; it is necessary to combine
multiple frames into a comprehensive approach to leadership. Leaders need to assess
their own strengths and weaknesses, as well as that of the organization, to determine the
degree to best integrate and utilize the frames of leadership. Similar with the multiple
roles superintendents are required to take on, superintendents also need to determine
which frames of leadership to apply to yield the maximum results in his/her organization.
Watkins: The First 90 Days
Watkins (2003) offers a ten-step road map to help leaders deal with challenges
faced during a career transitional change. This applies to a first-time superintendent or a
veteran superintendent accepting a position at a new district. Transitions are critical
times that determine the longevity and success of one’s tenure. The strategies for a
successful transition are as follows:
1. Promote oneself;
2. Accelerate one’s learning;
3. Match strategy to situation;
4. Secure early wins;

23
5. Negotiate success;
6. Achieve alignment;
7. Build your team;
8. Create coalitions;
9. Keep one’s balance; and
10. Expedite everyone.
Promoting oneself means embracing the new role by letting go of the past. This
requires reflecting on how one will need to think and act differently. Accelerating one’s
learning calls for systematic and focused learning about the culture and politics of the
organization. It includes creating a learning plan to collect information to deepen one’s
understanding of the organization. A superintendent at a new district would benefit from
knowing how the district functions and the agenda of each board member. Matching
strategy to situation requires diagnosing the situation to clarify its challenges and
opportunities. Securing early wins helps build credibility, including personal credibility.
Personal credibility helps to establish relationships and having a good relationship with
the school board is crucial to ensuring the tenure of a superintendent. Early wins help lay
a foundation for longer-term goals and provide the team with confidence and momentum
(Bradt, Check, & Pedraza, 2009). Negotiating success entails planning for critical
conversations about situations, expectations, style, resources, and personal development.
These conversations are aimed at building a productive relationship with the boss, which,
for the superintendent, is the school board. Achieving alignment requires taking on the
role of the architect to align the organization with its strategy. In order for the group to
achieve its goals, the following five elements of organizational architecture need to work

24
together: 1) strategy, 2) structure, 3) systems, 4) skills, and 5) culture. Building a team
means making tough decisions regarding personnel and selecting the right people for the
right positions. Six criteria can be used to ensure having the right people on board:
1. Competence (e.g. does the person have the technical competence and
experience?);
2. Judgment (e.g. does the person exercise good judgment?);
3. Energy (e.g. does the person bring the right kind of energy?);
4. Focus (e.g. is the person capable of setting priorities?);
5. Relationships (e.g. is the person a team-player?); and
6. Trust (e.g. can the person be trusted to follow through on commitments?).
Creating coalitions is identifying and influencing those whose support is essential for
success and includes identifying opponents to better understand their motives for
resisting and swing voters to figure out how best to persuade them. Keeping one’s
balance means taking the steps to avoid losing perspective, getting isolated, and making
bad calls. Lastly, expediting everyone entails helping everyone else accelerate their own
transitions, so that it can become a collective effort. Watkins cautions that failure to
overcome any of the ten challenges can lead to major problems. For a superintendent,
this can lead to inability to effect change and possible termination of contract by the
school board. Watkins’ ten strategies for a successful transition lend themselves to a 90-
day plan, which specifies priorities and goals and is further discussed in this chapter.
Hurley: The Decision to Trust
Hurley (2006) stresses the importance for leaders to create an environment that
allows for trust to thrive. Trust, as defined by Hurley (2006), is a measure of the quality

25
of a relationship (between two people, between groups of people, or between a person
and an organization). He presents a model as to how the decision to trust is made. Such
a model would benefit superintendents in building strong superintendent-board
relationships. Ten factors are identified; the first three factors concern the decision-
maker (decision-maker factors) and the remaining seven concern aspects of the situation
or the relationship between the two parties (situational factors). The factors are:
1. Risk Tolerance;
2. Level of adjustment;
3. Relative Power;
4. Security;
5. Number of similarities;
6. Alignment of interests;
7. Benevolent concern;
8. Capability;
9. Predictability and integrity; and
10. Level of communication.
The likeliness of decision makers to choose trust is dependent on the combined rating of
the factors. In this case, a superintendent needs to act in ways that provide board
members clear reasons to decide to trust him/her. An environment of trust-building must
be created during the entry period and maintained throughout the superintendent’s tenure.
Covey: The Speed of Trust
Covey (2006) supports Hurley’s (2006) concept of trust building, and maintains
that trust can build and sustain relationship, while lack of trust can destroy and break

26
relationships. Covey (2006) equates trust with confidence and conversely, distrust with
suspicion. In addition, he believes that actions have a greater impact than just words and
offers thirteen ways (behaviors that require a combination of both character and
competence) to help build trust:
1. Talk straight (e.g. get to the point and do not beat around the bush);
2. Demonstrate respect (e.g. show that you care and respect others);
3. Create transparency (e.g. display openness and be genuine);
4. Right wrongs (e.g. make restitutions);
5. Show loyalty (e.g. give credits to others);
6. Deliver results (e.g. get the right things done and establish a track record);
7. Get better (e.g. demonstrate continuous improvement);
8. Confront reality (e.g. share the good news, as well as the bad news);
9. Clarify expectations (e.g., create a share vision);
10. Practice accountability (e.g., hold oneself accountable);
11. Listen first (e.g. wait for your turn to speak),
12. Keep commitments (e.g. do what you say you are going to do), and
13. Extend trust (e.g. shift from “trust” as a noun to trust as a “verb”).
Covey (2006) points out that the quickest way to decrease trust is to violate a behavior of
character, while the quickest way to increase trust is to demonstrate a behavior of
competence. A behavior of competence can be linked to Watkins’ (2003) strategy of
securing early wins to increase others’ confidence in the superintendent. Covey (2006)
also mentions that the thirteen behaviors work together to create a balance (e.g. talk
straight needs to be balanced by demonstrate respect) and cautions that any strength

27
pushed to the extreme can become a weakness. Covey (2006) urges leaders to view
every interaction with every person as a “moment of trust”.
Lack of National Curriculum
A national curriculum currently does not exist for superintendent preparation. As
a result, there exist approximately 600 institutions that offer courses, degrees, or
licensure programs for educational administrators; though not all of them have
superintendent preparation programs (Kowalski et al., 2011). Many advanced leadership
programs are simply an extension of a principal preparation program, resulting in
superintendent courses and programs of study that can vary greatly with regard to subject
content, degree of difficulty, and practicum experiences (Hoyle et al., 2005). Differences
of opinion about superintendents being instructional leaders are also evident in the
inconsistent state policies of professional preparation and licensure (Kowalski, 2005).
Nearly 30 percent of the states have either eliminated the superintendent’s license or
allowed alternative routes to obtaining it. Deregulation of licensing and preparation is
grounded in the belief that being a professional educator is an inconsequential criterion
that discourages highly effective business, political, and military leaders from becoming
superintendents (Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003). Despite the
push for non-traditional superintendents, most superintendents continued to follow the
traditional career path en route to the superintendency via teacher and building-level
principal positions (Kowalski et al., 2011). Even though a national curriculum for
superintendent preparation is lacking, data from the 2010 Decennial study (Kowalski et
al., 2011) show positive opinions regarding respondents’ opinions on their profession
preparation; in fact, the ratings were even more positive than those from the 2000 study.

28
Approximately 77% of females and 78% of males rated their preparation as excellent or
good in 2010, compared to 71% of females and 74% of males in 2000 (Glass et al., 2000;
Kowalski et al., 2011). Kowalski, Peterson, and Fusarelli’s (2009) study on the efficacy
of profession preparation for novice superintendents found that novice reported their
preparation programs to be effective.
Formal Training Programs
Using the “snowball” sampling technique, Teitel (2005) interviewed 12
superintendents to explore attributes of formal programs that appealed to superintendents.
The researcher found that such programs were created and funded through different
sources. These sources include national, state and regional superintendent membership
organizations, non-profit/for-profit organizations, university-based programs, and
foundations. The following training programs were included in this study:
 National, State and Regional Superintendent Membership Organizations
o American Association of School Administrators – supported by the Wallace
Foundation to provide programs for new and aspiring superintendents;
o New Superintendent Academy provided by New Jersey Association of
School Administrators – offered six one-day seminars over the year on
issues pertaining to the first year superintendents’ experience;
o Project Leadership, hosted by Washington Association of School
Administrators – offered a statewide in-service cohort program with a four-
year cycle of learning for superintendents;

29
o Western States Benchmark Consortium – formed for professional
development and focused on learning of its member districts, especially in
the implementation of accountability;
 Other Non-profit Organizations
o Aspen Institute Program on Education – brought together non-traditional
superintendents, seasoned superintendents, retired superintendents,
researchers and corporate thinkers;
o Connecticut Center for School Change – offered a Superintendents’
Network to develop the practice of conducting “walkthroughs” for
instructional improvement;
o The Council of Great Schools – offered programs specific to
superintendents as part of an urban-focused educational agenda;
o Center for Creative Leadership – customized existing leadership programs
for superintendents;
o Institute for Education Leadership – offered programs that combined
superintendents with other school and community leaders;
o WestEd – facilitated the Executive Leadership Center for California
Superintendents;
 University-based Programs
o Columbia University (New Superintendent Seminar Series at Teachers
College) – focused on collaborative inquiry on leadership;
o Harvard University (Change Leadership Group) –offered a program with
ties to a Gates-sponsored district change network in Washington State;

30
o Harvard University (Public Education Leadership Program) - offered
collaboration between the Education and Business schools;
o Superintendent Leadership Program
o University of Pennsylvania (School Study Councils) – offered access to
Penn professors;
o University of Pittsburgh – offered a program with ties to the Western
Pennsylvania School Superintendent Forum;
o Stanford University (Executive Program for Educational Leaders) – offered
collaboration between the Education and Business schools;
 Foundations
o BellSouth Foundation (Superintendents Leadership Network) – worked in
11 states in the southeast;
o Gates Foundation – works with 10 districts and a diocese in Washington
State;
o Danforth Foundation (Western Pennsylvania School Superintendents
Forum);
 For–profit Companies
o The Educational Research Development Institute – brought together groups
of superintendents semi-annually for networking and input on refining
corporate product and services; and
o The District Management Council – provided management consulting
reports to superintendents for sustained training and networking support.

31
Teitel (2005) found that the above-mentioned programs had the following common
features:
 A “safe space”;
 Peers and fellow participants;
 Personal learning about one’s own leadership;
 Practical useful ideas that made connection to their work.
While some programs are designed only for superintendents, other programs have chosen
to incorporate the involvement of non-superintendents (others from the superintendent’s
district or outsiders such as business executives, academics, and former superintendents).
While the researcher noted that formal evaluations of these programs are rare to
nonexistent, there is no question about the positive impact they have on superintendent
participants.
According to Kowalski et al. (2011), state superintendent organizations and
American Association of School Administrators (AASA) have a long history of serving
the needs and interests of superintendents. Of those surveyed in the 2010 Decennial
study of the American School Superintendent, 89% were members of a state
superintendent association and 76.4% were members of AASA. These respondents also
indicated that the three most attended programs for continuing education were offered by
the state superintendent association, followed by state government, and AASA. In
addition, 83% of all respondents found professional development opportunities to have
been useful or very useful. This is a significant increase compared to the 54% useful or
very useful rating in 2000 (Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski et al., 2011). Positive useful
ratings, as well as high attendance rates, of professional development signal

32
superintendents’ willingness to learn and implement new strategies for effective
leadership.
The Broad Superintendents Academy
The Broad Superintendents Academy, created in 2001 by philanthropist Eli
Broad, is a highly competitive and selective 10-month program designed to prepare
traditional and nontraditional candidates to lead urban public school systems (Quinn,
2007). Candidates include CEOs and senior executives from business, non-profit,
military, government, and education backgrounds. Academy participants, while in their
current jobs, attend weekend training sessions addressing:
 CEO leadership (e.g. using skills, strengths, and vision to lead);
 Corporate Profit (e.g. aligning of program to promote student achievement);
 Connections (e.g. establishing relationships with key stakeholders);
 Competence (e.g. managing an organization); and
 Career (e.g. obtaining and maintaining a superintendency).
Upon completion of program, Broad Academy graduates are provided with:
 Contract support (e.g. feedback on employment contract);
 Governance retreats (e.g. ways to establish communication protocol and standards
of practice between superintendent and school board);
 Functional area audits (e.g. snapshot of instructional, communications, human
resources, and other areas);
 Superintendent support (e.g. executive coach);
 Facilitated evaluations (e.g. constructive performance feedback).

33
In addition, graduates are supported in developing their plan of entry into the
superintendency. The plan of entry addresses the actions taken by the superintendent
during the first 90 days on the job, and is considered critical to long-term success.
CALSA- Formal Mentoring Program
The California Association of Latino Superintendents and Administrators
(CALSA) created a two-year mentoring program that aims to: 1) help develop and
preserve the next generation of education leaders, 2) improve leadership skills, 3)
enhance career development through networking, 4) promote diversity and equity, and 5)
provide ongoing long-term support (California Association of Latino Superintendents
and Administrators, 2009). Protégés meet with mentors at least bi-weekly to work on
attaining pre-set goals.
Informal Training Programs
Peer mentoring can also be considered one type of informal training that current
superintendents engage in. Mentors and mentoring are important aspects of any
profession and an important link between the academic and practical preparation for the
job (Sutton et al., 2007, Kowalski et al., 2011). In the 2000 Study of the American
Superintendency, 80 percent of the superintendents surveyed considered themselves
mentors to those who aspired to be superintendents (Glass et al., 2000). Superintendents
considered mentoring/coaching programs very important for both aspiring and sitting
superintendents (Sutton et al., 2007, Kowalski et al., 2011). The most common
mentoring/coaching activity in which superintendents participated was mentoring from
neighboring superintendents. In the 2007 State of the Superintendency study, 61% of
respondents reported that they received assistance from neighboring colleagues over the

34
last three years. The most common source of mentoring/coaching activities in which
superintendents engaged was state association or organization. Approximately 39
percent participated in these types of activities over the last three year.
AASA Publications- For New and Aspiring Superintendents
AASA offers written and electronic publications for new and aspiring
superintendents. The goal of AASA is to instill knowledge, build skills, and develop
leadership capabilities. Through the support of the Wallace Foundation, New
Superintendents E-Journal articles provide individuals another look on current issues
important to superintendents early in their tenure. The New Superintendents Journal,
through the support of Pearson Education, is an annual publication on topics identified by
new superintendents as areas where support is needed. Other organizations (e.g.
CALSA, ASCD) also provide e-resources for formal training.
Entry Period
Each new leadership role requires time to adjust to a different culture, operating
process, support system, and management system within the organization (Neff & Citrin,
2005). This period of time is defined as the entry period. The entry period can range
from 90 days (Watkins, 2003) to 100 days (Neff & Citrin, 2005; Bradt et al., 2009). The
significance of the entry period dates back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as
president of the United States. His actions, during the first 100 days as president, helped
America recover from the devastation brought on by the Great Depression. This special
frame of time now gauges the success of leaders in all industries; it has to do with
whether “leaders succeed or fail in the long term” (Lytle, 2009, p.9).

35
Watkins (2003) views transitions as periods of opportunity – a chance for leaders
to start afresh and to make needed changes in an organization. He also cautions that
transitions can also be periods of acute vulnerability if the leader lacks an established
working relationship and a detailed understanding of the new job role. The entry period
is a critical time for superintendents to establish the foundations of trust and the basis of a
strong working relationship with the school board. Failure to do so can hinder the
superintendent’s success and ability to implement changes.
Board-Superintendent Relationship
Fusarelli (2006) cites from literature on school board and superintendent
relationships that the school board’s increased involvement in the daily operations and
administration of the district has made it more difficult for superintendents to provide
strong leadership. In this study, the researcher emphasizes the importance of the
superintendent’s willingness to invest time in cultivating relationships with key
stakeholders. To support Fusarelli’s (2006) findings, Sanaghan & Lytle (2008) posit that
relationship building may be the most important thing a superintendent can do to ensure a
successful transition. In order to lead effectively, a superintendent needs to have a
positive, constructive, and authentic relationship with people (Townsend et al., 2007;
Sanaghan & Lytle, 2008). The fact is, the nature of relationships developed between a
superintendent and school board members often determine real and perceived
administrative roles (Kowalski et al., 2011).
In a study exploring motivations for school board memberships and conceptions
of power held by school board members, Mountford (2004) reports role confusion as the
most commonly cited reason for difficult school board-superintendent relationships.

36
However, other researchers maintain that role confusion among board members is not the
cause, but simply a symptom of the problem (Mountford, 2004). Another reason for a
strained relationship is a lack of board training (Mountford, 2004). To prevent role
confusion, Adamson (2010) suggest superintendents take a pro-active approach in
working with the board to develop and participate in a board-member orientation
program. Kowalski et al. (2011) reported the superintendent as the most frequent
provider of board-member orientation programs, followed by state school board
associations, other board members, and written materials. Compared to the 2000 study,
superintendents were almost twice as likely to have provided orientation for new board
members. It is important to note that respondents were able to select all response options
that applied (e.g. both the board member and superintendent could have been the
provider at the same board-member orientation). A well-planned orientation provides
board members with information that will posture them to be effective in the board and
also build the trust factor (Adamson, 2010). Townsend et al. (2007) also concurs that
coaching, training, and responding to board members’ needs help to build trust within the
organization.
A superintendent’s success in implementing change is dependent on the
relationships established with the school board (Fusarelli, 2006). In a review of literature
on school board and superintendent relations, Fusarelli (2006) noted that a precarious
board-superintendent relationship could have the following consequences:
 Deter school improvement;
 Increase conflict over instructional goals;
 Weaken stability and morale;

37
 Negatively influence superintendent’s credibility with board members; and
 Impede reform efforts.
Although much is discussed about the difficulties found in relationships between
superintendents and its board members, the 2010 decennial study found that 97% of
surveyed superintendents indicated maintaining positive relationships with all or most
board members (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Importance of Communication
Glenn et al. (2009) found that communicator was perceived as the top
management trait by superintendent search consultants. The 2010 decennial study also
indicated that effective communicator was the role most heavily emphasized by school
boards (Kowalski et al., 2011). In fact, many of the top traits are interrelated with
communicator as a common factor (e.g. communicating vision was ranked sixth).
Kowalski et al. (2011) observes that poor communication can adversely affect the best
intentions of superintendents. Therefore, effective superintendents are observed to focus
on their communicative behaviors. The amount of time superintendents spent
communicating directly with school board members has increased since 2000 (Glass et
al., 2000). Approximately 63% of all respondents indicated spending fewer than 6 hours
per week in direct communication with board members. Superintendents employed in
the smallest-enrollment districts (i.e. below 300 students) were more likely to spend less
time in direct communication with board members. With the advancement of
technology, there are other forms of non-direct communication that might be utilized
(e.g. texting, group phone call, email).

38
Townsend et al. (2007) stress establishing clear agreements with board members
regarding the communication links that will be most effective for each member’s
personal style and preference. He also believes superintendent success stems from
communicating openly with trust and integrity and providing equal access to information.
Another form of communication is the board’s evaluation process of the
superintendent. Regular written evaluations help keep the lines of communication open
and provide a model of best practice (Townsend et al., 2007, Kowalski et al, 2011).
Honest conversations between board members and the superintendent provide clarity of
goals needed to move forward. Kowalski et al. (2011) suggest performance evaluations
contain both formative and summative provisions and serve as a means of superintendent
professional development. Such evaluations should inform the superintendent about
expectations and improve board-superintendent relations. Results from the 2010
decennial study indicate that 80% of respondents are evaluated by the school board
annually (Kowalski et al., 2011). Only 13% of respondents reported being evaluated
more than once yearly and approximately 66% reported receiving both formative and
summative evaluations. Sixty-nine percent of superintendents received an excellent
rating in the 2000 study (Glass et al., 2000), while only 53% of respondents in the 2010
study (Kowalski et al., 2011) reported the same rating. The decline might be attributed to
more demands on the superintendents by the school board due to the increased challenges
in the current education climate (e.g. increased accountability, decreasing resources).
The Entry Plan: A Form of Communication
The entry plan for superintendents has its origins in the business model of
transition plans; strategic planning is cited as the CEO’s single most effective method of

39
moving an organization forward (Townsend et al., 2007). The entry plan is one of the
many communication tools used between the superintendent and the school board. Jentz
and Murphy (2005) suggests that superintendents “hit the ground learning” with the use
of an entry plan. An entry plan is designed to counter the external pressures and internal
need to jump reflex problem solving by slowing things down (Jentz & Murphy, 2005).
An entry plan serves many purposes. According to Neely, Berube, & Wilson (2002), use
of an entry plan demonstrates that the superintendent is an active listener and values the
community’s insights. In addition, it provides the opportunity for the superintendent and
the board member to work together to review existing practices by examining the district
from an objective perspective. An entry plan results in gained knowledge, trust, and
credibility. It provides clarity and understanding (Townsend et al., 2007).
Conclusion
Over the past century, the role of the school superintendent has undergone
significant changes. Superintendents were once considered to be teacher scholars –
instructional leader and teacher of teacher (Callahan, 1966; Kowalski, 2005). As the
needs of the society changed, so did the roles of superintendents. Today, the task of the
superintendent is more daunting than ever. Superintendents are now faced with
complexities and challenges of political pressures and conflicting interests, unpredictable
school finances, standards-based reform, and greater demands for accountability of
increased student achievement through state and federal legislations (e.g. No Child
Behind Act of 2001) (Bredeson & Kose, 2007).
A lack of national curriculum for superintendent preparation has resulted in many
forms of formal and informal training programs. Differences of opinions exist regarding

40
the licensing and preparation of superintendents. The Broad Foundation (2003)
encourages the training of superintendents from non-education backgrounds; the Broad
Superintendents Academy recruits candidates from CEOs and senior executives from
business, non-profit, military, government, as well as education background. The
academy focuses on linking CEO leadership with that of education and emphasizes the
plan of entry during the first 90 days on the job.
The entry period of a superintendent is of great importance. Securing early wins
during this time will not only help boost confidence, but will also pave the way for a
successful transition. Clear communication between the superintendent and school
boards fosters a strong relationship, which makes it easier for superintendents to effect
necessary change in the organization. Communication can exist in many forms; an entry
plan is one type of communication that facilitates relationship building. A strong
superintendent-board relationship ultimately builds trust and confidence.

41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The role of the superintendent as a leader has become more and more demanding.
The challenges superintendents face can strain the relationships between superintendent
and the school board, leading to attrition and frustration of the superintendent. The
purpose of this study was to identify strategies and behaviors that successful
superintendents used to build strong relationships with their school boards within their
entry period. For the purpose of this study, the research team used entry period and
transitional period synonymously to refer to the first 90 to 100 days in the position of the
superintendent. The previous two chapters provided an overview of the study and a
review of literature that focused on the history, challenges, and leadership of the
superintendency. This chapter focuses on the components of the study: 1) design, 2)
sample and population, 3) instrumentation, 4) data collection, and 5) data analysis.
Research Team
The research team for this study consisted of a thematic dissertation group
comprised of nine doctoral candidates from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California (USC). All nine students shared a common interest in
studying the successful leadership strategies superintendents utilize during their entry
period. Under the direction and guidance of Dr. Michael F. Escalante, the research team
met monthly for eighteen months to collaboratively plan and design this study.
During the monthly planning sessions, the research team reviewed several
leadership conceptual frameworks based on the works of Bolman and Deal (Four Frames
for Effective Leadership), Watkins (The First 90 Days), Hurley (Model for Trust) and
Covey (Behaviors that Establish Trust) (see Table 3.1). The conceptual frameworks

42
provided a base and focus for developing the research questions. In addition to
developing the research questions and purpose of study, the research team came up with
the criteria for selecting superintendents to be included in the study.
Table 3.1: Synthesis of Conceptual Framework
Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) Four
Frames for
Effective
Leadership
Watkins’ (2003)
The First 90 Days
Hurley’s (2006)
Model for Trust
(10 Factors)
Covey’s (2006)
Behaviors that
Establish Trust
Structural Leaders:
 Do their
homework
 Rethink the
relationship of
structure,
strategy &
environment
 Focus on
implementation
 Experiment
 Match strategy
to situation
 Achieve
alignment
 Risk tolerance
(e.g., spend
more time
explaining
options and
risk)
 Alignment of
interest
individual and
organizational
interest
 Talk straight
 Deliver results
Human Resource
Leaders:
 Communicate
their strong
beliefs in
people
 Put people first
 Are visible &
accessible
 Empower the
people around
them
 Negotiate
success
 Accelerate your
learning
 Build your
team
 Expedite
everyone
 Security
 Benevolent
concern
 Predictability
and integrity
 Level of
communication
(e.g., increase
frequency and
candor)
 Level of
adjustment
 Demonstrate
respect
 Listen first
 Demonstrate
respect
 Get better by
learning &
seeking
feedback
 Extend trust
 Right wrongs

43
Table 3.1: Synthesis of Conceptual Framework, continued
Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) Four
Frames for
Effective
Leadership
Watkins’ (2003)
The First 90 Days
Hurley’s (2006)
Model for Trust
(10 Factors)
Covey’s (2006)
Behaviors that
Establish Trust
Political Leaders:
 Clarify what
they want
 Assess the
distribution of
power
 Focus energy
on building
relationships &
networks
Persuade first,
negotiate second,
& coerce only if
necessary
 Secure early
wins
 Create
coalitions
 Relative power
 Capability
 Confront
reality by
addressing
issues
 Practice
accountability
by holding
oneself and
others
accountable
 Create
transparency
Symbolic Leaders:
 Lead by
example
 Frame
experiences
 Capture
attention
 Embed vision
in a story
 Respect and
use history
 Number of
Similarities
 Clarify
expectations by
crating vision
and agreements
 Show loyalty
Table 3.1. Conceptual Frameworks. From Reframing Organizations, by L.G. Bolman and T.E. Deal, 2008,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.355-372; The First 90 Days, by M. Watkins, 2003, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press, pp. 12-15; The Decision to Trust, by R. F. Hurley, 2006, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 55-62; and The Speed of Trust, by S. M. R. Covey, 2006, New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 127-
229.
Research Questions
In order to examine the strategies that successful superintendents used to build
strong relationships with their boards within their entry period, the following research
questions were developed:

44
1. What strategies and behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal and informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry
into the superintendency?
Research Design
A qualitative approach was used in the collection and analysis of the research
data. Survey data and interview data were collected. This approach allowed the
researcher to converge the data gathered for a comprehensive analysis of the research
problem (Creswell, 2009). According to Patton (2002), a qualitative approach offers a
“depth of understanding of the cases and situations studied” (p.14). The research team
selected a qualitative approach because the nature of the research questions lends itself to
the data collection from case studies (e.g. surveys and interviews), and it provides data
for triangulation, which can strengthen the study (Patton, 2002).
Population and Sample
Superintendents
Criterion sampling, commonly used for “quality assurance efforts,” was utilized
in this study (Patton, 2002, p.238). The parameters for the population and selection of
the sample were determined collaboratively and agreed upon by the research team. The
parameters for the selection of the sample consisted of the following:
1. A superintendent working in a district with an Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
of at least 2,000 students.

45
2. A superintendent working in a district with an Academic Performance Index
(API) of at least 800 with any growth over a three-year period OR a
superintendent working in a district with an API under 800 that has had at least a
net growth of 30 points over a three-year period (either within their current
district or previous district).
3. A superintendent who is highly recommended by an executive search firm.
4. A superintendent who is an external hire.
The above-mentioned criteria are based on the research team’s definition of a successful
superintendent.
California, as of the 2009-2010 school year, was made up of a total of 963 school
districts (California Department of Education, 2010). Approximately 35 percent were
unified school districts, 57% were elementary districts, and only 8% were high school
districts. Superintendents from all three types of districts were included in this study.
According to EdSource (2008), only 10% of California school districts (during
the 2006-2007 school year) had an ADA of over 15,000 students. Urban California
districts with an ADA of over 50,000 constituted only 1% of the districts, while 46% of
the districts ranged between 1,000 and 14,000 in student enrollment. Districts with at
least an ADA of 2,000 were included to ensure that superintendents selected for this
study were from districts of various sizes and district types. Districts with an ADA lower
than 2,000 were excluded from this study because superintendent responsibilities in such
small districts tend to be combined with those of other administrative positions.
Superintendents who were promoted within the district are excluded from this
study to prevent biased results. The focus of the study is on what superintendents do

46
during their entry period to build a strong relationship with the board; those hired within
the district would already have established strong relationships with board members prior
to becoming a superintendent.
Board President/Board Member Designees
School board president of the selected superintendent’s district were included in
this study. When the board president was not available, another member of the school
board took the board president’s place. The purpose of including the board
president/board member designee’s responses in this study was to ensure the validity of
the superintendent’s responses.
Instrumentation
To gain a complete picture of the relationship between the superintendent and the
school board, information was collected from both the superintendent and the board
president (or board member designee if the board president was not available). The
instruments used to collect this information include surveys and structured interviews.
Information collected, along with what is known from the literature base, was used for
triangulation.
Pilot Testing
The three research questions developed are based on the purpose of this study.
After the research questions were finalized, the research team worked on developing the
tools for data collection. A set of survey questions, to be used with superintendents and
board president/board member designee, was created. In addition, a set of interview
questions, guided by the conceptual frameworks, was developed.

47
Each member of the research team piloted the surveys with a superintendent
(excluded from the study for not meeting one of the criteria for successful
superintendent) and his/her board president/board member designee. According to
Creswell (2009), pilot tests help in determining flaws, limitations, or other weaknesses in
instruments such as the surveys for this study. The results were shared with the rest of
the team members to establish content validity and reliability of the questions.
Modifications and changes to questions, as needed, were made before surveys were used
for data collection.
Superintendent/Board President or Board Member Designee Surveys
The research team created a 20-question Superintendent survey addressing the
three research questions (Appendix A). The survey questions are closed-ended and
guided by the conceptual frameworks of Bolman and Deal, Watkins, Hurley and Covey.
The survey asked superintendents about the use of leadership styles, communication
strategies, and entry plans. The Board President/Board Member Designee survey is
similar to that of the superintendent survey (see Appendix B). The questions in this
survey paralleled those in the Superintendent survey and asked for the board
president/board member designee’s perception of the superintendent’s actions during the
entry period. Data collected from the board president/board member designee were
compared to data collected from the superintendent.
During the development of the surveys, a matrix was created to cross-reference
the survey questions with the three research questions. This matrix served to ensure that
each of the 20 survey questions was linked to the research questions so it would provide
pertinent data for the analysis of this study (see Appendix C).

48
Superintendent/Board President or Member Designee Interview Guides
An interview guide ensured that the “same basic lines of inquiry are pursued with
each person interviewed” and allowed the interviewer the freedom to build a
conversation on a predetermined focus (Patton, 2002, p.343). Interview guides were
designed using the conceptual frameworks identified by the research team as a result of
the literature review, and guided by the three research questions. One interview guide
was used with the superintendent (Appendix D) and another with the board president or
board member designee (Appendix E).
Data Collection Procedures
The data were collected from selected superintendents, based on the criteria
determined by the research team, and their school board president or board member
designee. Data collection took place in two phases. During the first phase, surveys were
administered. Each research member sent a Superintendent survey packet to his/her
assigned ten superintendents. Each packet contained the Superintendent recruitment
letter (Appendix F), Superintendent Survey, and a copy of the Board President/Board
Member Designee survey. Also in the Superintendent survey packet was the Board
President/Board Member Designee packet, consisting of a Board President/Board
Member Designee recruitment letter (Appendix G) and survey. The superintendent was
asked to give the packet to his or her board president/board member designee. The
research team sent out 180 surveys (90 Superintendent surveys and 90 Board
President/Board Member Designee surveys). Collected data were organized, coded, and
analyzed. Results from surveys guided any final modifications to interview guides for
the second phase of data collection.

49
Interview data were collected during the second phase of data collection. Each
research member conducted an in-depth study on one of the superintendents from phase
one data collection. In order for superintendents to be included for phase two of this
study, a survey response was required from both the superintendent and his/her board
president/board member designee. This in-depth study consisted of one-on-one
interview, using the interview guides, with the superintendent and also with the board
president/board member designee. Interviews were audio-recorded. Data from
interviews were organized, coded, and analyzed.
Data Analysis
After the data collection process, the research team met to calibrate the results of
the data collected. Survey data results were compiled on an excel spreadsheet. Interview
results were coded by themes and were used to create a detailed description of the
superintendent (from the perspective of the superintendent and the board president or
board member designee). The group hoped to validate findings by comparing the overall
results of each case study, as well as identify trends across the group as a whole.
Ethical Considerations
Participation in the study was voluntary. All instruments used in this study were
cleared through the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The appropriate protocols
for research using human subjects were utilized to ensure that the study was conducted
without physical or emotional harm to the subjects.
Summary
Chapter three focused on how the study was designed, developed, and used to
identify successful strategies and behaviors utilized by superintendents during the entry

50
period to build strong relationships and trust with the school board. The study involved
two phases of data collection: 1) the use of surveys and 2) the use of interview guides.
Collecting data from both superintendents and the board president/board member
designee, along with research literature, allowed for the triangulation of data. The
findings from the data collection and analysis of the data, along with a discussion of each
research question and related findings, is presented in Chapter Four.

51
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The role of the superintendent as a leader has become harder to fulfill as the
demand for accountability continues to dominate the field of education. Among the
myriad responsibilities of the superintendency, superintendents are expected to increase
student achievement, as well as manage the fiscal operations. The longevity of the
superintendent’s job becomes more volatile as the demands by the school board and the
community increase. Lack of tenure, along with increased responsibilities and
unsatisfied board members, result in high superintendency turnovers. A successful entry
period (the first 90 to 100 days of the superintendency) can serve to promote a
superintendent’s credibility as a leader, thereby extending the superintendent’s job
duration and allowing the superintendent more time to achieve his/her goals for the
district.
This study was conducted by a cohort of researchers from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California interested in learning about the
strategies and behaviors superintendents utilized to build trust and relationships with their
school board. It was designed to further the knowledge on the importance of relationship
building between superintendents and their school boards, and to identify conceptual
frameworks and strategies on superintendent leadership. The study examined existing
conceptual frameworks on effective leadership from the realms of business and
education. Based on the literature review, the cohort developed the following three key
research questions that would guide the study. The research questions are as follows:
1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?

52
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into
the superintendency?
This chapter will present the results of the survey and in-depth interviews. It will
provide a demographic profile overview of the districts and its participants, and present
findings and identify trends that correspond to each research question.
Demographic Profile
This study used both survey and personal interview to collect data. The survey
was sent to California superintendents who met the cohort’s criteria for successful
superintendents (n=90), and corresponding board presidents/board member designees
(referred to as board members in this chapter) (n=90). The survey was delivered via U.S.
mail. Upon completion and return of the survey, a database was created for data analysis.
The survey generated a total of 64 responses (71.1%) from superintendents and 48
responses (53.3%) from board members. A matched survey response is defined as
having both responses from superintendent and board member of the same district. Of
the 46 matched survey responses (51.1%), each researcher then chose one superintendent
and corresponding board member for in-depth interviews. The interviews took place
separately for confidentiality purposes on different days within the same week. Both
interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded.
Survey Participants
Demographic data provides an overview on the survey participants and the
districts they serve. District demographic data was aggregated by total number of student
enrollment (ADA), geographic location, and district type. The district with the lowest

53
enrollment had an ADA of 2,193, compared to the largest district, which had an ADA of
52,051. Districts with ADA of less than 2,000 were not included in this study. Table 4.1
summarizes district size based on total student enrollment.
Table 4.1: Total Number of Student Enrollment
ADA
Frequency
n=64
Percentage
2000-9999 38 59.4
10,000-19,999 12 18.8
20,000-29,999 10 15.6
30,000-50,000+ 4 6.3

This study only focused on superintendents working in districts in California. It
included districts from counties as far north as Alameda and as far south as San Diego.
The participating districts also are representative of the proportion of the different types
of districts that currently exist in the state: unified, elementary, and high school districts.
Table 4.2 depicts the geographic breakdown of the school districts in each county, while
Table 4.3 shows the different types of school districts surveyed, compared to the
percentage of California school districts based on the 2009-2010 school year.
Table 4.2: Number of School Districts per County in California
County
Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Alameda 2 3.1
Contra Costa 3 4.7
El Dorado 1 1.6
Imperial 1 1.6
Kern 5 7.8
Los Angeles 19 29.7
Marin 1 1.6

54
Table 4.2: Number of School Districts per County in California, continued
Orange 9 14.1
Riverside 5 7.8
Sacramento 1 1.6
San Bernardino 1 1.6
San Diego 8 12.5
San Luis Obispo 1 1.6
San Mateo 1 1.6
Santa Barbara 1 1.6
Santa Clara 3 4.7
Santa Cruz 1 1.6
Ventura 1 1.6

Table 4.3: Types of School Districts
Districts Surveyed California Districts *
Type of School Districts
Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=963
Percentage
Unified 30 46.9 334 34.7
Elementary 28 43.8 546 56.7
High 6 9.4 83 8.6
* Based on number of school districts in 2009-2010. From California Department of Education District
Organization Handbook, 2010.
Demographic data on superintendent participants were disaggregated by gender
and attainment of doctorate degree. Distinction is not made between of doctorate degrees
(e.g. Ed.D., Ph.D.). Table 4.4 provides a comparison of the superintendent participants in
this study and the superintendent participants in the 2010 Decennial Study (Kowalski et
al., 2011). The majority of the superintendent participants were male (71.9%), which
corresponds with Kowalski et al.’s (2011) study where 75.9% of the participants were
male. Table 4.5 indicates that more than half of the superintendent participants held a

55
doctorate degree (60.9%) and, of these, 64.1% were male. In Kowalski et al.’s (2011)
study, only 45.3% of its superintendents a doctorate.
Table 4.4: Superintendent Participant Gender
Superintendents
2010 Decennial Study
Superintendents*
Gender
Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=1867
Percentage
Male 46 71.9 1417 75.9
Female 18 28.1 450 24.1
* Based on Kowalski et al.’s (2011) American School Superintendent 2010 Decennial
Study

Table 4.5: Attainment of Doctorate Degree by Gender
Possesses Doctorate
Degree
Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Yes 39 60.9
No 25 39.1

Gender
Frequency
n=39
Percentage
Male 25 64.1
Female 14 35.9
Interview Participants
To protect the confidentiality of the data collected, all district and participant
names were changed. The district chosen for this case study is Abajo Unified School
District (AUSD), and Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson were
participants of the in-depth interviews.
Abajo Unified School District is located in Southern California. The district
office was built within the past decade on the outskirts of the city, in the business park
area situated away from the town center. The location of the district office building was
determined by the previous superintendent. According to the AUSD Fast Facts Profile, a

56
total of 22,711 students are serviced by 20 schools: ten K-5 elementary schools, one K-6
elementary school, four 6-8 middle schools, three comprehensive high schools, one
continuation high school, and one independent study academy. The district also offers
adult education, early childhood education, child care, and a Parent Center.
While other districts experienced declining student enrollment, AUSD
experienced growth over the last decade, with enrollment increasing over 65% from
13,631 in 2001 to 22,711 in 2011. Twenty-eight percent of students qualify for free or
reduced lunch, and approximately 80% of 2011 high school graduates had plans to
pursue higher education. The two largest subgroups serviced at AUSD are White (47.5%)
and Hispanic (32.5%). AUSD’s API score was 843 for the 2010-2011 school year and
has shown continuous improvement from previous years. In fact, eleven of the district’s
twenty schools exceeded the 800 API target goal.
Superintendent Adams is currently in his sixth year of superintendency at AUSD,
beginning his tenure in July of 2006. With over thirty years of experience in Education,
Superintendent Adams started his career as a fifth grade teacher in Wyoming and has
served as superintendent in two other states, Missouri and Colorado. Having had
experience in the military as an army officer and leaving the education field to venture
into the private sector for alternative fuel, his career path does not follow the exact
traditional path to the superintendency. Nevertheless, Superintendent Adams has worked
as a teacher, principal, district assistant superintendent, and a state assistant
superintendent for finance. Superintendent Adams holds a doctorate degree in School
Administration and completed post-doctorate coursework at Harvard Graduate School.

57
Board President Anderson was in his seventh year on the AUSD school board,
and was actively involved in the search and hiring of Superintendent Adams. He was one
of the two board members who insisted on conducting a national search to fill the AUSD
superintendency, while others wanted to simply limit the search to current California
superintendents. Having taught art at the high school and college level for 34 years,
Board President Anderson was retired and focused his efforts on creating and improving
the music and arts program in the schools.
Research Question One
Research question one asked, What strategies/behaviors are successful
superintendents using to build strong relationships and trust with the board during their
entry period?
The entry period is of great significance, as it is considered a critical time for
superintendents to establish the foundation of a strong relationship and trust with the
school board. It is a transitional period for leaders to make adjustments and changes to
organizations (Watkins, 2003; Neff & Citrin, 2005). Data analysis revealed two common
themes that relate to strategies/behaviors successful superintendents used to build strong
relationships and trust with the board: 1) entry plans were used by the majority of
superintendents, and 2) use of communication was considered a key factor in building
trust with the board.
Use of Entry Plan
Survey data revealed that, of the 64 superintendents surveyed, 90.6% stated
having an entry plan. The existence of an entry plan is confirmed by survey responses of
75% of board members. More than half of the superintendent responses (54.5%)

58
indicated that there was discussion of an entry plan during the interview/recruitment
process, while only 46% of the board member responses support this. Both
Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson indicated that Superintendent
Adams had an entry plan and that it was discussed during the interview/recruitment
process. In fact, Superintendent Adams’ entry plan even called for actions that occurred
prior to him being superintendent. During the interview, Superintendent Adams shared,
“part of my entry plan is that I asked the board to let me come a month before I start- to
hire me as a consultant.” He further explained the reason for such request:
For one month, I did nothing but watch and visit with my staff. The main reason
I did that, first of all, [was that] I was new to California and there was a lot about
the state that I didn’t understand that I am still learning. That month allowed me
not only to understand the systems that were in place and get a really good feel
for them. But the other reason that I spent that month observing was I was trying
to decide if my senior staff was going to be senior staff when I took over as
school superintendent…. I spent that month getting to know every one of these
people that were going to be my senior staff…I’m talking about my assistant
superintendents and whether or not it was going to stay organized the way we
were or maybe to change that up because the best opportunity to make that
change to an organizational structure is right after you get there.

Board President Anderson confirmed what Superintendent Adams shared:
He [Superintendent Adams] said that he intended to have far more oversight over
the senior staff and he wanted to get into the nuts and bolts of why things had
been decided where they were decided. He wanted to know, for example, when
he got here, why there’s no connection between this part of the building on the
second floor and that part of the building on the second floor…Things like that he
wanted to know about and so some of the things that he was concerned about
taking control, in his way of taking control.

Perceived Initial Challenges
On the survey, superintendents and board members were asked to rank the top
three initial challenges they perceived the superintendent would face. Survey data from
superintendent responses revealed that the top three challenges were: 1) board

59
relationships (53%), 2) fiscal operations (50%), and 3) labor relations/collective
bargaining (41%). Survey data from board member responses indicated some similarity:
1) vision/strategic planning (60%), 2) fiscal operations (48%), and 3) a tie between labor
relations/collective bargaining and student achievement (both 44%). While the top initial
challenge differs among survey responses from superintendent and board members, the
latter two challenges (fiscal operations and labor relations/collective bargaining) are
aligned. Table 4.6 shows the initial challenges from both superintendent and board
member response. The survey also asked whether the board and the superintendent
prioritized the same challenges. Both superintendent responses (65.6%) and board
member responses (81.3%) indicated yes, that indeed they felt the same challenges were
prioritized by each other.
Table 4.6: Initial Challenges at the Start of Entry Period
Superintendents Board Member
Challenge
Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=48
Percentage
Board Relationships 34 53.1 12 25.0
Community/Business
Relations 11 17.2

14 29.2
Facilities 18 28.1

7 14.6
Fiscal Operations 32 50.0 23 47.9
Labor Relations/Collective
Bargaining
26 40.6

21 43.8
Media Relations 1 1.6

1 2.1
Parent Groups/PTA 5 7.8 5 10.4
Student Achievement 23 35.9 21 43.8
Vision/Strategic Planning 25 39.1 29 60.4
Other 9 14.1 3 6.3

60
Similar to overall survey responses, both Superintendent Adams and Board
President Anderson also felt they each prioritized the same challenges. However, that is
not the case. Superintendent Adams ranked vision/strategic planning, board
relationships, and parent group/PTA as his initial challenges, while Board President
Anderson perceived board relationships, vision/strategic planning, and
community/business relations to be Superintendent Adams’ initial challenges. Although
the challenges ranked by Superintendent Adams and his board president are not identical,
it should be noted that there is a two out of three match indicating a commonality in their
perception of what occurred during the entry period. Data results lead the researcher to
conclude it is more important for both the superintendent and the board member to share
the perception that the same challenges were prioritized, and it was not required for all
challenges perceived by the superintendents and board members to be matched in order
for there to be a strong superintendent-board relationship.
Types of Communication Used
Communication is of great importance, as poor communication skills can
adversely affect the best intentions of a superintendent (Kowalski et. al, 2011).
Superintendent survey participants were asked to identify methods/strategies of
communication used with the board during the entry period. In addition, a follow-up
question asked them to identify the methods/strategies preferred as opposed to actually
used. The eleven communication method/strategy choices provided on the survey are
blog (web journal), email, fax, group phone call, in person communication, individual
phone call, retreat, social networking, text message, through other staff members and
letter to the board. Participants were also given the option to write in other

61
methods/strategies used. The four most frequently used methods/strategies by
superintendents during the entry period were: 1) in person communication (96.9%), 2)
individual phone call (95.3%), 3) email (82.8%), and 4) letter to the board (82.2%).
Although the percentages of response differ from those of the superintendents, the board
member responses revealed the same most frequently used methods/strategies as those of
the superintendent responses: 1) email (95.8%), 2) individual phone call (95.8%), 3) in
person communication (91.7%), and 4) letter to the board (70.8%). Data from
superintendent and board member participants on preferred methods/strategies of
communication indicate that both are on the same page and preferred methods/strategies
are aligned with the methods/strategies that were actually used. Table 4.7 shows the
methods/strategies used by superintendents during entry period and provides data on
preferred methods/strategies.
Both Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson preferred use of the
same three methods/strategies of communication between the superintendent and the
board: 1) in person communication, 2) individual phone call, and 3) retreat.
Additionally, responses from both regarding methods/strategies actually used during the
entry period were identical: 1) email, in person communication (including one-on-one
lunch), 2) individual phone call, and 3) retreat.
Individual communication was ranked by superintendent participants (64.6%) and
board member participants (58.3%) as the most important strategy used during the entry
period to build strong relationships with the board. Superintendent Adams also
considered individual communication as the most important strategy, while Board
President Anderson indicated it as the third most important strategy. Other choices

62
provided, along with the write-in option for other strategies, include retreat,
community/team building, additional board workshops, and informal meetings. Survey
responses also indicate frequent communication ranked as the most important activity
used to build trust with the board by 67.7% of superintendent participants and 85.1% of
board member participants. Both Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson
regarded frequent communication as one of their top two choices. When asked about his
level of trust with Superintendent Adams, Board President Anderson shared, “my level of
trust was at 90% within three months after he was here and it has gotten to be 310%
since.”
Table 7: Methods/Strategies of Communication (Used and Preferred)
Superintendent Board Member

Frequency
n=64
Percentages
Frequency
n=48
Percentages
Methods/Strategies Used
Blog 4 6.3 2 4.2
Email 53 82.8 46 95.8
Fax 4 6.3 2 4.2
Group Phone Call 9 14.1 8 16.7
In Person
Communication 62 96.9

44 91.7
Individual Phone Call 61 95.3 46 95.8
Retreat 40 62.5 20 41.7
Social Networking 1 1.6 2 4.2
Text Message 13 20.3 9 18.8
Through Other Staff 21 32.8 19 39.6
Letter to the Board 53 82.8 34 70.8
Other 9 14.1 9 18.8

63
Table 4.7: Methods/Strategies of Communication (Used and Preferred), continued
Methods/Strategies
Preferred

Blog 3 4.7 0 0.0
Email 42 65.6 36 75.0
Fax 3 4.7 3 6.3
Group Phone Call 7 10.9 10 20.8
In Person
Communication 54 84.4 38 79.2
Individual Phone Call 53 82.8 37 77.1
Retreat 27 42.2 21 43.8
Social Networking 3 4.7 0 0.0
Text Message 6 9.4 6 12.5
Through Other Staff 19 29.7 15 31.3
Letter to the Board 46 71.9 31 64.6
Other 6 9.4 6 12.5
Summary of Results: Research Question One
The results of research question one support current literature from both the
business and education realm on the use of entry plans and frequent communication
during the entry period to begin the process of building trust and a strong relationship
between the superintendent and the board. The entry plan serves to initiate the
communication process. Continuance of such communication can help to ensure that
both parties are on the same page.
Research Question Two
Research question two asked, How do superintendents implement these strategies
and evaluate their success?

64
While the entry plan and the use of communication were found to be key factors
in the relationship and trust building between the board and the superintendent, it was
also equally as important to determine how these strategies were implemented and how
their success was evaluated. Both Covey (2006) and Hurley (2006) emphasize the
importance of maintaining the environment of trust building. This includes making use
of communication to creating transparency. Data analysis revealed three common
themes that relate to implementation and evaluation of strategies/behaviors successful
superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with the board: 1) intentional
utilization of combined leadership strategies (i.e. Bolman & Deal’s frames of leadership)
lead to strong relationships with the board, 2) the increased frequency of communication
created transparency, and 3) evaluations of superintendent were often self-reflective and
not formally presented by the board.
Utilization of Combined Leadership Strategies
Survey participants were asked to rank, in order from one (highest) to four
(lowest), the superintendent’s leadership efforts or focus during the entry period. The
choice options given (structural, political, human resources, and symbolic) mirror
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames of leadership, which can be used to help leaders
analyze and manage organizations from different lenses in a more effective manner.
Both superintendents (65.6%) and board member (58.3%) participants ranked human
resource as the top leadership effort or focus. Human resource leaders communicate their
strong belief in people by putting people first and empowering others (Bolman & Deal,
2008). Although human resource was ranked as the number one focus, the
superintendent response results for the second ranked focus indicated that it was split

65
among the three other frames of leadership: structural (28.1%), political (29.7%), and
symbolic (23.4%). Board member responses results also indicate similar findings. A
closer examination of the results revealed that some superintendents ranked more than
one frame as their number one focus. This supports the literature that each of the four
frames of leadership is incomplete itself and that a combination of multiple frames is
needed for a comprehensive approach to leadership.
Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson’s responses indicated
identical ranking for the first two frames of leadership: 1) symbolic and 2) political.
Symbolic leaders lead by example and communicate a vision that addresses the
challenges of the present and incorporates hope for the future, while political leaders
build relationships and networks and assess the distribution of power and interests in
order to use their power judiciously (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Although the interview
participants’ data did not match those of the overall survey response, Superintendent
Adams’ focus is reflective of what the district’s needs were at the start of his
superintendency.
The interviews revealed several strategic activities Superintendent Adams
engaged in that depict his use of the multiple leadership frames to build strong
relationships and trust with the board. According to Board President Anderson,
Superintendent Adams utilized the political frame by building networks and
relationships:
One of the things he did almost immediately was to get involved in clubs, [such
as] the rotary, lions, [and] things like that. He paid the membership and did his
stuff. He is a golfer so this is the kind of schmoozer thing for getting to know
people. That has been incredible help because we have cemented relationships
with the town and city people…in terms of the town…they really like him. He

66
doesn’t come off like he knows everything in the world, but he is knowledgeable.
When they ask a question, he will tell it all the way through so that the
information can be understood and [they] see why it is that we are doing what we
do. He has established the same great feeling in this district that he established in
[the city of his previous superintendency].

Superintendent Adams demonstrated a deep understanding of what it meant to be a
political leader and shared:
Politics in education is all about power and control. Those are the two most
important pieces so you have to understand that. When you are dealing with the
power and control issues, sometimes you dance with it and the best advice I have
for really understanding that and dealing with it, is the “art of war”… If you
understand that, you can get through politics. If you study the art of war, there
are some things in there that will tell you this is the way to fight these battles.

Board President Anderson’s testimony further reaffirms Superintendent Adams’
efforts as a symbolic leader, noting his effect on people and his ability to communicate
the vision:
It’s modeling. You know the definition of a good salesman? He’s the person that
tells you to go to hell and actually make you look forward to the trip.
[Superintendent Adams] has that. He has that calmness - I’ve seen him dress
someone down, bring them up to speed in terms of what they should be doing,
and yet he doesn’t create an enemy. And that’s interesting. He doesn’t yell and
he doesn’t bang his fist on the table. He, from the get-go, made it apparent, very
apparent, to his senior staff…that this was going to be a team-effort and
everybody was going to be highly accountable for everyone underneath him. And
they were going to be accountable for thinking outside the box. First, when you
do that sort of thing, after having been repressed under a different regime, people
think – yeah, good talk. But he kept pressing and pressing through. If we are
going to have any kind of master growth…sustainable growth…it’s going to have
to be from every single person, including people who mows the lawns and dusts
the counters. How can we do this better? What ideas do you have? What do you
bring? Do you have an idea? Let’s talk about it.

As a human resource leader, Superintendent Adams empowers others to follow
their passion and respect the process that it takes. This can be seen in his approach to
support his teachers to venture in new ideas. He elaborates further:

67
I have a lot of teachers that are willing to try new experiences…I plant seeds,
that’s all I do. And get out of the way and let people take off and let them do
some wonderful things. That’s another important thing-is the process. As much
as possible, when you can get people to take their enthusiasm and their ideas, and
find ways to support it, you get a lot more mileage, than what the superintendent
says this is what we are going to do. None of it is my idea, it’s their idea. You
really want it to be that way. You get a lot of mileage and incredible stuff
happen.

Superintendent Adams demonstrated his abilities as a structural leader when he
implemented the strategic planning process that required the entire district to rethink its
organizational structure. He noted:
Typically, people are trained in strategic planning to start with the community. I
would say that’s wrong because you start with the governing board that represents
the community. The reason that is important, think about it from this point of
view…by starting with the board, what I did was for 3 days, I put them in a
vacuum. I had them come and I said I want you to bring to me every idea that
you will like to see happen in this school district and I had them put them all up
on the board. And we took their ideas and the first thing I did, I scraped a bunch
of them off and put them off the side in what I called the administrative basket. I
told them that I will take care of that as the administrator but I want you to get out
of those. The next thing I did was we took their ideas and we bundled them into
eleven focus areas. We then started off with their belief systems- we wanted to
know what their beliefs were to so we basically honed those into these belief
statements. Then we came up with our focus areas, and out of those focus areas,
we also built a mission statement. Next, I took that draft and for six months, we
served it up to this community. Now the community gets involved. They get
involved as a part of the organizational structure, the district through the board,
and my administrative team….At that point, the community was involved by
giving us input, but the community didn’t get the opportunity to set the stage in
terms of general statement of focus or belief.

The value and success of the strategic planning process (as part of the structural frame of
leadership) is validated by Board President Anderson’s experiences:
He brought the board in and we had one of these three days, eight to nine hour
days. We had several of those, which after a while, when you get doing this, if
you’re angry at somebody, you can’t be angry for eight hours. Here’s a sandwich
and have a break. That wears the board down too so you get a little bit amenable.
I’m not saying that you don’t have principles. Each of us have our own principles
that we stand for, but then we develop, began to develop, this plan for the future.

68
What do we really want to happen? What is going to happen? We were all
beginning to share and there was a magic point, when a switch was thrown and a
contact was made. Suddenly, you are all as a group, working toward this vision.
It’s always an incomplete vision because there are new things happening. But it
is a vision and you get excited about it. You begin to piggyback other people’s
ideas. His method was good and it took a lot of work and it was a pain in the
neck at the time for some of the people to get on the road with this. But it
happened and it happened fairly quickly. He, in along the same line, is very good
at communication and he makes sure that this get out to the sites to the people, to
the heads of the departments. He wants reports from the heads to the
departments, including the janitors and everybody else. These things have to be
transmitted, you understand, the whole district has to get on board.

It is necessary for successful superintendents to determine which frames of
leadership to apply in order to yield the optimal results. The interview findings indicate
that Superintendent Adams is able to maneuver between the four frames of leadership to
best meet the needs of his district. It leads the researcher to conclude that such skill in
utilizing all four frames of leadership is necessary for a successful superintendency.
Frequency of Communication
As mentioned previously, communication was found to be a key strategy
superintendents utilized to build trust and strong relationships. In addition to identifying
the different methods/strategies of communication methods used, survey participants
were also asked to indicate the frequency of usage for methods actually used during the
entry period. The frequency options provided to survey participants were daily, weekly,
monthly, and never. Some participants added other frequencies options such as often,
annual, and as needed. For the purpose of this data analysis, such input will be
considered in the “other” category. Based on previous findings, results will be reported
on the four most frequently used methods: in person communication, individual phone
call, email, and letter to the board. Superintendent participant responses indicated the

69
four types of communication methods/strategies took place on a weekly basis: in person
communication (59.4%), individual phone call (60.9%), email (53.1%), and letter to the
board (68.8%) (Table 4.8). Board member participant responses corroborate this finding:
in person communication (45.8%), individual phone call (45.8%), email (56.3%), and
letter to the board (60.4%).
Table 4.8: Frequency of Communication Methods/Strategies Used

Superintendent Board Member

Frequency
n=64
Percentages
Frequency
n=48
Percentages
In Person Communication
Daily 4 6.3 6 12.5
Weekly 38 59.4 22 45.8
Monthly 15 23.4 14 29.2
Never 2 3.1 4 8.3
Other 5 7.8 2 4.2
Individual Phone Call
Daily 5 7.8 8 16.7
Weekly 39 60.9 22 45.8
Monthly 9 14.1 10 20.8
Never 3 4.7 2 4.2
Other 8 12.5 6 12.5
Email
Daily 13 20.3 11 22.9
Weekly 34 53.1 27 56.3
Monthly 5 7.8 4 8.3
Never 11 17.2 2 4.2
Other 1 1.6 4 8.3

70
Table 4.8: Frequency of Communication Methods/Strategies Used, continued
Letter to the Board
Daily 0 0.0 1 2.1
Weekly 44 68.8 29 60.4
Monthly 8 12.5 4 8.3
Never 11 17.2 14 29.2
Other 1 1.6 0 0.0

The practice of frequent communication with the board is also embraced by
Superintendent Adams. According to Board President Anderson, AUSD now holds “two
board meetings a month.” Part of Superintendent Adams’ verbal entry plan was to meet
with his board individually on a monthly basis. Board President Anderson stated:
He said that he wanted to meet with us individually every month for lunch so that
we could talk about anything we wanted to talk about, without being brown-acted,
and so that we could bring up things that would be uncomfortable if we said it in
front of the entire board. The lunch meetings helped. Little things where he
brings up so and so might want to do this, how do you feel about that? We talked
things out that way.

On the effectiveness of information delivery, Board President Anderson stated:
We are always getting more information…everything, kid gets in a fight, kid
breaks their leg, kid is attacked, followed on the sidewalk…all these we get in an
extremely timely manner. As it comes out, his iPhone tells us. He will call us on
his phone if there’s something coming up that is urgent and he will tell us [to be]
prepared for this. We [also] get weekly reports from his senior staff and all the
departments.

Keeping in line the need for frequent communications to build trust and strong
relationship, school board responsibilities are clearly communicated through the strategic
planning process implemented by Superintendent Adams during the entry period. This
serves to prevent role confusion, which has been found to initiate difficult board-
superintendent relationships (Mountford, 2004). Superintendent Adams shared his

71
strategy on building rapport with the board, “You come in with a planning process and
say this is how we are going to do business. And it’s really important that the board
senses that you know how to do that because they want direction too.” He also shares
how the strategic planning process holds the board to their responsibilities:
Starting with the governing board with your strategic planning process, which
seems really simple, is absolutely critical to be successful. I do believe that
strategic planning starts with the board that is elected to represent the community.
It starts with them and nobody else. What this does is that it not only gets the
community involved like we did, but it also affirms the board in terms of their
responsibilities and you are able to, through this plan, pretty much keep them in
terms of what you are doing over that period time. And you [the superintendent]
are controlling your resources because we are spending dollars through my
departments on things that we have already had priority for.

Covey (2006) lists creating transparency, the act of displaying openness and being
genuine, as behaviors that build trust. Superintendent Adams fully believes in
transparency and honesty, and resonates, “you have to become very transparent because
people expect you to be. And you have to really be ready to deal with that and kind of
this fish bowl you live in.” Such transparency was evident during the superintendent
recruitment process when Board President Anderson visited Superintendent Adams’
previous site of employment:
It was fascinating because they couldn’t overturn one stone and find one problem
anywhere. Anywhere, I mean from the very bottom. Bus drivers come and go-
they’re pretty independent folks. [But] they were all on board and everybody is
saying don’t take our guy away.
Evaluation/Reflection
Although it was reported previously that 90.6% of superintendent participants
indicated having an entry plan, 57.8% of the same participants specified that it was not a
formal written document. Likewise, 45.8% of the board member participants indicated

72
that the superintendent’s entry plan was not formally presented to the board. Despite not
having a formal written document, such entry plan was reviewed with the board at least
once during the entry period according to 85.9% of superintendent participants and
66.7% of board member participants (See Table 4.9).
Table 4.9: Review of Entry Plan with the Board during Entry Period
Superintendent Board Member

Frequency
n=64
Percentages
Frequency
n=48
Percentages
Never Reviewed with Board 9 14.1 13 27.1
Reviewed At Least Once
with Board
55 85.9 32 66.7
No Response 0 0 3 6.3

Superintendent Adams indicated that he did not have a formal written document
for an entry plan and Board President Anderson agreed that such entry plan was not
formally presented to the board. However, an entry plan did exist- it was a verbal plan
that Superintendent Adams stuck to. This verbal entry plan, as stated by both interview
participants, was reviewed one to two times during the entry period. Board President
Anderson recalls his conversation with Superintendent Adams during his entry period:
When we chatted with him, he had ideas that he wanted to bring forward. He had
ideas of community involvement…he had ideas of helping kids who needed to be
able to stay in school. He wanted to institute a program somewhat like he had [in
his previous district of superintendency]…that’s where we get really rotten,
incorrigible, David Copperfield kind of people…when we expel them for doing
very naughty things, there is a place for them to go and not a baby-sitting
place…because up to that time, it had been baby-sitting. He also wanted to go
often to the campuses. That was his verbal, some of his verbal, plan when
coming in.

Survey participants were also asked whether the board provided direct, clear
feedback to the superintendent regarding the superintendent’s performance at the

73
conclusion of the entry period. The majority of superintendents (64.1%) felt that no
feedback was given, while the majority of board members (73.9%) felt that indeed direct
and clear feedback was given to the superintendent (see Table 4.10). This contradicting
finding might have resulted from what each defined as direct and clear feedback- as
feedback can take shape in many forms. Superintendent Adams and Board President
Anderson both agreed that clear and direct feedback was not provided regarding
Superintendent Adams’ performance during the entry period. However, indicators
showed that Superintendent Adams conducted his own self evaluation to determine his
success as a superintendent. Board President Anderson summarizes:
He does a self-evaluation…we get several pages of that from him to all of us.
Then I, as president, need everybody’s concerns and praises and insights as to
[the board’s] feeling concerning his efforts this last year. So I get all materials in
and then we sit down in a meeting. I put everything into a document of several
pages and then send it out to everybody else…to have them make any changes on
the wording and things like that. Then it is given to him as his personal thing.
We do this every year so that we have on paper definition what is working and
what can be better. [It’s] a very good process and it has worked out very well.

Upon evaluation and reflection of his entry plan, Superintendent Adams did institute
some structural changes in the district:
I did change it up. I went to a deputy- we didn’t have a deputy when I got here.
And I put a deputy in place because I needed a daily operations person because of
the things I observed when I first got here was the fact that a lot of stuff that was
happening on a daily basis around here was somehow getting lost. It was getting
lost in the bureaucracy and the stuff I was concerned about getting the lost was
parent concerns about specific issues and nobody was following up.

74
Table 4.10: Direct and Clear Feedback from Board
Superintendent Board Member

Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=46
Percentage
Yes 23 35.9 34 73.9
No 41 64.1 12 26.1

Survey participants were asked to rate on a scale (i.e. very satisfied, satisfied,
unsatisfied, and very unsatisfied) their overall relationship with each other
(Superintendent with Board and vice versa) during the first 90 to 100 days. An
overwhelming 98.5% of superintendent participants felt that they were either satisfied or
very satisfied with their relationship with the board, while 93.7% of board member
participants felt the same way. Such satisfaction with the board-superintendent
relationship is a good indicator that strategies implemented during the entry period are
successful. Table 4.11 shows a more detailed breakdown of the levels of satisfaction
between the superintendent and the board. Whether clear and direct feedback was given
or not, the majority of superintendents and board members seemed satisfied with their
overall relationships.
Table 4.11: Overall Relationship during the Entry Period

Superintendent
with the Board

Board Member
with the Superintendent

Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=48
Percentage
Very Satisfied 51 79.7 41 85.4
Satisfied 12 18.8 4 8.3
Unsatisfied 1 1.6 0 0.0
Very Unsatisfied 0 0.0 1 2.1
No Response 0 0.0 2 4.2

75
Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson both responded with
ratings of very satisfied in terms of their overall relationship. During the interview,
Board President Anderson shared that the board now votes, 95% of the time, five to
nothing. This is a powerful statement that is indicative of Superintendent Adams’
success at AUSD and is used as another way for Superintendent Adams to evaluate the
success of his strategies. In addition, Board President Anderson provided another
example of Superintendent Adams’ success with board relationships:
Instead of sitting down at one end like the other superintendent used to do, he sits
in the middle next to the board president so he can sometimes give guidance…he
has to work as a leveling influence because I’ll tell you, it was like cats and dogs
[before].

School board unity is another example of Superintendent Adams’ success in building
trust and strong relationships. Superintendent Adams further elaborates on this unity:
What has been kind of a strong statement of not only their unity but their strength
as a board…I’ve had two incumbency elections and nobody has run against them.
Before, at one time, it was really known for the circus environment when it came
to school board elections. So they’ve really come together and I think our
planning processes and what we’ve focused on and the kind of things we’ve been
able to accomplish has certainly represented us well. If you can’t keep them
pretty much all headed in the same direction, you are going to have problems.
They need to have confidence as a board [in you]. They say never take a job
where one of the board members says no. There’s a reason for that because if you
don’t have all five of them owning you, it’s a challenge. You have to pay
attention all [the] issues and you have to have a way to explain to the board why
this is all important so they can get it.

He embraces the importance of trust building and further states:
Trust has to be high with the inner circle to work for you. It has to be incredibly
high if you are going to be successful. You try to build as much trust and let them
know that there are going to be some hiccups and that you are going to still be
there for them.

76
Survey participants were asked to rate the board’s level of trust in the
superintendent on initial entry and at the end of the entry period on a scale of zero
(lowest) to five (highest). At the beginning of the entry period, 76.6% of the
superintendents rated their board’s level of trust in them as either 4 or 5. By the end of
the entry period, the percentage of superintendents’ rating of 4 or 5 was 96.9%.
Similarly, board member responses reflected an increase in the level of trust of 4 or 5
from 76.6% to 97.9% (Table 4.12). Both Superintendent Adams and Board President
Anderson indicated an increase of trust from 2 to 4. The increase in the level of trust in
the superintendent during the entry period correlates with the level of satisfaction on the
overall relationship between the board and the superintendent.
Table 4.12: Perceived Level of Board’s Trust in Superintendent
Superintendent Board Member
Levels
Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=47
Percentage
Upon Initial Entry
4 or 5 (High) 49 76.6 36 76.6
2 or 3 15 23.4 11 23.4
0 or 1 (Low) 0 0.0 0 0
By End of Entry Period
4 or 5 (High) 62 96.9 46 97.9
2 or 3 2 3.1 1 2.1
0 or 1 (Low) 0 0.0 0 0.0
Summary of Results: Research Question Two
The results for research question two reveal how critical it is for superintendents
to match and combine key leadership strategies in order to meet the needs of the district.
A superintendent’s success can be dependent on his or her ability to maneuver through

77
the different frames of leadership, as proposed by Bolman and Deal (2008).
Additionally, the frequency of communication helps to create transparency, which can
lead to an increase in the board’s trust in the superintendent. Lastly, despite lack of clear
and direct feedback from the board, self-evaluation of the superintendent during the entry
period is beneficial.
Research Question Three
Research question three asked, What formal/informal leadership preparation
assists superintendents for entry into the superintendency?
In the 2010 Decennial Study, Kowalski et al. (2011) found that superintendents
had positive opinions on their professional preparation. While universities may offer
leadership programs, a national curriculum for superintendent preparation currently is not
available. Therefore, existing superintendents may rely on different formal and/or
informal leadership programs as substitutes for superintendent preparation. Data analysis
revealed two common themes that relate to formal and informal leadership preparation in
assisting superintendents for entry into the superintendency: 1) superintendents
considered informal training to be better preparation for entry into the superintendency,
and 2) interpersonal skills, along with professional experiences and trustworthiness, were
believed to be factors for success.
Trainings and Professional Experiences
Superintendent participants were asked on the survey whether they believed their
formal and informal training adequately prepared them for entry into the
superintendency. Board member participants were asked to gauge whether their
superintendent’s formal training was considered adequate preparation for entry into the

78
superintendency. Data responses indicate that both superintendents (71.9%) and board
members (95.8%) felt that the superintendent’s formal training was indeed adequate
preparation for entry into the superintendency. Superintendent responses also revealed
that 95.3% of its participants felt that informal training also helped with their preparation
for superintendency. Table 4.13 shows superintendent and board member response on
whether formal and informal training were adequate preparation for entry into the
superintendency. While Board President Anderson’s response corresponds to the overall
survey responses, Superintendent Adams’ response only aligns with an affirmative
response for informal training. The data results therefore lead the researcher to conclude
that informal training, rather than formal training, was considered more helpful in
superintendent preparation.
Table 4.13: Adequate Preparation for Entry into the Superintendency
Superintendent Board Member

Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=48
Percentage
Formal Training
Yes 46 71.9 46 95.8
No 17 26.6 1 2.1
No Response 1 1.6 1 2.1

Informal Training
Yes 61 95.3

No 1 1.6

No Response 2 3.1

Furthermore, survey participants were asked to rank sources of most effective
training for entry into the superintendency. Prior administrative experience was ranked

79
number one by 67.8% of superintendents and 70.5% of board members.
Mentor/partnership was ranked second. Superintendent Adams and Board President
Andersons’ responses correlate with the top ranking of the overall survey responses. In
fact, the two individuals shared identical ranking on effective training: prior
administrative experience, government agency, and mentor/partnership. All three of
these choices can be categorized under informal training.
Board training is considered beneficial in building the trust factor in that it equips
board members with information that will allow them to be effective on the board
(Adamson, 2010). Such training can prevent the strain of dealing with role confusion.
Survey participants were asked whether the superintendent had training on how to
effectively communicate with board members; more than half of the participants (65.6%)
answered yes. Board members were asked whether their superintendent was properly
trained in effective communication with board members; nearly all participants (96%)
answered yes. Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson’s responses were
aligned with the overall survey response. Superintendent Adams elaborated on his own
preparation for board training:
I had board training in three different states. It was through different school
board associations. There were executive school board associations that have
training where you could talk about board superintendent relations. They were
usually three day workshops and I went to those. That was where I got the formal
training. In my case, I was a little bit fortunate. For instance, when I was running
the school finance system, I was assistant superintendent at the state department
and the school board association would invite me to their conferences. They had
a menu of different classes that you could take, training offering, and I would take
those with the notion that I would someday be a school superintendent.
The survey also asked superintendent participants to specify professional
experiences that helped prepare them for the superintendency. The majority of the

80
responses indicate the following job positions as helpful: principal (84.4%), teacher
(76.6%) and assistant superintendent (67.2%). Interestingly, only 57.8% of the
superintendent participants felt that prior superintendent experience was helpful in the
superintendent preparation. When asked what the minimum professional experience the
board would like to see in a superintendent, 91.7% of board member participants chose
the assistant superintendent position. Only 58.3% of the board member participants
indicated prior superintendency as a minimum professional experience needed for the
superintendency. Table 4.14 summarizes the response from both the superintendents and
board members on professional experiences for superintendency preparation. The
responses of Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson were almost identical;
both chose the positions of assistant superintendent (business and curriculum), director,
principal and teacher. The only difference was that Board President Anderson felt prior
superintendent experience was needed, while Superintendent Adams included his
experience in the private sector and military.

81
Table 4.14: Professional Experiences for Superintendency Preparation

Superintendent

Board Member
Experiences that helped with
Superintendent Preparation
Minimum Experience
for Superintendent

Frequency
n=64
Percentage
Frequency
n=48
Percentage
Prior Superintendent
Experience
37 57.8 28 58.3
Deputy Superintendent 19 29.7 23 47.9
Assistant Superintendent 43 67.2 44 91.7
Director 33 51.6 8 16.7
Principal 54 84.4 29 60.4
Assistant Principal 33 51.6 9 18.8
Teacher 49 76.6 28 54.2
Superintendent Adams’ professional journey is quite different than those of
traditional superintendents. While he possesses experiences that traditional
superintendents would have (i.e. teacher, principal, director, assistant superintendent), he
has also ventured out of the educational field and possesses experience in the private
sector for alternative fuel and the military. He summarizes some of the experiences that
allow him to be the successful superintendent he is currently:
The military was a totally different kind of experience. It was life and death stuff.
So you took the training very seriously - you learn early on that nobody was
really interested in excuses. They were interested in results and that quite frankly
is a bit unique institutionally. In the education institution, there’s a lot of
rationalization for why things happen and all that. The people I worked for in the
military-they don’t want to hear why you had the problem. They want to know
what the solution and did it work…and if it didn’t, why are you doing something
to fix it because you can get people killed. So it was a very serious-minded kind
of place. The state department [was] a whole another realm of things, in terms of
the politics of education. It’s all about power and control. And it’s learning to
understand that and learning a lot about the dynamics of that.

82
Board President Anderson adds that Superintendent Adams’ experience in the military
has given him the chance to learn “certain humility,” while his experience at the state
level has given him the opportunity to be on “first-name basis with so many people,”
including the governor. These are traits that can help with relationship building, which
will be discussed in the next section.
Factors for Success
Survey participants were asked to identify and rank the factors that lead to
success as a superintendent during the entry period. The choices provided included
experience, training/education, prior success, interpersonal skills, trustworthiness,
political connection, and professional connections. Ranked responses were analyzed
based on a point system; three points for responses ranked as number one, two points for
responses ranked as number two, and one point for responses ranked as number three. It
should be noted that some participants ranked all responses number ones and some
participants ranked more than three choices. In the case that ranking was not provided by
survey participants and choices were simply checked off, the research team made the
decision to rank such data as all number ones. Survey responses from superintendent
revealed that the top three factors were: experience (31.4%), interpersonal skills (35.7%),
and trustworthiness (14.4%). Board member responses correspond respectively with
36.5%, 27.3%, and 14.9%. Table 4.15 shows responses for all factors that might have led
to the superintendents’ success. Experience, as stated previously, was considered
important and is supported by previous findings regarding the professional experience
preparation for superintendency. Interpersonal skills and trustworthiness, go hand in
hand, in facilitating a strong board superintendent relationship. The definition of a good

83
leader, as defined by Superintendent Adams, is someone who has “great instincts and
great integrity.” Integrity is aligned with the concept of trustworthiness, which supports
overall survey responses. Board President Anderson characterized Superintendent
Adams has someone who has the “unique ability to see several sides of an issue,” which
is indicative of him possessing strong interpersonal skills. Data results leads to the
conclusion that Superintendent Adams appears to encompass the traits that have been
identified as leading to a successful superintendency.
Table 4.15: Factors that led to Superintendent’s Success
Superintendent Board Member

Frequency
n=347
Percentage
Frequency
n=282
Percentage
Experience 109 31.4 103 36.5
Training/Education 18 5.2 27 9.6
Prior Success 41 11.8 33 11.7
Interpersonal Skills 124 35.7 77 27.3
Trustworthiness 50 14.4 42 14.9
Professional Connections 2 0.6 0 0.0
Other 3 0.9 0 0.0
Summary of Results: Research Question Three
The results of research question three indicated the importance of
superintendents’ possessing both formal and informal training for preparation into the
superintendency. Superintendents, however, regarded their informal training to be more
beneficial than their formal training. Prior administrative experience, along with
mentor/partnership, provided superintendents with the training to be successful. The
majority of the board members considered the assistant superintendent position to be the
minimal professional experience for a prospective superintendent. Lastly, possessing

84
strong interpersonal skills, along with demonstrating trustworthiness, were considered
factors for success.
Summary
This chapter examined the results of the survey and interviews to identify
strategies and behaviors successful superintendents used to build strong relationships and
trust with the board. Data analysis for research question one revealed two important
themes. The majority of the successful superintendents utilized an entry plan during their
entry period. The entry plan acted as a guide to facilitate a successful transition into the
superintendency. Also, superintendents engaged in activities that fostered frequent
communication, which helped established trust with the board.
The study also sought to identify how the strategies were implemented and
evaluated. Data analysis for research question two revealed three important themes.
Superintendents were strategic in utilizing a combination of leadership strategies to
establish a strong relationship with the board. In an effort to be transparent, frequent
communication between the superintendent and the board took place at least on a weekly
basis. Also, evaluations of the superintendent were more likely to be self-reflective and
not given by the board.
Lastly, the study strived to determine what formal and informal training assisted
the superintendents for entry into the superintendency. Data analysis for research
question two revealed three important themes. Both formal and informal training
adequately prepared superintendents for their entry into the superintendency. However,
superintendents felt their informal training was more helpful than their formal training.
Overall, superintendents relied on prior administrative experiences as their most effective

85
training. Such experiences, combined with interpersonal skills and trustworthiness, have
been identified as factors leading to success.

86
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The responsibilities and roles of superintendents have greatly changed since the
mid-1800s (Callahan, 1966; Kowalski, 2005). One of the biggest struggles current
superintendents face is maximizing student achievement while dealing with depleting
financial resources (as dictated by state and federal accountability mandates.)
Additionally, superintendents encounter other challenges involving contentious union
relationships, special education litigation, and changing community needs. Faced with
the daunting task of addressing the social, professional, and educational needs of school
system, superintendents are finding it more difficult to be successful at their jobs.
Waters and Marzano (2006) observed that superintendents with longer tenure
were more likely to effect change. However, superintendents do not have the luxury of
time to effect change, since the tenure of the superintendent is determined by the school
board. As supported by current research from the business sector, the entry period (the
first 90 to 100 days in a new position) provides a critical window of opportunity for
superintendents to establish a strong relationship and build trust with the board. The
relationship is crucial for a successful transition, allowing superintendents more time to
tackle the challenges previously stated.
The purpose of this study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful
superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards
during their entry period. The conceptual frameworks, based on the works of Bolman
and Deal (2008), Watkins (2003), Hurley (2006), and Covey (2006), provided the
foundation and focus for the development of the following research questions:

87
1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into
the superintendency?
Chapters one through four provide an overview of the study, comprehensive
review of the literature on current effective leadership research, the methodology and
design of the study, and the findings from surveys and interviews. This chapter
summarizes the findings and provides recommendations for future research.
Summary of Findings
The following seven themes emerged from the analysis of data from surveys and
interviews with superintendent and board member participants: 1) entry plans were used
by the majority of the superintendents, 2) use of communication was considered a key
factor in building trust with the board, 3) intentional utilization of combined leadership
strategies lead to strong relationships with the board, 4) the increased frequency of
communication created transparency, 5) evaluation of superintendent were often self-
reflective and not formally presented by the board, 6) superintendents considered
informal training to be better preparation for entry into the superintendency, and 7)
interpersonal skills, along with professional experiences and trustworthiness, were
believed to be factors for success.
Research Question One
Research question one sought to identify the strategies superintendents used to
build strong relationships and trust with their board during the period. The results from

88
data analysis revealed that the use of entry plans and other communication methods are
consistent with the research literature. Strategic planning, such as the use of an entry
plan, is considered an effective method of moving an organization forward (Townsend et.
al, 2007) and is supported by 90.6% of successful superintendent participants, who
indicated having an entry plan. Data analysis also found that 54.5% of superintendents
indicated discussing the entry plan during the interview/recruitment process.
Superintendent Adams and Board President Anderson’s responses support the overall
survey response. This leads to the conclusion that having an entry plan contributed to the
hiring and success of a superintendent.
The entry plan allowed superintendents the opportunity to utilize different
strategies for a successful transition, as proposed by Watkins (2003). In this case study,
Superintendent Adams “accelerated his learning” in order to “build his team” of senior
staff by requesting the district to hire him as a consultant one month prior to his taking
the superintendent position. During this time of observation, Superintendent Adams was
able to learn about the culture and politics of the organization in order to best “match
strategy to situation.” On the same note, Superintendent Adams’ strategy aligned with
Bolman & Deal’s (2008) structural and human resources frames of leadership. As a
structural leader, Superintendent Adams focused on the architecture of the organization;
as a human resources leader, he ensured that the people on his senior staff were in the
right roles.
Communication was found to be a key component to ensure the success of a
superintendent (Glenn et al., 2009, Kowalski et al, 2011). Data analysis indicated that
the four most frequently used and preferred methods of communication by

89
superintendents were: 1) in person communication (96.9%, 84.4% respectively), 2)
individual phone call (95.3%, 82.8% respectively), 3) email (82.2%, 65.6% respectively),
and 4) letter to the board (82.8%, 71.9% respectively). Results indicate that multiple
methods of communication were utilized to keep the board up-to-date. Board President
Anderson acknowledged the frequent use of communication by Superintendent Adams to
keep the board up to date. Hurley (2006) stated that one of the factors of trust building is
to increase the frequency and candor of communication. The concept of candor in
communication is in line with Covey’s (2006) trust building behavior of talking straight.
This is supported by the findings where 67.7 % of superintendent participants and 85.1%
of board member participants ranked frequent communication as the most important
activity to build trust with the board. The match in superintendent and board member
responses, in terms of types of communication used during the entry period, indicate that
frequent communication is an important strategy for strong board-superintendent
relationships.
Research Question Two
Research question two delved deeper in its attempt to pinpoint how
superintendents implemented strategies of effective relationship and trust building, and
how they evaluated their success. Bolman & Deal’s (2008) frames of leadership,
combined with Watkins’s (2003) strategies for successful transition, provide a critical
road map for superintendents during the entry period. The human resource frame was
ranked as the top leadership effort or focus by 65.6% of superintendents and 58.3% of
board members. This indicates superintendents’ awareness of the importance of
remaining visible and accessible, while empowering the people (board members, district

90
staff, students, and parents) around them. On the other hand, the actions taken by
Superintendent Adams in creating a trusting and strong relationship with his board
demonstrate that, while it is important to concentrate on the human resource aspects of
leadership, it is equally as important to utilize other components of leadership, such as
structural, visionary, and political frames. Superintendent Adams’ actions during the
entry period support literature on leadership that a combination of leadership strategies is
needed for a comprehensive approach.
Glass et al. (2000) observe that the amount of time invested by superintendents in
communicating with board members has increased. Findings from this study revealed
that superintendents utilized the top four methods/strategies of communication (in person
communication, individual phone call, email, and letter to the board) at least on a weekly
basis. Frequent communication can pave the way to open communication, which is
connected to being transparent (Covey, 2006; Hurley, 2006; Townsend et. al, 2007).
Superintendent Adams indicated that there was an expectation by others for the
superintendent to be transparent. He also stressed that as superintendent, “you really
have to be ready to deal with that [being transparent] and the kind of fish bowl you live
in.” Understanding the importance of transparency and how transparency can help to
build trust are also considered strategies of leadership (Covey, 2006; Hurley, 2006).
Communication can also lead to clarification of superintendent and board
responsibilities, thereby preventing role confusion. Role confusion was reported by
Mountford (2004) as the most common reason for difficult board-superintendent
relationships. Superintendent Adams’ first effort during the strategic planning process
was to define and clarify the responsibilities of the board and the superintendent. He

91
provided the example of the “administrative basket” of things he would take care of as
the administrator when he informed the board to “get out of those.” He then focused the
board on their own responsibilities as elected officials, which was to create goals to guide
the organization and focus of the district. The actions of Superintendent Adams serve to
provide clarity of goals, which helped to move the organization forward (Townsend et
al., 2007).
Kowalski et al. (2011) recommend having both formative and summative
evaluations in order to keep the lines of communications open and to inform the
superintendent of the board’s expectations. Data analysis indicates that the entry plan
was reviewed with the board at least once during the entry period according the majority
of the survey participants (superintendent, 85.9%; board member, 66.7%). Although the
entry plan was reviewed, there was contradicting data regarding whether direct and clear
feedback was given to the superintendent by the board. Despite lack of feedback from
the board, the rating for overall superintendent-board relationship was relatively high;
over 90% of superintendents and board members rated their overall relationship as either
satisfied or very satisfied. This leads to the conclusion that, as long as frequent
communication takes place, formal evaluations are not needed to maintain a strong
superintendent-board relationship. In lieu of board feedback, Superintendent Adams
gauged his success in building trust and a strong relationship with his board through self-
evaluation and self-reflection. Kowalski et al. (2011) indicated in its study that 48.5% of
superintendents included their self reflections on the formal evaluations by the board. As
evidenced by the findings of this study, utilization of a combination of leadership,

92
communication, and reflective strategies enable the superintendent to create an
environment in which trust flourishes.
Research Question Three
Research question three analyzed what formal and informal leadership
preparation assisted superintendents for entry into the superintendency. Currently, many
formal training programs for superintendents are simply an extension of a principal
preparation program (Hoyle et al, 2005). Therefore, the benefits of such programs vary
greatly and their effectiveness is hard to gauge. These trainings can occur at various
times in Superintendents’ careers and are offered by various sources. According to Teitel
(2005), these sources include, but are not limited to national, state and regional
superintendent membership organizations, non-profit/for-profit organizations, university-
based programs, and foundations. The results from data analysis revealed that successful
superintendents benefit from both formal and informal trainings. However,
superintendents considered their informal trainings to have better prepared them. This
finding indicates that the lack of a national curriculum for superintendent preparation
does not seem to hinder superintendents from receiving critical experiences that allow
them to be successful in their entry into superintendency.
Findings indicate prior administrative experience as the most effective training for
entry into the superintendency. As supported by research literature (Kowalski et al.,
2011), the majority of the superintendents surveyed in this study followed the traditional
career via teacher and building-level administrative positions. The following job
positions provided experiences that were helpful for the superintendency: principal
(84.4%), teacher (76.6%), and assistant superintendent (67.2%). Interview data from

93
Superintendent Adams also indicated the added bonus of having military and private
sector experiences. In addition to professional experiences, superintendents indicated
that demonstrating interpersonal skills and exemplifying trustworthiness are crucial in
building and maintaining a strong relationship and trust with the school board. This is
supported by Glenn et al.’s (2009) findings that “strong interpersonal skills” and
“integrity” are considered traits/skills school boards value in superintendent applicants.
Board President Anderson provided an example of the quality that Superintendent Adams
possesses, “He has that calmness- I’ve seen him dress someone down, bring them up to
speed in terms of what they should be doing, and yet he doesn’t create an enemy.”
Implications for Practice
Analysis of the findings of this study validated the importance and implications
for aspiring and/or transitioning superintendents to understand that the entry period is a
challenging and critical time. A successful transition during the entry period is possible
through building trust and a strong relationship with the board. Strategies that have been
found successful include having an entry plan, communicating frequently with the board
via multiple methods, and utilizing a combination of leadership strategies to match the
district’s needs. In addition, possessing strong interpersonal skills and trustworthiness
have helped superintendents find success with the boards.
The study also provided insight for university program developers interested in
creating a strong superintendent preparation program. It was found that superintendents
regarded their informal training to be more beneficial than their formal training. The
informal training included prior professional experience and mentorship. Additionally,
the study showed strong evidence of the use of business leadership strategies by

94
superintendent participants. Therefore, program developers should incorporate
leadership training that has been used in the business sector (including the creation and
implementation of entry plans), strategies for developing interpersonal skills, and
programs for mentorship to enhance the formal training of superintendents.
Recommendations for Future Research
The following recommendations for future research are based on the overall
findings from the study:
 Future research should replicate this study, comparing superintendents
categorized by years of experience or number of superintendencies held.
 Future research should replicate this study with a larger sample of interview
participants (both superintendents and board members).
 Future research should further examine the use of the entry plan (entry plan
format and method of presentation to the board).
 Future research should further identify specific interpersonal skills
superintendents possess that have led to their success.
 Future research should explore the importance of feedback to the superintendent
from the board and identify methods of feedback that are most beneficial.
Conclusion
According to Kowalski et al. (2011), an overwhelming 49.3% of its
superintendent participants plan to retire by 2015. Such an abundance of superintendent
openings places increased pressure for school boards to recruit highly qualified and
prepared superintendents for their districts. This also places responsibility upon current
training programs (both formal and informal) to ensure that aspiring, new, and current

95
superintendents are equipped with the skills and knowledge to handle the demands and
challenges that come with the superintendency.
The findings of this study indicate that the success of a superintendent can be
enhanced by establishing a strong relationship with the board during the entry period.
Through the use of an entry plan and frequent communication, the superintendent creates
transparency, thereby laying the foundation for trust building. Combined with having
strong impersonal skills and prior professional experiences, superintendents will be able
to utilize their leadership skills to tackle the myriad challenges that all educational
leaders currently face.

96
REFERENCES
Adamson, M.T. (2010). Beyond a guided tour: Orienting new board members. School
Administrator, 67(3), 6-7.
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bradt, G.B., Check, J.A., and Pedraza, J.E. (2009). The new leader’s 100-day action
plan: How to take charge, build your team, and get immediate results. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bresden, P.V. and Kose, B.W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A
study of school superintendents’ instructional leadership. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 15(5).
Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2003). Better leaders for
America’s schools: A manifesto. Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
California Association of Latino Superintendents and Administrators. (2009).
Magdaleno mentoring and coaching: Administrator mentoring handbook.
Retrived from:
http://calsa.schoolfusion.us/modules/cms/pages.phtml?pageid=145765&sessionid
=0ad0f70c885071cef4d3a935b0a8e72a&sessionid=0ad0f70c885071cef4d3a935b
0a8e72a.
California Department of Education. (2010). History of school district organization in
California. In California Department of Education District Organization
Handbook. Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/do/
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410)
Covey, S.M.R., Merrill, R.R., and Covey, S.R. (2006) The speed of trust: The one thin
that changes everything. New York, NY: Free Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mix methods
approaches (3
rd
ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
EdSource (2008). Data retrieved from: http://www.edsource.org on May 24, 2011.
Fusarelli, B. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity
conflict, and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(44), 44-
57.

97
Glass, T., Björk, L., Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendent: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Glenn, J., Hickey, W., and Sherman, R. (2009). Consultant perceptions of skills that
school boards value in superintendent applicants. International Journal of
Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(4), 1-20.
Hoyle, J.R., Björk, L. G., Collier, v., and Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO:
Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hurley, R.F. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, 9, 55-62.
Jentz, B.C. and Murphy, J.T. (2005). Starting confused: How leaders start when they
don’t know where to start. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 736-744.
Lytle, J.H. (2009). The context of superintendent entry. School Administrator, 66(5), 8-
13.
Kowalski, T.J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L.G.
Björk and T.J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice, and development (pp.1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T.J., McCord, R.S., Peterson, G.J., Young, I.P., and Ellerson, N.M. (2011).
The American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Arlington, VA:
American Association of School Administrator.
Kowalski, T.J., Peterson, G.J., and Fusarelli, L.D. (2009). Novice superintendents and
the efficacy of profession preparation. AASA Journal of Scholarship and
Practice, 5(4), 16-26.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for
school board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40, 704-741.
Neely, R.O, Berube, W., and Wilson, J. The entry plan: a systematic transition to a new
superintendency. School administrator, 59(5), 28-30.
Neff, T.J. and Citrin, J.M. (2005). You’re in charge- Now what?: The 8 point plan. New
York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

98
Quinn, T. (2007). Preparing non-educators for the superintendency. The Education
Digest, 73(4), 54-60.
Sanaghan, P.S. and Lytle, J.T. (2008). Creating a transition map for a new
superintendency: 7 powerful strategies. AASA New Superintendents E-Journal.
Schein, V.E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. (2
nd
ed.) San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sutton, C., Jobe, M.P., McCord, R.S., Jordan, T., and Jordan, K.F. (2008). 2007 state of
the superintendency mini-survey: Aspiring to the superintendency. Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Teitel, L. (2005). Supporting school system leaders: The state of executive training
programs for school superintendents. Harvard Graduate School of Education,
65-79.
Townsend, R.S., Johnston, G.L., Gross, G.E., Lynch, P., Garcy, L., Roberts, B., and
Novotney, P.E. (2007). Effective superintendent-school board practices:
Strategies for developing and maintaining good relationships with your
board. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Waters, J. T., and Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all
levels. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

99
Appendix A
Superintendent Survey

100

101

102
Appendix B
Board President/Board Member Designee Survey

103

104

105
Appendix C
Research Questions Alignment Matrix
Survey Question Research Question 1 Research Question 2
Research Question
3
1 X X
2 X X
3 X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X
10 X X
11 X X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X X
18 X X X
19 X
20 X
Total 16 16 6

Question 1: Strategies and Behaviors
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Question 2: Implementation and Evaluation
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Question 3: Training and Preparation
9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20

106
Appendix D
Superintendent Interview Guide

107

108
Appendix E
Board President/Designee Interview Guide

109

110
Appendix F
Superintendent Recruitment Letter

111
Appendix G
Board President/Board Member Designee Recruitment Letter

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with their boards within their entry period. The three research questions were developed to guide this study: 1. What strategies and behaviors were successful superintendents using to build strong relationships and trust with the board during their entry period? 2. How did superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 3. What formal and informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry into the superintendency? ❧ This study was conducted by a cohort of researchers from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. A qualitative approach, using surveys and in-depth interviews, was used in the collection and analysis of the research data. Data analysis revealed that most successful superintendents had an entry plan and used multiple methods of communication to establish trust. Additionally, successful superintendents were strategic in their use of leadership strategies to establish a strong relationship with their board and relied on self-evaluation and self-reflection to evaluate their success as superintendents. Lastly, prior experiences, interpersonal skills, and trustworthiness were identified as factors for success. ❧ This study validated the importance and implications for aspiring and/or transitioning superintendents to understand that the entry period is a challenging and critical time. A successful transition during the entry period is possible through building trust and a strong relationship with the board. This study also provided insight for university program developers interested in creating a strong superintendent preparation program. It was found that superintendents regarded their informal training to be more beneficial than their formal training. Additionally, this study showed strong evidence of the use of business leadership strategies by superintendent participants.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The first 90 days: strategies to build a strong board relationship

PDF

Superintendent strategies and behaviors: building and promoting trust and strong relationships during the entry period in California

PDF

Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period

PDF

Superintendent and school board relations during an entry period: trust, training, and teamwork

PDF

Latinas in the superintendency: the challenges experienced before and after obtaining the superintendency and strategies used for success

PDF

How successful superintendents build trusting relationships with their school boards during their entry period

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

What key characteristics are seen as essential by board of education members that lead to a successful superintendency

PDF

Should it say or should it go: how successful superintendents build, shift, and transform district culture in an age of increasing accountability

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school superintendents: a case study

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

Asset Metadata

Creator Huang , Leann L. (author)

Core Title Strategies for relationship and trust building by successful superintendents: a case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/09/2012

Defense Date 02/23/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Educational Leadership,entry period,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationship,superintendents,Trust

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Escalante, Michael F. (committee chair), Garcia, John (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email leannhua@usc.edu,leannhuang@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-3214

Unique identifier UC11288023

Identifier usctheses-c3-3214 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HuangLeann-582.pdf

Dmrecord 3214

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Huang , Leann L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA