Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
(USC Thesis Other)
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 1
Strategies Used by Superintendents in Developing Leadership Teams
by
Donna J. Smith
USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Donna J. Smith
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 2
Table of Contents
Dedication 5
Acknowledgements 6
Abstract 7
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 14
Importance of the Study 14
Assumptions 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 16
Definitions 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Introduction 18
Teams and Teamwork 19
Characteristics of Effective Teams 21
Team Leadership 24
Summary of Teams and Teamwork 25
Selecting Leadership Team Members 25
Member Competencies 26
Team Diversity 27
Summary of Selecting Team Members 27
Collaborative Strategies 28
Fostering a Collaborative Climate 28
Summary of Collaborative Strategies 31
Distributive Leadership 33
Participative Leadership 37
Delegation 37
Summary of Distributed Leadership 38
Conclusion 39
Chapter Three: Methodology 41
Overview 41
Purpose of the Study 43
Research Questions 43
Research Design 43
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 3
Instrumentation 46
Data Collection 47
Data Analysis 47
Validity 48
Summary 49
Chapter Four: The Findings 50
Introduction 50
Data Analysis Process 50
Research Questions 51
Participant Demographics 52
Data Analysis by Research Question 55
Research Question #1 55
Quantitative data analysis: research question #1 55
Qualitative data analysis: research question #1 58
Research Question #2 62
Quantitative data analysis: research question #2 63
Qualitative data analysis: research question #2 67
Research Question #3 76
Quantitative data analysis: research question #3 76
Qualitative data analysis: research question #3 82
Discussion of the Findings 87
Triangulation 87
Selection Process 87
Collaborative Climates 88
Distributed Leadership 90
Conclusion 91
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions 92
Introduction 92
Purpose of the Study 92
Research Questions 92
Methods 93
Key Findings 93
Selection Process: Research Question #1 93
Collaborative Strategies: Research Question #2 96
Distributed Leadership: Research Question #3 97
Implications 98
Framework 98
Selection 99
Collaboration 99
Distributed leadership 100
Recommendations for Future Research 101
Conclusion 101
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 4
References 103
Appendices 108
Appendix A: Superintendent Interview Protocol
Appendix B: Superintendent Survey
Appendix C: Leadership Team Member Survey
Appendix D: Superintendent Recruitment Letter
Appendix E: Leadership Team Member Recruitment E-Mail
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 5
Dedication
I lovingly dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful husband, Gary, and my beautiful daughters,
Chelsey and Courtney, whose never-ending faith in me made this journey possible.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 6
Acknowledgements
It is with deep gratitude that I acknowledge Dr. Rudy Castruita, my committee chair. His
expertise and constant encouragement were invaluable throughout the process of conducting this
study and writing this dissertation. His advice, suggestions, and thoughts were necessary
components to guide this work and the results are better for his input. His patience and sense of
humor made the work enjoyable.
Sincere thanks are owed to my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Gwen
Gross, who gave their time freely and provided guidance throughout the process.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the help of my technical advisors, Dr. Mary-
Anne Pops and Dr. Tom Granoff. To Mary-Anne, thank you for all the editing and letting me
“talk it out” on those long phone calls. To Tom, thanks for explaining statistics to me, one more
time.
I would not have completed this long process if it weren’t for my family. Gary, thank
you for always taking care of me. You made it possible for me to study, think, and write. I could
not have done this without you. And to my daughters, Chelsey and Courtney, thank you for
understanding when I was too busy to chat, and for encouraging me to keep going. You are an
amazing family and I love you.
Finally, I offer a very special thank you to my research partner, Michelle Morse. Thank
you for your discourse, your patience, your encouragement, your laughter, and above all else,
your friendship. I couldn’t imagine a better partner, and my success is intrinsically linked to our
work together. I am grateful we took this journey.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 7
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the strategies public school superintendents across
the nation use to develop executive leadership teams. Extensive research has been conducted in
private for profit and medical settings, however relatively little research on leading teams has
been conducted in the public education sector. Research based practices from the current
research were considered and the following three research questions were asked: 1) How do
superintendents select leadership team members? 2) What strategies do superintendents use to
foster a collaborative climate? and 3) How do superintendents distribute and share leadership
responsibilities? A mixed methods approach was used to ascertain how superintendents select
their leadership team members, develop a collaborative climate, and distribute leadership
responsibilities among the executive team. The study included the purposeful sampling of five
superintendents and 51 leadership team members who work in large K-12 districts across four
states. The results indicate that superintendents in this study balance person-focused and task-
focused competencies in the selection process for new team members; however, issues of
recruitment and retention are barriers to the selection process. Superintendents utilize six major
collaboration strategies (clearly defined roles and responsibilities, climate of trust, openness,
honesty, consistency, and respect) and also use individual reflective practices as a means to build
leadership capacity. Superintendents use participative strategies with their leadership teams at a
higher rate than delegation strategies when distributing leadership across the team. Implications
for practice are provided in the researcher-developed “Framework for Building a Leadership
Team.”
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 8
Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of Effective Teams 23
Table 2: Elements of Collaborative Climates 32
Table 3: Frequency Counts for Selected Superintendent Demographic Variables 52
Table 4: Frequency Counts for Selected Team Member Demographic Variables 54
Table 5: Superintendent Ratings of the Competencies They Look for When Selecting Leadership
Team Members Sorted by Importance 57
Table 6: Frequency Counts for Number of Times Selection Process Variables were Coded in
Superintendent Interviews 59
Table 7: Ratings of Superintendents Top Six Collaborative Strategies Sorted by Highest Mean
Compared to the Leadership Team Members Responses 64
Table 8: Gap Score Between Superintendent Means and Leadership Team Member Means for
Collaborative Strategies Based on District 67
Table 9: Frequency Counts for Number of Times Collaborative Strategy Variables were Coded
in Superintendent Interviews 68
Table 10: Ratings of Superintendents’ Distributed Leadership Items Sorted by Highest Mean
Compared to the Leadership Team Members’ Responses 77
Table 11: Frequency Counts for Number of Times Distributed Leadership Strategy Variables
were Coded in Superintendent Interviews 82
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Framework for Research Study 39
Figure 2: Framework for Building a Leadership Team: Intentional Leadership Decisions 100
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 10
“The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he
wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
Theodore Roosevelt
Chapter One: Introduction
Public education is the great equalizer, allowing all citizens access to vital learning and
providing the foundation for our economy. It supports our democracy and allows us to tap into
the depth of human resources that our country needs more than ever. Effective public education
is at the crux of success for our nation. Barber and Mourshed (2007) reported that the failure of
public schools to successfully meet the needs of the populace due to underutilization of human
capital is the “equivalent of a permanent deep recession in terms of the gap between actual and
potential output of the economy” (as quoted in DuFour & Marzano, 2011, p. 9). Public
education provides the support for our economic prosperity and global competitiveness
(Klenowski, 2009; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010). In order for our educational system to
meet the needs of our nation, every state and district needs strong leadership to produce effective
systems, procedures and instructional practices that will result in high-achieving students
(Young, Fuller, Brewer, Carpenter, & Mansfield, 2007).
Leadership is a universal concept that has been studied and categorized for centuries
(Bass, 1990; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). The
idea of leadership and its effect on a society, an organization, or an individual has intrigued
social scientists for generations. Ancient philosophers pondered the meaning and nature of
leaders as they interacted with followers. Machiavelli wrote his famous book, The Prince, in the
early 1500s, in which he provides philosophical advice about leadership that is still studied
today. Contemporary social scientists began empirical research on the topic of leadership in the
20
th
century with an overarching focus on determining leader effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Louis et
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 11
al., 2010; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). According to Northouse (2007), the result of
the last 60 years of research on leadership has led to over 65 different ways to classify this topic.
In an effort to make sense of the research, many scholars have developed schemas for
categorizing the theories of leadership and their implications (Bass, 1990; Louis, et al., 2010;
Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Yukl (2013) provides a framework for understanding the
multitude of leadership studies by classifying leadership theories into three variables:
characteristics of the leader, characteristics of the followers, and characteristics of the situation.
He has further classified research studies into five approaches: Trait, Behavior, Power-Influence,
Situational, and Integrative, and has conceptualized theories into four types: Intra-Individual
Theories, Dyadic Theories, Group-Level Theories, and Organizational-Level Theories. Finally,
he offers an alternative way to compare leadership theories by providing three categories of
theories that can be viewed as a continuum: Leader-Centered or Follower-Centered Theory;
Descriptive or Prescriptive Theory; and Universal or Contingency Theory. The complexity of
his framework is evidence of the multitude of research that has been conducted on leadership.
Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2001), in their study of team leadership, address the irony
that with the massive amount of leadership research and theory, relatively little is known about
“how leaders create and handle effective teams” (p.451). Team research is well-documented
beginning as early as the 1920s. Initial research focused on human relationships and the
collaborative movement, leading directly into the 1940s’ studies of group dynamics. The 1950s
produced research focused on sensitivity training and the overall role of the leader in these
groups. Much of this research was conducted in laboratory settings, and when the research was
conducted in authentic settings, the groups were small and the context was ignored entirely.
Organizational development was the focus of research in the 1960s and 1970s, measuring
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 12
leadership effectiveness. Researchers in the 1980s studied quality teams, benchmarking, and
continuous improvement, while the researchers of the 1990s shifted to a more global perspective
and considered ways for teams to gain competitive advantages (Yukl, 2013).
Teams have the potential to be either helpful or harmful to an organization, and are not in
and of themselves virtuous (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Lencioni, 2003). Lencioni (2003) says “most
groups of executives fail to become cohesive teams because they drastically underestimate both
the power teamwork ultimately unleashes and the painful steps required to make teamwork a
reality” (p. 35). The downside to teams resides in the potential to succumb to peer pressure
and/or dominant personalities, or to allow individual agendas to drive the work of the team. In
order to benefit from the power of the team, leaders must fully understand the need for teamwork
and systematically develop the work environment to support successful collaboration. When
teams are in place for the right reason and focus on the right work, the strength of the combined
team members’ knowledge, diversity, and skills converge to produce results not available from
individuals (Bolman & Deal, 2008; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Lencioni, 2003; Northouse,
2007& 2010).
Collectively, team research supports the value of teams to improve the overall
performance of an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Lencioni,
2003; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Sivasubramaniam, Murra y, Avolio, & Jung, 2002; Yukl, 2013;
Zaccaro et al., 2001) although current research fails to provide a solid framework for the
development of effective teams. Executives need a more comprehensive understanding of how
to develop and sustain high-performing leadership teams. While early leadership research
focused on middle level leaders, more current research has addressed the executive team,
although there is a need to further understand how these teams use distributive leadership (Yukl,
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 13
2013). Whereas many studies have been conducted on leadership teams in business settings, and
to a lesser extent in medical settings, there is scant research on how to apply leadership team
principles to a public education setting. What is clear in the prevailing research is that for all
types of organizations, leadership does impact performance at all levels of the organization
(Bjork, 1993; Forsyth, 2004; O’Connell, Doverspike, & Cober, 2002).
Marzano and Waters (2009) echo this sentiment when they report that effective school
district leadership, specifically the role of effective superintendents, positively impacts student
achievement. The meta-analysis conducted by Marzano and Waters used the Hunter-Schmidt
perspective and found a .24 correlation between the relationship of district leaders’ actions and
average student achievement.
Superintendents have multiple responsibilities and must ensure that the work they are
doing is focused on the right tasks, in the right order, and with the right people. These are not
easy decisions, and most superintendents are not equipped to make these decisions alone. To
rise to the occasion and provide effective leadership to their districts, superintendents must
develop high-performing leadership teams.
Statement of the Problem
Research contends that leadership is the most critical aspect for increasing student
achievement. Effective leaders select competent team members, communicate the vision,
establish systems of collaboration, utilize the individual strengths of each team member, and set
the non-negotiables. Effective superintendents also recognize that they cannot succeed in
moving their organization forward without the assistance of strategic teams. DuFour and
Marzano (2011) argue that “no single person has all the knowledge, skills, and talent to lead a
district, improve a school, or meet all the needs of every child.” Educational and organizational
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 14
research have repeatedly stressed the need for creating strong leadership teams (Elmore, 2003;
Kanter, 1999; Kotter, 1996; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Sergiovanni, 2005).
Purpose of the Study
The intent of this study was to examine the strategies used by school district
superintendents to develop leadership teams. To fully understand the complexity of developing a
leadership team, this study examined the criteria superintendents set for leadership team
selection, as well as the methods and strategies they employ to develop collaborative climates
and distributed leadership models. The study provided research-based evidence for current
superintendents to utilize as a reference when developing leadership teams.
Research Questions
To achieve the stated purposes of this research, three research questions are addressed:
1. How do superintendents select leadership team members?
2. What strategies do superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate?
3. How do superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities?
The Importance of the Study
This study adds to the existing literature on team leadership and provides specific
guidance on how effective superintendents develop high-performing leadership teams. The study
identifies the critical elements of effective leadership teams: strategies for selecting team
members; guidelines for fostering collaborative cultures; and how effective superintendents
distribute and share leadership responsibilities. The study provides a framework for creating
high-performing leadership teams that can implement and sustain transformational reform. This
framework will be useful to current superintendents, educational leaders, and educational
researchers.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 15
This study is also important to aspiring leaders as they work towards developing their
leadership competencies. These leaders can utilize the framework as a guide to strengthen their
leadership skills. The study is also relevant to school boards. The study provides school board
members with the conceptual understanding of the superintendent’s need for a leadership team.
This will allow them to more closely align school board practices with the superintendent’s
leadership initiatives.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. Superintendents intended to hire the most qualified and effective leadership team
members for their districts.
2. The superintendents in this study provided honest and precise answers to
interview and survey questions.
3. District leadership team members in this study provided honest and precise
answers to survey questions.
4. The instruments, methods, and procedures used in this study to gather and
evaluate data were based upon prior empirical research standards and were
reliable and valid.
Limitations
This study includes the following limitations:
1. The limited time frame and travel time restricted the study to interviews of five
superintendents.
2. The limited time frame restricted the number of survey participants to five
superintendents and to 51 leadership team members.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 16
3. The study was limited to voluntary participation by superintendents and their
leadership team members.
4. The quantitative nature of this study lent itself to Type I or Type II errors based
on the small sample size.
5. The qualitative nature of this study lent itself to potential researcher bias.
Delimitations
This study includes the following delimitation:
1. The superintendents were all from large unified school districts.
Definitions
Leadership: process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve
a common good (Northouse, 2007, p. 3).
Teams: a group of individuals who work interdependently and collaboratively
toward a common goal.
Leadership teams: members of this team hold positional authority through their
assignment as deputy, assistant, or area superintendents, and within the
district hierarchy report directly to the superintendent.
Collaborative Climate: a working environment in which employees have high levels of
accountability, trust, and commitment, thus encouraging constructive
disagreement wherein all members come together to ascertain the best
actions to achieve the most beneficial organizational outcomes.
Distributed Leadership: leadership that either utilizes a collaborative decision making
process sans a formal leader or leadership that is given to the team
member who is most capable of leading for the specific situation.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 17
Chapter Two will provide a comprehensive review of the relevant literature directly
related to team leadership: selecting team members, building a collaborative climate, and
distributive leadership practices.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this literature review is to review the most significant literature
addressing team leadership. Because almost two decades of organizational and education
research has repeatedly argued the need for creating strong leadership teams (Collins, 2001;
Elmore, 2003; Kanter, 1999; Kotter, 1996; Sivasubramaniam, Murray, Avolio, & Jung, 2002;
Sergiovanni, 2005; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it is imperative that the process school
district superintendents employ to select and develop high-functioning teams is examined. The
literature review is structured into four sections. Each section is a comprehensive review of
prominent literature relevant to the following topics: (a) teams and teamwork; (b) selecting
leadership team members; (c) collaborative strategies; and, (d) distributive leadership. The
review ends with conclusions drawn from the prevailing research and applications specific to this
study.
Introduction
Leadership is a critical component for increasing student achievement. In order for
superintendents to lead their districts effectively and produce high achieving students in the
public school system, they must utilize strategic planning and consistent implementation of high
impact programs. Since the research clearly states that no superintendent could possess all the
skills that are necessary to develop the strategic plan and carry out all the components of the plan
singlehandedly, superintendents must understand and utilize the power of leadership teams.
In their study of team leadership, Zaccaro et al. (2001) address the irony that with the
massive amount of leadership research and theory, relatively little is known about “how leaders
create and handle effective teams” (p.451). Team research is well documented, beginning as
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 19
early as the 1920s, however researchers still contend that relatively little empirical research is
available to guide leaders regarding how they can effectively develop and manage a team.
Teams and Teamwork
There is abundant research supporting the concept of teams and teamwork as a critical
component for solving complex problems in a rapidly changing world (Day, Gronn, & Salas,
2004; Irving & Longbotham, 2007; LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Lencioni,
2003; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; West et al., 2003; Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002;
Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). It is the complexity of the problems facing organizations
today that makes developing and sustaining teams critical.
In educational settings, the current problems are interwoven and convoluted. At
minimum, these problems require a strong understanding of instructional pedagogy, human
development, school finance at the federal, state, and local level, resource allocation, technology
infrastructure and integration, cultural competency, human resources, and organizational
structure. A single individual could not accumulate this amount of knowledge and effectively
lead a district singlehandedly (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
In their meta-analysis of leadership studies and student academic achievement, Marzano
and Waters (2009) identify five responsibilities that the district leader should employ in his quest
for successful schools. All five responsibilities fall into the categories of collaborative behaviors
and distributed leadership. Collaborative behaviors are those that build a team’s overall trust and
functionality; distributed leadership behaviors disperse leadership across a collaborative team.
Given the current research, the best way a superintendent can lead a school district in today’s
complex world is by the effective use of a leadership team (Elmore, 2003; Kanter, 1999; Kotter,
1996; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Sergiovanni, 2005).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 20
A team is generally defined as two or more people working interdependently toward a
clearly articulated goal (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). For the
intent of this study a team is defined as “a group of individuals who work interdependently and
collaboratively toward a common goal.” Each member of the team should offer unique skills or
talents that lend themselves to the solution of the problem facing the team.
Researchers repeatedly contend that teams make better decisions than individuals
(Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013; Lencioni, 2003). Decisions made by teams generally
lead to higher quality solutions, and spark innovation that would not result from an individual
working in isolation. According to Yukl, the effectiveness of teams is heightened when the teams
are diverse. He contends that each team member must have unique perspectives, extensive
content knowledge and skills, and the ability to work collaboratively with the other members of
the team.
Day et al. (2004) caution that teams are frequently viewed as “organizational heroes.”
When teams are viewed this way, any authentic failure of the “heroic team” may be deflected
and blame placed on nonexistent causes. Teams will not always succeed in their intended goal
and they must be held accountable for their failures. Day et al. further concluded that “at best the
evidence is mixed regarding the benefits of teams and teamwork” (p. 876), while also conceding
that there appear to be potential benefits to including teamwork in organizational structures.
Other researchers argue that the notion of team leadership is a redundancy because all acts of
leadership are collective and shared (Burns, 2003, and Drath, 2001, as cited in Day et al., 2004).
While the benefits of teams are widely supported by current researchers, Day et al. support
further study addressing the benefits of leadership teams as an organizational strategy.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 21
In order for teams to successfully address problems and reach their goals, participation
and cooperation are essential elements of teamwork (Day et al., 2004; Irving & Longbotham,
2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2003: LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Lencioni,
2003; Northhouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro et al., 2001). According to Day et al.:
Greater collaboration among employees is often seen as a way to achieve collective
organizational goals and develop a competitive advantage. For these reasons, executives
and managers often promote teamwork as a core value in their organizations. Indeed,
survey results of human resource professionals in Fortune 100 companies indicate that
teamwork and how to capitalize on it were their highest priorities (p. 862-863).
Leaders should be cautioned to remain cognizant that teamwork is a complex and
dynamic strategy and not the universal remedy to organizational problems (Day et al., 2004;
Lencioni, 2003). Researchers contend that the majority of organizations tout teamwork as a core
value; however, very few actually embody teamwork as an effective working strategy. Lencioni
further states that the effects of a faux team are more detrimental to an organization than the
absence of teamwork. If an organization is not prepared to embody the characteristics of
effective teams, then they are better served by a more autonomous top-down structure.
Characteristics of Effective Teams
In 1986, Hackman and Walton’s research yielded five conditions of group effectiveness:
clear and engaging direction, enabling structure, enabling context, adequate material resources,
and expert coaching. Larson and LaFasto’s (1989) research looked at the practices of more than
75 teams and identified eight characteristics of high functioning teams: a clear, elevating goal, a
results-driven structure, competent team members, unified commitment, a collaborative climate,
standards of excellence, external support and recognition, and principled leadership. Mickan and
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 22
Rodger (2000) were interested in studying the effects of teams in healthcare settings. They
conducted a review of the extant research and found that the following seven structures were
evident for all effective teams: clear purpose, appropriate culture, specified task, distinct roles,
suitable leadership, relevant members, and adequate resources.
In 2003, Lencioni identified the following five conditions that must be strategically
achieved in order for teamwork to be beneficial: vulnerability-based trust, healthy conflict,
unwavering commitment, unapologetic accountability, and collective orientation to results. In
2005, Salas, Sims and Burke offered a “practical yet inclusive taxonomy that only includes
components that most heavily affect team performance and that are found in almost all teamwork
taxonomies (p. 559). Their “big five” components are: mutual performance, back-up behaviors,
adaptability, active leadership, and team orientation.
Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005) reviewed team research literature to
reevaluate the Input-Process-Output (I-P-O) model of teams. In this model, teams are viewed as
operating in a linear fashion: receiving input, processing this input, and finally outputting a
product. Their work yielded a new Input Mediator Output Input (IMOI) model, whereby
mediating influences and variability in team performance are considered. This model embeds
the following characteristics into an effective team structure: trusting relationships, project
planning, defining norms, roles, and interaction patterns, development of rapport, team
adaptability and workload sharing, and learning from each other. See Table 1 for a
comprehensive summary of characteristics of effective teams as identified by the stated
researchers.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 23
Table 1
Characteristics of Effective Teams
Conditions of
Group
Effectiveness
(Hackman &
Walton,
1986)
Characteristics
of Effective
Teams
(Larson &
LaFasto, 1989)
Characteristics
of Effective
Teams: A
Literature
Review
(Mickan &
Rodger, 2000)
Conditions of
Teamwork
(Lencioni,
2003)
Big Five of
Teamwork
(Salas et al.,
2005)
Framework
for Effective
Teams
(Ilgen et al.,
2005)
Clear,
engaging
direction
Clear, elevating
goal
Clear purpose Vulnerability-
based trust
Mutual
performance
Trusting
relationships
Enabling
structure
Results-driven
structure
Appropriate
culture
Healthy
Conflict
Back-up
behaviors
Project
planning
Enabling
context
Competent team
members
Specified task Unwavering
Commitment
Adaptability Defining
norms, roles,
and
interaction
patterns
Adequate
material
resources
Unified
Commitment
Distinct roles Unapologetic
Accountability
Active
Leadership
Development
of rapport
Expert
coaching
Collaborative
climate
Suitable
leadership
Collective
Orientation to
Results
Team
Orientation
Team
adaptability
and workload
sharing
Standards of
excellence
Relevant
members
Learning
from each
other
External support
and recognition
Adequate
resources
Principled
Leadership
Note. Adapted from: Northouse, 2010.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 24
Team Leadership
Historically, leadership has been viewed as hierarchical with a leader or boss at the top
and subordinates below. The leaders were perceived to have rare and inherent traits that made
them most suitable to lead and make difficult decisions in the best interest of the organization
(Day et al., 2004; Irving & Longbotham, 2007; LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Northouse, 2007 &
2010; Yukl, 2013). These leaders were highly capable, charismatic, intelligent individuals who
led from a single vantage point.
As the problems facing organizations have become more complex, this single leader
model is the least likely to provide the breadth of leadership necessary to produce meaningful
change. It has become increasingly clear that the conceptualization of leadership must be
broadened beyond that of the top-down heroic model. Current views consider leadership to be
more interrelated. One person is not capable of possessing all the necessary skills and traits to
independently run an organization (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Elmore, 2003; Kanter, 1999;
Kotter, 1996; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Sergiovanni, 2005).
Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, and Halpin (2006) used a theoretical framework to
structure a meta-analysis of the relevant literature regarding the relationship between specific
leadership behaviors and team performance outcomes. Their findings suggest that leader
behaviors related to task accomplishment were moderately related to perceived team
effectiveness, while leader behaviors that facilitated team interaction were related to team
effectiveness, team productivity and team learning. While the team leader must maintain the
structure of the team and hold the end product in mind, the work he does in developing the
collaborative climate of the team is strongly related to the team’s performance.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 25
In order to develop a productive team, team leaders must have “zero tolerance for
individually focused behavior” (Lencioni, 2003, p. 39), and they must find ways to manage the
egos of the highly capable and accomplished members or the team. Individual agendas and
personal goals must not derail the team from its collective mission. Effectively functioning
problem solving teams also require dissent in order to find innovative solutions to complex
problems. Productive, healthy conflict involves team members presenting dissenting views and
supporting their arguments with valid knowledge. Teams must have confidence in each other’s
skills in order for productive conflict to result in true problem solving. Balancing individuality
within the team and providing an environment that allows productive conflict is a difficult task
and requires an astute leader (Lencioni, 2003).
Summary of Teams and Teamwork
The ubiquitous research addressing team leadership coupled with Marzano and Waters’
(2009) work has clarified the why of teams. Furthermore, the research has developed a strong
case for school district leadership to employ teams effectively. It is imperative to remember that
just having a group of people working together does not constitute a team. Teams must be
carefully developed and nurtured with strong, principled leadership. To this end, it is important
to consider the selection process for the individuals who will make up the leadership team.
Selecting Leadership Team Members
In order for teams to work well for organizations, the right people must be selected to
work on the team. Many current researchers believe that the people on the team are more
powerful predictors of success than any other factor (Collins, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989;
Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Leaders who try to implement teamwork with the wrong
mix of members will undoubtedly report the failure of teams themselves. Teams not only need
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 26
the right mix of members, team members must also possess the right education, the right
information, and the right technical skills to accomplish the team’s goal (Northouse, 2007 &
2010). Selecting the right people for the team includes understanding the individual skills and
experiences each member brings to the team (Yukl, 2013).
Member Competencies.
The selection process for team members requires a leader to clearly understand the goals
the team will be working toward, and conceptually perceive the types of issues that may be
relevant. This global view of the work is necessary for the leader to select the right people for
the team. Members of a team must have dual abilities: first, they must possess the depth of
knowledge needed to understand the problem; and second, they must understand the need to
successfully work interdependently with all members of the team.
From their study of 75 teams, Larson and LaFasto (1989) report “what matters most is
selecting members who possess (1) the necessary technical skills and abilities to achieve the
desired objective, and (2) the personal characteristics required to achieve excellence while
working well with others” (p. 62). While it is usually easier to identify the technical skills that a
potential team member possesses, it is critical that team selection strategies are aimed at
identifying both the technical and interpersonal skills of the applicants. It is, after all, the
interpersonal attributes of team members that allow them to become a functioning team member.
A common mistake that leaders make in the selection of team members is to assume that
people who possess the technical skills to complete a task will also possess the interpersonal
skills necessary to work interdependently (Northouse, 2007 & 2010). While the ability to
adeptly complete tasks is a critical attribute for team members, unless they possess the ability to
build relationships, listen and respond constructively to dissenting views, and demonstrate
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 27
flexibility, their value as a team member is likely to go unnoticed. In fact, members who are
highly intelligent but demonstrate low interpersonal skills cause more damage than their intellect
may be worth to the team (Ilgen et al., 2005).
Team Diversity.
Problem solving teams are well served when members provide diverse skills,
backgrounds, and perspectives and have a well-defined and developed collaborative climate to
work within. While diversity is generally seen as a positive component of effective teams, Ilgen
et al. (2005) caution that moderately heterogeneous teams are more dysfunctional than
homogenous teams. They contend that a moderately heterogeneous team lends itself to creating
subgroups that may work against the team’s efforts to be cohesive. In other words, if a 15-
member team is primarily female, adding two males to create diversity may actually lead to a
“male subgroup” that functions at odds with the team. The moderately heterogeneous nature of
the team may work against the goal of creating more diverse decision- making. The males may
feel isolated or identify themselves as “token members” who are not valued in team discussions.
When selecting team members a leader must critically consider the composition of the team.
When true diversity is not possible, the leader may be better served to find highly compatible
homogeneous members.
Summary of Selecting Team Members
Most of the research on team selection has been conducted in private, corporate settings.
While the theory is relevant to educational settings, selecting team members in public education
has unique issues that potentially create obstacles for school district superintendents. Private
corporate organizations may have more flexibility in hiring and firing team members, whereas a
superintendent may be confined to working with the team currently in place. Additionally, many
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 28
of the members of a leadership team in education possess similar educational and professional
backgrounds, making the selection of diverse members challenging. Further, state credentialing
and authorization laws may limit the choices a superintendent faces when trying to assemble a
collaborative leadership team. Based on the prevailing team research, leaders should focus
equally on skills, personality traits, and diversity when conducting a search for team members.
Collaborative Strategies
As stated earlier, the need for teamwork is the result of complex problems that are not
easily solved by an individual. LaFasto and Larson (2001) contend that teamwork “is made
possible by the increasing social capacities of individuals and collectives to use collaborative
strategies when dealing with common problems” (p. xx). From their quantitative study of over
6,000 team members from various organizations, LaFasto and Larson (2001) were able to
identify six critical competencies that a leader must possess to effectively lead teamwork.
Similar to the work of Marzano and Waters (2009) ensuring a collaborative climate was among
the competencies.
Fostering a collaborative climate.
Ilgen et al. (2005) found through their extensive research that in order for a team to be
collaborative, they must have shared “mental models.” “Mental models” are referenced by
multiple leadership researchers and are generically explained as a collective understanding with
regard to the goals, tasks, beliefs, and skills that the team embodies (Ilgen et al., 2005; Oguawa
& Bossert, 2000; Salas et al., 2005; Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro et al., 2001; Zaccaro & Klimoski,
2002). The idea behind shared mental models is that the more collaborative a team is, the
stronger their shared mental models will be. This strength is derived from the effectively
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 29
developed relationships between team members. In such a setting team members “think alike”
with regard to the goals of the team.
Leading a collaborative environment is essential to the success of teamwork. Northouse
(2007 & 2010) explains “a collaborative environment is one in which members can stay
problem-focused, listen to and understand one another, feel free to take risks, and be willing to
compensate for one another” (p. 220). Northouse builds upon this same concept when he
emphasizes the need for a leader to ensure that trusting relationships built on honesty, openness,
consistency and respect are developed among team members. It is imperative that the leader
ensures a safe environment for communication. Creating a safe, trusting, and collaborative
environment is a critical component of effective leadership, and getting the right people in place
is only the beginning; if a collaborative process is missing, then confusion among the team may
emerge (Yukl, 2013).
Creating the collaborative process requires a multitude of leader behaviors: establishing
norms, encouraging openness and mutual trust, dealing with weak links in the team, and
avoiding actions that foster competition between team members (Lencioni, 2003; Yukl, 2013).
In order to create a collaborative climate, the leader must refrain from dominating the decision
making process. Lencioni (2003) postulates that leaders may struggle with releasing control over
decisions. The leader may resist because he believes that a longer, collaborative team decision
making process is wasting valuable time. When leaders forego the discussion around decision
making, with the potential productive and healthy conflict that may arise between team
members, and the leaders unilaterally make decisions, they jeopardize the collaborative climate
that is needed to effectively address complex problems within their organization.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 30
Teams will not naturally develop a mutually trusting relationship in which diverse and
dissenting opinions are allowable and helpful (Ilgen et al., 2005; Lencioni, 2003; Northouse,
2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). It is the job of the team leader to create the trusting environment and
support the team as they learn to negotiate with each other. Executive teams often face a unique
challenge when it comes to building a collaborative culture. These teams are generally
composed of highly successful individuals who have demonstrated remarkable success in their
careers. These individuals may have made great career strides through independent work habits
and may be reticent to participate as a collaborative team member. Leaders of these executive
teams must work to keep individual egos in check, and ensure that personal agendas are not
driving the work. When egos are left unchecked, collaboration will become hijacked (Yukl,
2013).
Ilgen et al. (2005) provide recommendations to leaders for the development of
collaborative teams. They recommend the leader focuses on developing each team member’s
communication skills, and further recommend the leader develop the practice of workload
sharing. Workload sharing, as defined by Ilgen et al., is active participation of team members in
sharing another team members work or “backing up” another member when demands on the
team are high. In a study by Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998; as cited by Ilgen et al.,
2005), teams that were rated high for emotional stability and agreeableness (i.e. a strong
collaborative climate) demonstrated higher levels of reciprocal workload sharing. This practice
resulted in the team’s overall effectiveness increasing
Ilgen et al. (2005) explain workload sharing as a necessary element embedded in a
collaborative team. They caution, however, that workload sharing can be a “double-edged
sword.” Workload sharing can be considered “high legitimacy” or “low legitimacy” based on
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 31
the circumstances. Low legitimacy workload sharing is less desirable and may lead to
dysfunctional team attitudes, if members feel that an individual is skirting his duties. High
legitimacy behaviors, on the other hand, build mutual trust and lead to a stronger collaborative
climate.
Ilgen et al. (2005) argue that teams and their leaders often never look back to self-analyze
their work. These researchers contend that without this self-reflective practice, teams will not
function at their optimal level; the teams will lack a systematic, thoughtful way of determining
the reasons for their own successes and failures. Leaders who wish to develop collaborative
climates must build in reflective practices that are non-judgmental. The purpose for the team
must be to build competence. The reflective activity should result in identifying practices that
worked to further the team’s goal and practices that deterred the team from the goal.
In their extensive review of team leadership literature, Salas et al. (2005) summarized the
five most critical components for effective teams. Active leadership was one of the components
that they believe is essential to team success. According to Salas et al. “team leadership affects
team effectiveness not by handing down solutions to the team but rather by facilitating team
problem solving through cognitive processes” (p. 572). The leader is critical in building the
climate in which collaboration can productively work to solve the complex problems today’s
teams face. As described, this team leadership behavior is consistent with the prevailing research
(LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013).
Summary of collaborative strategies.
In summarizing the literature on building a collaborative climate several key features
emerge. A team leader must define a clear objective, establish norms to facilitate group
processes, strengthen the inter-personal skills of all team members, encourage openness and
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 32
mutual trust, avoid actions that foster competition or distrust, build reflective practices, and
immediately handle the weak links on the team. See Table 2 for a comprehensive summary of
the elements of a collaborative climate as identified by researchers.
Table 2
Elements of Collaborative Climates
Larson & LaFasto
(1989)
Lencioni
(2003)
Ilgen et al. (2005) Northouse (2007
& 2010)
Yukl (2013)
Clearly defined
roles and
responsibilities
Vulnerability
based trust
Shared mental models Problem focused Helping
behaviors
Climate of trust Healthy
conflict
High legitimacy
workload sharing
Listen to and
understand one
another
Defined
process
Openness Unapologetic
accountability
Reflective practices Feel free to take
risks
Managing
egos
Honesty Managing roles Learning from team
members (distributed
leadership)
Willing to
compensate for
one another
Consistency
Respect
Note. Adapted from Northouse, 2010
While it is clear that team leaders need to actively engage in these collaborative practices,
the bulk of the research has been conducted in business settings. What is still unclear is how a
school district superintendent effectively utilizes this knowledge within the structure of public
education to increase the productivity of the top leadership team, ultimately improving the
educational process for students. During the 1990s, research emerged from the field of education
conceptualizing distributed leadership (Fitzsimons, James, & Denyer, 2011). As part of the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 33
development of a collaborative climate, distributed leadership is a strategy a superintendent can
implement to capitalize on competent team members.
Distributive Leadership
Ensuring a collaborative climate is one of the six essential components of effective teams
identified by LaFasto and Larson (2001). Salas et al. (2005) provide support for the behaviors
needed to build a collaborative climate, reinforcing the need for leaders of executive teams to
understand and utilize “shared or distributed” leadership. In fact, they believe this “shared or
distributed” leadership is a critical aspect of executive team leadership. According to Yukl
(2013) “distributed leadership involves multiple leaders with distinct but inter-related
responsibilities” (p. 295). Day et al. (2004), conceptualize distributed leadership as one lens for
studying the dynamics of collaborative teams.
A review of current literature results in no fewer than ten terms to define the concept of
distributed leadership. Fitzsimons et al. (2011) provide the following list of terms: “dispersed,
devolved, democratic, distributive, collaborative, collective, co-operative, concurrent,
coordinated, relational, and co-leadership” (p. 313), while acknowledging that the terms “shared”
or “distributed” have become the most frequently used.
The shared leadership concept came primarily from the literature on organizational
teams. It refers to the style of team leadership where all members are leaders (i.e., the team is
self-led) and decisions are made collectively. Distributed leadership emerged from the
educational sector. It was specifically aimed at moving leadership out of the district office and
into the schools and classrooms (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). In 2002 Gronn’s research began to
synthesize the concepts of shared and distributed leadership, but by this time varying views had
become rooted (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). For the intent of this study, the term “distributed
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 34
leadership” will be used to express leadership that either utilizes a collaborative decision making
process sans a formal leader, or leadership that is given to the team member who is most capable
of leading for the specific situation.
As mentioned earlier, researchers caution that collaborative teamwork is not the universal
remedy for organizational problems (Lencioni, 2003; Day et al., 2004). Similarly, Harris (2008)
warns that distributed leadership is not the panacea for building a collaborative climate. Harris
addresses concerns that distributed leadership may lead to incoherence within the group if care is
not taken to structure this model. She offers two criteria that must be in place for distributed
leadership to become a productive component of an overall collaborative climate. First,
leadership must be distributed to the member of the team who actually possesses the technical
skills and know-how to complete the task. Second, distributed leadership must be part of an
overall team plan and the activities need to be coordinated.
Spillane (2005) defines distributed leadership as a “system of practice comprised of a
collection of interacting components: leaders, followers, and situation” (p. 150). In this way
distributed leadership centers on leadership as a practice. These interdependencies are critical to
the dynamics surrounding the successful use of distributive leadership. Distributive leadership
involves multiple leaders with distinct but interrelated responsibilities (Sivasubramaniam et al.,
2002; Yukl, 2013). Spillane (2005) argues that distributed leadership is not a synonym for
shared leadership, although other researchers use the terms interchangeably.
Day et al. (2004) consider distributed leadership the sum of the team leadership capacity;
in other words, the combined human capital, knowledge and skills that a team collectively
possesses. Utilizing this combined capacity in a distributive manner is one important aspect of a
collaborative climate. Burke et al. (2006) argue that a single person need not accomplish
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 35
leadership functions; these tasks can be distributed throughout the team. However, it remains the
leader’s role to ensure that all functions/tasks are accomplished. Furthermore, Harris (2008)
writes “distributed leadership theory would recognize that many people will have the potential to
exercise leadership in any organization but the key to success will be the way that leadership is
facilitated, orchestrated, and supported” (p. 173).
Northouse (2007 & 2010) describes distributive leadership practice as a fundamental
restructuring of the duties and responsibilities previously held by the formal leader. This
collaborative strategy may not be appropriate for all the team’s decisions. An astute leader needs
to decide the when and how of distributing leadership to a collaborative team.
Organizations and school districts currently maintain a prominent structure whereby they
enlist top leadership teams to oversee all organizational actions. This structure is dominated by a
top executive (e.g., CEO or superintendent) who has the final authority and responsibility as
related to outcomes. The practice of distributing leadership at this level, however, is becoming an
increasing popular alternative to the traditional top-down structure (Yukl, 2013). Harris (2008)
offers empirical support for enlisting this lateral practice. Her research found empirical evidence
demonstrating a positive relationship between distributed leadership and organizational change.
Advantages of using distributive leadership within these executive leadership teams are:
the collective human capital of the team will compensate for weaknesses of the CEO or
superintendent, important tasks are less likely to be neglected, communication and cooperation is
likely to be improved, involvement in decision making will improve commitment to
implementation of the solution, and decisions will more likely represent diverse interests and
perspectives (Harris, 2008; Yukl, 2013).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 36
Additional benefits of implementing distributive leadership have been identified as:
stronger task commitment, greater initiative in carrying out role responsibilities, greater
persistence in the face of obstacles and temporary setbacks, more innovation and learning,
stronger optimism about the eventual success of the work, higher job satisfaction, stronger
organizational commitment, and less turnover (Yukl, 2013). These benefits make a strong case
for team leaders to develop the know-how with regard to effectively distributing leadership,
although researchers highlight concerns with this strategy.
Specifically, a leader needs to be aware of the risks involved in distributing leadership in
an executive team. Without proper supervision, team members may make inappropriate
decisions that become the responsibility of the CEO or superintendent (Harris, 2008; Yukl,
2013). Along this same line, team members may gain an inflated sense of their authority, and
harbor resentment when the leader is unwilling or unable to concede the leadership role to team
members. Yukl further speculates that distributed leadership could result in higher labor costs
related to selection and training. Day et al. (2004) caution that without clear understanding of
the practice of distributive leadership, it may become a label used to describe practices that
already exist within an organization.
Distributed leadership has been subdivided into two distinct categories by researchers.
One category involves synergistic joint action. The team works as one to solve problems and
make decisions. The second category is additive where the member with the most expertise on a
given topic steps into the leadership role as appropriate (Gronn, 2002, as cited in Fitzsimons et
al., 2011). There are two very similar types of distributive leadership: participative leadership
and delegation (Yukl, 2013).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 37
Participative leadership.
In this variety of distributive leadership, all members of the team participate in the
decision making process through a power sharing model. In order to enter into this type of
distributed leadership, the hierarchical leader must consider the importance of the decision,
identify the relevant people who need to provide input, determine the ability of the relevant
people to cooperate in the decision making process, evaluate the likelihood of acceptance by the
team if the decision is made in a top-down manner, and evaluate the feasibility of working
through a participative decision (Yukl, 2013). In a participative team, the team shares unique
skills, talents, and knowledge. The final decision is made by the team as a unit, without one
formal leader.
Participative leadership can be a beneficial strategy. Decisions made in a participative
manner often result in higher quality decisions, stronger commitment to the plan by team
members, more satisfaction in the decision making process, and increased problem solving skills
of team members (Yukl, 2013). Additionally, working in a participative team can result in
increased learning for all members (Harris, 2008).
Delegation.
Delegation looks and feels more like traditional top-down leadership, where one member
of the team has the formal authority to make the final decision. The distributive aspect of this
strategy is the official relinquishing of the authority by the CEO or superintendent to a team
member who has more knowledge or expertise in a specific area. This type of distributive
leadership is sometimes referred to as power-shifting (Yukl, 2013). The formal leader needs to
consider the magnitude of the decision and the skills and talents of the team member prior to
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 38
delegating authority. Delegation is most effective when the team member has clear guidelines
that clarify the scope of the project and the precise level of positional authority.
Delegation can provide better quality decisions if the team member possesses more
expertise than the formal leader. It can also improve job satisfaction if the team members feel an
appropriate level of challenge and success, during and after the process. Delegation, like
participative leadership, can improve the problem solving skills of team members. Delegation
can be the correct choice of distributive leadership, if subordinates are more qualified to
complete the task than the formal leader and the tasks are urgent but not high priority.
Delegation is likely to be an unsuccessful strategy if the formal leader only delegates
unpleasant or impossible tasks. Yukl (2013) cautions that a formal leader can never delegate
tasks that are the specific responsibility of the formal leader. For example, a superintendent
could not delegate the responsibility of reporting and working directly with the elected board of
trustees to a subordinate.
Summary of distributed leadership.
Distributed leadership has empirical support and is a viable leadership strategy (Avolio,
Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Harris, 2008; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Spillane, 2005; Yukl, 2013).
Fitzsimons et al. (2011) state, “there is sufficient evidence in these and similar studies to argue
that teams in which leadership is shared are considered effective” (p. 317). Spillane’s work on
The Distributive Leadership Study (2004, Northwestern University) provides further empirical
evidence supporting distributive leadership as a practice for improving school leadership. Day et
al. (2004) explain that technical changes may be readily handled through existing resources;
however, adaptive challenges require novel solutions and strong distributive leadership to
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 39
resolve. Ensley, Hmieleski, and Pearce (2006) provide empirical evidence that “shared
leadership processes add substantial insight into the performance of organizations” (p. 228).
Conclusion
This literature review has considered the relevant research with regard to effective team
leadership through the development of a collaborative climate and the use of distributive
leadership. The review develops the case for a school district superintendent to focus on
selecting the right team, building a collaborative climate, and participating in effectively
distributing leadership among the top leadership team members. Figure 1 provides a framework
for the current study. The framework was developed using the work of Larson and LaFasto due
to the fact that all of the current literature on teams references and builds upon their work. The
characteristics they developed in their 1989 study are foundational for successive team research.
Figure 1. Framework for Research Study
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 40
Superintendents are burdened with the task of solving multiple multifaceted problems
facing public schools in the 21
st
century. The demands of these tasks are complex, and current
research supports the strategic use of leadership teams. The intent of this study is to examine the
current strategies used by superintendents with regard to selecting and developing a district
leadership team, and to provide a conceptual framework for assisting a superintendent in the
development of his top leadership team.
While there is ample research, in fact abundant research, in the area of leadership, little
research has been conducted in the field of education specific to the selection and development
of leadership teams. The prevailing research provides sufficient evidence to warrant applying
team leadership principles to the field of education, specifically to the role of the school district
superintendent. This research study will consider how superintendents select leadership team
members, build a collaborative culture, and distribute leadership. Chapter Three will describe
the research design, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and will consider threats to
the validity of the study.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 41
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the methods used to conduct this research study. The chapter will
specify the sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis procedures and
threats to internal validity.
Overview
In today’s global society, organizations face complex problems that require the combined
strengths of many leaders. “Even in endeavors in which autonomy seems great and individual
responsibility for action might be presumed commonplace, complexity and the need for
collaboration are becoming irrefutable facts of life” (Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 16). The need
for school district superintendents to have effective strategies when developing and managing
their leadership teams is imperative. While teams will not ensure high quality problem solving
and collaboration, research asserts that teams lead to increased productivity, better use of
resources, better decisions, and greater innovation and creativity (Northouse, 2007 & 2010).
Previously, research asserted that defining the “what” of the work was critical to an
organization’s ability to generate solutions to the complex problems they faced (Collins, 2001;
LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Current research argues that selecting the right people is a critical first
step in creating a high performing team. When selecting team members, superintendents must
consider education, interest, perspectives, and diversity (Yukl, 2013). A common mistake
superintendents make is assuming that interpersonal skills are secondary to technical
competence. In order for teams to function at high levels, the selection process must consider
team size, members’ interpersonal skills, and their ability to collaborate, as well as their technical
skills. Comparing the prevalent research with regard to selecting the right team members against
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 42
the selection behaviors of superintendents assisted the researchers in answering the research
question: How do superintendents select leadership team members?
While selecting the right team members is critical, failure to define a collaborative
process will result in confusion (Yukl, 2013). Research outlines elements consistent with a
collaborative culture: trustworthiness, honesty, openness, consistency, respect, and clearly
defining roles and responsibilities (LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Lencioni,
2003; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Examining the elements needed when building
collaborative climates assisted the researchers in addressing the research question: What
strategies do superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate?
An increasingly common practice of executive teams is distributed leadership
(Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Distributed leadership is an emerging view of
leadership practice, where leadership is a product of the interaction among the leaders, their
followers, and the situation (Spillane, 2005). Spillane maintains that the “situation defines
leadership practice in interaction with leaders and followers” (p. 145). Research also contends
that the responsibility for leadership includes multiple leaders, and the specific number is
dependent on the situation (Day et al., 2004; Spillane, 2005). To successfully lead,
superintendents must know when to incorporate the strategies of distributed leadership practice.
This study utilized the current research base to consider the research question: How do
superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities?
The importance of teams is evident from the research. However, a deeper understanding
of how to effectively create leadership teams is still needed. Creating a high performance
leadership team, fostering a collaborative climate, and distributing leadership is paramount to the
success of an organization. “In short, our contributions increasingly will come as a result of our
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 43
ability to understand teams and teamwork” (Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 18). Thus, establishing
a framework for how to effectively create an executive team will provide valuable information to
superintendents across the nation.
Purpose of the Study
The intent of this study was to examine the strategies used by school district
superintendents to develop leadership teams. To fully understand the complexity of developing a
leadership team, this study examined the criteria superintendents set for leadership team
selection, the methods and strategies they employ to develop collaborative climates, and
distributed leadership models. The study provided research-based evidence for current
superintendents to utilize as a reference when developing leadership teams.
Research Questions
To achieve the stated purposes of this research, the following three research questions
were addressed:
1. How do superintendents select leadership team members?
2. What strategies do superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate?
3. How do superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities?
Research Design
This mixed methods study was designed to examine the effective strategies used by
superintendents to develop leadership teams. This mixed methods design allowed researchers to
analyze the data more comprehensively (Creswell, 2009; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). In order
to acquire the needed data to adequately answer the research questions, both quantitative and
qualitative methods were employed. The quantitative design of the study provided researchers
with an understanding of self-reported behaviors from participants, while the qualitative
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 44
component provided researchers with insight into why teams behave in particular ways.
Specifically, the quantitative component provided the researchers a broader data set from a larger
sample population. It permitted the researchers to collect data from superintendents as well as
their leadership team members. It also provided an understanding of self-reported behavior from
participants. The qualitative interview protocol provided the researchers a smaller in-depth
sample in order to understand the thought processes superintendents use when working with
leadership teams, as well as insight into why teams behave in particular ways.
In this study, surveys were used to measure the relationship between effective leadership
strategies and leadership team efficacy. Surveys were distributed to five superintendents and 51
leadership team members who directly reported to the five superintendents. The survey was
categorized into sections based on the three research questions. The survey questions were
adapted from the work of Larson and LaFasto (1987, 1996, & 2001), and incorporated
components of current team leadership theory (Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl 2013).
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey data.
Superintendents’ team development strategies were explored using interviews with
superintendents. Patton discusses the incorporation of interviewing as a necessary technique to
gain the perspective of others. “We interview to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind,
to gather their stories” (Patton, 2002, p. 341).
Five in-depth interviews were conducted with superintendents. Each interview consisted
of two researchers and one interviewee. Two of the interviews were conducted in a private
office selected by the superintendent. Three of the interviews were conducted by phone. Two
types of interview instrumentation were interwoven to develop the interview protocol. The
interview protocol blended the standardized open-ended interview and the interview guide
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 45
approach (Patton, 2002). Each superintendent was asked a core set of 13 questions to increase
comparability of responses, and to assist in the organization and analysis of the data. To increase
the depth and breadth of obtained data, the interview protocol included the interview guide
approach, which allowed the interviewers to address situational topics as they occurred naturally
during the interview (see Appendix A).
The sample population for the quantitative portion of this study included five
superintendents across the country who lead districts ranging from 35,000 to 672,000 or more
students in kindergarten to grade twelve, and 51 members of their leadership teams. Purposeful
sampling of superintendents was used to identify district leaders who had experience and
expertise in leading large unified school districts. The selection of these superintendents was
intentional because of their ability to contribute meaningful data to the study. Purposeful
sampling of the leadership team members included only administrators who reported directly to
the superintendent.
Two survey protocols were developed. One protocol for superintendents and the second
protocol for leadership team members. Both survey protocols were adapted from the work of
Larson and LaFasto (1987, 1996, & 2001). The superintendent survey addressed all three
research questions (see Appendix B). The leadership team member survey items were based on
the second and third research questions (see Appendix C).
The qualitative interview portion of this study used purposeful sampling to determine the
interviewees. The first interview was at the request of a superintendent of a large urban school
district. This superintendent was asked to provide names of other superintendents who could
contribute valuable information to the study. This process yielded four additional
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 46
superintendents across the country to interview. Interviews were conducted with superintendents
from California, Nevada, Colorado, and Georgia. Interviews lasted an average of 42 minutes.
Instrumentation.
Two surveys were developed for the quantitative portion of the study. The superintendent
survey had 31 items that addressed all three of the research questions. The leadership team
member survey had 30 items that addressed research questions number two and three. The
leadership team member survey protocol was distributed to individuals who reported directly to
the superintendent.
The surveys took each respondent approximately 10 minutes to complete. Twenty-eight
of the questions were designed on a four point Likert scale: 1 = false; 2 = more false than true;
3 = more true than false; and 4 = true. Two questions were written to yield an open-ended
response. The Superintendent Survey included one additional question addressing research
question number one. Thirty of the survey questions were adapted from Larson and LaFasto’s
survey tools: Team Excellence Survey (LaFasto & Larson, 1987); Collaborative Team Leader
(Team Leader Version); and Collaborative Team Leader (Team Version) (LaFasto & Larson,
2001). Survey questions were created based on the leadership responsibilities and characteristics
identified in the research that correlated with effective teams (Burke, et al., 2006; LaFasto &
Larson, 2001; Northouse, 2007 & 2010). The final item on the superintendent survey was
constructed using the seven core criteria determined through Larson and LaFasto’s research in
1987. These seven core criteria are strongly correlated to executive potential.
For the qualitative portion of the study both interviews were employed. The interview
protocol was organized around the three research questions. Interviews were audio-taped with
permission granted by the interviewee. Interviews were conducted utilizing a standardized open-
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 47
ended interview protocol with an embedded interview guide approach allowing the researchers to
collect similar information from each superintendent while the guide allowed for follow-up
questions.
The qualitative data permitted the researchers to better understand the quantitative data
by providing insights into the “how and why” superintendents make selections for leadership
teams, collaborate with members, and distribute leadership responsibilities to the team. The
interview protocol was calibrated to afford the researchers rich and thick detailed descriptions to
substantiate quantitative data (Patton, 2002).
Data collection.
An email invitation to participate in the online survey via Survey Monkey, an online
survey service, was sent to five superintendents and their 51 respective leadership team members
between July and September 2012. An introduction letter outlining the purpose of the study with
a request to participate in the survey was also included in the email. The email contained a link
to the online survey (see Appendix D & Appendix E). Data collected from the surveys was
automatically tabulated for later use in statistical analyses.
The qualitative data was collected from five interviews and two observations. Interviews
were conducted between June and August 2012. Each interview was audio-taped and
transcribed. The responses were coded and analyzed to identify patterns and trends across all
five superintendents. Anonymity was offered to all participants.
Data analysis.
Quantitative data collected from the superintendent survey and leadership team member
survey protocols were analyzed with descriptive statistics to identify significant trends and
correlations. The raw data from each survey protocol was ordered and examined by computing
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 48
the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation to provide the researchers with an accurate and
relevant score for describing the data set and measuring the variability from one score to another.
All quantitative data was scored, coded, and analyzed using SPSS Inferential Test Statistics. A
Cronbach Alpha was run to measure the internal reliability of the survey instrument. Repeated
measures and one-way ANOVA tests of variance were run to ascertain the applicability of these
findings across districts and to new settings (Salkind, 2011).
Qualitative interview data were transcribed and coded using Patton’s (2002) model for
developing classification and code schema for qualitative research. Researchers utilized the
HyperRESEARCH software program to assist with coding and analysis. Furthermore,
researchers considered the qualitative data in relationship to the quantitative statistical findings,
providing a robust understanding of the research study results.
Validity.
Even though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in Chapter
One, it is important to consider threats to validity. Validity is defined as “how well a test
measures what it is designed to measure” (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006, p. 141). A possible threat
to internal validity may be the fact that the researchers constructed their quantitative survey
instrument with questions from three of Larson and LaFasto’s (1987 & 1989) team effectiveness
surveys. As a result, there is a risk of construct underrepresentation or construct-irrelevant
variance. In construct underrepresentation the measurement may fail to capture all important
aspects being measured. In construct-irrelevancy the survey may capture extraneous variables
such as emotional reactions to test items (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). As stated in Chapter One,
the quantitative nature of this study lent itself to Type I or Type II errors, based on the small
sample size. Due to the voluntary nature of this study, leadership team members may have
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 49
experienced coercion to participate in the survey from their superintendent. Finally, the
qualitative aspect of this study lent itself to researcher bias.
Summary
In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and covered the methods
used to conduct the study. The underlying reasons for conducting a mixed methods study were
discussed in the research design section of this chapter. The instrumentation section of the
chapter described in detail the surveys, the interview protocol, and the observation procedures.
Data collection and data analysis procedures were discussed in depth. Threats to validity were
reviewed and considered. Chapter Four will offer a detailed description of the quantitative and
qualitative findings.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 50
Chapter Four: The Findings
Introduction
Close to two decades of organizational and educational research has continually
maintained the necessity for creating strong leadership teams in order to meet high-level goals
(Collins, 2001; Elmore, 2003; Kanter, 1999; Kotter, 1996; Sergiovanni, 2005; Zaccaro, et al.,
2001). It is common place in public education to consider roles through individual responsibility
and autonomy, although the need for collaborative teams is becoming irrefutable (Larson &
LaFasto, 1989). Due to this need for leadership teams in educational settings, it is imperative
that the process superintendents employ to select and develop high-functioning teams is
examined. This study aimed to ascertain the strategies that current superintendents utilize to
build district leadership teams.
The study looked at how superintendents select new leadership team members, how they
build collaborative climates, and how they distribute leadership responsibilities across the team.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an in-depth analysis of the quantitative and qualitative
data collected. In order to provide a thorough examination, participant demographics will be
presented, data analysis will be linked to each research question, and the chapter will conclude
with a summary of the combined findings.
Data Analysis Process
This study combined both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a robust base
of data for analysis. The quantitative data was collected from an electronic survey sent to five
superintendents and their 51 leadership team members as a follow-up to the superintendents’
interviews (see Appendix B & Appendix C). Invitations to participate in the survey were sent via
email with a hyper-link embedded in the text (see Appendix D & Appendix E).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 51
One hundred percent of the superintendents participated in the survey, while 75% of all
leadership team members (n = 38) responded. Data was collected anonymously by district. The
survey was divided into three sections aligned with the three research questions. Survey
questions were adapted from the work of Larson and LaFasto (1987, 1996, & 2001). A
Cronbach Alpha was run to measure the internal reliability of the survey instrument. A score >
.70 is considered to indicate internal reliability. The Cronbach Alpha for this survey was .97,
indicating strong internal reliability (Salkind, 2011).
For the qualitative portion of this mixed methods study, interviews were conducted with
five superintendents (Superintendents A-E) in four states. Each interview included the
superintendent and the two researchers. The researchers blended a standardized open-ended
interview and an interview guide approach (Patton, 2002). The interview protocol was designed
in three sections: selecting team members, building a collaborative climate, and distributing
leadership across the team (see Appendix A). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.
The researchers used Patton’s coding schema to uncover trends in the data. Each researcher
coded the transcripts individually, and then the two researchers reviewed the transcripts together
to find commonalities and divergences (Patton, 2002). Two of the interviews were conducted in
person (Superintendents A & E) and three were conducted by phone (Superintendents B, C, &
D). Interviews took place between June and August 2012 and lasted an average of 42 minutes.
In the following section of Chapter Four the data findings will be reported in depth. The
quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated and analyzed in alignment with each
research question.
Research Questions
1. How do superintendents select leadership team members?
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 52
2. What strategies do superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate?
3. How do superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities?
Participant Demographics
Table 3 displays the frequency counts for selected superintendent demographic variables
(see Table 3). Males comprised 80% of the superintendent sample and females the remaining
20%. Sixty percent of the superintendents had less than four years of tenure in their current
position, with only one superintendent’s longevity in excess of eight years (M = 5.60, SD =
6.66). Three of the superintendents (60%) had earned Master’s degrees and the remaining two
had earned Ph.Ds. The districts vary in size from approximately 36,000 average daily attendance
(ADA) to well over 150,000. All school districts provided instruction for kindergarten through
twelfth grade students (see Table 3).
Table 3
Frequency Counts for Selected Superintendent Demographic Variables (N = 5)
Variable Category n %
Gender
Male 4 80
Female 1 20
Years in Current Position
a
0-1 year 1 20
2-4 years 2 40
5-7 years 1 20
8+ years 1 20
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 53
Table 3
Frequency Counts for Selected Superintendent Demographic Variables (N = 5) (continued)
Variable Category n %
Educational Level
Masters 3 60
Ph.D. 2 40
District Size
0-75,000 2 40
75,001-150,000 2 40
150,000+ 1 20
a
Years: M = 5.60, SD = 6.66.
Table 4 displays the frequency counts for selected team member demographic variables.
Males comprised 60.5% of the leadership team member sample and females the remaining
39.5%. Seventy-three point six percent of the superintendents had less than four years of tenure
in their current position, with seven leadership team members’ longevity in excess of eight years
(M = 3.43, SD = 4.14). In comparison to only 20% of the superintendents (one out of five)
having only one year of service in their current position, 20 out of 38 (52.6%) of the leadership
team members are new to their position. Four of the leadership team members had earned
Bachelor’s degrees, 20 of the leadership team members (52.6%) had earned Master’s degrees,
and the remaining 11eleven had earned doctorates. The districts vary in size from approximately
36,000 average daily attendance (ADA) to well over 150,000. All school districts provided
instruction from kindergarten to twelfth grade (see Table 4).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 54
Table 4
Frequency Counts for Selected Team Member Demographic Variables (N = 38)
Variable Category n %
Gender
Male 15 39.5
Female 23 60.5
Years in Current Position
a
0-1 year 20 52.6
2-4 years 8 21.0
5-7 years 3 7.8
8+ years 7 18.4
Educational Level
Bachelor's 4 10.5
Master's 20 52.6
Doctorate's 14 36.8
District Size
0-75,000 11 28.9
75,001-150,000 18 47.4
150,000+ 9 27.3
a
Years: M = 3.43, SD = 4.14.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 55
Data Analysis by Research Question
Research question #1: how do superintendents select leadership team members?
An essential step in the creation of a leadership team is the selection of the right team
members. During the selection of team members, a leader has the responsibility of focusing on
both task-focused (technical) behaviors and person-focused (interpersonal) behaviors possessed
by the candidate (Ilgen et al., 2005; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Northhouse 2007 & 2010; Yukl,
2013). Task-focused behaviors are those behaviors identified with the technical competencies of
doing a particular job. Person-focused behaviors are those interpersonal competencies that allow
an individual team member to successfully interact with their team in ways that support the team
goal (Ilgen et al., 2005). It is generally easier to identify the task-focused behaviors during
selection processes. Oftentimes leaders will falsely assume that a person who has all the task-
focused behaviors will simultaneously possess person-focused behaviors (Northouse, 2007 &
2010). While task-focused behaviors are crucial to job performance, person-focused behaviors
are equally critical.
Quantitative data analysis: research question #1.
In this study, all five superintendents were asked to prioritize seven competencies for
selecting team members in the order of importance (1 = most important / 7 = least important).
Four of the competencies were directly related to person-focused selection criteria (Items 31c,
31e, 31f, & 31g), while three were directly related to task-focused selection criteria (Items 31a,
31b, & 31d). Table 5 displays the ratings for the seven selection criteria sorted by lowest mean
ratings (see Table 5). The ratings were given on a scale: 1 = most important to 7 = least
important.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 56
The survey data revealed that the five superintendents in this study consider the person-
focused behavior, Item 31g, “the ability to make a positive first impression and stand out
tactfully,” as the most important selection criteria. Three of the five superintendents (60%) rated
this person-focused competency as the number one selection criteria. Of the top four
competencies rated by the superintendents, three of the competencies were person-focused
criteria.
The lowest priority for team member selection overall was the person-focused
competency, Item 31e, “the ability to work collaboratively within a complex organization
structure” (M = 5.20) (see Table 5). This competency was ranked in the third, sixth, and seventh
spots by the superintendents, individually. According to the research, the ability to work
collaboratively is a critical person-focused competency needed by all leadership team members
(Ilgen, et al., 2005; Northouse, 2007 & 2010).
The most highly ranked task-focused competency, Item 31d, “the ability to schedule time
and prioritize for self and or others, to handle multiple activities, and to meet deadlines,” was
ranked third overall. The superintendents ranked this competency in the second, third, and fifth
spot on their individual surveys.
The two survey items that demonstrated the most divergence in the ratings were Item 31f,
“the willingness to be open and act responsibly when dealing with people and situations,”
(person-focused) and Item 31a, “the ability to secure relevant information, relate and compare
data from different sources, and identify issues and relationships; conceptual, analytical,
creative” (task-focused). Superintendents rated these two items from a high M = 1.00 to a low M
= 7.00.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 57
Additionally, the competency Item 31a, “the ability to secure relevant information, relate
and compare data from different sources, and identify issues and relationships; conceptual,
analytical, creative” was ranked as the lowest priority task-focused competency (M = 4.8) for
selection by the five superintendents (see Table 5). The superintendents ranked this in the first,
fourth, fifth, and seventh spots individually.
A Repeated Measures ANOVA Test was run to determine if there were measurable
differences between the selection criteria rankings by superintendent. No significant difference
was found (p = .27), possibly due to the small sample size (N = 5). On average the
superintendents ranked person-focused competencies higher than task-focused competencies.
Eighty percent (four out of five) of the superintendents ranked a person-focused competency as
their most important selection criteria. Sixty percent (three out of five) of the superintendents
ranked person-focused competencies as their two most important selection criteria. One
superintendent (District D) ranked task-focused competencies as the two most important
selection criteria.
Table 5
Superintendent Ratings of the Competencies They Look for when Selecting Leadership Team
Members Sorted by Importance (N = 5)
Item M SD
31g. The ability to create a positive first impression and stand
out tactfully (includes verbal and nonverbal communication).
2.00 1.73
31c.The ability to relate to the feelings and needs of others, and
to convey interest and respect.
3.40 1.67
31d.The ability to schedule time and prioritize for self and or
others, to handle multiple activities, and to meet deadlines.
3.60 1.34
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 58
Table 5
Superintendent Ratings of the Competencies They Look for when Selecting Leadership Team
Members Sorted by Importance (N = 5) (continued)
Item M SD
31f. The willingness to be open and act responsibly when dealing
with people and situations.
4.40 2.30
31b.The ability to work toward outcomes and complete what one
starts.
4.60 2.07
31a. The ability to secure relevant information, relate and
compare data from different sources, and identify issues and
relationships; conceptual, analytical, creative.
4.80 2.49
31e. The ability to work collaboratively within a complex
organization structure.
5.20 1.64
Note. Ratings from: 1 = Most important to 7 = Least important.
Qualitative data analysis: research question # 1.
In many respects the quantitative data from the surveys is supported by the qualitative
data collected during interviews. Table 6 displays the frequency counts for the number of times
selection process variables were coded in the superintendent interviews (see Table 6).
When asked how they select their team members, the five superintendents referenced
person-focused behaviors 34 times (63.0%) (see Appendix A). Person-focused competencies
were coded as: right team member, humility, loyalty, learner, team player, and other. In
comparison, superintendents made direct reference to task-focused behaviors 20 times (37.0%)
during the interviews. Task-focused competencies were coded as: prior experience, competence,
and other. Similarly, superintendents rated person-focused competencies in the first and second
spot, and a task-focused competency in the third ranking on the survey item (see Table 6).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 59
Table 6
Frequency Counts for Number of Times Selection Process Variables were Coded in
Superintendent Interviews (N = 5)
Variables n %
Person-Focused Right Team Member 18 33.3
Task-Focused Competence 9 16.7
Task-Focused Prior Experience 7 13.0
Task-Focused Other 4 07.4
Person-focused Humility 3 05.5
Person-focused Loyalty 3 05.5
Person-Focused Learner 3 05.5
Person-Focused Other 2 03.7
Person-Focused Team Player 2 03.7
Note. Percentage equals the number of times the variable was coded during interview divided by
total codings for the selection process.
Comments with regard to selecting the “right team member” were made by 100% of the
superintendents and noted 18 times in the interview data. The “right team member” coding is
aligned to the survey criteria selected as the most important by the superintendents (Item31g,“the
ability to create a positive first impression and stand out tactfully”). Several superintendents
discussed the importance of the leadership team giving input into the final decision when
selecting a new team member to ensure that the newest member would work well with the team:
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 60
“We sit down and we have a whole conversation. Is this a fit? Why would it be a
good fit? What worries us? If it’s not, could the person be coached, etc., etc.?”
(Superintendent A)
The main thing is, is that person going to fit in our group. It's a little bit of trying to
figure out...They may have great skills. They may have great characteristics and
qualities but maybe not the right fit for us. (Superintendent B)
“At the end of the day, that connection that you have in that interview, I think, really
matters.” (Superintendent C)
Extensive research on effective teams identifies the need for collaboration as a critical
component for success (Hackman & Waltman, 1986; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Mickan &
Rodgers, 2000; Lencioni, 2003; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005; Ilgen et al., 2005). Team members
who are collaborative are critically important to the success of a team. The codes for right team
member” (coded 18 times) and “team player” (coded 2 times) are related to the ability to
collaborate (see Table 6). Interestingly, all the superintendents spoke specifically on these
person-focused skills, but on the survey rated item 31e, “the ability to work collaboratively
within a complex organization structure,” as the lowest priority person-focused competency to
consider when selecting new team members (M = 5.20) (see Table 5).
General core competence is an essential skill that must be considered when hiring a new
high-level team member (Yukl, 2013; Northouse, 2007 & 2010). Core competence was the most
frequently coded task-focused competency during the interviews. All the superintendents spoke
about the importance of selecting someone who has strong core competence. Superintendent B
said, “and certainly, they have to have the content core expertise in their area, like a chief
financial officer, chief economic officer, chief personnel officer.” Superintendent D stated, “We
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 61
try to get people that have, first of all, some expertise in the area that they will be supervising, or
responsible for.” Superintendent E followed suit stating, “I look for individuals that have
expertise in a specific area, so that I can count on them to understand that area deeply.” In the
survey data, superintendents rated the item 31a, “The ability to secure relevant information,
relate and compare data from different sources, and identify issues and relationships: conceptual,
analytical, and creative,” as the sixth most important out of the seven items (M = 4.80) (see Table
5). This item is aligned with the three quotes referenced above.
When asked about the technical aspects of the hiring process, 100% of the
superintendents spoke about traditional models that included submission of resumes, cover
letters, and references, followed by paper screening and traditional interviews. Typical for the
traditional model, this process yields a stronger reflection of the task-focused competencies a
candidate possesses and is less efficient at uncovering the person-focused strengths.
Superintendent C stated, “There is a paper screening. There is that structure in place. There are
preliminary interviews.” All five districts have a traditional process in place for hiring new team
members.
According to the literature, determining person-focused competencies during the
selection process will lead to higher functioning team members. Two of the five superintendents
referenced using non-traditional practices aimed at eliciting person-focused competencies during
the selection process. The selection practices included unannounced visits, public meetings, and
poorly timed writing assignments all designed to determine how the candidate would respond
interpersonally. “I have a second meeting, it’s always in a restaurant, and it’s always about me
watching how the person interacts with wait staff, and how the person interacts with others in the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 62
restaurant. I will sometimes just show up at the house of the person, unannounced, see, you
know, how they handle that.” (Superintendent A)
After the paper screening, I like to do situational written pieces, asking them to write
about a situation, and I try to figure out a case that will get to either what we're dealing
with or that will bring out some of these characteristics. Sometimes I use the Harvard
cases. I was a Broad Fellow, so I have a lot of Broad cases, just to get a sense of where
people are coming from. Then when I interview them, I ask questions that probe beyond
the usual responses (Superintendent E).
Both of these quotes demonstrate a deliberate attempt by the superintendents to utilize
non-traditional practices in the selection of executive team members.
The analysis of quantitative and qualitative data with regard to the selection process
provides evidence that when superintendents select their high-level leadership team members
they combine a variety of person-focused and task-focused skills to make their final selection
decision. This practice is congruent with the current literature in the field. There is congruency
between the practices they reported in their interviews and what they self-reported on their
survey data, with a slight divergence around the importance of collaborative skills and core
competency.
Research question #2: what strategies do superintendents use to foster a
collaborative climate?
Collaboration within and across a group has been empirically linked to better
performance outcomes than the performance of individuals acting alone (Hackman & Waltman,
1986; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Mickan & Rodgers, 2000; Lencioni, 2003; Salas, Sims, & Burke,
2005; Ilgen et al., 2005). Research further contends that the collaborative climate must be
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 63
intentionally nurtured by a skillful leader (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Lencioni, 2003; Northouse,
2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). In the broad scope, a collaborative climate is defined as a team that
“works well together” (Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 85).
In the present study, superintendents’ implementation of the collaborative climate
strategies (clearly defined roles and responsibilities, climate of trust, openness, honesty,
consistency, and respect) within their leadership team was measured using both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Superintendents’ responses to the survey questions are a measure of their
self-awareness with regard to their implementation of specific leadership strategies. The
leadership team members’ responses to the survey items reflect the reality as viewed by the
collective team. Therefore, ratings between the superintendents and the leadership team
members that are statistically divergent indicate a superintendent who lacks self-awareness with
regard to the implementation of collaborative leadership strategies, while ratings that are
statistically convergent indicate a more self-aware leader.
Quantitative data analysis: research question # 2.
The superintendent and leadership team member surveys included 18 items that were
linked to collaborative strategies (see Appendix B and C). Each item was scored on a four-point
Likert scale, independent of the other items. Table 7 displays the ratings, by highest mean, for
the top five collaborative strategies self-reported by the superintendents as their most effectively
utilized strategies, and these ratings are compared to the leadership team members’ mean scores
for the same items.
Research focused on building collaborative climates indicates that leaders should
concentrate on creating a climate of trust, openness, honesty, consistency, respect, and clearly
defined roles and responsibilities (Ilgen, 2004; Larson & LaFasto, 1989, Lencioni, 2003;
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 64
Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). This research was primarily conducted in non-
educational settings, yet the superintendents in this study indicate in the quantitative data that
they utilize four of these six strategies (clearly defined roles and responsibilities, openness,
climate of trust, and honesty) on a regular basis. Similar evidence was found in the leadership
team members’ scores for the same collaborative items. However, the leadership team members’
Scores indicated that the superintendents’ implementation of these collaborative behaviors was
“more true than false” (M= 3.21 to 3.63), whereas the superintendents’ perceptions ere much
stronger with an average of “true” (M= 3.60 to 3.80).
Table 7
Ratings of Superintendents Top Six Collaborative Strategies Items Sorted by Highest Mean
Compared to the Leadership Team Members Responses
Item
Superintendent
M SD
N = 5
Leadership Team
Member
M SD
N = 38
GAP
25. I / our superintendent assess(es)
the collaborative skills of the team
members as well as the results they
achieve. 3.80 0.45 3.42 0.23 0.38
13. I / our superintendent manage(s)
my / their personal control needs. 3.80 0.45 3.26 0.32 0.54
5. I / our superintendent create(s) a
safe climate for team members to
openly and supportively discuss any
issue related to the team's success. 3.80 0.45 3.42 0.47 0.38
26. I / our superintendent am(is)
willing to confront and resolve issues
associated with inadequate
performance by team members. 3.80 0.45 3.21 0.26 0.59
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 65
Table 7
Ratings of Superintendents Top Six Collaborative Strategies Items Sorted by Highest Mean
Compared to the Leadership Team Members Responses (continued)
Item
Superintendent
M SD
N = 5
Leadership Team
Member
M SD
N = 38
GAP
6. I / our superintendent
communicate(s) openly and honestly. 3.80 0.45 3.63 0.27 0.17
10. I / our superintendent
acknowledge(s) and reward(s) the
behaviors that contribute to an open
and supportive team climate. 3.60 0.55 3.30 0.35 0.30
Note. Ratings based on a Likert Scale: 1 = False; 2 = More false than true; 3 = More true than
false; 4 = True.
CS = Collaborative Strategies
GAP score = superintendent score minus team score
Notable in the survey data is the range of scores given by the superintendents in
comparison to the leadership team members. Superintendents’ scores on the 18 collaborative
strategy items ranged from a high mean of 3.80 to a low mean of 3.40. The superintendents
scored five of the 18 items (27.8%) with a M = 3.80 and six of the 18 items (33.3%) with a M =
3.40. The leadership team members’ scores on the 18 collaborative strategy items ranged from a
high mean of 3.70 to a low mean of 3.00.
The superintendent data must be considered carefully, as it was a small sample size (N =
5). Additionally, Superintendent A scored all 18 collaborative strategy items with a M = 4.00,
possibly skewing the data. It should be noted that while the other superintendents (B – E) all
provided some variance in their scores, none of them scored any item lower than a 3.00 (“more
true than false.”) According to the quantitative data, collectively the five superintendents
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 66
indicate utilization of strategies consistent with the development of a collaborative climate when
working with their executive leadership teams.
The leadership team member scores provided a different perspective on the situation.
The leadership team member survey data indicated how the team members perceived the
superintendents’ implementation of collaborative strategies. In order to better understand the
perceptions of the leadership team members, a one-way ANOVA was run comparing the team’s
ratings of the superintendent’s collaborative leadership implementation based on their school
district. The test was not significant at the p < .05. Differences, however, were noted between
the school districts for their collaborative strategies score (p = .12, η = .44). This indicates a
moderate to strong relationship between the district of employment and the overall score on the
leadership team member survey.
Table 8 displays the GAP scores between the superintendents’ self-ratings of their use of
collaborative strategies and the leadership team member ratings for the same items (see Table 8).
GAP scores are calculated by subtracting the leadership team member mean score from the
superintendent mean scores. With respect to collaborative strategies, District B’s leadership
team members rated their superintendent lowest overall (M = 3.09) and had the largest gap
between the leadership team ratings and the superintendent’s self-rating (GAP = 0.69). Districts
C and E both had negative GAP scores (GAP = -0.26 and GAP = -0.11, respectively). The
leadership team for District C rated their superintendent higher (M = 3.43) than the
superintendent’s self-rating (M = 3.17). The leadership team for District E rated their
superintendent higher (M = 3.22) than the superintendent’s self-rating (M = 3.11). District D’s
leadership team rated their superintendent the highest of the five superintendents for
implementation of collaborative strategies (M = 3.71), and were statistically close to the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 67
superintendent’s self-rating (M = 3.89). The remaining district had a GAP of 0.43 with the
superintendent’s self-rating being the highest of all five superintendents (M = 4.00).
Table 8
GAP Score Between Superintendent Means and Leadership Team Member Means for
Collaborative Strategies Based on District
Score Superintendent
M
Team Member
M
GAP
District A 4 3.57 0.43
District B 3.78 3.09 0.69
District C 3.17 3.43 -0.26
District D 3.89 3.71 0.18
District E 3.11 3.22 -0.11
CS = Collaborative Strategies
GAP score = superintendent score minus team score
Qualitative data: research question # 2.
The quantitative data is supported by the qualitative data in many respects with regard to the
collaborative strategies the superintendents implement with their leadership team members.
When asked about how they use collaborative strategies with their team members, the five
superintendents referenced collaborative strategies 75 times during the interviews. Collaborative
strategies were coded as: accountability, ego, goals, honest communication, non-negotiables,
recognition, trust, and other (see Table 9). When considering the interview data compared to the
survey data, many points of convergence were noted.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 68
Table 9
Frequency Counts for Number of Times Collaborative Strategy Variables were Coded in
Superintendent Interviews (N = 5)
Variables
n %
CS Accountability
15 20.0
CS Honest Communication
13 17.3
CS Goals
9 12.0
CS Other
9 12.0
CS Trust
8 10.7
CS Non-negotiables
8 10.7
CS Recognition
7 09.3
CS Ego
4 05.3
CS Goals Negative
2 02.7
Note. Percentage equals the number of times the variable was coded during interview divided by
total codings for collaborative strategies.
CS = Collaborative Strategies.
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
Superintendents rated the survey item 25, “I assess the collaborative skills of the team
members as well as the results they achieve,” as one of their top five effectively used
collaborative strategies (M = 3.80) (see Table 7), and addressed this topic fifteen times in their
interviews (coded as accountability). All five superintendents discussed the use of the
collaborative strategy “clearly defined roles and responsibilities” during their interviews. This
collaborative strategy aligns to the survey item. The superintendents spoke about the importance
of defining team members’ roles, and the importance of ensuring a process for clarification and
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 69
discussion was developed and implemented. Both roles and outcomes are included in this
assessment process. Specific to this topic, Superintendent E stated:
Each cabinet member submits, weekly, an update, and it's structured under, "What are
some of the important things that have happened?" Then there's a column on the risks
issues, and the risks that could... What could potentially go wrong? Identify that, and then
there's a column for me to write notes in. I take them home over the weekend, I read
everybody's, and then I identify the items that I want to discuss with them.
Here the superintendent clarifies the importance of assessing the teams’ skills and
considering the results that they achieve by outlining a process that is utilized weekly.
Superintendent A makes a similar point, stating:
Yes, every 14 days I do a one-on-one with each team, like what we go through, and I
would say: this is the third time I’ve seen this, and you are, this is harming the team
process, and it’s harming your ability to get your job done with the team.
Superintendent D does not provide the process for examining the results of the team, but
does agree that considering the results of the team is a critical attribute of leading a collaborative
team. Superintendent D stated, “Don't let them get by without really performing, without getting
results because the last thing you need is people at that level, cabinet level, that really are not
results oriented and does not deliver results.” On the same topic, Superintendent C said, “I really
believe it’s a sense of integrity to say that if you think somebody isn’t doing something right, or
doing their job, that you tell them, and you should start with them first, not tell everybody else,”
inextricably linking accountability to integrity.
Assessing skills and evaluating the results of team members is considered by researchers
to be a critical component of a successful team (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Team members must
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 70
be able to understand the work at hand, have the skills to produce the product, and be given
feedback on their progress. The data triangulates on this collaborative strategy, indicating that
the five superintendents in the study are consistently using the strategy of “clearly defined roles
and responsibilities.”
Openness.
A highly collaborative environment requires the constant suppression of egos in order for
the focus to be on team success and attainment of the team goal. In order for the decidedly
talented leadership team to exercise control of their egos, the team leader (i.e., the
superintendent) must unfailingly model ego suppression and require team members to moderate
their egos (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).
Superintendents rated the survey item 13, “I manage my person control needs,” (M =
3.80) (see Table 7) as a top five strategy and addressed this topic thirteen times in their
interviews (coded as ego and openness). Three of the five superintendents (60%) spoke directly
to the topic of managing egos during the interviews. They discussed both the importance of
managing their personal egos, as well as the team member egos, as a critical component of a
collaborative climate and the ability to attain the team’s goals. Superintendent B stated:
You've got to be able to accept the criticism, because it could be directed and
professional introspection, looking at yourself, reaching out and upwards, to other people,
getting advice, get you really learning, scheduling your time.
When modeling ego suppression for the leadership team, a leader must create an
environment where team members are receptive to new ideas and information; a climate where
openness is more important than the individual. Openness is a component of a collaborative
environment where there is a “willingness to share, and a receptivity to information, perceptions,
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 71
and ideas” (Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 85). This open climate is not possible when egos are
allowed to escalate and overshadow the team’s goals (Yukl, 2013).
Superintendent B provides some insight into how ego suppression can be managed
through openness, asserting: “The teamwork element is, we have to be able to be comfortable if
we’re working as a team, to generate ideas no matter where they come from, sometimes the best
idea might come from somebody who is not an expert in that content.”
The collective body of data in this study suggests that the five superintendents do
consistently implement the strategy of openness in their daily work with their leadership teams.
There is a gap (GAP = 0.54) between the superintendents’ perception that they manage their egos
almost always (M = 3.80), and their leadership team members’ perception that they do this
regularly, but not always (M = 3.26) (see Table 7). This gap must be considered carefully, as the
manger/subordinate role between the superintendents and their leadership team members may
have negatively influenced the ratings of the leadership team members; and conversely, over-
confidence on the part of the superintendents may have positively influenced their ratings.
Climate of trust.
The survey item 5,“I create a safe climate for team members to openly and supportively
discuss any issue related to a team’s success,” (M = 3.80) (see Table 7) is also addressed 21
times during the interviews (coded as honest communication and trust). All five superintendents
discuss this topic multiple times during their interviews.
A climate of trust fosters teamwork by allowing team members to stay problem focused,
and it promotes efficient communication, improves collaborative outcomes, and develops the
ability to effectively utilize workload sharing (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Ilgen, 2004). The
development of a trusting climate requires two foundational structures to be in place: a
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 72
willingness by all team members to share positive and negative information openly, and support
from the leader for risk-taking without repercussions for failure (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). All
five of the superintendents addressed the topic of building a safe environment for the team
during their interviews. Superintendent B summed up the topic well with the following
statements related to creating trust:
Because it's one of those things, the value of having that kind of trust and ability to
disagree, without being disagreeable, and bring bad news to the table without fearing
reprisals, or any other kinds of poor leadership tactics. It is very important to be able
to do that.
“Well first of all, you've got to give them permission to bring bad news to the table.”
“And not feel intimidated by it so it's a safe environment, it's a trusting environment,
but it's also a courageous environment, that has to be described, and then it has to be
demonstrated” (emphasis added).
You've got to have some courage to be able to disagree with somebody, and say,
‘Hey, here's why I disagree, and here are the reasons.’ Of course, that but it's one of
those things where you've got to invite it, you've got to encourage it (emphasis
added).
The data in this study imply that the five superintendents do consistently implement the
strategy of building a climate of trust. Both the quantitative data from the superintendents and
the leadership team members, as well as the high incidence of coding in the interviews (28%),
support the finding that building trust is a frequently used collaborative strategy.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 73
Honesty.
The convergence between the quantitative and qualitative data is further seen when
considering survey item 26, “I am willing to confront and resolve issues associated with
inadequate performance by team members,” and survey item 6, “I communicate openly and
honestly.” Both of these items were included in the superintendents’ top five survey items (M =
3.80) associated with implementing collaborative strategies (see Table 7).
These items were aligned with the interview codes of honest communication and trust
and are correlated with the collaborative strategy of honesty. Honesty within the leadership team
setting signifies that the team maintains a high level of integrity when they communicate, and
avoids lies or exaggerations (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). A leadership team that implements
honesty does not avoid difficult topics or dissenting views. Superintendent A demonstrates how
this strategy has played out in his own work:
I think another thing is to be honest, so that occasionally I will lose my temper, and I’ll be
very, very upset, and that is very upsetting to the team. I can think of that happening
twice or three times in the course of this year. And, in each one of those cases, it involved
thanks for letting me do that. I appreciate the space to be able to be human around that.
Superintendent D discusses the same strategy but offers a different perspective saying:
“I think overall collaboration means that you can have good, honest, directed discussion
on the issues and topics that you ought to be talking about without so much emotion or
commotion, or without such personalities being involved. That's good collaboration, I
think.”
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 74
Superintendent E discussed the need for honesty when an outcome doesn’t go as planned,
commenting, “We talk about it. If something doesn’t go well. We talk about, one, what
happened?”
The data in the study provides evidence that the superintendents do utilize the
collaborative strategy of honesty in their work. This finding is supported by the quantitative and
qualitative data.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data it is evident that all five superintendents put
into practice the collaborative strategies clearly defining roles and responsibilities, openness,
climate of trust, and honesty. The data verifies that they utilize these strategies regularly during
their work with their leadership teams. These collaborative strategies represent four of the six
strategies that researchers suggest are effective in non-educational settings.
The collaborative strategies of consistency and respect were not addressed in the Likert-
scaled survey items. However, the qualitative portion of the study, both through an open-ended
survey item and the interviews, did collect data on both of these collaborative strategies.
Consistency.
Consistency refers to a team environment that is predictable (Larson &LaFasto, 1989).
During the interviews the collaborative strategy consistency (coded as non-negotiable) was
coded eight times and addressed by all five superintendents (see Table 9). In response to the
survey item 29, “what are the strengths of the superintendent?,” 22 of the 38 leadership team
members addressed consistent behaviors (having a clear vision, focus, relentless pursuit, and
commitment) in their responses. The following are representative of the leadership team
members’ responses:
He remains focused and committed.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 75
Relentless commitment.
Charts a clear path.
Relentless in pursuit of goals
Ability to articulate a compelling vision and to inspire others in a way that unifies a
community and enlists commitment.
Respect.
Respect refers to treating team members with dignity and recognizing their contributions
to the team. Respect was addressed during the interviews (coded as recognition) and was
identified 7 times and discussed by four of the five superintendents (80%) (see Table 9).
Superintendent B discusses the importance of “how you recognize and honor people” as being a
critical element for an overall successful collaborative team. In response to the open-ended
survey item, five of the 38 leadership team members addressed respect as a strength of the
superintendent. These leadership team members responded with regard to the superintendents’
compassion and empathy for their staffs, as well as their ability to build respectful community
relationships.
Our superintendent is incredibly respected throughout the community and has forged
strategic, positive, and productive relationships with the community leaders.
It is important to note that when asked “what one or two changes are most likely to improve the
effectiveness of the superintendent?” not a single leadership team member listed developing
respectful behavior as a need.
From this qualitative data we cannot draw any strong conclusions about the frequency
with which the superintendents use consistency and respect as collaborative strategies; however,
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 76
the data indicate that the strategies are used by each of the superintendents to some extent. There
is also data to support the intentional use of these collaborative strategies in their work.
In summary, there is quantitative and qualitative data indicating that the superintendents
in this study do utilize the six collaborative strategies when they interact with their executive
leadership teams. These findings must be considered with caution due to the limited study
sample and the lack of overall triangulation for all six collaborative strategies.
Research question #3: how do superintendents distribute and share leadership
responsibilities?
The theory of distributed leadership has been recognized as an effective strategy in much
of the team leadership research (Salas et al., 2005; Yukl, 2013). Distributed leadership is
considered to be the sum of the leadership team capacity (Day et al., 2006) where each individual
team member’s strengths add to the total strength of the team. It is specifically the
interdependencies developed in the structure of a collaborative climate that provide the
foundation for effective use of distributed leadership.
The present study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to determine how
superintendents most frequently share and distribute leadership. Superintendents self-reported
their behavior with respect to distributed leadership strategies in both interviews and on a survey,
measuring their self-awareness with regard to the strategy. The leadership team members
responded to the same survey items reflecting the perceived use of these distributed leadership
strategies by the superintendents.
Quantitative data analysis: research question # 3.
The survey given to both the superintendents and the leadership team members had a
total of 28 items that could be answered using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = False to 4 = True). Of
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 77
these 28 items, 21 were linked to research question #3: How do superintendents distribute and
share leadership responsibilities? Due to the fact that distributed leadership nests within a
collaborative climate, 11 of these survey items were also linked to research question #2: How do
superintendents build a collaborative climate? Ten survey items exclusively addressed research
question #3 (see Table 10, Appendix B, & Appendix C).
Table 10
Ratings of Superintendents Distributed Leadership Items Sorted by Highest Mean Compared to
the Leadership Team Members Responses
Item
Superintendent
M SD
N = 5
Leadership Team
Member
M SD
N = 38
GAP
19. I / our superintendent understand(s) the
technical advice from team members who
are more knowledgeable than I am / they
are. 3.80 0.45 3.63 0.68 0.17
2. I / our superintendent articulate(s) our
goal in such a way as to inspire
commitment. 3.80 0.45 3.71 0.57 0.09
3. I / our superintendent avoid(s)
compromising the team’s objective with
political issues. 3.80 0.45 3.39 0.64 0.41
15. I / our superintendent make(s) sure team
members are clear about critical issues and
important facts.
3.60 0.55 3.53 0.73 0.07
1. I /our superintendent clearly define(s) our
goals.
3.60 0.55 3.74 0.45 -0.14
18. I / our superintendent understand(s) the
technical issues we must face in achieving
our goal.
3.60 0.55 3.45 0.69 0.15
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 78
Table 10
Ratings of Superintendents Distributed Leadership Items Sorted by Highest Mean Compared to
the Leadership Team Members Responses (continued)
Item
Superintendent
M SD
N = 5
Leadership Team
Member
M SD
N = 38
GAP
20. I / our superintendent keep(s) the team
focused on a manageable set of priorities
that will lead to the accomplishment of our
goal. 3.60 0.55 3.37 0.88 0.23
17. I / our superintendent am / is fair and
impartial toward all team members.
3.40 0.55 3.55 0.67 -0.15
27. Achieving our team goal is a higher
priority than any individual objective.
3.20 0.45 3.63 0.68 -0.43
22. I / our superintendent do / does not
dilute the team’s effort with too many
priorities. 2.80 0.45 3.11 0.89 -0.31
Note. Ratings based on a Likert Scale: 1 = False; 2 = More false than true; 3 = More true than
false; 4 = True.
GAP score = superintendent score minus team score
The ten survey items related to distributed leadership gathered data specific to the areas
of setting goals and providing a trusting environment. Research contends that in order for
distributed leadership to flourish both of these elements must be firmly established (Northouse,
2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Seven of the ten survey items were specific to goals, e.g., the leader’s
ability to foster a results driven s0tructure, and create a unified commitment around a vision and
a common set of priorities. For these survey items the superintendents’ ratings ranged from M =
3.80 to M = 2.80. The leadership team members’ ratings for the same items ranged from M =
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 79
3.74 to M = 3.11. The superintendents rated themselves higher than the leadership team
members rated them on the following four distributed leadership items (see Table 10):
Item 2: “I articulate our goal in such a way as to inspire commitment” (M = 3.80).
Item 3: “I avoid compromising the team’s objective with political issues” (M = 3.80).
Item 15: “I make sure the team members are clear about critical issues and important
facts” (M = 3.60).
Item 20: “I keep the team focused on a manageable set of priorities that will lead to the
accomplishment of our goal” (M = 3.60).
The leadership team members’ scores on these items were lower by GAP = 0.07 to GAP
= 0.41, indicating that the superintendents and the leadership team members are convergent on
these four distributed leadership items. Collectively, these items address the need for the
superintendent to define, clarify, and focus the goals for the leadership team. The
superintendents may have slightly elevated their ratings; however, the leadership team ratings are
not divergent. This agreement between superintendent self-ratings and the leadership team
member ratings indicated that the five superintendents are utilizing these distributed leadership
strategies on a regular basis with their leadership teams.
The superintendents rated themselves lower than the leadership team members rated them
on the following three items (see Table 10):
Item 1 “I clearly define our goals” (M = 3.60).
Item 27 “Achieving our team goal is a higher priority than any individual objective” (M =
3.20).
Item 22 “I do not dilute the team’s effort with too many priorities” (M = 2.80).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 80
The leadership team members’ scores on these items were higher by GAP = -0.14 to GAP
= - 0.43, indicating that the superintendents and the leadership team members are convergent on
these three distributed leadership items. Two of these three items are directly related to how the
superintendent prioritizes goals for the team. Given the amount of federal, state and local
mandates a superintendent must consider on a daily basis, and prioritizing the importance of each
mandate for the team, it is not surprising that the data indicated that they felt less accomplished
at the task of prioritizing then their subordinates believed them to be. The statistical agreement
on this distributed leadership strategy indicated that the five superintendents are establishing
priorities for their leadership team members on a regular basis.
Trust is a critical element of distributed leadership. In order for leadership to be shared
among the team members, all members of the team must believe in the competency of their
colleagues and have confidence in each other’s technical skills (Larson & LaFasto, 1989;
Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). In addition to trusting in each other’s competency, all
leadership team members must trust the leader to be fair and consistent during interpersonal
interactions with the team. Three of the ten items on this distributed leadership portion of the
survey were related to trust. For these items the superintendents’ ratings ranged from M = 3.80
to M = 3.40. The leadership team members’ ratings for the same items ranged from M = 3.63 to
M = 3.45. The superintendents rated themselves higher than the leadership team members rated
them on two of the three items (see Table 10):
Item 19: “I am to open to technical advice from team members who are more
knowledgeable than I am” (M = 3.80).
Item 18: “I understand the technical issues we must face in achieving our goal” (M =
3.60).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 81
The leadership team members’ scores on these items were lower by GAP = 0.15 to GAP
= 0.17, indicating that the superintendents and the leadership team members are convergent on
these two distributed leadership items. These items are indicative of delegation strategies, which
when used appropriately can vastly improve the outcomes of a team (Yukl, 2013). The
convergence of the scores across the superintendent and leadership team surveys indicates that
superintendents are delegating tasks to subordinates who possess more expertise in a particular
area. Further, the data indicate that the superintendents are delegating in an appropriate manner.
The superintendents rated themselves lower than the leadership team members rated the
superintendents on the following item (see Table 10):
Item 17: “I am fair and impartial to all team members” (M = 3.40)
The leadership team members’ score on this item was higher by GAP = -0.15, indicating
that while the superintendents rated themselves lower than the leadership team members rated
them, there is convergence on this distributed leadership item. Superintendents in this study do
treat their executive team members in a “fair and impartial” manner directly related to creating a
climate of trust.
For seven of the ten distributed leadership survey items, superintendents rated their
behaviors higher overall than their leadership team members. The gap between the scores is
minimal and does not indicate divergence. Similarly, when considering the three items that the
leadership team members rated higher than the superintendents, the minimal differences do not
indicate divergence. When all ten items are considered collectively, the quantitative data yielded
the finding that superintendents utilize the strategies of clearly defining goals and developing
trusting relationships unilaterally.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 82
Qualitative data analysis: research question # 3.
The quantitative data is supported by the qualitative data in many respects with regard to
the distributed leadership strategies the superintendents implement with their leadership team
members. When asked how they use distributed leadership strategies with their team members,
the five superintendents referenced distributed leadership strategies 36 times during the
interviews. Distributed leadership strategies were coded as: accountability, goals, non-
negotiables, trust, and other. The topic of goals was coded 6 times and the topic of trust was
coded ten times (see Table 11).
Table 11
Frequency Counts for Number of Times Distributed Leadership Strategy Variables were Coded
in Superintendent Interviews (N = 5)
Variables n %
DL Trust 10 27.8
DL Other 9 25.0
DL Goals 6 16.7
DL Accountability 5 13.9
DL Non-Negotiables 5 13.9
DL Trust Negative 1 02.8
Note. Percentage equals the number of times the variable was coded during interview divided by
total codings for distributed leadership strategies.
When considering the interview data comparative to the survey data, many points of
convergence on the importance of goals and trust were noted. According to the survey data,
superintendents believe that they are communicating their goals with clarity while concurrently
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 83
making the team goal the highest priority. The survey items asked the superintendents to
consider the discreet aspects of goal setting, such as “clearly defining goals,” or “prioritizing the
goals for the team.” During the interviews three of the five superintendents (60%) addressed the
role of goals; however, much of their dialogue was more globally related to establishing a long-
term vision or a common focus for the team. Superintendent B explained:
It's fine to have somebody who can run the day-to-day operations on a weekly, monthly,
or let's say even yearly basis. I'm looking for someone who can also do that and be able to
think three to five years in the future. Figure out where they're going to take the
organization.
In this way, Superintendent B is less specific about how goals are set, but communicated clearly
the importance of team members setting goals and thinking strategically. Superintendent E
speaks about the importance of goals being tied to the vision, stating:
It really has to do with, "What is the vision?" You don't do it just to do it. What's going to
get us to where we need to be? What are the strategies that are going to help us to
improve student achievement, and what's our theory of action to do that?
Superintendent E provided further evidence that distributed leadership requires a firmly
established vision:
I think distributing leadership responsibilities is also tied to what you're trying to
accomplish as your vision as a superintendent, because, like I described earlier, if you
want to break down silos, then you change the responsibilities. You change the structures
to get to where you want the district to go.
The findings indicate that, in general, superintendents both understand and utilize the
distributed leadership strategy of setting goals. Superintendents expand the idea of setting goals
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 84
to include establishing a vision and focusing commitment. This distributed leadership strategy
includes defining the goal, clarifying the goal, and focusing the team on the goal.
During the interviews, all five superintendents (100%) discussed the topic of trust as it
relates to distributed leadership strategies. Research contends that a team leader is unable to
distribute leadership effectively within a team that lacks trust (Lencioni, 2001; Northouse 2007
& 2010: Yukl, 2013). A trusting environment for an executive leadership team includes
believing in the technical skills of team members individually, and believing that the team leader
interacts with each team member in fair and impartial ways. Superintendent E understands the
importance of having trust in the technical abilities of others and the interconnectedness of this
technical trust with distributing leadership, stating, “because part of knowing what to relinquish
is the level of trust you have in that individual in any specific area.” Both the leader and the team
need to have a level of trust in order for the team to benefit from distributed leadership.
Superintendent B provides almost the identical sentiment, stating, “Whatever their particular area
of expertise is, they have to have the leadership skills to be able to run their organization. They
have to have the capability, the credibility, and the comparability to be able to work their
efforts.”
When asked, “how do you know that you’ve either successfully or unsuccessfully
distributed leadership?” Superintendent A said:
I want to say something about distributed leadership. I’m not talking about sitting around
with tasks and distributing to people. The team is firing on all cylinders when you see it
happening without directing it. That’s probably when I sense it’s distributed leadership,
in kind of an academic writing sense of that. It’s literally alive. You can see that.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 85
Likewise, Superintendent C said, “I think successfully, when you see people taking initiative,
and really moving the ball down the court. I think you can say, "Boy, I've given them enough
latitude to really be able to do their jobs.” Superintendent C went on to share:
I think when you're unsuccessful is when folks think they have to do a workaround, or
when folks don't stand up for the mission. There are lots of opportunities when you have
to stay committed to what we're ultimately committed to. For me, it's that all kids can
learn at high levels. Everybody says it, but your actions, it takes some real distinct actions
to actually demonstrate it. I think when we're unsuccessful is when nobody's looking.
The practice of distributed leadership requires the leader to consider the types of
leadership they retain and the types they share with the team. Delegation is likely to be an
unsuccessful distributed strategy if the formal leader only delegates unpleasant or impossible
tasks (Yukl, 2013). Similarly, it is imperative that a leader maintains authority over the
intricacies of their role and does not relinquish those tasks that are directly their responsibility.
When asked, “under what conditions would you absolutely not give up the responsibility to the
team?” Superintendent C shared:
A few things that I'm not willing to give up is that student achievement is the most
important thing that we do. I think the leader has to make that a priority every day, and I
think you have to model that, and you can't give that to the Deputy of Instruction. I think
the superintendent has to model that, and people have to say, "That's important to the
superintendent, so obviously it's an important initiative.”
In this comment Superintendent B is pointing out the importance of maintaining the
ultimate authority for all that happens in the district. It is a fundamental role that cannot be
delegated to any leadership team member. Superintendent E made a similar point about this
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 86
fundamental responsibility, commenting that symbolic leadership is a non-negotiable that must
be lead by the superintendent. Superintendent B stated, “now, what conditions do I retain for
myself? Of course, I've got responsibility for the ultimate decision.”
During the interviews, two of the five superintendents spoke directly about the
importance of their work with the board. Superintendent C said, “I think working with the board,
ultimately, you can't give up that the board needs to come through you, because it'll splinter the
organization if the board's doing workarounds. That's a nonnegotiable with my team.”
Superintendent E put it succinctly stating, “You don't distribute work with the board. That's
yours.”
The superintendents discussed the importance of being able to delegate the
responsibilities that are concurrent with the team member’s knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Superintendent C indicated:
I want them to be initiators. I don't want you to be told everything you have to do. I think
you have to initiate, and if you bought into the mission, how the mission ultimately gets
done, I think, allows some flexibility and creativity, and there is an expectation that you
would do that.
Superintendent D said, “Well, I try to make sure that whoever the report is has a good
understanding of the areas for which they're responsible, the authority to get the job done.”
Superintendent E linked the importance of trust in with the ability to distribute leadership,
saying, “part of knowing what to relinquish is the level of trust you have in that individual in any
specific area.”
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 87
Leadership team members did not overwhelming address the skill of delegation as a
common strength of the superintendents, although a leadership team member from District A and
one from District D did mention this as a strength of their superintendent.
He allows his district reports to “run their shops” and provides the necessary support,
feedback and guidance (District A).
Builds capacity in other and allows others to use their strengths (District D).
When leadership team members were asked to identify areas in which the superintendents
could improve their practice, there were no recommendations with regard to the distributed
leadership strategies of setting goals, prioritizing work, sharing responsibilities or increasing
trust.
Discussion of the Findings
Triangulation .
The process of triangulation in this study involved integrating the data collected from the
quantitative methods and the qualitative methods, and seeking to find patterns of convergence or
divergence between methodologies, as well as convergence or divergence with the relevant
literature (Patton, 2002). This research study collected data to better understand the strategies
superintendents employ when selecting leadership team members, building a collaborative
climate, and distributing leadership across their executive team. In the following section the
findings for each area studied will be synthesized.
Selection process.
The findings related to research question #1: How do superintendents select leadership
team members? were convergent between quantitative and qualitative methodologies and with
the current research regarding the practice of selecting high-level team members. The literature
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 88
supports a balanced approach in which the team leader uses knowledge of both the person-
focused and task-focused competencies of a potential candidate. The findings in the study
indicated that superintendents utilize research-based strategies to select members in a formal,
traditional manner.
Data gathered from the qualitative methods provided an unexpected finding with relation
to selection of executive team members. Three of the five superintendents spoke specifically on
the issue of recruitment and retention as major barriers to effectively selecting and building a
team. Superintendents A, C and E all mentioned the problem of low salary as a significant
barrier to recruitment and retention. Superintendent A spoke specifically about the loss of a key
team member to private industry, where education could not compete with the salary and fringe
benefits offered. The literature on selection process was relatively silent on these issues. It
could be postulated that since the majority of research on this topic was conducted in private
industry, there was little concern regarding recruitment or retention of qualified candidates due to
the competitive salary structure embedded in private, for profit industries.
Collaborative climates.
The findings related to research question # 2: How do superintendents foster a
collaborative climate? were convergent between quantitative and qualitative methodologies and
with the current research on the practice of building collaborative climates. The literature
indicated that a collaborative climate for a leadership team would embody the following six
elements: clearly defined roles and responsibilities, climate of trust, openness, honesty,
consistency, and respect. The findings in this research study were indicative of the
implementation of all six collaborative strategies. The data suggests that superintendents
consistently employ these strategies during their work with their leadership teams.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 89
Data gathered from the qualitative methods produced an unexpected finding in relation to
fostering a collaborative climate. Superintendents identified the need to embed the use of self -
reflective practices in their work with their leadership team members.
Abundant team research says that effective teams implement processes for reflective
practices. Reflective practices are defined in the pertinent literature as “after action reviews”
(Ilgen et al., 2005). These “after action reviews” follow a predetermined structure that leads the
team through the dissection of the project, outcome, crisis, or process to find ways to improve
team performance. This study found that all five superintendents participate in “after action
reviews”; however, four of the superintendents also incorporate reflective practices around the
study of the team and its individuals.
Superintendent A discussed the process for conducting a “post mortem” on projects and
presentations, but indicated that the real reflective practices were devised to delve into individual
reflection in an attempt to spur professional growth. Superintendent B used a more personal
reflective practice to ascertain the needs of each team member as a way to ensure adequate
support individually. Likewise, Superintendent E used reflection as a means to gauge personal
progress, and works with a professional coach to assist with the reflective process.
The prevalence of reflection on professional competency appears to be an important team
practice in educational settings. While there is team research to support the use of personal
inventories in any setting (e.g., the “Myers Brigg Inventory”), there was an important emphasis
placed on this practice by the superintendents, disproportionate to the team effectiveness
research. In educational settings the primary reason to reflect appears to be the need to build
capacity in their team members, while the literature focused on the improvement of team
outcomes as the main purpose. There is a possibility that this culture has developed around two
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 90
issues in education. The first is linked back to research question #1 and the problems with
recruitment. Since the educational community struggles to recruit highly qualified leaders, then
concentrating on building capacity of those who are already invested in the system is wise.
Additionally, building capacity through individual reflection could be an outgrowth of
education itself. Individuals who are leading districts are committed to education and therefore
extend this belief to the members of their teams. Building capacity is in essence continuing
education. When the reflective process is looked at through the lens of the educational
leadership setting, it expands the principal literature, broadening its scope to include both
reflection on outcomes and introspection on individual contributions.
Distributed leadership.
The findings related to research question # 3: How do superintendents share and
distribute leadership? were convergent between quantitative and qualitative methodologies and
with the current research on the practice of distributing leadership. There is ample evidence to
suggest that when teams utilize distributed leadership practices they are effective in meeting their
goals in both private industry and public educational settings (Fitzsimons, 2011; Spillane, 2005).
The findings in the study indicated that superintendents utilize research-based strategies to
distribute leadership among their team members.
Due to the vertical structure of educational leadership, it was anticipated that the
superintendents would report the frequent use of delegation strategies. Delegation is similar to
traditional leadership, where one member of the team holds the authority. The distributive aspect
is the relinquishing of the authority from the superintendent to a team member who holds the
expertise in the area of focus for the given project or situation (Yukl, 2013). When considering
the body of data on distributed leadership, the research indicated that superintendents were
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 91
attempting to integrate roles and responsibilities across discipline lines, a participative delegation
strategy, in an attempt to build the team’s ability to problem solve.
Superintendents A, D, and E all discussed processes that included breaking down “silos”
and integrating the work of all members. Superintendent D addressed the need for all team
members to be team players, learners and contributors, across all areas of the work. This focus
on participative leadership is congruent with effective distributed leadership strategies.
Conclusion
Findings from this study provided evidence about the practices superintendents use when
they select new leadership team members, foster a collaborative climate, and distribute
leadership practices across their executive leadership team. Person-focused and task-focused
competencies were considered during the selection process, with the emphasis balanced for most
team member selection decisions. Collaborative strategies were utilized in alignment with much
of the research, while self-reflection and building capacity were included at rates higher than
team research might suggest. Distributed leadership practices focused primarily on participative
strategies, where individual team members are asked to perform tasks outside their general
responsibilities, while delegation strategies are used less frequently.
The findings in this study are closely correlated with the related literature on selection of
team members, building a collaborative climate, and distributing leadership across the team.
Superintendents can use the results of this research and the subsequent framework to assist in
improving the functionality of their executive level teams. Chapter Five will summarize the
study, discuss the implications of this research, provide a framework for practitioners, and offer
recommendations for future research.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 92
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
Introduction
Leadership is a universal concept that has been studied for centuries (Bass, 1990;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Northouse, 2010 & 2007; Yukl, 2013). There is abundant
research related to leadership, effective teams, and the development of collaborative climates
within business and medical settings. School district superintendents are charged with leading
the public educational system in an ever-changing and competitive world (Young, Fuller,
Brewer, Carpenter, Mansfield, 2007). There is empirical research to support the correlation of
strong district leadership and improved student learning (Marzano & Waters, 2009; Zaccaro,
Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Little research, however, has been conducted on how to best develop
executive leadership teams within public education.
Purpose of the Study
The intent of this study was to examine the strategies used by school district
superintendents to develop leadership teams. To fully understand the complexity of developing a
leadership team, this study examined the criteria superintendents set for leadership team
selection, as well as the methods and strategies they employ to develop collaborative climates
and distributed leadership models. The study provided research-based evidence for current
superintendents to utilize as a reference when developing leadership teams.
Research Questions
To achieve the stated purposes of this research, the following three research questions were
addressed:
1. How do superintendents select leadership team members?
2. What strategies do superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate?
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 93
3. How do superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities?
Methods
A mixed-methods approach was conducted to collect data directly related to the three
research questions. Electronic surveys were used to gather data from five superintendents and
their leadership team members. The surveys included twenty-eight 4-point Likert-scale
questions and two open-ended questions that allowed for quantitative and qualitative input from
each respondent. Interviews were conducted with each superintendent either in person or by
phone. The interview protocol blended a standardized open-ended interview and the interview
guide approach (Patton, 2002). Both the quantitative and qualitative data were considered for
convergence and divergence and then triangulated with the research to uncover significant trends
and patterns.
Key Findings
The following will provide a comprehensive summary of the key findings from the data
presented in chapter four. The findings will be presented by research question and considered in
conjunction with the current research on each topic. The first section will discuss the findings
related to how superintendents select leadership team members; the second section will discuss
the findings for how superintendents build a collaborative climate; and the third section will
discuss how superintendents distribute leadership across the executive team.
Selection process: research question #1.
According to the literature, it is imperative that the right people are selected for the team
in order to carry out the right work (Collins, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Marzano & Waters,
2009). In alignment with the current research, all five superintendents provided quantitative and
qualitative evidence that they understand the need to select executive team members who possess
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 94
a blend of person-focused and task-focused competencies. The quantitative data from this study,
however, demonstrates that the five superintendents may have the priorities for selecting the
right team member inverted when considered against the research base. Effective team research
has concluded that for teams to be successful in their endeavors they must select team members
who:
1. possess the essential skills and knowledge (a task-focused competency),
2. demonstrate a strong desire to contribute to the success of the team (a person-focused
competency), and
3. have a strong capacity for collaborative behaviors (a person-focused competency)
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989).
Superintendents ranked these critical competencies as the three lowest priority selection
items out of the total seven on the survey. Possessing the essential skills and knowledge was
ranked sixth out of seven; a strong desire to contribute to the success of the team was ranked fifth
out of seven; and a strong capacity for collaborative behaviors was ranked seventh out of seven.
All five superintendents, however, discussed the importance of these three essential
competencies during the interviews. Possessing the essential skills and knowledge was
referenced 16 times; a strong desire to contribute to the success of the team was referenced 18
times; and a strong capacity for collaborative behavior was referenced six times. These
references make up 74.0% of all comments with regard to selecting a leadership team member
during the interviews.
The conflicting information between what the superintendent’s rated on the surveys and
what they said in the interviews reveals a need for the superintendents to review their intentions
(i.e., what they say they do) against their behaviors (i.e., what they report they would do).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 95
Superintendents must work with their leadership teams (and the human resources department) to
restructure hiring practices in order to ensure that selection practices are concurrent with their
intentions and the current research. Specifically, selection practices need to be restructured to
ascertain the three essential competencies needed for leadership team members.
Historically, hiring practices of public education institutions focus on the technical merits
of the applicant. Selection of new employees centers on credentials, certifications, degrees held,
and length of experience within public education. Little consideration is given to non-traditional
leadership team candidates whose resumes may not reflect these standard expectations.
Potentially, non-traditional candidates offer new insights and knowledge. During the selection
process for leadership team members, attention has not been paid to the crucial person-focused
competencies “a strong desire to contribute to the success of the team,” and /or “the capacity for
collaborative behaviors,” which non-traditional candidates might possess.
An unexpected finding with relation to the selection of executive team members was
noted in the qualitative data i.e. the interviews. Three superintendents identified the issue of low
salary, comparative to private industry compensation, as a major barrier to the recruitment and
retention of highly qualified leadership team members. The research with regard to selection of
executive team members was silent on the issue of compensation as a barrier to either selection
or retention of team members. Given that the majority of research on leadership team selection
was conducted in private industry, there may have been little concern regarding salary in the
recruitment or retention of qualified candidates.
The findings indicate that superintendents and the educational community must consider
expanding the ways in which the most desirable candidates are enticed into educational
leadership roles. Furthermore, human resources practices must be restructured with the goal of
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 96
improving the ability to ascertain the three most essential competencies. Finally, non-traditional
candidates must be included in the selection process, because selecting the right people is an
essential first step to creating a high-performing executive team.
Collaborative strategies: research question #2.
It is essential that leaders and teams create and define a collaborative process that openly
utilizes all the knowledge and diversity of the individual team members, while fostering trust and
cooperation (LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Lencioni, 2003; Northouse,
2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Both the quantitative and qualitative findings related to the
implementation of collaborative strategies were convergent with the seminal research. It is not
enough to have selected the “right” people; an organization must clearly define and implement a
collaborative process (Lencioni, 2003; Yukl, 2013). Teams that lack clarity and purpose are
likely to experience confusion within the team. Relevant research defines a collaborative climate
as one that embodies six critical elements: clearly defined roles and responsibilities, climate of
trust, openness, honesty, consistency, and respect. In both the survey and interview data it was
evident that the five superintendents were implementing all six collaborative strategies.
Unexpected in the findings was the interpersonal and introspective use of reflective
practices. Team research articulates the processes for reflective practices as “after action
reviews” (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). “After action reviews” follow a
predetermined structure that leads the team through the dissection of the project, or process, and
the outcome, to uncover ways to improve future team performance. The quantitative and
qualitative findings from this study indicated that all five superintendents participate in “after
action reviews.” Eighty percent (4 out of 5) of the superintendents also incorporate interpersonal
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 97
and introspective reflective practices into the work of the team as a means to develop internal
capacity in the team members.
The prevalence of interpersonal and introspective reflection encompassing professional
competency is an important team practice for the majority of the superintendents in this study.
According to the qualitative data, this practice assists the superintendent in understanding the
strengths and weaknesses of the individual team member’s knowledge base and collaborative
skills. The resulting information gathered during these interpersonal and introspective reflective
dialogues is used to mentor team members. This reflective practice ultimately assists team
members to become more effective collaborators, and thus improves the team’s ability to more
readily reach their goals successfully.
Distributed leadership: research question #3.
The findings of the quantitative and qualitative data with regard to distributed leadership
were congruent with the empirical research. Sharing or distributing leadership is an essential
function for leaders of executive teams to understand and utilize in order to foster a collaborative
climate within their organization (Salas et al., 2005). Delegation and participative strategies are
both effective distributed leadership strategies, when used with intentionality by the team leader
(Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Teams that utilize effective distributive leadership
practices are more likely to meet their goals (Fitzsimons, 2011; Spillane, 2004). Evident from the
quantitative and qualitative data, all five superintendents implemented distributed leadership
strategies with their executive leadership team.
An unexpected finding from the body of data collected was the high level of participative
strategies used and the infrequency of the reported use of delegation strategies. Due to the
hierarchical structure within traditional school systems, the researchers of this study postulated
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 98
that the data would indicate the opposite of this key finding. Our research indicated that
superintendents were attempting to integrate roles and responsibilities across discipline lines in
an attempt to build their team’s ability to problem solve.
The research from this study indicated that superintendents believe it is important that
their team has members who are collaborators, contributors, and learners. The superintendents
stressed the importance of individual team members learning from and with their colleagues,
especially in areas outside the focus of their specific job responsibilities. This strategy was seen
as an important way to increase the effectiveness of the team outcomes. Participative strategies
provide the framework for the superintendents to embed these necessary components
(collaboration, contribution, and learning) into the team dynamics. The focus on participative
leadership is congruent with distributed leadership research.
Implications
Superintendents and leaders are charged with ensuring that all children have access to a
world-class education that prepares them for the 21
st
century global market. Leaders also
recognize that they cannot succeed in transforming their organizations without the assistance of
an executive leadership team. Superintendents must cultivate a high-performing team that works
collaboratively and innovatively to identify and execute the right work for educational reform
and ultimately student success.
Framework
The following framework has been created to provide a resource that can be easily
utilized by district superintendents as they work toward developing their executive leadership
teams (see Figure 2). It is important to consider that the framework is based on a leader who uses
the strategies with intentionality and purpose (Marzano and Waters, 2009). Each component of
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 99
the framework needs to be considered individually and holistically. In other words, without the
selection of the “right” team member, the collaborative strategies will be difficult, if not
impossible, to develop. In the same way, the integration of roles and responsibilities that are the
hallmark of effective distributed leadership practices needs the support of the collaborative
strategies in order for the impact of their effect to be beneficial to the school district. The
framework represents a multilayered and integrated guide to the best practices used by the
superintendents in this study, and adds to the seminal research in the area of team leadership.
Guidelines superintendents should consider when building leadership teams:
Selection.
Restructure human resources practices to ensure that person-focused abilities are captured
during the interview and hiring process
Consider non-traditional candidates who bring new insights and knowledge.
Ensure a balance between both person-focused and task-focused competencies
Collaboration.
Intentionally and strategically cultivate collaborative strategies
Ensure that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and expectations are revisited on
an ongoing basis
Provide consistency for the team
Require and expect all team members to use the high-impact collaborative strategies of
openness, honesty, trust, and respect during all interactions
Create a process for systematic reflection on both the work and interpersonal behavior of
team members
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 100
Distributed leadership.
Judiciously use both participative and delegation strategies to ensure effective outcomes
Identify the non-negotiable leadership responsibilities that must be maintained by the
superintendent
Develop clear guidelines for the scope of leadership work that is distributed to the team
Ensure that delegation is used as a means to improve outcomes, never to unload
unpleasant or impossible tasks
Figure 2. Framework for Building a Leadership Team: Intentional Leadership Decisions
Selection of
the Right
Team
Members
Building a Leadership T eam:
Intentional Leadership Decisions
•Restructure human resources practices
•Consider non-traditional candidates
Person –focused:
Desire to contribute
& the ability to
collaborate
Task –focused:
Knowledge, skills,
& abilities
Strategic Cultivation of a Collaborative Climate
~Clearly defined roles and responsibilities ~Climate of trust ~Openness ~
Honesty ~ Consistency ~ Respect ~ Reflective Practices
(Reflection on the work / Reflection on interpersonal behaviors)
Distributed Leadership
•Set non-negotiables
•Establish clear guidelines for distributed leadership practices
•Judiciously use participation and delegation strategies
•Ensure improved outcomes when delegating
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 101
Recommendations for Future Research
This study added to the limited body of research on how superintendents in public
educational settings build executive leadership teams. The findings in this study are significant
and provide the basis for a strong framework with regard to selecting leadership team members,
building collaborative climates, and distributing leadership. The study, however, was not
comprehensive, as it was conducted as a small project using five school districts in four states.
The small sample size of the study limited the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the
collaborative strategies research was limited to the topics of clearly defined roles and
responsibilities, climate of trust, openness, honesty, consistency, and respect. Therefore, the
following are recommendations for future research:
• Replicate the study to include a larger number of superintendents and their senior
leadership team members over a longer period of time.
• Expand the current study to measure leadership team effectiveness in relationship to
student achievement data.
• Expand the current study and examine all eight characteristics of highly effective teams
as identified by Larson and LaFasto (1989) and study how school district superintendents
create leadership teams that embody these eight characteristics.
• Explore the selection process for public education leadership team members in
conjunction with national and state credentialing and licensing laws.
Conclusion
As the demands and problems in public education continue to become increasingly more
complex and multifaceted, superintendents are charged with tackling and solving these
challenges with increasingly less resources. The employment of high-performing leadership
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 102
teams is supported repeatedly throughout the current research as a strategy to overcome these
immense obstacles in an effort to preserve and provide children with a first-class 21
st
century
education.
This study added to the existent body of research germane to leadership teams and team
effectiveness. The quantitative and qualitative findings in this study closely correlated with the
seminal literature on the selection and development of leadership teams. The findings from this
study of five superintendents and their leadership team members provide superintendents insight
on the critical elements of effective leadership teams, the strategies to consider when selecting
leadership team members, guidelines for building and fostering a collaborative climate, as well
as when and how to distribute leadership responsibilities. The findings yielded a framework to
assist superintendents and other educational leaders when building or improving the functionality
of their senior leadership team. The framework guides leaders in making intentional leadership
decisions as they implement and sustain transformation reform initiatives to improve educational
services for all students.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 103
References
Avolio, B.J., Sosik J.J., Jung, D.I.,& Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and
applications. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Industrial and
organizational psychology (277-307). New York: Wiley.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems
come out on top. McKinsey & Company Report. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:How+the+world's+
best-performing+school+systems+come+out+on+top#0
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. (3
rd
ed.) New York: NY. The Free Press.
Bjork, L. G. (1993). Effective Schools-Effective Superintendents: The Emerging Instructional
Leadership Role. Journal of School Leadership, 3(3), 246-59.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006).
What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly 17, 288 - 307.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. (5
th
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership
Quarterly 15, 857 - 880.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 104
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R.J. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and
classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Elmore, R. (2003). School Reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Ensley, M.D., Hmieleski, K.M., & Pearce, C.L. (2006). The importance of vertical and
shared leadership with new venture top management teams: Implications for the
performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly 17(3), 217-231.
doi:10.1016/j.leadqua.2006.02.002
Fitzsimons, D., James, K.T.,& Denyer, D. (2011). Alternative approaches for studying
shared and distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Review 13, 313 -
328.doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00312.x
Forsyth, J. (2004). Does district leadership matter? School Administration, 61(11), 6.
Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. Designing effective
work groups, 72, 119.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of
Educational Administration 46(2), 172 - 188.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations:
From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,
517- 543.
Irving, J.A., & Longbotham, G. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant
leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational leadership
assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98-113.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 105
Kanter, R.M. (1999). The enduring skills of change leaders. Leader to Leader, 13, 15-
22. doi: 10.1002/ltl.40619991305
Klenowski, V. (2009). Public education matters: Reclaiming public education for the
common good in a global era. Australian Educational Researcher, 36(1), 1-26.
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). Challenge is the opportunity for greatness. Leader to
Leader, 28, 16-23.
Kurpius, S. & Stafford, M. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user friendly guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
LaFasto, F. & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6000 team members and leaders
tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Larson, C. & LaFasto, F. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right / what can go wrong.
Newberry Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Leithwood, K.A. & Riehl, C.A. (2003) What we know about successful school leadership.
Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Retrieved from
http://cepa.gse.rutgers.edu/whatweknow.pdf
Lencioni, P. (2003). The trouble with teamwork. Leader to Leader, Summer, 35-40.
Marzano, R.J. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right
balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.,
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: A
McEwan, E.K., & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not and
how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 106
Mickan, S. & Rodger, S. (2000). Characteristics of effective teams: a literature review.
Australian Health Review, 23(3), 201-208.
Moore, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student
learning. Final Report of Research to the Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/Learning-from-Leadership_Final
Report_March-2010.pdf
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved
school systems keep getting better. McKinsey & Company Report.
Retrieved from
http://www.mckinsey.com/Search.aspx?q=how%20the%20worlds%20most%20improved
%20school%20systems%20keep%20keep%20getting%20better
Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Northouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. (5th Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
O'Connell, M.S., Doverspike, D., & Cober, A. (2002). Leadership and semiautonomous
work team performance. Group and Organization Management, 27, 50-65.
Oguawa, R.T. & Bossert, S.T. (2000). Leadership as an organizational quality. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass series.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Salas, E., Sims, D.E., & Burke, C.S. (2005). Is there a "big five" in teamwork? Small
Group Research 36, 555 - 599. doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 107
Salkind, N. (2011). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murray, W.D., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. (2002). A longitudinal
model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group
& Organization Management, 27, 66-96.
Spillane, J.P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.
West, M.A., Borrill, C.S., Dawson, J.F., Brodbeck,F., Shapiro, D.A., & Haward, B.
(2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. The Leadership Quarterly
14, 393-410. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com
Young, M.D., Fuller, E., Brewer, C., Carpenter, B., & Mansfield, K.C. (Fall 2007). Quality
leadership matters. University Council for Educational Administration, 1(1), 1-8.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Zaccaro, S., J. & Klimoski, R. (2002). The interface of leadership and team processes.
Group and Organization Management, 27, 4-13.
Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., & Marks, M.A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly 12, 451-483. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 108
Appendix A
Superintendent Interview Protocol
Selection process
1. When you have had the opportunity to select cabinet level staff, what behavior
/character traits and prior professional experience do you look for? And why?
(Probes: task-focused and person-focused)
2. Please explain the technical aspects of the hiring process when you are seeking new
leadership team members? (Probes: paper screening; interview with other leadership
team members; one on one interviews; performance criteria)
3. What challenges have you (as the superintendent) faced in the selection of new team
members?
4. How do you know when you’ve selected the right team members?
Collaboration
5. How do you foster a culture of collaboration? (probes: feedback; communication;
priorities; goals; contention; non-negotiables; climate; problem-solving; managing)
a. Tell us about your feedback loop / process
b. How do you encourage open and honest communication?
c. Do you have non-negotiables with respect to team interactions and individual
behaviors?
i. What criteria is used to determine a non-negotiable item/policy?
d. How do you/ the leadership team deal with internal controversy?
6. How do you know you’ve built a collaborative culture? (Probes: open dissent;
acknowledgement of mistakes; back-up behaviors)
7. How do you ensure that an individual’s strong leadership traits do not interfere with
the collaborative process? (Probes: difference of opinions; different points of view)
8. How do you and your leadership team deal with failures and/or mistakes?
9. Are there any challenges you have faced in the development of a collaborative team?
Distributive Leadership Responsibilities
10. What leadership responsibilities do you expect your senior/executive team members
to take on? When and Why?
a. Under what conditions do you retain the responsibilities?
11. Under what conditions do you relinquish the responsibilities?
12. How do you know when you’ve successfully or unsuccessfully distributed leadership
responsibilities?
Conclusion
13. We have covered the topics of selecting team members, collaboration, and
distributing leadership; is there anything else you would like to add or share with us?
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 109
Appendix B
Superintendent Survey
The following questions refer to you and your current school district. Please consider the choices
based on your leadership of your top team.
You are asked to rate each criteria with a numerical value of 1–4 as follows:
1: False / 2: More False than True / 3: More True than False / 4: True
Likert Scale
Rating
Linked to
Research Question
1. I clearly define our goal. 1 2 3 4 (2)
2. I articulate our goal in such a way as to inspire
commitment.
1 2 3 4 (2)
3. I avoid compromising the team’s objective with
political issues.
1 2 3 4 (2)
4. I help individual team members align their roles and
responsibilities with the team goal.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
5. I create a safe climate for team members to openly
and supportively discuss any issue related to the
team’s success.
1 2 3 4 (2)
6. I communicate openly and honestly. 1 2 3 4 (2)
7. There are no issues that I am uncomfortable
discussing with the team.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
8. There are no chronic problems within our team that
we are unable to resolve.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
9. I do not tolerate a noncollaborative style by team
members.
1 2 3 4 (2)
10. I acknowledge and reward the behaviors that
contribute to an open and supportive team climate.
1 2 3 4 (2)
11. I create a work environment that promotes
productive problem solving.
1 2 3 4 (2)
12. I do not allow organization structure, systems, and
processes to interfere with the achievement of our
team’s goal.
1 2 3 4 (2)
13. I manage my personal control needs. 1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
14. I do not allow my ego to get in the way. 1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
15. I make sure team members are clear about critical
issue and important facts.
1 2 3 4 (3)
16. I exhibit trust by giving team members meaningful
levels of responsibility.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
17. I am fair and impartial toward all team members. 1 2 3 4 (3)
18. I understand the technical issues we must face in
achieving our goal.
1 2 3 4 (3)
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 110
19. I am open to technical advice from team members
who are more knowledgeable than I am.
1 2 3 4 (3)
20. I keep the team focused on a manageable set of
priorities that will lead to the accomplishment of our
goal.
1 2 3 4 (3)
21. I communicate and reinforce a focus on priorities. 1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
22. I do not dilute the team’s effort with too many
priorities.
1 2 3 4 (3)
23. I make performance expectations clear. 1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
24. I encourage the team to agree upon a set of values
that guides our performance.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
25. I assess the collaborative skills of team members as
well as the results they achieve.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
26. I am willing to confront and resolve issues
associated with inadequate performance by team
members.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
27. Achieving our team goal is a higher priority than
any individual objective.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
28. We trust each other sufficiently to accurately share
information, perceptions, and feedback.
1 2 3 4 (2)
29. What are my strengths as a team leader? (1) (2) (3)
30. What one or two changes are most likely to improve
my effectiveness as team leader?
(1) (2) (3)
31. When selecting leadership team members I look for
the following competencies (please rank in order of
importance with 1 being the most important).
(Linked to research question 1)
__ The ability to secure relevant
information, relate and compare data
from different sources, and identify
issues and relationships; conceptual,
analytical, creative.
__ The ability to work toward
outcomes and complete what one starts.
__ The ability to relate to the feelings
and needs of others, and to convey
interest and respect.
__ The ability to schedule time and
prioritize for self and or others, to
handle multiple activities, and to meet
deadlines.
__ The ability to work collaboratively
within a complex organization
structure.
__ The willingness to be open and act
responsibly when dealing with people
and situations.
__ The ability to create a positive first
impression and stand out tactfully
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 111
(includes verbal and nonverbal
communication).
Demographic Information
32. Gender: Male / Female
33. Position:
34. Years in current position:
35. Educational Level: BA / BS / MA / MS / Ed.D. / Ph.D.
Adapted from: LaFasto & Larson, 1987 & 2001
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 112
Appendix C
Leadership Team Member Survey
The following questions refer to you and your current school district. Please consider the choices
based on the leadership of your superintendent.
You are asked to rate each criteria with a numerical value of 1 - 4 as follows:
1: False / 2: More False than True / 3: More True than False / 4: True
Likert Scale Rating Linked to Research
Question
1. Our superintendent clearly defines our goal. 1 2 3 4 (3)
2. Our superintendent articulates our goal in such a
way as to inspire commitment.
1 2 3 4 (3)
3. Our superintendent avoids compromising the team’s
objective with political issues.
1 2 3 4 (3)
4. Our superintendent helps individual team members
align their roles and responsibilities with the team
goal.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
5. Our superintendent creates a safe climate for team
members to openly and supportively discuss any
issue related to the team’s success.
1 2 3 4 (2)
6. Our superintendent communicates openly and
honestly.
1 2 3 4 (2)
7. There are no issues that our superintendent is
uncomfortable discussing with the team.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
8. There are no chronic problems within our team that
we are unable to resolve.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
9. Our superintendent does not tolerate a
noncollaborative style by team members.
1 2 3 4 (2)
10. Our superintendent acknowledges and rewards the
behaviors that contribute to an open and supportive
team climate.
1 2 3 4 (2)
11. Our superintendent creates a work environment that
promotes productive problem solving.
1 2 3 4 (2)
12. Our superintendent does not allow organization
structure, systems, and processes to interfere with
the achievement of our team’s goal.
1 2 3 4 (2)
13. Our superintendent manages his / her personal
control needs.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
14. Our superintendent does not allow his / her ego to
get in the way.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
15. Our superintendent makes sure team members are
clear about critical issue and important facts.
1 2 3 4 (3)
16. Our superintendent exhibits trust by giving us
meaningful levels of responsibility.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 113
17. Our superintendent is fair and impartial toward all
team members.
1 2 3 4 (3)
18. Our superintendent understands the technical issues
we must face in achieving our goal.
1 2 3 4 (3)
19. Our superintendent is open to technical advice from
team members who are more knowledgeable.
1 2 3 4 (3)
20. Our superintendent keeps the team focused on a
manageable set of priorities that will lead to the
accomplishment of our goal.
1 2 3 4 (3)
21. Our superintendent communicates and reinforces a
focus on priorities.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
22. Our superintendent does not dilute the team’s effort
with too many priorities.
1 2 3 4 (3)
23. Our superintendent makes performance expectations
clear.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
24. Our superintendent encourages the team to agree
upon a set of values that guides our performance.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
25. Our superintendent assesses the collaborative skills
of team members as well as the results they achieve.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
26. Our superintendent is willing to confront and
resolve issues associated with inadequate
performance by team members.
1 2 3 4 (2) (3)
27. Achieving our team goal is a higher priority than
any individual objective.
1 2 3 4 (3)
28. We trust each other sufficiently to accurately share
information, perceptions, and feedback.
1 2 3 4 (2)
29. What are the strengths of the superintendent? (1) (2) (3)
30. What one or two changes are most likely to improve
my effectiveness of the superintendent?
(1) (2) (3)
Demographic Information
Gender: Male / Female
Position:
Years in current position:
Educational Level: BA / BS / MA / MS / Ed.D. / Ph.D.
Adapted from: LaFasto & Larson, 1987 & 2001
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 114
Appendix D
Superintendent Recruitment Letter
[Date]
Dear [Name],
As the Superintendent of [name of school district], you have been selected to participate in a
research study conducted at the University of Southern California under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita and at the request of Dr. John Deasy, Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified
School District. This is a small study and your selection was based on your record of successful
leadership and recommendations from both Dr. Deasy and Dr. Castruita. Your participation in
this study will be of value to superintendents across the nation.
Our research title is “Effective Strategies Used by Superintendents in Developing Leadership
Teams” and our study is being conducted through the USC Rossier School of Education.
If you agree to participate in this important study it will require three commitments from you:
1. Participation in an interview lasting approximately 45 minutes (in person, by phone, or
via Skype)
2. Participation in a short on-line survey (approximately 15 minutes)
3. Willingness to share contact information for your executive leadership team in order
for the researchers to request their voluntary participation in a short on-line survey
(approximately 15 minutes).
Below is a link to indicate your willingness to participate in this study, as well as, your
availability for an interview. Researchers will contact you via email or phone (as indicated in the
response survey) to confirm a date and time for the interview.
Link to response: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VBHL6FH
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Anonymity will be granted at your request.
Thank you in advance for your participation,
Michelle Morse and Donna Smith
Ed.D. Students
University of Southern California
morsem@usc.edu
donnajsm@usc.edu
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 115
Appendix E
Leadership Team Member Recruitment E-mail
Dear [Name],
As a leadership team member of [Name of school district], you have been selected to participate
in a research study conducted at the University of Southern California under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita, at the request of Dr. John Deasy, Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified
School District, and with the permission of [Name of superintendent].
The field-tested online survey is expected to take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study.
Here is a link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/V38XG5T
Thank you in advance for your participation,
Michelle Morse and Donna Smith
Ed.D. Students
University of Southern California
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the strategies public school superintendents across the nation use to develop executive leadership teams. Extensive research has been conducted in private for profit and medical settings, however relatively little research on leading teams has been conducted in the public education sector. Research based practices from the current research were considered and the following three research questions were asked: 1) How do superintendents select leadership team members? 2) What strategies do superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate? and 3) How do superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities? A mixed methods approach was used to ascertain how superintendents select their leadership team members, develop a collaborative climate, and distribute leadership responsibilities among the executive team. The study included the purposeful sampling of five superintendents and 51 leadership team members who work in large K-12 districts across four states. The results indicate that superintendents in this study balance person-focused and task-focused competencies in the selection process for new team members
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs
PDF
Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement
PDF
Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success
PDF
Latinas in the superintendency: the challenges experienced before and after obtaining the superintendency and strategies used for success
PDF
Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies utilized by superintendents and mathematics district personnel that impact minority student outcomes in algebra
PDF
Barriers women face while seeking and serving in the position of superintendent in California public schools
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills
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 strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals
PDF
Local governance teams: how effective superintendents and school boards work together
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
Asset Metadata
Creator
Smith, Donna J.
(author)
Core Title
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/29/2013
Defense Date
12/10/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
collaboration,distributed leadership,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,selection strategies,teams
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee chair
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
), Gross, Gwen (
committee member
)
Creator Email
chelcourt@prodigy.net,donnajsm@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-247065
Unique identifier
UC11288021
Identifier
etd-SmithDonna-1621.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-247065 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SmithDonna-1621.pdf
Dmrecord
247065
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Smith, Donna J.
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
Tags
collaboration
distributed leadership
selection strategies