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 a page range

Download transcript

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

Michelle M. Morse

THE 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 Michelle M. Morse
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 2

Table of Contents
Dedication 4
Acknowledgements 5
Abstract 6
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 15
Importance of the Study 15
Assumptions 16
Limitations 16
Delimitations 17
Definitions 17

Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Introduction 18
Teams and Teamwork 20
Characteristics of Effective Teams 22
Teamwork 26
Collaborative Team Leadership 27
Selecting Leadership Team Members 30
Collaboration 33
Elements of a Collaborative Climate 33
Building a Collaborative Climate 36
Distributive Leadership 38
Participative Leadership 43
Delegation 44
Conclusion 45

Chapter Three: Methodology 48
Overview 48
Purpose of the Study 50
Research Questions 50
Research Design 50
Instrumentation 53
Data Collection 54
Data Analysis 54
Validity 55
Summary 56
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 3

Chapter Four: The Findings 57
Introduction 57
Data Analysis Process 57
Research Questions 59
Participant Demographics 59
Data Analysis by Research Question 62
Research Question #1 62
Quantitative findings: research question #1 62
Qualitative findings: research question #1 65
Research Question #2 70
Quantitative findings: research question #2 71
Qualitative findings: research question #2 75
Research Question #3 85
Quantitative findings: research question #3 86
Qualitative findings: research question #3 92
Discussion of the Findings 98
Triangulation 98
Selection Process 99
Collaborative Climates 99
Distributed Leadership 102
Conclusion 103

Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions 105
Introduction 105
Purpose of the Study 105
Research Questions 105
Methods 106
Key Findings 106
Selection Process: Research Question #1 106
Collaborative Climates: Research Question #2 109
Distributed Leadership: Research Question #3 110
Implications 111
Framework 112
Recommendations for Future Research 114
Conclusion 115

References 117
Appendices 122
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 4

Dedication
I lovingly dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful husband Greg. Without your love
and unending patience, this dissertation would not be finished. You have been my motivation,
support, and strength throughout this dissertation process. Even when I did not believe I could
continue, your encouragement and faith inspired me to persevere. To my amazing daughter
Peyton, I also dedicate this dissertation. Your passion for life inspired me every day to pursue
my childhood dream of obtaining a doctorate. I truly appreciate your understanding when I was
too busy studying and could not be with you. I love you both so much.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Gene and Judy, who taught me the value of
education from as early as I can remember. They instilled a sense of confidence and helped me
believe that I could accomplish anything I set my mind to. Last but not least, I dedicate this
dissertation to my sister, Kristen. All of your cheerleading encouraged me to keep going when I
wasn’t sure I wanted to continue.

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 5

Acknowledgements
It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge and thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, my
committee chair. His advice, guidance, encouragement, and support were invaluable throughout
the dissertation process. I was fortunate to have such an experienced, insightful, intelligent, and
supportive individual as my chair. His sense of humor and patience made this journey enjoyable.
I also acknowledge and sincerely thank Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Gwen Gross for being
supportive and helpful members of my dissertation committee. I was honored to have these two
notable and outstanding individuals be a part of my committee. Their feedback, support, and
willingness to give their time are deeply appreciated.
I would also like to acknowledge the help of my technical advisors, Dr. Mary-Anne Pops
and Dr. Tom Granoff. Mary-Anne, thank you for all of your patience and guidance throughout
the editing process. Tom, I am appreciative of the time you spent to teach me statistics in a way
I could understand.
Finally, I offer a very special thank you to my colleague, dissertation partner, and friend,
Donna Smith, who without your friendship, encouragement, and support this journey would not
have been realized. I appreciate and cherish your friendship and unwavering support. I could not
have completed this dissertation without you. I am a better person because of you.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 6

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 7

Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of Effective Teams 24
Table 2: Elements of Collaborative Climates 35

Table 3: Frequency Counts for Selected Superintendent Demographic Variables 59

Table 4: Frequency Counts for Selected Team Member Demographic Variables 61

Table 5: Superintendent Ratings of the Competencies They Look for When Selecting Leadership
Team Members Sorted by Importance 63

Table 6: Frequency Counts for Number of Times Selection Process Variables were Coded in
Superintendent Interviews 66

Table 7: Ratings of Superintendents Top Six Collaborative Strategies Sorted by Highest Mean
Compared to the Leadership Team Members Responses 71

Table 8: Gap Score Between Superintendent Means and Leadership Team Member Means for
Collaborative Strategies Based on District 75

Table 9: Frequency Counts for Number of Times Collaborative Strategy Variables were Coded
in Superintendent Interviews 76

Table 10: Ratings of Superintendents’ Distributed Leadership Items Sorted by Highest Mean
Compared to the Leadership Team Members’ Responses 87

Table 11: Frequency Counts for Number of Times Distributed Leadership Strategy Variables
were Coded in Superintendent Interviews 92

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 8

Figures
Figure 1: Framework for Research Study 46
Figure 2: Framework for Building a Leadership Team: Intentional Leadership Decisions 113
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 9

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is
piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so must we think
anew” (Lincoln, 1953, p.537; as cited in DuFour & Marzano, 2010).
Chapter One: Introduction
There is nothing more controversial and impassioned than education. The quality of and
access to a first-class education affects all aspects of a child’s life, and in turn influences each
child’s future and society’s economic and democratic sovereignty in the world (Barber &
Mourshed, 2007, DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Klenowski, 2009; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber,
2010). A quality education is paramount to global and societal productivity, success, and
survival, as well as one’s own personal and social welfare (Klenowski, 2009; Louis, Leithwood,
Wahlstrom, Anderson, Michlin, et al., 2010; Mourshed, et al., 2010). Education is the force that
humanizes, liberalizes, and democratizes (Tomlinson, 2001; as cited in Klenowski, 2009). A
superior educational system must be regained in order to achieve its goal as the democratizer that
addresses social and economic inequities, as well as to acknowledge and realize the importance
of diversity and difference (Klenwoski, 2009).
Barber & Mourshed (2007) argue that the paramount charge of any school system is
transforming the hearts and minds of all the children it serves. Educators in the 21
st
century must
strive for higher levels of learning for all children (Young, Brewer, Carpenter, & Mansfeld,
2007). Agreement exists with regards to transforming the public education system to meet the
needs of all students; however, what remains vehemently debated is how to accomplish this
arduous task. Young et al. (2007) acknowledge the need for reform efforts to continue to push
for increased accountability, rigor of content taught, and investment in teacher quality. These
researchers further contend that this is not sufficient, and reform necessitates more. Research
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 10

argues that school leadership quality and stability is an essential component to transform our
nation’s schools and must not be overlooked (Forsyth, 2004; Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Riehl,
2003; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Young et al., 2007). Barber and Mourshed (2007) reported they
“did not find a single school system which had been turned around that did not possess sustained,
committed, and talented leadership” (p. 40). Prevalent in today’s research on educational reform
is the claim that leadership matters in efforts focused on closing the pervasive achievement gap
(DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Young et al.,
2007).
Past and current views of leadership emphasize the critical role leadership plays in the
success of any organization (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Marzano & Waters, 2009;
Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2013). Leadership is a universal construct that has deep roots and has
become highly valued and studied (Northouse, 2010). Leadership can be traced back to the work
of philosophers such as Plato, Caesar, and Plutarch (Bass, 1990; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005). Bass (1990) refers to the study of leadership as an ancient art that is universally occurring
among all people.
Contemporary social scientists began studying leadership in the early 20
th
century (Yukl,
2013). The majority of the qualitative and quantitative research on leadership has focused on
leader effectiveness (Yukl, 2013). Sixty-five different classification systems have emerged from
the leadership research over the past 60 years (Northouse, 2010).
Researchers have attempted to construct frameworks for categorizing the various
leadership theories and their implications (Bass, 1990; Louis et al., 2010; Northouse, 2010; Yukl,
2013). The formation of these frameworks is driven by the researcher’s working definition of
leadership and methodological approach (Yukl, 2013). These frameworks include classifying
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 11

leadership theories by: 1) the type of variable (characteristics of leaders, followers, and the
situation) emphasized the most; 2) the approach (trait, behavior, power-influence, situational,
and integrative); 3) the levels of analysis (intra-individual process, dyadic process, individual
process, and organizational process); and 4) through a continuum (leader-centered versus
follower-centered theory, universal versus contingency theory, descriptive versus prescriptive
theory) (Yukl, 2013).
Research also concurs that leadership does affect performance at all levels of an
organization, including school districts. This is in contrast to previous beliefs and perceptions of
the importance of educational leaders in the late 20
th
century. Former Secretary of Education
William Bennett referred to educational leaders outside the classroom as “the blob.”(Marzano &
Waters, 2009). Bennett argued that district administrators took resources away from the
classroom, employed minimal effort to move reform efforts forward to improve student
achievement, and only worked to maintain the status quo (Marzano & Waters, 2009).
Since this time, numerous empirical studies have been conducted examining whether or
not leadership matters in the educational arena. What has emerged clearly from the research is
that leaders positively impact student achievement via multiple avenues of influence (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Forsyth, 2004; Marzano, et al., 2005; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Young et al.,
2007). Marzano and Waters (2009) examined the effect of leadership at the district level on
student achievement. Prior to their research, other empirical studies determined that leadership
at the site level had a moderate but significant impact on student achievement (Marzano, Waters,
& McNulty, 2005; Marzano & Waters, 2009).
In their meta-analysis, incorporating the Hunter and Schmidt perspective, Marzano and
Waters (2009) investigated whether district leadership was a critical component in the mix of
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 12

actions that in combination have a causal effect on student achievement. The meta-analysis
found a .24 correlation between the relationship of the district leader’s actions and average
student achievement. Marzano and Waters (2009) concluded that when superintendents and
district leaders are effective, student achievement is positively affected. The findings of Marzano
& Waters (2009) also yielded five leadership initiatives that correlated positively with average
student achievement: collaborative goal setting, nonnegotiable goals for achievement and
instruction, board alignment and support of district goals, monitoring of achievement and
instructional goals, and allocation of resources to support district goals. These findings offer a
new vision with regards to the importance of district leadership, why it matters, and why it is a
critical component in increasing student achievement and sustaining educational reform
initiatives.
DuFour and Marzano (2011) concur with the importance of leadership in educational
arenas committed to fostering and sustaining reform. Their research goes one step further to
assert that while leadership is critical to advancing substantive organizational change, it cannot
be accomplished in isolation (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Kouzes & Posner (2003) maintain that
leading is not an individual act but rather a team function. Effective leaders understand and
recognize that great things cannot be accomplished in a vacuum, but rather organizational change
is only achieved through collaborative efforts (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Kouzes & Posner,
2003; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Northouse, 2010). “In the thousands of cases we’ve studied,
despite the vast amounts of research on leadership and the importance of teams, Zaccaro,
Rittman, and Marks (2001) argue that very little is known or understood with regards to “how
leaders create and handle effective teams” (p. 451).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 13

The study of teams began as early as the 1920s and 1930s. The focus at the time was on
collaboration and human relations (Northouse, 2010). A shift to group dynamics and the
development of the social science theory emerged in the 1940s (Northouse, 2010). Throughout
the 1950s, research was concentrated on sensitivity training and the role of the leader in groups
(Northouse, 2010). Up to this point, research on leadership was predominantly conducted in
laboratory settings. When the research was carried out in the field, the context of the groups was
ignored entirely (Northouse, 2010). The 1960s and 1970s, the era of organizational
development, saw the research concentrated on developing teams and leadership effectiveness
(Northouse, 2010). During the 1980s, competition from countries such as Japan centered the
focus of the research on quality teams, benchmarking, and continuous improvement. The 1990s
saw a shift to a more global perspective that urged teams to focus on maintaining their
competitive edge (Yukl, 2013; Northouse, 2010).
Teams have the capacity to affect organizations in positive and negative ways (Bolman &
Deal, 2008; Lencioni, 2003). Lencioni (2003) argues that teamwork is not an asset in and of
itself, but rather a calculated choice, and when fully comprehended and appropriately
implemented, is a formidable and valuable tool for an organization. Organizations fail to
become unified teams because they neglect to fully grasp how powerful teamwork is, and the
commitment required to become a team (Lencioni, 2003). Teamwork is often mistaken for a
“working group.” Jeffery Katzenbach (as cited in Lencioni, 2003, p. 36) defines a working
group as a group of executives who are working independently toward the same goal with little
expectancies for collaboration. In order to fully capitalize on the power of teamwork, leaders
must recognize the need for teamwork and methodically create an environment that supports and
values collaboration. When teams are created around the right work for the right reasons, the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 14

collective combination of team members’ knowledge, skills, and unique perspectives will enable
the organization to achieve much more than imagined, in contrast to working independently
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Deform & Marzano, 2011; Lencioni, 2003; Northouse, 2007).
The importance of teams to an organization’s success is well documented (Northouse,
2010; Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro, et al., 2001). However, a void in the research continues to linger
behind the demand for fostering a better understanding of how executives create and sustain
high-performing leadership teams. To date, the focus of the research on leadership teams has
been primarily within business and medical settings, and limited research exists on how to apply
team leadership principles to the public education setting. It is evident from the research that
team leadership is crucial to “achieving both affective and behaviorally based team outcomes”
(Stagl, Salas, & Burke, 2007, p. 172; as cited in Northouse, 2010). Zaccaro et al. (2001) further
argue that “effective leadership processes represent the most critical factor in the success of
organizational teams” (p.452).
Superintendents’ responsibilities are no longer managerial in nature, but rather they are
charged with identifying the right work, executing the right work flawlessly, and doing so with
the right people. Determining the right work is no easy task, and cannot be accomplished alone.
To ensure that all children have access to a superior education, superintendents must cultivate
high-performing leadership teams who will work collaboratively to identify and execute the right
work for education reform.
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
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 15

the non-negotiables. Effective superintendents also recognize that they cannot succeed in
moving their organization forward without the assistance of a strategic team. DuFour and
Marzano (2011) argue, “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
research has repeatedly argued the need for creating strong leadership teams (Elmore, 2003;
Kanter, 1999; Kotter, 1996; 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 to distribute leadership responsibilities across all team members. 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 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?
Importance of the Study
This study adds to the existing literature on team leadership. This study provides specific
guidance on how superintendents develop leadership teams. The study identifies the critical
elements of effective leadership teams, the strategies for selecting team members, the guidelines
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 16

for fostering collaborative climates, and the way superintendents distribute and share leadership
responsibilities. The study provides a framework for creating leadership teams to implement and
sustain transformational reform that is useful to current superintendents, educational leaders, and
educational researchers.
This study is also important to aspiring leaders as they work towards developing and
strengthening their leadership skills. The study is also relevant to school boards. The study
provides school board members with a conceptual understanding of the superintendent’s need for
a leadership team. This will allow the Board of Trustees to more closely align school board
practices with the superintendent’s leadership initiatives.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. Superintendents intend 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. District leadership team members in this study
provided honest and precise answers to interview and survey questions. The data
are based upon prior empirical research standards, and are reliable and valid.
Limitations
This study includes the following limitations:
1. The limited time frame and travel time restricted the study to one interview 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 17

3. The study was limited to voluntary participation by superintendents and their
leadership team members.
4. Based on the small sample size, the quantitative nature of this study lent itself to
Type I or Type II errors.
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 California 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 superintendent, 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.
Chapter Two will provide a comprehensive review of the relevant literature directly
related to team leadership, selecting leadership team members, building a collaborative climate,
and distributed leadership practices.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 18

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the extant literature related to teams,
and the strategies superintendents employ when developing their leadership team. 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;
Sergiovanni, 2005; Zaccaro, et al., 2001), it is imperative that the process superintendents
employ to select and develop high-functioning teams is examined.
A focus will also be placed on the literature relevant to fostering a collaborative climate
and distributing leadership practices. To completely comprehend the complex relationships
necessary in building a highly effective leadership team, the focus of this study is to identify the
criteria superintendents establish for selecting leadership team members, as well as the means
and approaches they use to foster collaborative climates and distribute leadership as it pertains to
creating high reliability organizations and strong leadership teams.
The following literature review is organized into five sections. Each section is a
thorough review of the literature relevant to the following areas: teams and teamwork; selecting
leadership team members; collaboration; and distributive leadership. The literature review ends
with conclusions drawn from the prevailing research and applications specific to this study.
Introduction
Teams have been a focus of study beginning as early as the 1920s and 1930s. Vast
amounts of research on leadership and the importance of teams are existent in the literature.
However, little is known or understood with regards to the way in which leaders create and
manage effective teams to accomplish collective success (Zaccaro et al., 2001; Zaccaro &
Klimoski, 2002; West, Borrill, Dawson, Brodbeck, Shapiro, & Howard, 2003).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 19

Research affirms that leadership does matter in today’s highly complex global society,
and it is a crucial component for increasing student academic achievement. Irrespective of the
specific leadership theory one espouses, research has linked leadership to the effective
performance of organizations, including educational institutions (Marzano et al., 2005).
However, research argues that leading in isolation is no longer effective in meeting
organizational goals, solving complex organizational problems, or sustaining transformational
change (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Larson &LaFasto, 1989). Kouzes
& Posner (2003) maintain that leading is a team function, not an individual act. Organizational
change is achieved only through collaborative efforts and cannot be carried out singlehandedly
(DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Northouse, 2007
& 2010). “In short, our contributions increasingly will come as a result of our ability to
understand teams and teamwork” (Larson &LaFasto, 1989, p. 18).
Superintendents are charged today with not only leading their districts, but also with
creating and implementing transformational change that includes increasing academic
achievement for all students. To effectively lead their district, superintendents must develop a
strategic plan that clearly and succinctly outlines the work to be done and the standards by which
the work will be measured. The ability to recognize the potency of teams and teamwork will
assist superintendents in their quest to develop and implement a comprehensive strategic plan
that meets the needs of all students, and provides the environment for all students to achieve high
levels of success. While research supports the importance of teams to an organization’s success,
a void in the research remains regarding how executives create and sustain high performing
leadership teams (Irving & Longbotham, 2007; Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro et al.,
2001). Much of the research in this area has focused on business organizations and medical
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 20

settings, and limited research exists on how to apply team leadership principles to the public
education arena.
Teams and Teamwork
Teams have the capacity to fundamentally affect organizations both, positively and
negatively (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Lencioni, 2003, LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Larson &LaFasto,
1989). When teamwork is fully embraced, comprehended, and executed, teamwork becomes a
formidable and invaluable tool for solving problems in today’s complex and dynamic world
(LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Larson &LaFasto, 1989; Lencioni, 2003). When organizations create
teams around the right work for the right reasons, the collective combination of team members’
knowledge, skills, and unique perspectives will enable the organization to achieve much more in
contrast to working independently (Bolman & Deal, 2008; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Lencioni,
2003; Northouse, 2007 & 2010).
In today’s ever-changing, interconnected global society, the need for collaborative
problem-solving and decision-making processes is evident (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). In their
combined 50 years of studying over 6,000 public and private organizations, LaFasto & Larson
(2001) concluded that two processes are at work in moving organizations toward teamwork: the
increasing complexity of problems and the evolution of social behavior. Teamwork is driven by
an organization's need to identify new and better solutions to the complex problems faced, and
this is accomplished by the growing social capacities of the individuals within the organization to
utilize collaborative strategies when confronted with routine problems (LaFasto & Larson, 2001;
Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro et al., 2001; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002). “As problems become more
complex, and as their solutions require the active participation of diverse perspectives, then
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 21

teamwork, and collaboration become increasingly necessary and valued” (LaFasto & Larson,
2001, p. xix).
In educational institutions, the problems facing leaders are dynamic and multifaceted. To
effectively comprehend and overcome these problems, leaders need technical and interpersonal
competence in a multitude of areas: human resources, school finance at all levels (federal, state,
and local), instruction, technology, human growth and development, organizational management,
and cultural competency.
Marzano and Waters (2009) conducted a meta-analysis examining leadership and student
academic achievement. From this meta-analysis of the literature, five strategies that district
leaders should use in their pursuit to create successful schools were identified. All five strategies
incorporated aspects of collaboration and distributed leadership. Current research argues that
one of the best strategies today’s school district superintendent can employ is assembling a high-
performing leadership team (Elmore, 2003; Kanter, 1999; Kotter, 1996; Marzano & Waters,
2009; Sergiovanni, 2005).
Teamwork is espoused by many companies and organizations to be a core value.
Lencioni (2003) argues that one in every three Fortune 500 companies overtly affirms teamwork
to be a company core value. Day, Gronn, & Salas (2004) contend that with greater collaboration
among members of an organization, collective goals will be achieved, creating a substantial
competitive edge in today’s global society. Lencioni (2003) and Day et al. (2004) maintain that
while many would not argue against teamwork, few organizations have truly functioning teams.
It is further argued that teamwork is hard, and creating leadership teams requires substantial
behavior changes (Lencioni, 2003).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 22

What is a team? More specifically, what are the characteristics, features, and attributes of
effective teams? Northouse (2010) defines a team as a group of individuals who are
“interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to
accomplish these goals” (p. 241). Larson and LaFasto (2001) employ a broad definition of team:
“A team has two or more people; it has a specific performance objective or recognizable goal to
be attained; and coordination of activity among the members of the team is required for the
attainment of the team goal or objective” (p. 19). For this research study, a team will be defined
as a group of individuals who work interdependently and collaboratively toward a common goal.
Characteristics of Effective Teams
Larson and LaFasto (1989 & 2001) have spent over two decades conducting research on
teams and teamwork. Some of their initial research investigated the practices of over 75 teams.
This initial research was conducted in two phases. During the first phase of the research, Larson
and LaFasto (1989) used theoretical sampling to identify the teams for the study. This strategy
afforded the researchers the ability to select teams because of their nonrepresentativeness,
thereby strengthening the validity of the research findings (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). The initial
phase of research consisted of interviewing the leaders and members of the selected teams. From
that research, Larson and LaFasto (1989) ascertained eight characteristics found consistently in
highly-effective 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 (p. 26).
For the second phase of the research, Larson & LaFasto (1989) used a narrower and more
homogeneous group of 32 executive management and project teams to test the eight properties of
highly-effective teams discovered in phase one of the research. In phase two, Larson and
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 23

LaFasto (1989) operationalized the eight characteristics of high performing teams into a set of
measures that looked at team effectiveness, leader effectiveness, and the effectiveness of
individual member contributions.
Larson and LaFasto’s (1989) eight characteristics of team excellence parallel the
theoretical components of group effectiveness identified by Hackman & Walton (1986).
Hackman and Walton’s (1986) study identified five conditions essential to group effectiveness: a
clear, engaging direction, an enabling structure, an enabling context, adequate material resources,
and expert coaching.
Mickan and Rodger (2000) conducted an extensive review of the literature with respect to
creating effective teams and how this could be applied to healthcare environments. The review
of the literature concluded that certain structural characteristics must exist for a team to be
effective. From the review, seven characteristics emerged that are comparable to the earlier
research of Hackman and Walton (1986) and Larson & LaFasto (1989). The seven
characteristics included: clear purpose, appropriate culture, specified task, distinct roles, suitable
leadership, relevant members, and adequate resources (Mickan & Rodger, 2000). Day et al.
(2004) assert that teamwork is a “dynamic and elusive phenomenon” (p. 863), and while there is
a robust amount of research on teamwork, organizations continue to struggle with creating and
managing teams. Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005) examined over 20 years of research on
teamwork, which included empirical studies and theoretical models. The goal of the literature
review was to answer the question “What is teamwork?” and to establish an empirically
supported, yet practical and relevant team framework (Salas et al., 2005, p. 553). This review
generated more than 138 models of teamwork, and with a few exceptions, they concluded that
most research considered teamwork to be a process (Salas et al., 2005). Salas et al. (2005)
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 24

contend that teamwork consists of five core components: team leadership, mutual performance
monitoring, backup behavior, adaptability, and team orientation. In addition, Salas et al. (2005)
posit that shared mental models, mutual trust, and closed-loop communication must also be
present and act as coordinating mechanisms for teams to be effective.
Teamwork, according to Lencioni (2003), is a strategic choice that when understood and
implemented properly, can be an invaluable and powerful tool. Lencioni contends that while
many leaders and organizations preach teamwork, very few embody it. Lencioni argues that
Katzenbach’s concept of a “working group” (p. 36) is more effective than a faux team.
Lencioni’s work on teams maintains that teamwork is built on the establishment of vulnerability-
based trust, the development of an environment where healthy conflict is accepted and embraced,
the promotion and acceptance of an unwavering commitment, the cultivation of unapologetic
accountability, and the establishment of a collective orientation to results. See Table 1 for a
comprehensive summary of characteristics of effective teams as identified by the aforementioned
researchers (see Table 1)
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

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 25

Table 1
Characteristics of Effective Teams (continued)
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)
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.
Teamwork
It is evident, from the consistency across the research, that in order for teams to be
effective and engaged in teamwork, certain characteristics must be present. Teams must first
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 26

define a purpose, clear goals, and understand the best structure to accomplish their stated goals.
It is imperative that teams are comprised of the right composition and the right number of people
who have developed a unified identity and commitment to the goals. Further, teams must
possess the ability to collaborate to establish norms and standards of excellence, to which all are
held accountable. Teams must have access to the needed resources and support. Finally, teams
must have active, principled leadership. “Teams with good leaders can accomplish results even
when it appears that the deck is stacked against them” (Furman, 1995, p. 25; as cited in Irving &
Longbotham, 2007, p. 101).
High-performing teams engaged in teamwork have the capability to provide superior
productivity, creativity, and adaptability than any one individual acting alone (Salas et al., 2005;
Northouse, 2010). In addition, teams have the potential to offer more multifaceted, innovative,
and novel solutions to intricate organizational problems (Salas et al., 2005; Northouse, 2010).
Research on the effectiveness of teams within organizations further maintains that teamwork
leads to increased productivity and better overall use of resources than acting in isolation
(Lencioni, 2003; Salas et al., 2005; Northouse, 2010).
Yukl (2013) argues for diversity within teams. When teams are diverse, members bring
their unique perspectives and content knowledge expertise to the problems faced (Northouse,
2010; Yukl, 2013). Finally, leaders are encouraged to ensure that team members have the
capacity to work collaboratively (Yukl, 2013).
Lencioni (2003) and Day et al. (2004) warn that teams are not the panacea to an
organization’s problems. Lencioni (2003) contends that teams have become the solution “du
jour,” and that most organizations operate as a faux team rather than an actual team. More
recently, teams have emerged as the hero and the solution in and of themselves to the problems
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 27

facing an organization (Lencioni, 2003; Day et al., 2004). As leaders build and work with teams,
it is imperative that the egos of highly accomplished members on a team are managed, and self-
focused behaviors are eliminated (Lencioni, 2003). High-performing teams must also develop
cultures that accept and embrace healthy conflict (Lencioni, 2003). Dissent and constructive
team-based discussion foster collaborative climates where trust is established and novel solutions
to complex problems are generated (Lencioni, 2003). The ability to manage individuality and
move a diverse group toward a collective goal requires a skilled leader.
The research is varied regarding the benefits of teams (Day et al., 2004). Teams will not
always be successful in their quest to achieve a collective goal, but they must be held
accountable for mistakes and failures (Day et al., 2004). While there is an abundance of research
supporting the benefits of teams and teamwork, researchers continue to argue for further
investigation of the benefits of leadership teams as an organizational approach (Day et al., 2004;
Salas et al., 2005; Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2013).
Collaborative Team Leadership
Previous leadership definitions and research emphasized leadership as mainly top-down
and hierarchical, where leaders possessed specific and rare traits enabling them to lead at the top
in a way that controlled others (LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Day et al., 2004; Irving &
Longbothom, 2007; Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2013). Contemporary perspectives of leadership
view leadership as a phenomenon that is distributed, where subordinates are included in an
influence process. LaFasto and Larson (2001) maintain that all leaders are pursuing something of
importance, and achieving it will require working as a team; leadership is an interconnected
relationship between leaders and their followers.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 28

Evident in the research are the characteristics of effective teams. What remains lacking
in the current research is how leaders foster, promote and integrate subordinates’ actions and
team processes (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Zaccaro et al. (2001) argue that the most critical element
in team effectiveness is the presence of effective leadership processes. Northouse (2010)
maintains that a team’s success and avoidance of failures is directly attributable to understanding
the role of a leader within the team. Yukl (2013) concurs and states that the quality of leadership
within a team is correlated with team effectiveness. “Team leadership is critical to achieving
both affective and behaviorally based team outcomes” (Stagl, Salas, & Burke, 2007, p. 172; as
cited in Northouse, 2010, p. 242). Further, the presence and/or lack of leadership has been
recognized as one of the primary reasons for failing to implement high-performing teams
(Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, & Jung, 2002). Research affirms that exemplary leadership
positively impacts a team’s motivation, efficacy, and performance (Zacarro et al., 2001; LaFasto
& Larson, 2001; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002; Day et al., 2004; Northouse, 2010). This concept
of team leadership situates leadership in the “driver’s seat of team effectiveness” (Northouse,
2010, p. 243). As the leader, it is one’s responsibility to add value to the team’s endeavors and
to do what is necessary to ensure that the work is done (LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Zacarro et al.,
2001).
In a study investigating more than 1,264 members across 112 teams in the aerospace
industry, researchers concluded that leaders impacted their team’s performance in two distinct
ways (Bell, 1996; as cited in LaFasto & Larson, 2001). First, leaders directly affected the group
process variable and collaborative climate by fostering conditions that allowed the team to
succeed; and second, leadership positively affected the group’s potency (Bell, 1996; as cited in
LaFasto & Larson, 2001).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 29

LaFasto and Larson studied the responses of more than 6,000 team members and more
than 600 team leaders to two questions: “What are the strengths of team’s leadership?, and
“What does the team leader do that keeps the team from functioning more effectively?” (LaFasto
& Larson, 2001, p. 99). Analysis of the responses yielded six leadership competencies of highly
effective leaders: focusing on the goal, ensuring a collaborative climate, building confidence,
demonstrating sufficient technical know-how, setting priorities, and managing performance
(LaFasto & Larson, 2001).
Yukl’s (2013) research identified seven essential processes leaders must engage in to
increase overall team effectiveness, which are similar to the findings yielded in LaFasto &
Larson’s (2001) study. Leaders must facilitate a culture of commitment to shared goals, ensure
that each member has the necessary skills and understands what the work is, how to do it, and the
timeline it must be completed in, foster external coordination, cultivate a climate of trust and
cooperation, sustain enthusiasm and self-assurance, and ascertain and secure the necessary
resources (Yukl, 2013).
It is clear from the research that leaders must possess specific competencies and engage
in particular processes when leading teams; however, it is also clear from the research that
leaders must also select the right team members in order to build a high-performing team.
“Those who build great companies understand that the ultimate throttle on growth for any great
company is not markets, or technology, or competition, or products. It is the one thing above all
others; the ability to get and keep enough of the right people” (Collins, 2001, p. 54).
Marzano and Waters’ (2009) research in the area of team leadership has made clear why
teams are important, and their research has laid the foundation regarding the significance of
superintendents’ ability to create and foster collaborative teams. Research cautions leaders that it
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 30

is not enough to have strong leadership and teams in place. 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).
Selecting Leadership Team Members
Defining the “what” of the work has historically been viewed in the research as the most
significant factor in a team’s effectiveness (Collins, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Northouse,
2010). Current research argues that it is not the “what” of the work, but rather the “who” of the
work which is the key ingredient in a team’s success (Collins, 2001; Larson & LaFasto, 1989;
Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2013). Selecting the right people is an essential first step to creating a
high-performing executive team. Frequently, team members are selected based on the wrong
reasons. In today’s reform-centered, ever-changing educational arena, superintendents face
numerous obstacles, and creating high-performing executive leadership teams is a key
component to achieving their organization’s goals. Therefore, how do leaders of organizations
select their leadership team members?
Prior to selection of team members, leaders must clearly understand the goals the team
will be focused on, and be aware of potential issues that might arise. Defining the work, as well
as the structure and skills needed to accomplish the work, will assist the leader in selecting the
right people for the work. Larson & LaFasto (1989) identified two types of competencies
essential when selecting team members: technical competencies and interpersonal competencies.
Technical competencies are those aptitudes, abilities, and knowledge that all team members must
possess in order to have a chance of accomplishing the team’s goal (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).
Interpersonal competencies, according to Larson and LaFasto (1989) include the traits, abilities,
and proficiencies that allow members to work together to recognize, tackle, and settle concerns
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 31

or problems. Yukl’s (2013) research yielded similar findings. Yukl (2013) asserts that building
a high-functioning leadership team requires assembling individuals who possess the right amount
of skill and experience. Yukl (2013) further argues that better decisions are made in teams when
members are selected that have diverse backgrounds, interests, and perspectives.
Northouse (2010) concurs that effective teams must consist not only of individuals who
possess the necessary technical skills to achieve the team’s goals, but who also have strong
interpersonal and teamwork skills. Northouse (2010) cautions leaders to avoid making the most
common mistake of assuming that just because an individual is intelligent and possesses the deep
technical skills required to solve problems, that they also have adequate interpersonal skills
critical to collaboration and teamwork. Team members who possess inadequate interpersonal
skills, despite having superior intellectual skills, may be more harmful to the collaborative team
process.
Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, and Halpin (2006) reviewed Fleishman and
colleagues’ (1991) work on leadership behaviors in teams. Fleishman et al. (1991; as cited in
Burke et al., 2006) identified two categories of behaviors present in team members of highly-
effective teams: task-focused behaviors and person-focused behaviors. These traits align with
the research findings of Larson and LaFasto (1989), Northouse (2010), and Yukl (2013).
Fleishman et al. (1991; as cited in Burke et al., 2006) defined task-focused behaviors as those
behaviors that assist team members in understanding the work to be accomplished, the internal
operating procedures, and the process for acquiring needed and relevant task information (Burke
et al., 2006). Person-focused behaviors were those behaviors such as attitudes, interactions, and
shared mental models that must be present in order to work effectively as one team (Fleishman et
al., 1991; as cited in Burke et al., 2006).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 32

When building teams, Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005) also caution leaders
to be mindful of the composition of team members. While Yukl (2013) states that better
decisions are made in teams when members are from diverse backgrounds, interests, and
perspectives, Ilgen et al. (2005) noted in their review of the research that moderately
heterogeneous groups have the potential to create “subgroups or token members” that have the
potential to interfere with collaborative efforts (p.528). Research contends that teams comprised
of homogeneous or highly heterogeneous members are more strongly correlated with building a
collaborative team environment (Ilgen et al., 2005). Thus, when diversity cannot be created
without the formation of sub-groups, research recommends that leaders create a more
homogeneous team.
To summarize, the research confirms that defining the “who” of the work is a critical first
step to creating and maintaining high-functioning leadership teams. From interviews of more
than 6,000 team members and leaders, three common features of competent team members
emerged from the analysis of the data: the necessary skills, knowledge and abilities to achieve
the team’s identified goal; a compelling need to contribute to the team and the team’s work; and
the inherent ability to work collaboratively with others (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). “In fact, one
of the strongest and most persistent messages that emerged from our data was the necessity of
removing people from teams who were not capable of collaborating effectively with others”
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 69). When building leadership teams, leaders must be cognizant of
these competencies to ensure that the right mix of individuals are selected: members who possess
sufficient technical know-how and also embody the specific interpersonal skills which enable
them to work collaboratively.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 33

For superintendents, being mindful of the research discussed will be imperative to
moving their organization forward. The findings discussed earlier have primarily emerged from
research in business and medical settings. Historically, educational settings have not been
classified as highly collaborative, and the hiring practices have often focused exclusively on the
technical merits of the applicant. Selection of new employees within public education
institutions has historically centered on credentials, certifications, and/or degrees held. Focus
has not been placed on the interpersonal competencies or the collaborative abilities of new
applicants.
Collaboration
Elements of a collaborative climate.
Collaboration, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (2012), is the process of
working jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor. Researchers
contend that collaboration is a significant factor in a team’s effectiveness. Larson and LaFasto
(1989) assert that the essence of teamwork is the ability of the individual team members to
collaborate. “Teamwork succeeds most dramatically when team members are enthusiastically
unified in pursuit of a common objective rather than individual agendas” (Larson & LaFasto,
1989, p. 84). Therefore, what elements are needed to create a collaborative climate?
Collaboration is one of the eight characteristics of highly-effective teams identified in
Larson & LaFasto’s (1989) investigation of 75 teams. In addition, the fostering and ensuring of
a collaborative climate is one of the six critical roles of a leader (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). From
the analysis of 6,000 plus interviews, Larson and LaFasto (1989) found that interviewees often
referred to collaboration as the process of “working well together” (p. 85). When probed,
interviewees discussed the concept of “working well together” in regards to having clearly
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 34

delineated roles and responsibilities, as well as creating a climate of trust (Larson & LaFasto,
1989). Data further indicated that a climate embodying trust was an environment in which there
were openness, honesty, consistency, and respect (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Lencioni (2003)
states that the hallmarks of a collaborative environment are: vulnerability-based trust, healthy
conflict, and unapologetic accountability. “ 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” (Northouse, 2010, p. 254). Leadership is
paramount to the development and sustainment of a collaborative climate.
Yukl (2013) further argues that it is not enough to have the “right” people; an
organization must clearly define and implement a collaborative process or confusion will emerge
within the team. It is essential that leaders and teams create and define a collaborative process
that clearly utilizes all the knowledge and diversity of the individual team members, while
fostering trust and cooperation (Yukl, 2013). When left unchecked, individual egos will hijack
and derail a collaborative climate (Lencioni, 2003; Yukl, 2013).
Research asserts that building and sustaining a collaborative climate requires a clearly
defined objective, establishment of norms to facilitate group processes, strengthening the skills
of working effectively, encouragement of openness and mutual trust, avoidance of actions that
foster competition or distrust, and management of the weak links on the team (Larson &
LaFasto, 1989; Lencioni, 2003; Yukl, 2013). A collaborative environment is built upon trusting
relationships among team members that promote openness, honesty, consistency and respect
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989; LaFasto & Larson, 2001;Lencioni, 2003; Northouse, 2010; Zaccaro et
al., 2001).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 35

Ilgen et al. (2005) discuss the need for teams to have shared mental models. Mental
models, as explained widely in the research, are the collective understanding by team members
of the goals, tasks, beliefs, and skills necessary for effective team performance (Ilgen et al.,
2005; Oguawa, 2000; Salas et al., 2005; Zacarro, et al., 2001; Zacarro & Klimoski, 2002; Yukl,
2013). 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

Climate of trust

Openness

Honesty

Consistency

Respect
Vulnerability
based trust

Healthy conflict

Unapologetic
accountability

Managing roles
Shared mental
models

High legitimacy
workload sharing

Reflective
practices

Learning from
team members
(distributed
leadership
Problem focused

Listen to and
understand one
another

Feel free to take
risks

Willing to
compensate for
one another
Helping
behaviors

Defined
process

Managing egos
Note. Adapted from Northouse, 2010.

Research is clear on what constitutes a collaborative climate and why a collaborative
climate is critical to a team’s effectiveness. However, the question lingers: what strategies do
superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate?
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 36

Building a Collaborative Climate
Building a collaborative climate within a team necessitates an array of leadership
behaviors, as teams will not naturally develop relationships grounded in trust, where dissension
and healthy conflict are supported and promoted. LaFasto and Larson (2001) and Yukl (2013)
contend that in order to create a collaborative climate, leaders need to establish a set of norms,
ensure an environment of mutual trust and openness, deal with problems and weak team
members efficiently and effectively, and refrain from actions that promote competition among
individual team members.
Lencioni (2003) contends that leaders must also refrain from controlling the decision-
making process when fostering collaboration. A practice, Lencioni (2003) maintains, that is
difficult for leaders, because many view time spent collaboratively making decisions as a waste
of time and valuable resources. However, time engaged in productive discussions affords teams
the opportunity to engage in healthy conflict and meaningful discussion, two critical processes
necessary to building trust and a collaborative climate (Lencioni, 2003; Northouse, 2010; Yukl,
2013).
Ilgen et al. (2005) outline for leaders two recommendations for building a collaborative
climate: leaders are urged to cultivate team member’s communication skills, and institute a
practice of workload sharing (Ilgen et al., 2005). The literature defines workload sharing as the
process team members engage in when they take on another team member’s work when demands
have escalated (Ilgen et al., 2005). In a 1998 study conducted by Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and
Mount (as cited in Ilgen et al., 2005), the researchers found higher levels of workload sharing by
team members when teams were rated high for emotional stability and agreeableness. The
findings yielded a correlation between the practice of workload sharing and team effectiveness
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 37

(Barrick et al., 1998; as cited in Ilgen et al., 2005). Workload sharing can be viewed as “high
legitimacy” or “low legitimacy,” based on the situation. Ilgen et al. (2005) caution that low
legitimacy workload sharing may have a negative impact on teams and team attitudes if team
members feel that another member is shirking their responsibilities.
Self-reflective practices by teams have been found to be a critical component of
collaborative teams (Ilgen et al., 2005). Ilgen et al. (2005) argues that without engaging in
reflection, teams will miss the opportunity to reflect in a systematic manner to identify and learn
from successes and failures. The development of a systematic process for reflection and analysis
is critical for teams to function collaboratively (Ilgen et al., 2005).
Larson and LaFasto’s (1989) findings, yielded from 6,000 plus interviews, found that
trust and collaboration are the result of autonomy and involvement. Team members must
recognize and understand that achievement of the goal is directly related to how involved each
team member is in identifying and implementing the strategy for accomplishment of the defined
goal (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Allowing team members to maintain a level of autonomy, once
the goal has been clearly defined and articulated, is also critical to sustaining an environment of
trust and collaboration. “Trust is something that is a must. Trust is so fundamental in terms of
what a team has to value. It’s never absent very long on any team. It can’t be.” (Larson &
LaFasto, 1989, p. 94).
Research affirms that leaders must consciously engage in these collaborative practices.
The predominance of this research, though, has been conducted in business organizations and/or
medical settings. What remains less salient is how school district superintendents effectively
utilize and implement these research findings in the current structure of a public education
setting to improve their leadership team and the overall performance of the students they serve.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 38

As part of building and fostering a collaborative climate, distributed leadership is an effective
strategy that superintendents can use to capitalize on competent team members.
Distributed Leadership
Leading in today’s ever-changing global society will require leaders to develop strategies
for managing in an increasingly decentralized, team-based, dynamic environment characteristic
of the 21
st
century. Research asserts that effective leadership processes are the most critical
component in the success of organizational teams (Zacarro et al., 2001; Burke et al., 2006; Irving
& Longbotham, 2007). Research also confirms that creating a collaborative climate, one of the
six essential components of leadership teams and one of the main leadership processes, is vital to
a team’s overall effectiveness (LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Salas et al., 2005).
Neither leadership nor teams exist in isolation. Teams in today’s organizations vary in
composition and type, as well as situation. (Day et al., 2004). Effectively leading teams requires
leadership that is able to clearly define and articulate the goal to be achieved, build confidence
within and among team members, exhibit appropriate technical knowledge, set team and
organizational priorities, manage performance through coaching, feedback, and resolution of
performance issues, and build and foster a collaborative climate (LaFasto & Larson, 2001).
“Sharing or distributing leadership” is an essential function for leaders of executive teams
to understand and utilize when fostering a collaborative climate within their organization (Salas
et al., 2005). Keifer and Senge (1999; as cited in Collins, 2001) refer to this process of “sharing
or distributing” relevant knowledge, skills, and/or abilities as metanoic.
Yukl (2013) defines distributed leadership as a process entailing multiple leaders who
have specific yet inter-related roles and responsibilities. Day et al. (2004) define distributed
leadership as the combined human capital, skills, and knowledge collectively possessed by the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 39

team. Employing this combined leadership capacity in a distributive manner is an essential
component for fostering a collaborative climate. For the purposes of this study, the term
“distributed 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. When and how do superintendents
distribute leadership?
The concept of distributed leadership is a relatively new view of leadership within teams.
In the emerging research, distributed leadership has been proposed as a new way to
conceptualize and examine leadership as an organizational phenomenon. This is in contrast to
the historical view of leadership as vertical or top-down, where highly capable, intelligent, and
captivating individuals possessed the necessary skills or traits to lead the organization (Day et al.,
2004). As the problems facing leaders, such as district superintendents, have become more
intricate, this traditional top-down leadership role is quickly becoming ineffective and outdated.
The adaptive challenges facing leaders today require extensive technical know-how, as well as
innovative and novel solutions. Today’s problems are less technical in nature, and more
adaptive, requiring leaders and teams to be more resilient and versatile (Day et al., 2004). These
changes require today’s leaders to understand and engage in distributed leadership practices.
Ensley, Hmieleski, and Pearce (2006) investigated the effect of vertical versus shared
leadership across 66 of Inc. Magazine’s annual list of America’s fastest growing startups, and
154 randomly selected management teams of startups pulled from Dun and Bradstreet. Their
findings yielded empirical data to suggest that vertical and shared leadership practices were
significant predictors of performance, and these findings afford empirical evidence for the
validity of shared leadership practices (Ensley et al., 2006). It is important to note that in Ensley
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 40

et al.’s (2006) study, the researchers use shared leadership as a synonym for distributed
leadership practices.
As interest in recent years has increased in leadership models that are less vertical and
more distributive in nature, a multitude of terms to depict these leadership models have surfaced
and include: dispersed, devolved, democratic, distributive, collaborative, collective, co-operative,
concurrent, coordinated, relational, and co-leadership (Fitzsimons, James, and Denyer, 2011, p.
313). Shared and distributed have emerged and are used most frequently (Fitzsimons et al.,
2011). To further complicate the plethora of leadership models used in the field, many
practitioners and scholars use the two terms interchangeably (Day et al., 2004; Spillane, 2005;
Harris, 2008; Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Yukl, 2013). Fitzsimons et al. (2011) argues that this
interchangeable use of the two terms blurs the theoretical differences and evolution of these two
models of leadership practice.
Shared leadership evolved from the team-based leadership where the new problems
facing teams required movement from self-led teams to collective leader (all teams members are
leaders) (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). In contrast, distributed leadership emerged from the
educational sector where the challenge facing leaders in education was how to move leadership
away from the traditional top-down style to establish leadership practices within and throughout
the organization (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). These two bodies of literature did not cross over until
Gronn’s research was published in 2002. In their respective fields, both shared and distributed
leadership were seen as a novel solution to the complex problems teams were facing (Fitzsimons
et al., 2011; Yukl, 2013).
To further explore the historical roots of shared and distributed leadership, Fitzsimons et
al. (2011) utilized Greenhalgh et al.’s (2005; as cited in Fitzsimons et al., 2011) meta-narrative
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 41

mapping approach to examine the relevant theoretical and empirical work existent in the
literature. This extensive review of the literature yielded three different sub-domains of shared
and distributed literature: team-based, healthcare, and education (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). Prior
to the 1990’s, the researchers found very few empirical studies that conceptualized leadership as
emerging from more than one person. Fitzsimons et al. (2011) also found shared and distributed
leadership grounded in Social Exchange Theory and the empowerment literature of Vroom and
Yetton (1973; as cited in Fitzsimons et al., 2011). During the 1990’s evidence supports the fact
that clear and specific distinctions emerged with respect to shared and distributed leadership.
Shared leadership became viewed as an “emergent phenomenon” within the team-based
literature (Fitzsimons et al., 2011, p. 315). At the same time, a second strand of research
developed out of the education literature related to distributed leadership, where Spillane clearly
delineates distributed leadership from shared leadership (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). The
distributed leadership literature is unified predominantly around Spillane et al.’s research at
Northwestern University, where the researchers developed a conceptual model of distributed
leadership through the investigation of 15 public schools over an extended period of time. The
purpose of the research was to make the “ ‘black box’ of leadership more transparent,” and
ultimately provided empirical support for the use of distributive leadership as a vehicle through
which to improve school leadership (Fitzsimons, 2011). Distributive leadership assisted leaders
in reflecting on their practice in order to identify dimensions of practice that needed to be
changed (Spillane et al., 2005; Fitzsimons et al., 2011, p. 317). Current educational structures
are predominantly vertical in nature, and consist of a top executive (superintendent or CEO) and
a senior leadership team, where the superintendent retains ultimate and final authority for all
decisions. Yukl (2013) asserts that this vertical structure in educational leadership is changing,
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 42

and the practice of distributing leadership is becoming more prevalent. Leaders such as
superintendents become the “gatekeepers to distributed leadership practice” (Harris, 2008, p.
175). In other words, distributed leadership practice requires leaders to determine what
leadership responsibilities to distribute, when to distribute leadership, and how these
responsibilities will be distributed (Harris, 2008). “Distributed leadership is not restricted to any
particular pattern and cannot be prescribed in advance but emerges within the organization in
order to solve problems or to take action” (Harris, 2008, p. 175). Burke et al. (2006) cautions that
while leadership functions need not be accomplished by a single person and responsibilities can
be distributed, it is still the leaders charge to ensure that all tasks are accomplished.
Research asserts that there are numerous advantages for executive leadership teams to
engage in distributed leadership practices (Yukl, 2013). Distributive leadership practices can
assist in minimizing weaknesses in the CEO’s or the superintendent’s skills (Yukl, 2013). In
addition, the practice of distributing leadership has shown that important tasks are less likely to
be neglected, communication and cooperation among team members is likely to improve, the
increased involvement for all team members in the decision making process will improve
members’ commitment to the implementation of new programs, policies, etc., and the decisions
generated through distributed leadership practices more closely represent the diverse interests
and perspectives of each team member (Yukl, 2013).
Additional benefits to the practice of distributing leadership include: stronger
commitment to tasks, greater initiative amongst team members to fulfill their individual
responsibilities, increased persistence in the face of obstacles and temporary setbacks, more
innovation and learning, increased optimism regarding the success of the work to be done, higher
job satisfaction, and stronger organizational commitment (Yukl, 2013). In addition to the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 43

previously discussed benefits, Harris (2008) contends that distributive leadership practices
provide more opportunities for team members to learn from each other.
Despite the numerous benefits gained from distributive leadership practices, some
researchers have identified concerns with employing this strategy. Leaders must be cognizant of
the risks associated with incorporating distributive leadership practices. These risks include:
boundary management concerns, emergence of conflicting leadership styles, and conflicting
priorities, goals, and timelines (Harris, 2008). Yukl (2013) maintains that distributed leadership
has the potential to increase overall labor costs with regards to selection and training. Day et al.
(2004) argue that distributed leadership is a new way to adjectify leadership.
One of the most significant functions performed by leaders is the ability to make and
execute decisions (Yukl, 2013). It is imperative that leaders are adept at deciding when and how
to distribute leadership. The current research discusses two types of distributed leadership:
participative and delegation (Yukl, 2013).
Participative Leadership.
Participative leadership focuses on the leader’s perspective with regards to power sharing
(Yukl, 2013). Through this type of distributed leadership, all members of a team are involved in
decision-making processes (Yukl, 2013). Leaders first need to consider the weight of the
decision to be made. Leaders then must identify the appropriate team members who need to
provide input, ascertain the ability of each team member to participate in the decision making
process, consider the level of acceptance if the decision to be made is done through a traditional
vertical leadership process, and assess the practicality of engaging in a participative decision
(Yukl, 2013). The participative leadership process affords teams the ability to share unique
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 44

talents, skills, and knowledge. In the end, when participative leadership is employed, the final
decision can be determined by the team in the absence of a formal leader (Yukl, 2013).
The benefits of participative leadership are numerous. These benefits include: higher
quality of decisions being made, increased commitment by team members to the proposed plan,
greater satisfaction with the decision making process, and improved decision-making skills
(Yukl, 2013).
Delegation.
Delegation parallels more closely the traditional view of leadership in which a member of
the team possesses the authority to make the final decision (Yukl, 2013). The distributive
component of delegation is the process where the leader (i.e., the superintendent) resigns the
decision-making authority to the team member who possesses more knowledge or expertise with
regards to the decision being made (Yukl, 2013). The literature also refers to this form of
distributive leadership as shifting of roles (Yukl, 2013). Prior to shifting authority to a
subordinate, leaders must consider the scale of the decision to be made, as well as the skills and
expertise of the team member (Yukl, 2013). Delegation is most successful when the employee
clearly understands the task to be accomplished and the level of authority being relinquished by
the leader.
When the team member holds more expertise than the leader, delegation can improve the
quality of the decisions (Yukl, 2013). Research also contends that delegation improves an
employee’s job satisfaction when the team member feels appropriately challenged by the task
and achieves success during and after the process (Yukl, 2013). Like participative leadership,
delegation can enhance team members’ problem solving skills. Delegated tasks must be urgent
but not high priority (Yukl, 2013). Delegation will fail as a distributed leadership strategy when
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 45

the leader only delegates undesirable or unattainable tasks to team members (Yukl, 2013).
Finally, Yukl (2013) cautions leaders to never delegate tasks that are fundamental to their role as
the leader. For example, superintendents should never delegate the responsibilities that relate to
performance evaluations of direct reports, allocation of resources to subordinates, decisions
regarding salary increases or decreases for a direct report, or delineating the goals or priorities of
the team (Yukl, 2013).
Distributed leadership has considerable research support as a viable leadership strategy
(Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Harris, 2008; Spillane, 2005; Yukl, 2013). Spillane’s (2005)
Distributive Leadership Study provides further empirical data supporting distributive leadership
as a strategy leaders may use to improve leadership in public education settings. Distributive
leadership practice affords leaders and their teams a stronger foundation for tackling the adaptive
challenges facing educational leaders in the 21
st
century (Day et al., 2004). Harris (2008)
maintains that distributive leadership practices positively impact organizational development and
change. “In the international race to raise achievement and to improve standards we urgently
need new ways of thinking about leadership and leadership practice in our schools. Distributed
leadership offers us a place to start” (Harris, 2008, p. 184).
Conclusion
This review of the literature has explored the existent literature related to teams and the
strategies superintendents employ when developing their leadership team. More specifically, this
review has explored the relevant research with regards to effective team leadership, creating and
sustaining collaborative climates, and distributive leadership. This review supports the need for
superintendents to be deliberate in selecting the right team members, building a collaborative
climate, and employing distributive leadership practices when relevant. Figure 1 provides a
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 46

conceptual framework for the current study. The framework was developed incorporating the
work of Larson and LaFasto (1989) because the majority of the current literature on leadership
teams cites and builds upon the work of these two researchers. The characteristics they
developed in their 1989 study are foundational for successive team research.
Figure 1. Framework for Research Study

Superintendents today are faced with finding solutions to complex and multifaceted challenges
within 21
st
century public education settings. The demands of these adaptive challenges are
complicated, and the employment of high-performing leadership teams is supported repeatedly
throughout the current research. 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 improving a superintendent’s development of the top
leadership team.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 47

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 superintendent.
This research study will consider how superintendents select leadership team members, build a
collaborative culture, and distribute leadership.
Chapter Three will describe in detail the research design, instrumentation, data collection,
data analysis, and threats to the validity of the study.

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 48

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
the selection behaviors of superintendents assisted the researchers in answering the research
question: How do superintendents select leadership team members?
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 49

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 (2005) 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 are paramount to
the success of an organization. “In short, our contributions increasingly will come as a result of
our ability to understand teams and teamwork” (Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 18).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 50

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, as well as the methods and strategies they employ to develop collaborative climates,
and to distribute leadership responsibilities across all team members. 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 the
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
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 51

the qualitative 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 protocols 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 an interview with the
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).
An in-depth interview was conducted with each of the five superintendents. Each
interview consisted of the 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
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 52

the interview guide approach (Patton, 2002). The interview protocol was field tested twice prior
to beginning of the study, resulting in a revision of the interview protocol. 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.
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. The leadership team member survey items were based on the second and
third research questions.
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 provided names of other superintendents who could contribute
valuable information to the study. This process yielded four additional superintendents across
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 53

the country to interview. Interviews were conducted with superintendents from California,
Nevada, Colorado, and Georgia. Interviews lasted an average of 42 minutes.
Instrumentation
For the quantitative portion of the study two surveys were developed. 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.
Interviews were employed for the qualitative portion of the study. The interview protocol
was organized around the three research questions. Interviews were audiotaped with permission
granted by the interviewee. Interviews were conducted utilizing a standardized open-ended
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 54

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 audiotaped 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 the leadership team
member survey protocols were analyzed with descriptive statistics to identify significant trends
and correlations. The raw data from each survey protocol were ordered and examined by
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 55

computing 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 were 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. The researchers utilized the
HyperRESEARCH software program to assist with coding and analysis. Furthermore, the
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 56

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 and the interview protocol. 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 57

Chapter Four: The Findings
Introduction
This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data
from the mixed methods study, as well as a summary of the triangulated findings. The study
intended to explore the strategies used by school district superintendents in developing
leadership teams. Over two decades of research asserts that leadership is the most essential
component for advancing an organization (Collins, 2001; Elmore, 2003; Kanter, 1999; Kotter,
1996; Sergiovanni, 2005; Zaccaro, et al., 2001). Today’s superintendents acknowledge that they
cannot succeed in moving their organizations forward without the assistance of a strong
executive team. To fully understand the complex relationships needed for leadership team
development, the purpose of this study was to examine the criteria superintendents set for
selecting leadership team members, as well as the methods and strategies they employ to develop
collaborative climates and distribute leadership responsibilities across all team members.
Data Analysis Process
This mixed methods design afforded the researchers a comprehensive analysis of the data
collected. Quantitative surveys were distributed to five superintendents and the 5l leadership
team members who directly reported to the superintendents (see Appendix B & Appendix C).
Surveys were sent electronically. The survey link was included within the body of the email (see
Appendix D & Appendix E). Surveys for each district (Districts A-E) were anonymously
disseminated by district following each superintendent’s interview.
One hundred percent of the superintendents responded to the electronic survey (N=5).
Seventy-five percent of the leadership team members replied (N=38). The surveys were
organized into three sections to align with the three research questions, and all data were
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 58

collected anonymously by district. Survey questions were adapted from the work of Larson and
LaFasto (1987, 1996, & 2001). A Cronbach Alpha was conducted to measure the internal
reliability of the survey instrument. A score of > .70 is considered to indicate internal reliability.
The Cronbach Alpha for this survey was .97, indicating strong internal reliability.
In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with the five superintendents
(Superintendents A-E) across four states. Each interview included the superintendent and the
two researchers. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The researchers used a blended
interview protocol that incorporated both the standardized open-ended interview and the
interview guide approach (Patton, 2002). The interview protocol consisted of a core set of 13
questions organized around the three research questions (see Appendix A). Two of the
interviews (Superintendents A and E) were conducted in the respective superintendent’s office.
The remaining three interviews (Superintendents B, C, and D) were conducted by phone.
Interviews were conducted between June 2012 and August 2012 and lasted an average of 42
minutes.
All five interviews were transcribed and coded using Patton’s (2002) model for
developing classification and code schema for qualitative research in order to identify trends
emerging from the interview data. Each researcher first coded the transcripts individually. The
two researchers then reviewed the transcripts together to ascertain areas of convergence and
divergence.
The following section of Chapter Four will explore the data findings in depth. The
quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated and analyzed through the lens of each
research question.

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 59

Research Questions
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?
Participant Demographics
Table 3 displays the frequency counts for selected superintendent demographic variables.
Eighty percent of the superintendents in this study were male and 20% were female. Sixty
percent of the superintendents who participated in the study had no more than four years of
tenure in their current positions (M= 5.60, SD = 6.66). One superintendent reported having been
the district superintendent for more than eight years. Three of the superintendents reported that
they had earned Master’s degrees and the remaining two reported that they had earned Ph.D’s.
The superintendents’ districts varied in size from approximately 36,000 students to over 150,000
students, and all five districts served students in kindergarten through twelfth grade (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

Table 3
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 60

Frequency Counts for Selected Superintendent Demographic Variables (N = 5) (continued)
Variable Category n %
2-4 years 2 40
5-7 years 1 20
8+ years 1 20
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.
The leadership team members across the five districts were comprised of 60.5% males and
39.5% females. Twenty-eight (73.7%) of the leadership team members had been in their current
position for less than four years with 52.6% of the sample reporting that they had only been in
their current position for less than one year (M = 3.43, SD = 4.14). Ten (26.2%) of the
leadership team members reported that they had been in their current position for five or more
years. With respect to educational levels, 10.5% of the leadership team members had earned
bachelor degrees, 52.6% had earned master’s degrees, and 36.8% had earned doctorate degrees
(see Table 4).

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 61

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 62

Data Analysis by Research Question
Research Question #1: How Do Superintendents Select Leadership Team Members?
Selecting the right people is an essential first step to creating a high-performing
leadership team. When selecting new members for their leadership teams, superintendents must
consider both the technical (task-focused) competencies and the interpersonal (person-focused)
competencies of the candidate (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013).
Technical competencies are defined as those aptitudes, abilities, and knowledge that all team
members must possess in order for the team to have the chance to achieve a common goal.
(Larson & Lafasto, 1989; Yukl, 2013). Interpersonal competencies are those traits, abilities, and
proficiencies that afford team members the ability to work together toward a common goal
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Yukl, 2013). The selection of the right team members includes
building a team with technical competence, but also one which possesses the interpersonal
competencies necessary to work collaboratively.
Quantitative findings: research question #1.
On the survey, all five superintendents were asked to rate, in order of importance, the
competencies they looked for when selecting leadership team members. Four of the
competencies directly aligned with person-focused selection criteria (Items 31c,e, f, & g) while
the remaining three competencies were directly aligned with task-focused selection criteria
(Items 31a, b, & d). Table 5 displays the ratings for the seven selection competency items sorted
by the lowest to the highest mean ratings, with one being the most important and seven being the
least important (see Table 5).

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 63

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
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.
The item rated the most important by all five superintendents when selecting new
leadership team members was Item 31g, “The ability to create a positive first impression and
stand out tactfully” (M = 2.00). This person-focused competency was rated by three of the five
superintendents as the most important. Overall, the person-focused competencies were rated by
60% of the superintendents as one of the top four competencies they seek when selecting new
team members.
The person-focused competency 31e, “The ability to work collaboratively within a
complex organization structure,” rated the lowest overall in importance by the superintendents
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 64

(M = 5.20) (See Table 5). Individually, this competency was rated third, sixth, and seventh by the
superintendents. With respect to the seminal research, the ability to work collaboratively is one
of the most important person-focused competencies necessary to form a successful team (Ilgen,
et al., 2005; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013).
Two of the competencies, Item 31c, “The willingness to be open and act responsibly
when dealing with people and situations” (person-focused), as well as 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), generated the most divergence
with regards to how the superintendents ranked these two items (M = 1.00 to 7.00) (See Table 5).
The superintendents rated Item 31d, “the ability to schedule time and prioritize for self
and or others, to handle multiple activities, and to meet deadlines,” as their most important task-
focused competency. Overall, this competency was rated third by the five superintendents.
Individually, this task-focused competency was rated second, third, and fifth by the
superintendents. The task-focused 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 rated the lowest by the superintendents. The
five superintendents rated this competency sixth out of seven. Individually, this task-focused
competency was rated first, fourth, fifth, and seventh.
A Repeated Measures ANOVA Test was run to determine if there were measurable
differences between the selection criteria ratings by superintendent. No significant difference
was found (p = .27), possibly due to the small sample size (N = 5). While statistical difference
was not noted, on average the superintendents rated person-focused competencies higher more
often than task-focused competencies. Eighty percent of the superintendents rated a person-
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 65

focused competency as their most important selection criteria, and sixty percent of the
superintendents’ top two most important selection criteria were person-focused competencies.
District D’s superintendent was the only superintendent who rated task-focused competencies as
the two most important selection criteria.
Qualitative findings: research question #1.
The qualitative data from the five superintendent interviews yielded findings in
congruence with the quantitative findings. Table 6 displays the frequency counts for the number
of times selection process variables were coded in the five superintendent interviews (see Table
6).
Throughout the interviews, 34 references (63%) to person-focused competencies were
noted in the superintendents’ responses. Person-focused competencies were coded as: right
team member, humility, loyalty, learner, team player, and other. In the five interviews, the
superintendents made direct reference to task-focused behaviors only 20 times (37%). The task-
focused competencies coded included: prior experience, competence, and other. This is
interesting when compared to the survey data where the superintendents ranked a task-focused
competency in the top three competencies they look for when selecting leadership team members
(see Table 6).

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 66

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.
Statements in regard to selecting the “right team member” were made by all five
superintendents and coded 18 times (33.3%) throughout the interview data (see Table 6). The
code “right team member” aligns with survey Item 31g, “The ability to create a positive first
impression and stand out tactfully,” that was rated by all the superintendents as the most
important competency when selecting new leadership team members. Superintendent B
discussed the importance of finding the right team member as evident in the comment, “The
main thing is, that person must be a fit in our group. It’s a little bit of trying to figure out….They
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 67

may have great skills. They may have great characteristics and qualities but maybe not be the
right fit for us.”
Pervasive in the literature on highly effective teams is the need for teams to be
collaborative (Hackman & Walton, 1986; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Mickan & Rodgers, 2000;
Lencioni, 2003; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005; Ilgen et al., 2005). Further, leadership is
paramount to developing and sustaining a collaborative climate (Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2013).
The two codes “right team member” (18 notations) and “team player” (2 notations) align with
the ability to collaborate. It is interesting to note that while the five superintendents spoke
frequently about the need for these person-focused competencies, they rated these collaborative
skills on the survey as the least important competencies when hiring new leadership team
members (see Table 5 & Table 6).
Core competence was the most noted task-focused competency in all five superintendent
interviews (9 citations, 16.7%) (see Table 6). Core competence is another critical skill that
superintendents must be cognizant of when selecting new leadership team members (Northouse,
2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). All five superintendents discussed the importance of hiring new
team members who possess solid core expertise in the area for which they are being hired;
however they rated core competency sixth out of seven on the survey (see Table 5).
Superintendent E noted, “I look for individuals that have expertise in a specific area, so
that I can count on them to understand that area deeply.” Superintendent B remarked, “So, the
elements that I look for are core expertise, collaboration, critical thinking, communication skills,
creativity, and someone who can have the courage to disagree without being disagreeable.”
Superintendent B went on to comment, “And certainly, they have to have the content core
expertise in their area.”
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 68

The survey Item 31a, “The ability to secure relevant information, relate and compare data
from different sources, and identify issues and relationships; conceptual, analytical, and
creative,” aligned to the task-focused competence code in the interview data (see Table 5 &
Table 6). While this task-focused competency was the most frequently noted in the interviews,
the superintendents rated it sixth out of seven on the survey (see Table 5).
During the interviews, all five superintendents discussed their processes for hiring new
leadership team members. All five superintendents discussed the use of traditional human
resource practices: paper screenings to ensure appropriate credentialing and years of experience,
initial interviews to narrow the pool of candidates, and second interviews with the superintendent
as the final means for selecting the candidate. This traditional process typically favors the
identification of a candidate’s technical skills and is less effective at identifying one’s
interpersonal competencies. The superintendents also discussed the importance of having
“conversations” with the potential candidate to better ascertain a candidates abilities both,
interpersonal and technical.
As evident in the literature, considering an individual’s interpersonal competencies is
critical to creating a high-functioning executive team (Ilgen et al., 2005; Larson & LaFasto,
1989). Two of the superintendents discussed the inclusion of nontraditional hiring practices as a
means to ascertain a candidate’s interpersonal competence. These practices included visiting
them at their current place of employment, taking them to lunch to observe how the candidate
interacts with people in public, including restaurant staff, and providing potential candidates with
a writing assignment or mock problem to solve. Superintendent A commented:
A couple of hours before I’ll call them and say: “you know what, I need you to construct
a memo on this for me.” They’re not expecting it, it’s poorly timed, it’s crunch, which is
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 69

exactly what it’s like. And it’s usually a complex, ill-defined, problem. “And I’ll give
you the audience, I’ll give you the subject matter,” and so forth and so on. I have to see
them present in public. That’s a must.
Superintendent A went on to discuss the importance of observing the candidate in a non-
educational setting:
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
restaurant. I will sometimes just show up at the house of the person, unannounced, see,
you know, how they handle that.
Superintendent E stated that a paper screening is insufficient, and therefore utilizes a
writing component as well as carefully crafted questions to probe the interpersonal competencies
of a candidate. Superintendent E remarked,
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 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.
While all five superintendents discussed repeatedly in their interviews the need to find
candidates with strong interpersonal competencies, only two of the five superintendents talked
about the use of interview strategies that were in addition to the traditional paper screening and
interview process common in school district human resource practices. Research asserts that
effective teams are comprised of individuals who possess a blend of both person-focused and
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 70

task-focused competencies. Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data with respect to the
selection process provides support that when selecting new leadership team members, the five
superintendents in this study considered a variety of person-focused and task-focused
competencies. Data suggests that there is congruence between what the superintendents reported
they do during the interviews and the literature. Further evident in the data are the divergent
responses between the survey data and interview data with respect to the importance of
collaborative and core competency skills in new leadership team members.
Research Question #2: What Strategies Do Superintendents Use to Foster a Collaborative
Climate?
Research asserts that creating and sustaining a collaborative climate is one of the eight
characteristics of highly effective teams, and that leadership is essential to fostering this
collaboration (Hackman & Walton, 1986; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Mickan & Rodgers, 2000;
Lencioni, 2003; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005; Ilgen et al., 2005). Collaboration is defined as the
process of “working well together” (Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 85). When looked at more
closely, collaborative climates include: clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and a climate of
trust, openness, honesty, consistency, and respect (Ilgen, et al., 2005; Larson & LaFasto, 1989;
Lencioni, 2003; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013).
A superintendent’s ability to build a collaborative climate was examined by quantitative
and qualitative methods. The superintendents’ survey findings reflected their perceived self-
awareness of their implementation of specific leadership skills; while the leadership team
member’s survey findings reflected the reality of the team as a whole. Thus, ratings that are
more divergent may denote a superintendent who lacks self-awareness of his implementation of
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 71

collaborative leadership strategies, while ratings that are convergent may be reflective of a more
self-aware leader.
Quantitative findings: research question #2.
Eighteen items on the both the superintendent and leadership team member surveys were
aligned specifically to collaborative strategies (see Appendix B). Each of the 18 collaborative
strategy survey items was scored independent of the other items utilizing a four-point Likert
scale (1= False to 4 =True). Table 7 displays the ratings of the five superintendents’ top five
collaborative strategy items sorted by highest mean, compared to the leadership team members’
responses to the same five collaborative strategy survey items (see Table 7).
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

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 72

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
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
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
With regard to the superintendents’ survey responses for the top five out of the six
collaborative strategies, all five items have the same mean score (M = 3.80) (see Table 7). The
superintendents’ highest five collaborative strategy survey responses align with the most
important elements in a collaborative climate as described in the current research (Larson &
LaFasto, 1989; Northouse 2007 & 2010). It is important to note that the current research on
creating collaborative climates was conducted predominantly in the private sector, not in the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 73

educational sector (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). However, the five superintendents in this study
reported in their survey responses that they use four of these six collaborative strategies: clearly
defined roles and responsibilities, climate of trust, openness, and honesty.
The leadership team members’ responses across the five districts were also compared to
the superintendents’ survey responses to the five collaborative strategies that have the same
highest mean (M = 3.80) (see Table 7). The leadership team members’ responses for these five
items indicated responses in the “more true than false” range (M= 3.21 to 3.63), as compared to
the superintendents’ responses, where the superintendents’ self-reported use of collaborative
strategies averaged “true” (M = 3.80) (see Table 7). On average, responses in both surveys
indicated that the superintendents implemented these four collaborative strategies on a consistent
basis.
The overall range of survey responses given by the superintendents was smaller (M =
3.80 to 3.40) for the 18 survey items as compared to the range of responses given by the
leadership team members (M = 3.70 to 3.00) for the same 18 survey items. The survey item with
the largest gap (Gap = .59) was Item 26, “I / our superintendent am (is) willing to confront and
resolve issues associated with inadequate performance by team members.” The mean for the
superintendents for this item was M = 3.80 and the mean for the leadership team members was M
= 3.21. Despite the gap, both groups rated this collaborative strategy as being “more true than
false”.
It is important to note the small superintendent sample size (N = 5) and its potential effect
on the findings. It is also important to note the ratings for Superintendent A, who rated all 18
collaborative strategy items as a four. The remaining superintendents (B-E) never scored any
item lower than a three. In summary, all five superintendents’ survey responses suggest that the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 74

superintendents possess a strong belief in their ability to develop a collaborative climate in their
leadership team.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to measure the leadership team members’ ratings of
the superintendent’s collaborative leadership ability based on their school district. Results
indicated that the ANOVA was not significant at the p < .05. However, due to the exploratory
nature of this study and the small sample size (N =38), findings significant at the p < .20 will be
noted to suggest possible avenues for future research. Given that, differences tended to be noted
between the school districts in their collaborative strategies scores (p = .12;  = .44), indicating a
moderate to strong relationship between the score given and the district where the leadership
team members were employed.
Of the five districts studied, District B’s leadership team members ranked their
superintendent the lowest overall (M = 3.09; Gap = .69) with respect to collaborative strategies.
Conversely, District D’s leadership team members ranked their superintendent the highest
overall (M = 3.71; Gap = .18). Table 8 displays the Gap scores between the superintendent
means and the leadership team member means for collaborative strategies (see Table 8). Gap
scores are the difference of the superintendents’ mean scores minus the leadership teams’
responses. The Gap score between District B’s superintendent and leadership team members was
the highest (Gap = 0.69). District E’s GAP score was the lowest (GAP = -.11). The negative gap
score evident in District E’s rating is indicative of the superintendent’s rating that was lower
overall as compared to the leadership team members’ ratings. The other four superintendents
perceived their implementation of collaborative leadership strategies as higher than their
leadership teams’ perceptions, as evidenced in the positive gap scores (see Table 8).

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 75

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

Overall, the survey data from the superintendents suggested that the five superintendents
believe that they are routinely utilizing strategies consistent with fostering a collaborative
climate. While the leadership team members’ collective scores on the survey yielded “more true
than false” responses with respect to collaborative strategies, their scores may indicate that there
was more discrepancy in how consistently they perceive their superintendent is using the
collaborative strategies. This is supported by the one-way ANOVA score (p = .12;  = .44)
where p was significant at the .20 level, indicating a moderate to strong relationship between the
team members’ district of employment and their survey response.
Qualitative findings: research question #2.
With respect to the collaborative strategies superintendents employ with their leadership
team members, the qualitative data from the five superintendent interviews reflected consistency
with the quantitative survey findings. Table 9 displays the frequency counts for the number of
times collaborative strategy variables were coded in the five superintendent interviews. The five
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 76

superintendents referenced their use of collaborative strategies 75 times throughout the
interviews. Collaborative strategies were coded as: accountability, ego, goals, honest
communication, non-negotiables, recognition, trust, and other (see Table 9).
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.
The survey Item 25, “I/our superintendent assess(es) the collaborative skills of the team
members as well as the results they achieve” was rated by the superintendents as one of their top
five most successfully used collaborative strategies (M = 3.80) (see Table 7). This strategy was
noted across all five interviews a total of fifteen times (20%) (see Table 9). In the interviews,
this survey item was coded as accountability, and it aligned with the collaborative strategy
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 77

“clearly defined roles and responsibilities.” It is important to note that all five superintendents,
in the interview, discussed the need for defining each team member’s role and the importance of
weekly check-ins to assess the team’s skills as well as its results. Superintendent A stated,
Yes, every 14 days I do a one-on-one with each team (inaudible), like what we go
through, and, I would say: this is the 3rd 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 also discussed the importance of holding leadership team members
accountable for results. Superintendent D commented, “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.”
Superintendent E talked in detail about a structured weekly process for reviewing the
events of the past week, the results of those events, and items to be followed up on.
Superintendent E remarked:
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.
Superintendent C discussed how accountability is synonymous with integrity: “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.”
Research on highly-effective teams maintains that leaders must clearly define the roles
and responsibilities of each team member and the work to be accomplished, while
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 78

simultaneously holding all leadership team members accountable at all times (Larson & LaFasto,
1989). The quantitative and qualitative data yielded findings that, on average, all five
superintendents consistently employ the collaborative strategy “clearly defining roles and
responsibilities”.
Honesty.
The collaborative strategy “honesty” was coded in the five superintendent interviews as
“honest communication” (13 citations) and “trust” (8 notations), and aligned to two of the
superintendents’ top five most effectively used collaborative strategies (see Table 9):
 Item 26, “I/our superintendent am (is) willing to confront and resolve issues associated
with inadequate performance by team members” (M = 3.80).
 Item 6, “I/our superintendent communicate(s) openly and honestly” (M = 3.80)
Honesty is an essential component for building a climate of collaboration. The presence
of honesty in a team indicates that the team members possess and maintain a high level of
integrity in all communication and refrain from telling lies and using exaggerations (Larson &
LaFasto, 1989).
Superintendent E discussed in detail the need to honestly reflect on initiatives that did not
go as planned, and the importance of developing a plan to address inadequate team performance.
Superintendent E stated,
We talk about it. If something doesn't go well, we talk about, one, what happened? We
think back. Sometimes I look for opportunities to... For example, we had this one
initiative that fell flat. It was like, "OK, let's think back. Why didn't it go well?
Superintendent C also discussed the need to tackle inadequacy head on, and the
importance of holding team members accountable for their respective work. Superintendent C
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 79

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.” Superintendent C also stated,
We work tremendous hours, and if somebody isn't carrying their weight, I don't think
that's working collaboratively. I think everybody has to carry their weight, and I think
there has to be a high level of honest conversation, not in a way to tear someone down,
but how do you help build them up?
Superintendent A discussed the urgency leaders need to have with regard to
communicating openly and honestly at all times in order to foster collaborative leadership teams:
And, it just is such a disservice if you say: well, do you think you have issues? How do
you think things are going? How do you think things are going? Is like an absolute, back
door, passive-aggressive way of having the person own the problem, which they usually
don’t. So you have to do it. That’s where leaderships fail. In the span of twenty years,
that went from a nascent skill set to a more developed skill set. So that’s not like
endowed or….I don’t think that it’s built into people’s DNA, because it’s …people are
not genetically disposed to making things uncomfortable for themselves or others. And if
they are, by the way, that’s another problem!
Superintendent C concurred that collaborative teams must communicate openly and
honestly in order to be effective in their work, saying, “Second, I think you have an obligation to
be upfront and forward with your colleague.”
Openness.
Research argues that, as the leader, subjugating one’s ego is critical to shaping an
environment where leadership team members feel supported to take an active role in determining
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 80

the team’s focus, work, and to allow for the focus of the group’s work to be the group’s success
and attainment of the group’s goals. (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). Subsequently, when team
members feel empowered to take risks and contribute to the development of the team’s goals,
their personal investment and interest in the outcome multiplies. Survey Item 13, “I/our
superintendent manages my/their personal control needs” (M = 3.80), was also rated by the
superintendents in the survey as one of the top five most effective collaborative strategies they
employ (see Table 7). This survey item was coded in the interviews as ego (4 citations) and
openness (9 citations) (see Table 9). Three of the five superintendents (60%) specifically
discussed in their interviews the need to suppress their egos in order to advance the team’s
goal(s) and mission.
Superintendent B spoke to this need to relinquish one’s ego and be open to each team
members’ ability to contribute: “The teamwork element is, we have to be able to be comfortable
if he's 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 concept.” Superintendent B also
stated:
You've got to be able to accept the criticism, because it could be directed at you, or it
could be directed at somebody else…and then, always do a personal and professional
introspection, looking at yourself, reaching out and upwards, to other people, getting
advice, get you really learning, scheduling your time.
Controlling one’s personal needs enables leaders to step out of the way so that team
members can be recognized for their successes, and allows leaders to step up and accept
responsibility for the team’s failures. Superintendent C stressed the need for leaders to be
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 81

willing to take responsibility for the team’s failures in order to empower the team members to be
innovative and courageous, saying,
But you can't let too many of your leadership team take too many hits for that. It's hard
for them to continue to be innovative and courageous if they don't think the leader's going
to support them even in failure.
Evident in the data, quantitative and qualitative, is the fact that the five superintendents
do implement with consistency the collaborative strategy “openness” in their work with their
leadership team members. A gap (GAP= .54) between the superintendents’ perception that they
successfully manage their control needs (M =3.80), and their leadership team members’
perception that they suppress their egos consistently (M = 3.26), was found in the survey
responses (see Table 7). It is important to consider this gap with caution, as the leadership team
members’ responses might have been negatively influenced by the superior/subordinate
relationship that exists between the superintendent and the leadership team member. Equally,
the superintendents’ survey responses might have been positively influenced by their strong
confidence in their abilities.
Climate of trust.
Collaborative team climates cannot exist without a solid foundation of trust (Larson &
LaFasto (1989). This climate of trust is built upon two foundations: teams must be willing to
openly share information, even when it is negative, and leaders must encourage and empower
team members to take risks even if there are times when they fail (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). In
their interviews, the five superintendents spoke openly about building and establishing this
climate of trust. Twenty-one notations (28%) that were associated with a climate of trust were
coded in the five interviews (“honest communication” occurred 13 times and “trust” occurred 8
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 82

times), and all five superintendents discussed the topic of fostering a climate of trust within their
organizations (see Table 9). These collaborative strategy codes, “honest communication” and
“trust,” were in alignment with the survey Item 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”
(M= 3.80), which rated as one of the top five collaborative strategies used by the five
superintendents (see Table 7).
Superintendent B remarked,
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.
His statement supported the research findings that in order to foster a climate of trust, team
members must feel empowered to openly disagree and share their failures. Superintendent B
further commented that this open and honest communication does not just happen; it must be
cultivated:
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…Well first of all, you've
got to give them permission to bring bad news to the table. In fact, I make that a
requirement in the sense that I will evaluate on your ability to bring bad news.
Superintendent D concurred, and commented:
“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
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 83

commotion, or without such personalities being involved. That's good collaboration I
think.”
The quantitative and qualitative data from this study suggested that all five
superintendents implement the collaborative strategy of fostering a “climate of trust” with
fidelity. This collaborative strategy was reported in the surveys by both superintendents and
leadership team members as occurring more often than not (M = 3.80 and M = 3.26,
respectively), as well as coded the most frequently (21 out of 75 occurrences = 28%) (see Table
7 & Table 9).
Analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data with respect to collaborative strategies
provided evidence that collectively, all five superintendents implement four of the six
collaborative strategies (“clearly defining roles and responsibilities,” “openness,” “climate of
trust,” and “honesty”) consistently in their daily work with their leadership team members. The
research conducted in non-educational arenas list these four elements of collaborative climates as
critical components of highly effective teams (Ilgen, et al., 2005; Larson & LaFasto, 1989;
Lencioni, 2003; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013).
While the superintendent survey items did not directly address the remaining two
elements of collaborative climates, (“consistency” and “respect”), evidence of these two
strategies were identified and coded eight and seven times respectively in the superintendent
interviews (see Table 9). Further, evidence of these two elements was also found in the
leadership team members’ open-ended survey responses.
Consistency and respect.
Consistency, (having a team environment that is predictable) (Larson & LaFasto, 1989),
was coded as “non-negotiables” in the interviews, and was noted in all five superintendent
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 84

interviews. Twenty-two of the leadership team members (53%) identified “consistency” as a
strength of their superintendent when they were asked to respond to the following question,
“What are the strengths of the superintendent?” Consistent behaviors (having a clear vision,
focus, relentless pursuit, and commitment) were addressed in their responses and included
statements such as:
 Relentless commitment.
 He remains focused and committed.
 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,” defined as treating team members with dignity and recognizing their
contributions to the team, was coded as “recognition” in the interviews, and appeared in four of
the five superintendent interviews (see Table 9). (Superintendent D did not reference the
collaborative strategy of “respect.”) In the leadership team members’ open-ended responses
about the strengths of their superintendent, five leadership team members identified “respect” as
a strength. They also responded with respect to the superintendents’ compassion and empathy
for their staff.
In response to the open-ended question, “What one or two changes are most likely to
improve the effectiveness of my superintendent?,” none of the 38 leadership team members
identified “consistency” or “respect” as an area that their superintendent needed to improve
upon. Instead their responses regarding areas of improvement centered on areas the
superintendent has minimal control over, such as federal and state regulations and mandates.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 85

In summary, even though “consistency” and “respect” were not addressed specifically in
the superintendent surveys, there was qualitative evidence that all six elements of collaborative
climates were present in the work superintendents engage in with their leadership team members.
The frequency and fidelity with which the five superintendents embody and employ these
collaborative strategies must be considered with caution because of the lack of congruency for all
six collaborative strategies across both the quantitative and qualitative data.
Research Question #3: How Do Superintendents Distribute and Share Leadership
Responsibilities?
Today, neither leadership nor teams exist in isolation. Research asserts that in order for
leaders to be effective in today’s ever-changing global society, they will need to develop
strategies for leading in an increasingly decentralized, team-based dynamic environment.
Distributing leadership is one strategy that leaders can employ, and is only possible when leaders
have fostered a collaborative climate within their organization (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Salas
et al., 2005; Yukl, 2013).
Distributed leadership is defined as the combined human capital, skills, and knowledge
collectively possessed by a team (Day et al., 2004). Leaders must empower their leadership team
members to assist in solving problems, identifying solutions, and making decisions (Yukl, 2013).
In the previous section, the quantitative and qualitative data from this study examined
what strategies the superintendents used to foster a collaborative climate. The data revealed that
all five superintendents utilized, on a consistent basis, collaborative strategies that are consistent
with collaborative climates as discussed in the research. As research asserts, leaders must have
well-established collaborative climates before distributed leadership practices can be employed
(Fitzsimons, 2011; Northouse 2007 & 2010; Spillane, 2005; Yukl, 2013).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 86

In this section, qualitative and quantitative methods were utilized to examine how the five
superintendents distributed and shared leadership responsibilities. The surveys and interviews
provided information with regard to the superintendents’ self-report of how and when they
distribute and share leadership responsibilities. Additionally, the leadership team members’
survey responses provided quantitative data with respect to their perception of how and when
their respective superintendent distributes and shares leadership responsibilities.
Quantitative findings: research question #3.
The survey was disseminated to both superintendents and their leadership team members,
and twenty-eight items utilized a 4-point Likert scale (1 = False to 4 = True) (see Appendix B &
C). Twenty-one of the 28 survey items were aligned to research question #3: “How do
superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities?” Ten of these 21 survey items
solely addressed research question #3. The remaining 11 of the 21 survey items were linked to
both research questions #2 and #3, and were discussed previously in the Collaborative Climate
section.
Table 10 displays the ratings of the five superintendents for the 10 survey items
specifically linked to distributed leadership, sorted by highest mean, as compared to their
leadership team members’ responses to the same 10 survey items. The overall range of survey
responses given by the superintendents was larger (M = 3.80 to M = 2.80) as compared to the
range of responses given by the leadership team members (M = 3.71 to M = 3.11) (see Table 10).

STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 87

Table 10
Ratings of Superintendents Distributed Leadership Items Sorted by Highest Mean Compared to
the Leadership Team Members Responses
Ite
m
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 88

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

Of the 10 survey items directly linked to distributed leadership practices, seven of the ten
items specifically addressed goals, e.g., the leaders’ ability to foster a results-driven structure,
and create a unified commitment around a vision and a common set of priorities. Research
discusses the need for these to be in place in order for a shared decision making climate to exist
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989; and Yukl, 2013).
With respect to these seven distributed leadership survey items centered on goals, the five
superintendents rated themselves higher on four of the seven. These four survey items (2, 3, 15,
& 20) specifically addressed defining, clarifying, and focusing the team on the group’s goal(s)
(see Table 10). The average of the five superintendents’ responses were in the “true” range (M
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 89

=3.8 to M = 3.60). The leadership team members’ responses for these same four survey items
yielded responses in the “more true than false” range (M = 3.63 to M = 3.37) (see Table 10):
 Item 2 “I articulate a 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 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 difference between the superintendents’ self-reported use of these distributive
leadership practices and the leadership team members’ perceptions was small (GAP= 0.07 to
GAP= 0.41), suggesting that the findings for the two groups are convergent for these four
distributed leadership items. This data provided evidence that the superintendents routinely
employ these four distributive leadership strategies with their respective leadership teams.
On three of these seven items, the superintendents’ ratings were lower than their
leadership team members (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).
Two of these three strategies related specifically to how the leader prioritizes the team’s
goal(s). The differences in the superintendents’ self-reported use of these three strategies and the
leadership team members’ responses was minimal (GAP = -0.14 to GAP = -0.43), suggesting that
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 90

both groups believe that these strategies are utilized. Today’s superintendents are responsible for
a variety of simultaneous initiatives resulting from the multitude of federal and state compliance
mandates. Therefore, it is not surprising that the data yielded findings where the superintendents
rated themselves lower than their leadership team members did for areas that require establishing
priorities.
Three of the 10 survey items directly linked to distributed leadership practices
specifically addressed “trust” (Items 17, 18, & 19) (see Table 10). “Trust” is essential to a
leader’s ability to distribute and share leadership practices. Before leaders can engage in
distributing leadership responsibilities to their leadership team members, leaders and the team
members must collectively believe that their fellow colleagues are competent and possess the
necessary technical skills. Research contends that it is important for these strategies to be in
place in order for leaders to distribute or share leadership responsibilities (Larson & LaFasto,
1989; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013).
With respect to these three distributed leadership survey items centered on “trust,” the
five superintendents rated themselves higher on two of the three. These two survey items
specifically addressed viewing their leadership team members as competent and capable of
making decisions. The average of the five superintendents indicated responses in the “true”
range (M = 3.80 to M = 3.60). The leadership team members’ responses for these same two
survey items indicated responses in the “more true than false” range (M = 3.63 to M = 3.45) (see
Table 10).
 Item 19 “I am open to the technical advice from team members who are more
knowledgeable than I am.” (M = 3.60).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 91

 Item 18 “I understand the technical issues we must face in achieving our goal” (M
= 3.80).
The difference between the superintendents’ self-reported use of these two distributive
leadership practices and the leadership team members’ perceptions was insignificant (GAP= 0.15
to GAP= 0.17), suggesting that the findings for the two groups are convergent for these two
distributed leadership items. Thus, the data suggests that the five superintendents routinely and
with confidence defer to their leadership team members when they have greater technical
expertise.
For the survey Item 17, “I am fair and impartial toward all team members,” the five
superintendents’ ratings were lower (M = 3.40) as compared to the ratings of the leadership team
members (M = 3.55) (see Table 10). Even though the five superintendents rated themselves
lower than their leadership team members rated them, both groups’ ratings yielded scores in the
“more true than false” range, providing support that the superintendents in this study treat their
leadership team members with fairness and impartiality.
In summary, the five superintendents collectively rated their use of distributed leadership
practices higher than their leadership team members rated them on seven of the 10 survey items
specifically aligned to distributed leadership. While gaps existed between the superintendents’
self-reported use of these strategies and the leadership team members’ perception of the
superintendents’ use, the difference was insignificant, thus indicating convergence between the
two groups. For the three distributive leadership survey items where the leadership team
members’ ratings were higher than the superintendents, the gap was also minimal, suggesting
that there was an insignificant difference between the two groups. Quantitatively, the data from
the two sets of surveys yielded findings that the five superintendents in this study possess the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 92

necessary trust and confidence in their leadership team members to consistently distribute
leadership responsibilities.
Qualitative findings: research question #3.
With respect to how and when superintendents distribute and share leadership
responsibilities with their leadership team members, the qualitative data from the five
superintendent interviews reflected consistency with the quantitative survey findings. Table 11
displays the frequency counts for the number of times distributive leadership variables were
coded in the five superintendent interviews (see Table 11). The five superintendents referenced
their use of distributed leadership strategies 36 times throughout the interviews. Distributed
leadership strategies were coded as: “accountability,” “goals,” “non-negotiables,” “trust,” and
“other” (see Table 11). When the interview data was compared to the survey data, convergence
on the significance of “goals” and “trust” was found.
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.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 93

In considering the qualitative data as compared to the quantitative data, many points of
similarity emerged with regard to “goals” and “trust,” two items that are necessary before
leadership can be distributed. The survey items related to “goals” specifically asked the
superintendents to reflect on the detailed components of goal setting, such as “clearly defining
goals” or “prioritizing the goals for the team.” Analysis of the survey data yielded findings
suggesting that the five superintendents do communicate their goals with clarity while
simultaneously making the team’s goal the highest priority. Three of the five superintendents
discussed the role of goal setting, and in addition spoke globally about the need for and the
importance of a common focus or vision in order for teams to be more effective.
Superintendent E commented on the need to keep the vision at the forefront when
identifying and forming team goals:
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 further remarked:
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.
Superintendent B also discussed the need for clearly defined goals and a strategic plan
when distributing leadership:
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 94

“But the other one is to be able to be strategic and look not just at a week, a month, a year
down the line, but three to five years down the line, and say, Where am I taking this
organization?"
Research on highly effective teams argues that trust is critical to a leader’s ability to
distribute and share leadership practices (Fitzsimons, 2011; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Northouse,
2007 & 2010; Spillane, 2005; Yukl, 2013). Leaders and the team members must collectively
believe that their fellow colleagues are competent and possess adequate technical skills, and that
the team leader interacts with each team member in fair and impartial ways. Without this
environment of trust amongst leadership team members, leaders cannot effectively engage in
distributing leadership responsibilities (Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Harris, 2008; Lencioni, 2001;
Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Spillane, 2005; Yukl, 2013).
The quantitative and qualitative data yielded similar findings with respect to a leader’s
responsibility for building and establishing trust among the leadership team members (see Table
10 & Table 11). Three of the 10 survey items related to distributed leadership specifically
addressed “trust” (see Table 11). These three survey items specifically addressed the
superintendents’ viewing their leadership team members as competent and capable of making
decisions, as well as their ability to treat their leadership team members with fairness and
impartiality.
All five superintendents discussed the need to have trust in a team member’s ability to
lead their specific area of expertise in order for teams to be effective. Superintendent B
remarked, “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.”
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 95

Superintendent D also discussed that when trust is present, distributing leadership
responsibilities is possible: “What you've got to do, is you've got to find ways to really let people
lead and manage and if they're not breaking the law, if they're not abusing people, if they're
getting results, let them go.”
Superintendent E concurred and spoke about how trust is critical to sharing leadership
responsibilities, “Because part of knowing what to relinquish is the level of trust you have in that
individual in any specific area.”
While research contends that distributing leadership responsibilities is a viable leadership
strategy (Fitzsimons et al., 2011; Harris, 2008; Spillane, 2005; Yukl, 2013), research also urges
leaders to be judicious when distributing leadership responsibilities. Research asserts that
leaders should never delegate leadership tasks that are fundamental to their roles as leader (i.e.,
board relations, performance evaluations of direct reports, and so forth) (Yukl, 2013). During
the interviews, the five superintendents were asked to discuss when they relinquish and when
they retain leadership responsibilities.
Two of the five superintendents discussed that they never relinquish their work with their
Board of Trustees. Superintendent C remarked:
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, to say, "You can certainly
communicate with trustees or board members, but when they make requests, you have to
say that the conversation's going to happen with the superintendent."
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 96

Superintendent E concurred with the importance of maintaining control over their work with the
Board and board meetings, “The board is a nonnegotiable. You don't distribute work with the
board. That's yours. The other one is how board meetings are run.”
Superintendent C discussed the need for leaders to never relinquish defining the goals
and priorities for the team. Superintendent C stated:
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.
Superintendent B commented that as the superintendent, he retains the ultimate decision,
“Now, what conditions do I retain for myself? Of course, I've got responsibility for the ultimate
decision.”
When asked, “How do you know when you've either successfully or unsuccessfully
distributed those leadership responsibilities?,” Superintendent C remarked:
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, so asserting that kind of leadership. When you see them support their
team, or stand up for somebody who's maybe made a mistake, but you know is part of
their team, I think that is the kind of instructive leadership you want to have, that it's ok
to support your team, and develop them, and help them grow, and sometimes they're
going to make mistakes.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 97

Superintendent C went on to comment about what it looks like when a leader is
unsuccessful at distributing leadership responsibilities:
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.
Superintendent B shared:
Well, the best litmus test is when you go away and the house of cards doesn't fall down,
you know? The second one is when you leave the job, OK? Does it have sustainability?
Do the programs, the strategy, the plan that you put in place last longer than the day after
you leave? That's the real litmus test.
Superintendent A discussed that distributed leadership is more than just delegating tasks
to various team members:
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.
There was convergence between the superintendents and the leadership team members’
responses to survey Item 29, “What are the strengths of the superintendent?” with respect to
distributed leadership practices. Twenty-eight (74%) of the leadership team members (N =38)
identified the ability to define goals, prioritize the goals, and establish a climate of trust, as a
strength of their superintendent. In addition, responses also discussed the superintendent’s ability
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 98

to “allow others to use their strengths” and allow “direct reports to run their shops”, providing
evidence that the superintendents are routinely distributing leadership responsibilities.
It is evident from the quantitative and qualitative data that the five superintendents in this
study do engage in distributing leadership as discussed in the current research. The data from
this study provided evidence that the superintendents clearly define the goals and prioritize the
work of their leadership team members, as well as establish a climate of trust among the team
that fosters an environment in which distributed leadership strategies can be used effectively.
Evident also in the qualitative data is that the five superintendents do have non-negotiable areas
with respect to when and what leadership responsibilities they relinquish.
Discussion of the Findings
Triangulation.
Methods triangulation encompasses “comparing and integrating” quantitative and
qualitative data sets (Patton, 2002). This study employed both quantitative and qualitative data
collection and analysis to better understand the strategies superintendents use to develop their
leadership teams, build a collaborative climate, and distribute leadership responsibilities. This
mixed methods analysis of the data sought to identify the areas of convergence and divergence
between the quantitative and qualitative findings, as well as the compatibility of the quantitative
and qualitative findings with the current literature. In the following section, points of
convergence between the quantitative and qualitative methodologies and the current literature are
examined, followed by points of divergence. Implications for practice and further research are
addressed in chapter five.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 99

Selection process.
Convergence between the quantitative and qualitative findings, and the literature, was
evident for research question #1: (How do superintendents select their leadership team
members?). Data across both methodologies suggested that when selecting executive leadership
team members, the five superintendents considered and employed a blend of research-based,
person-focused and task-focused competencies.
Silent in the literature, but discussed by three of the five superintendents during their
interviews, was the difficulty of recruiting and retaining senior leadership team members. The
three superintendents expressed frustration about hiring and keeping high-caliber people, and
attributed this difficulty to low compensation in the public education sector. It might be
hypothesized that compensation in the literature dealing with team member selection was silent
because the predominance of the literature was derived from the study of teams in the private
sector, where salaries are more competitive and are typically more confidential.
Collaborative climates.
Findings related to research question #2: (How do superintendents foster a collaborative
climate?) were convergent between the qualitative and quantitative data and with the current
literature on the elements found in collaborative teams (Ilgen, et al., 2005; Larson & LaFasto,
1989; Lencioni, 2003; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). Analysis of the quantitative and
qualitative data with respect to collaborative strategies provided evidence that collectively, all
five superintendents consistently implement four of the six collaborative strategies (“clearly
defining roles and responsibilities,” “openness,” “climate of trust,” and “honesty”) in their daily
work with their respective leadership team members. Evidence for the implementation of
consistency and respect, two additional elements found in collaborative teams, was found in the
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 100

qualitative data (the superintendent interviews and leadership team members’ open-ended
responses).
One unexpected finding emerged from the qualitative data with respect to fostering a
collaborative climate: the use of self-reflection practices. Current research discusses the need for
collaborative teams to engage in reflective practices. Reflective practices, as defined in the
literature, are the “after-action reviews”, or the process teams engage in when deliberating the
effectiveness of an initiative, ruminating on a crisis, debriefing a piece of work or project, and so
forth (Ilgen, et al., 2005, p. 534). All five superintendents discussed in their interviews the need
for reflection, or “post-mortems,” on a project or initiative, which is consistent with the best
practices of collaborative teams. However, four of the five superintendents took reflection a step
further and added that they spend a great deal of time engaged in self-reflection and reflection on
the unit as a team.
Superintendent A discussed the process established for reflecting on a piece of work,
project, and/or presentation. Superintendent A explained that in addition to the “post-mortems,”
there was an established process for self-reflection as a tool for professional growth.
Superintendents B and D discussed the importance of strategically building in time to conduct
personal self-reflections, and debrief the results, as a means of improving practice and fostering a
collaborative climate. Superintendent D stated:
“Personal reflective processes are critical to asking the right questions. In education the
process of building collaboration requires time for reflection on personal and team
behavior, not just reflection on the product, but how does my personal style affect the
product.”
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 101

Superintendent B commented, “Always do a personal and professional introspection,
looking at yourself, reaching out and upwards, to other people…”
Prevalent in the qualitative findings of this study was the predominance of self-reflection
and building personal competency. Four of the five superintendents commented on the use of
tools such as 360’s, Myers-Briggs, and so forth, to guide these self and team reflections; as a way
to examine how each person impacts the work of the team as a whole. The superintendents
expressed that they strategically build in time for the team members to conduct personal self-
reflections, and debrief the results as a means to improve practice and foster a collaborative
climate.
While the use of tools to assist in self-reflection exists in the private sector, where the
majority of the research was conducted, little was discussed in the team effectiveness research on
self-reflection. This was in contrast to the emphasis the superintendents placed on this practice.
Self-reflection in education appears to be rooted in the need to build capacity in current
and future leaders. The literature on team effectiveness cites that the impetus behind reflective
practices is team improvement and achievement of the team’s goals. It might be hypothesized
that this is critical to education because of the difficulty in recruiting and retaining high-caliber
leaders, as discussed in research question #1. The findings pertaining to this research question
indicate that leaders in the educational community struggle routinely to recruit and retain high-
caliber leaders. Focusing resources on building internal capacity is one strategy superintendents
and other district leaders might employ.
Further, the concept of building internal capacity through personal self-reflection might
be a product of education itself. Typically, educational leaders are committed to being life-long
learners. Self-reflection can be considered a form of continued learning, and superintendents
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 102

model life-long learning for their leadership team members through their practice of self-
reflection. In closing, when reflective practices are examined through the lens of education,
these practices diverge from the current literature on team effectiveness.
Distributed leadership.
The literature on teams indicates that when teams employ distributed leadership practices,
the teams are more successful at achieving their goals (Fitzsimons, 2011; Spillane, 2005).
Congruence between the quantitative and qualitative findings, as well as the literature, was
evident for research question #3: How do superintendents distribute and share leadership?. Data
across both methodologies suggested that the five superintendents did engage in distributed
leadership practices as discussed in the current research. These included defining the goals and
prioritizing the work of their leadership team members, as well as establishing a climate of trust
among the team. Evident also in the qualitative data was the presence of non-negotiables with
respect to when and what leadership responsibilities the superintendents relinquished.
Leadership systems in public education have a long history of being vertical, top-down in
nature, where the leader delegates tasks and the team members execute them. Prior to the
interviews, it was anticipated that the superintendents would report predominant use of
delegation as a leadership strategy when interacting with their teams. Yukl (2013) aligns
delegation to the traditional view of leadership in which the leader of the team possesses the
authority to make the final decision. The distributive component of delegation is the process
where the leader resigns the decision-making authority to the team member who possesses the
expertise.
When examining the findings yielded from research question #3, the data suggested that
the five superintendents engaged less in delegation and instead utilized more of a participative
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 103

style of leadership. When discussing what responsibilities they distributed, and when, the five
superintendents talked about how they integrated their team’s roles and responsibilities across
disciplines in an effort to build greater capacity, generate more effective problem solving skills,
and break down the traditional “silos”.
Superintendents A, D, and E spoke about the need to establish processes that required
team members to take interest in other areas outside of their role. Superintendent D commented:
“I don’t know of a good team player that is only interested in their area. Because if that
is their only area of interest, they’re just operating over what they think is their own
fathom, and they could care less about anything else.”
Superintendent E discussed how critical breaking down the “silos or changing the
responsibilities” is to creating change. The superintendents’ focus on the use of participative
leadership is in alignment with research-based effective distributed leadership strategies.
Conclusion
Findings yielded from the quantitative and qualitative data from this study provided
evidence of the strategies school district superintendents employ when they select new leadership
team members, build a collaborative climate, and distribute leadership responsibilities among
their leadership team members.
With regards to the selection process, the superintendents considered both person-focused
and task-focused competencies, as suggested in the literature. The data yielded evidence that the
superintendents utilized the six collaborative strategies evident in the current research of best
practice s. Two additional strategies— self-reflection and building capacity— emerged more
frequently in the five superintendents’ practice than are present in the research. In respect to
distributed leadership, the findings indicated that the five superintendents used more participative
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 104

strategies encouraging team members to execute responsibilities and tasks outside of their
assigned role. In addition, delegation strategies were noted less frequently than hypothesized.
In summary, the findings from this study are convergent with the current literature on
selecting leadership team members, building a collaborative climate, and distributing leadership
responsibilities. Superintendents can utilize the findings from this study as a guide to improve
the effectiveness of their leadership team. Chapter Five will summarize the findings from this
study, discuss the implications of this research, provide practitioners a framework for practice,
and consider related topics for further study.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 105

Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, Recommendations, Conclusions
Introduction
Leadership, a universal concept studied throughout the centuries, is the most crucial
component for advancing an organization (Collins, 2001; Elmore, 2003; Kanter, 1999; Kotter,
1996; Sergiovanni, 2005; Zaccaro, et al., 2001). Today’s school district superintendents
recognize that they cannot succeed in moving their organizations forward without the assistance
of a strong strategic leadership team. The importance of a leadership team to an organization’s
success is well documented (Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro, et al., 2001).
However, a void in the research continues to linger behind the demand for a better understanding
of how executives create and sustain high-performing leadership teams. To date, the focus of the
research on leadership teams has been conducted in business and medical settings; limited
research exists on how to apply team leadership principles to the public education setting.
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 to distribute leadership responsibilities across all team members. 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:
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 106

1. How do superintendents select leadership teams?
2. What strategies do superintendents use to foster a collaborative climate?
3. How do superintendents distribute and share leadership responsibilities?
Methods
A mixed methods design was used which allowed the researchers to comprehensively
analyze the data collected. Quantitatively, electronic surveys were distributed anonymously to
five superintendents and their 5l leadership team members. Surveys were sent electronically
following each superintendent interview, and included two open-ended questions that provided
additional qualitative input from each respondent. Qualitatively, in-depth interviews utilizing a
blended standardized open-ended interview and an interview guide approach (Patton, 2002) were
conducted with the five superintendents. The quantitative and qualitative data, as well as the
literature, were triangulated to examine patterns of divergence and convergence.
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 on 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.
The quantitative and qualitative findings with respect to research question #1 (How do
superintendents select leadership teams?) are in alignment with the research. Evidence from the
data suggested that the five superintendents do understand the need for, and do consider, a blend
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 107

of research-based person-focused and task-focused competencies when selecting their new
leadership team members. However, the survey data from the study yielded findings to suggest
that the five superintendents may have the priorities for selecting the right team member reversed
when compared to the literature. Research contends that the three most critical competencies
when selecting new team members are: 1) the possession of the necessary skills and abilities, 2)
the strong desire to contribute to the success of the team, and 3) the ability to collaborate
effectively (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). In their surveys, the superintendents ranked these critical
person-focused and task-focused competencies as the three least important: possessing the
necessary skills and abilities was ranked sixth out of seven, a strong desire to contribute to the
success of the team was ranked fifth out of seven, and the ability to collaborate effectively was
ranked seventh out of seven. During the interviews, the superintendents did discuss the
importance of all three of these research-based competencies. Seventy-four percent of all the
comments made by the superintendents were related to selecting leadership team members. This
contrast in findings between the superintendent’s surveys and interviews suggests that
superintendents need to pay attention to these three competencies when selecting people for the
leadership team. Selecting the right people is an essential first step to creating a high-performing
leadership team (Collins, 2001).
Evident, too, in the literature on effective teams is the need to select team members who
possess strong interpersonal and collaborative skills in addition to the necessary technical skills
and competencies (Ilgen et al., 2005; LaFasto, 1989; Northouse, 2007 & 2010; Yukl, 2013). The
right people must be selected in order to carry out the right work (Collins, 2001; Larson &
LaFasto, 1989). During the interviews, the five superintendents spoke about the need for
leadership team members to be experts in their respective area of leadership, to be collaborative,
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 108

and to contribute to the work. This interview data is more in alignment with the research and
divergent from the quantitative survey findings.
The divergence between the quantitative findings (the surveys) and qualitative findings
(the interviews) is interesting and might be attributed to the structure and hiring practices
prevalent in public education. In most traditional educational settings, a potential candidate for a
leadership team position will not be considered if they do not possess the appropriate credentials
and the necessary years of experience. Given the high-level positions that the five
superintendents were filling when they hired a leadership team member, one might postulate that
a superintendent would assume that a candidate for the leadership team already had the necessary
technical skills and abilities. Therefore, the superintendents would lessen the importance of this
competency in their surveys.
Traditionally, educational institutions’ hiring practices have been centered on technical
competencies: credentials, certifications, and/or degrees held of the potential candidates.
Emphasis has not been placed on a candidate’s interpersonal competencies and/or collaborative
skills. Furthermore, historically non-traditional candidates, whose resumes and/or work
experience do not reflect the traditional expectations, are rarely considered for senior leadership
positions in school districts. Therefore, superintendents must work with their human resources
department to restructure hiring practices that reflect attention to the three most essential
competencies evidenced in the research, and to include consideration of non-traditional
candidates, who might possess the necessary skills and qualities, because selecting the right
people is essential to building a high-performing executive leadership team.
The literature has been silent on the recruitment and retention of leadership team
members. During the interviews, three of the five superintendents expressed frustration with
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 109

respect to the difficulty of recruiting, hiring, and retaining high-caliber leadership team members.
These superintendents attributed this difficulty to the comparative low salaries of educational
jobs and the inability to compete with compensation in the private sector. Salaries and
compensation in the private sector are typically more competitive and confidential. Further,
employees in the private sector have more latitude to negotiate their compensation package. It is
important to note that the majority of the current literature was derived from studies of teams in
the private sector, and not public education settings, where compensation tends to be more fixed
and less negotiable. It is not surprising, then, that the superintendents in this study experienced
difficulty with respect to recruitment and retention. The findings suggest that superintendents
and others in the educational community must consider new ways to encourage highly desirable
candidates, traditional and non-traditional, to consider senior leadership roles, and restructure the
hiring practices within school districts.
Collaborative Climates: Research Question #2.
Quantitatively and qualitatively, the findings with respect to research question #2 (How
do superintendents foster a collaborative climate?) were convergent with the seminal literature.
Research contends that it is not enough to have the “right” people; it is imperative that an
organization also clearly defines and implements a collaborative process that utilizes all of the
knowledge and diversity of the individual team members, while fostering trust and cooperation
(Larson & Lafasto, 1989; Lencioni, 2003; Yukl, 2013). Creating and fostering a collaborative
climate requires a leader to intentionally and strategically cultivate the six critical elements of a
collaborative climate: clearly defined roles and responsibilities, a climate of trust, openness,
honesty, consistency, and respect (Larson & Lafasto, 1989). Collectively, quantitative and
qualitative findings supported the regular use of these six strategies by the five superintendents.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 110

Unexpected in the research findings was the extensive use of self-reflection practices by
the superintendents as a critical component to fostering a collaborative climate. The literature
discussed the need for collaborative teams to engage in reflective practices or “after-action”
reviews (Ilgen et al., 2005). “After-action” reviews are the process teams engage in when
deliberating the effectiveness of an initiative, ruminating on a crisis, debriefing a piece of work
or project, and so forth. (Ilgen, et al., 2005).
Self-reflection was minimally discussed in the team effectiveness research. While the
use of tools (e.g., 360’s) to assist in self-reflection exist in the private sector (where the majority
of the team effectiveness research was done), little was discussed on personal self-reflection.
This was in contrast to the emphasis the superintendents placed on this important practice.
The five superintendents talked about the need for team reflection with respect to a
project, initiative, or crisis. Further, four of the five also stressed the importance of building self-
reflection and reflection on the unit as a team into the work schedule. According to the
qualitative data, the practice of self-reflection enables the superintendents to better understand
each team member’s unique strengths and weaknesses with regards to collaboration, and also
serves as a tool to build internal capacity. The superintendents reported that this deliberate
practice of self-reflection was a vehicle to improve practice individually and collectively in order
to foster a collaborative climate.
Distributed Leadership: Research Question #3.
Sharing or distributing leadership is an essential function that leaders of executive teams
need to understand and utilize to foster a collaborative climate within their organization (Salas et
al., 2005). The literature further asserts that when teams employ distributed leadership practices,
teams are more successful at achieving the team’s goals (Fitzsimons, 2011; Harris, 2008;
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 111

Spillane, 2005). Congruence between the quantitative and qualitative findings, as well as the
literature, was evident for research question #3: How do superintendents share and distribute
leadership?. Data across both methodologies suggested that the five superintendents did engage
in distributed leadership practices as discussed in the current research. These included: defining
the goals and prioritizing the work of their leadership team members, as well as establishing a
climate of trust in the team. Evident also in the qualitative data was the establishment of non-
negotiables by the five superintendents with respect to when and what leadership responsibilities
they relinquished.
Given the historical, top-down nature of traditional leadership systems in public
education, it was anticipated that the superintendents might report a predominant use of
delegation as a leadership strategy when interacting with their teams. However, examination of
the data collected from the study indicated that the superintendents utilized a participative style
of leadership more frequently than the anticipated delegation. The findings suggested that the
five superintendents were integrating their team’s roles and responsibilities across disciplines in
an effort to build greater capacity, generate more effective problem solving skills, and break
down the traditional “silos”. This focus by the superintendents on the use of participative
leadership is in alignment with effective research-based distributed leadership strategies.
Implications
Superintendents and leaders today 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 a
strategic leadership team. Superintendents must cultivate a high performing team whose
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 112

members work collaboratively 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. It is important to consider that the framework is based on a leader who uses the person-
focused and task-focused strategies with intentionality and purpose (Marzano and Waters, 2009).
Each component of 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 need 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.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 113

Figure 2. Framework for Building a Leadership Team: Intentional Leadership Decisions

The following are guidelines that 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 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
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 114

 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 of both the work and interpersonal behavior of
team members
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.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings from this study are significant and add to the limited body of research
existent on how public school district superintendents build executive leadership teams. The
findings also provide a foundational framework to assist superintendents in selecting competent
team members, fostering a collaborative leadership climate, and how and when to distribute
leadership.
Even though the findings from this study were significant, they are not highly
generalizable due to the small sample size and restricted time frame of the study. Because of the
limited time frame for the study, the collaborative strategies research was limited only to the six
topics of “clearly defined roles and responsibilities,” “a climate of trust,” “openness,” “ honesty,”
“consistency “and ”respect.” Thus, the following are recommendations for future research:
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 115

• 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 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
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 with
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
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 116

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 117

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 (p. 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. Third Edition. New York: NY. The Free Press.
Bell, J.A. (2001). High-performing, poverty schools. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1),
8-11.
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 Publisher.
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 118

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 119

Kanter, R.M. (1999). The enduring skills of change leaders. Leader to Leader, 13, 15-
22. DOI: 10.1002/ltl.40619991305
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Klenowski, V. (2009). Public education matters: Reclaiming public education for the
common good in a global era. Australian Educational Researcher, 36(1), 1-26.
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. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Philadelphia, PA: Laboaratory for Student Success. 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: ASCD.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 120

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.
Mickan, S. & Rodger, S. (2000). Characteristics of effective teams: a literature
review. Australian Health Review, 23(3), 201 - 208.
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.
Oguawa, R.T. & Bossert, S.T. (2000). Leadership as an organizational quality. 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
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.
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 121

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 122

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 have you 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 123

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)
19. I am open to technical advice from team members
who are more knowledgeable than I am.
1 2 3 4 (3)
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 124

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 (includes verbal and
nonverbal communication).
STRATEGIES USED BY SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING TEAMS 125

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 126

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 127

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 128

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 129

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

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

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

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

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Morse, Michelle M. (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,superintendents,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 chelle9120@sbcglobal.net,morsem@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-247316

Unique identifier UC11288031

Identifier etd-MorseMiche-1616.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-247316 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MorseMiche-1616.pdf

Dmrecord 247316

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Morse, Michelle M.

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