University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF THE SUPERINTENDENCY: STRATEGIES TO BUILD A STRONG BOARD RELATIONSHIP by Adriana Guerrero-Pestonji ________________________________________________________ A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2012 Copyright 2012 Adriana Guerrero-Pestonji ii DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my mother and father, Maria Teresa Guerrero and Gilberto Valdez Guerrero, who taught me that the most valuable thing in life is having an education. Thank you for your endless support and love. Through the years you have been my example of hard work, self-respect and determination. You have been my motivating factors to pursue my education and accomplish this goal. Thank you for allowing me to be me. I would like to also thank my family Danutcha Aidan, Elias and Sierra. You have always encouraged me to pursue my dreams, never give up, and let no obstacles discourage me from accomplishing my goals. Thank you for allowing me to pursue this dream and achieve it. I could not have completed this endeavor without your love, support and patience. You are the greatest loves of my life and only hope to be an example that you are proud of. Next, I dedicate this to my sixth grade teacher, Mr. Byron Fitzgerald, who I have not forgotten. Without him I would not ever have thought that a girl such as I, from a low-income Los Angeles area, located only a mile away from the University of Southern California, would have been able to achieve this. I never forgot your words to me, “Someday you will make it, you of all these students will make it, you will be successful.” Lastly, to all the minority students who dream to achieve the highest educational goals possible and think it is not attainable, I am proof that you can accomplish anything! Set your goals, pursue them to their full extent, and let no obstacle deter you from achieving them. Fight on! iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with much gratitude to all of those people who have encouraged and challenged me throughout my educational journey that I would like to acknowledge you for the support you have afforded me. It is because of your influence that I!had the strength to forge ahead to complete this endeavor. You have led me to demonstrate that believing in the capacity of a young Spanish-speaking Latina can impact the life of many. I am particularly thankful to Dr. Michael F. Escalante my dissertation chair for encouraging me to pursue the Ed.D. program at USC and guiding me through the dissertation process. Many thanks also to Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. John A. Garcia for honoring me with their expertise, support and taking the time to serve as my committee members. I would like to also extend my gratitude to the USC Rossier School of Education and all my professors. I would like to especially thank Dr. Pedro Garcia, Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Kenneth Yates, for always encouraging me to learn, implement, reflect and aspire to further succeed. I would also like to thank Elena Graham-Heimerl my friend and colleague whose belief in me has never wavered and who encouraged me to join the Trojan Family. Thank you to my immediate Trojan Family the Wednesday Night Cohort, I will miss our quick coffee and dinner breaks. Thank you to my fellow research team members CK, Ken, Morgan, Sean and especially, Alfonso, Jeannette, Leann and Rene, who inspired me to believe this was possible. Your friendships and support made this experience even richer, your expertise and kindness have made me a better person, a better educator and better administrator. I will miss our times together, but will cherish all the memories we created and look forward to many more as we continue on this journey. iv I would like to thank my friends and colleagues of the Glendale Unified School District, for supporting me in this endeavor. Thank you Maria, Mary, Michele, Carla, Karen, Cynthia M., Jackie, Temoc, Monica, Tanya, Sona, Linda, Marge, Cynthia L., and Kelly you were the best cheerleaders anyone could ask for! Thank you especially to Elena and Kelly for pushing me to get this done! In addition I would like to thank all the teachers who taught me to set my goals high, to challenge myself, to question status quo and create new ideas that benefit others. Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends. I am eternally grateful for your understanding, patience and love. You who afforded me the time, space and absolute support to complete this process. My success is a reflection of you and the sacrifices we have made; none of this would have been possible without you. I owe you all a debt of gratitude. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii! LIST OF TABLES vii! ABSTRACT ix! CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1! Background of the Problem 3! Statement of the Problem 5! Purpose of the Study 6! Research Questions 6! Significance of the Study 6! Limitations 7! Delimitations 8! Definitions 9! Organization of the Study 10! CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11! Introduction 11! History of the Superintendency 12! The Superintendency and Educational Reform over Time 14! Challenges of the Superintendency 16! Superintendent Leadership Training and Preparation 18! Leadership Theories for the Superintendency 23! Superintendent Leadership in Contrast and Correlations to CEO Leadership 28! Transitions of Entry Periods, with an Educator and CEO Perspective 28! Interrelationship between Communication and the Entry Period 29! Trust and Relationships 32! Superintendent and Board Trust Relations 34! Conclusions 35! CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 38! Introduction 38! Research Questions 39! Research Design 40! Sample and Population 40! Instrumentation 41! Data Collection 45! Data Analysis 46! Ethical Considerations 47! Summary 47! vi CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS 49! Data Findings 53! Background Information of Sample and Population 53! Results Research Question One 55! Qualitative Findings 55! The Entry Plan as a Strategy 58! Summary of Results: Literature for Research Question One 62! Results Research Question Two 63! Evaluation of the Strategies 64! Evaluation of the Entry Plan 66! Communication of the Entry Period with the Board 69! Summary Results for Research Question 2: Evaluating Success 71! Results Research Question Three 72! Formal Training and Preparation for a New Superintendent 73! Informal Training and Preparation for a New Superintendent 74! Training in Communication for the Superintendent for Better Board Relations Built on Trust 78! Summary Results for Research Question 3: Formal and Informal Preparation to Build a Strong Relationship with the Board 84! Discussion of Results 84! CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 87! Introduction 87! Purpose of the Study 87! Summary of Findings 88! Research Question One: What strategies/behaviors did superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their board during their entry period? 88! Research Question Two: How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 90! Research Question Three: What formal /informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry into the superintendency? 93! Limitations 95! Implications for Practice 96! Recommendations for Future Research 97! Conclusion 98! REFERENCES 101! APPENDICES 106 Appendix A: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 106! Appendix B: Board Member Recruitment Letter 107! Appendix C: Superintendent Survey 108! Appendix D: Board President/Board Member Designee Survey 114! Appendix E: Conceptual Framework 121! Appendix F: Research Question Alignment Chart 123! vii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Conceptual Frameworks 43 Table 4.1:Comparison for Communication Used by Superintendents and their Board 56 Table 4.2: Comparison for Communication Preferred by Superintendents and their Board 57 Table 4.3: Comparison of Possessing an Entry Plan After Being Hired as Superintendent 59 Table 4.4: Comparison of the Greatest Initial Challenges Before the Entry Period 60 Table 4.5: Prioritization of Same Challenges: Superintendent and Board Member 61 Table 4.6: Comparison for Communication Used by Superintendents and their Board 65 Table 4.7: Comparison of Possessing and Discussing an Entry Plan during the Recruitment Process 67 Table 4.8: Comparison of Possessing an Entry Plan After Being Hired as Superintendent 67 Table 4.9: Comparison of Providing Clear Feedback 68 Table 4.10: Comparison Chart of Trust at the Beginning and End of the Entry Period 70 Table 4.11: Comparison Chart of Adequate Formal Training Perceptions of a Superintendent 73 Table 4.12: Comparison Chart of Adequate Informal Training Perceptions of a Superintendent 75 Table 4.13: Comparison of Perception of most Effective Preparation for a Superintendent 75 Table 4.14: Comparison Chart of Previous Professional Experience of Superintendents 77 viii Table 4.15: Comparison of Perception of Rating the Overall Relationship Between the Board and the Superintendent During the Entry Period 79 Table 4.16: Comparison of Perception of Effective Training in Communication for a Superintendent with the Board 79 Table 4.17: Comparison of Perception of Frequent Activities Used to Build Relationships 80 Table 4.18: Comparison of Perception of Frequent Activities Used to Promote Trust 81 Table 4.19: Comparison of Factors that Led to Success 83 ix ABSTRACT This study looks at the transition period of the superintendent, specifically what strategies and skills, as well as frameworks, are employed as part of their entry plan. This is a qualitative study centered on the following research questions: 1. What strategies are successful superintendents using to build strong relationships with the board during their entry period? 2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into the superintendency? This study utilizes information gathered from districts across the state of California. The study was conducted by 9 members of a cohort at the University of Southern California through a collaborative thematic dissertation process. The thematic dissertation group employed two research instruments: a qualitative paper survey of both superintendents and board member designees, and a qualitative interview protocol administered through personal interviews with 45 superintendents and their designees. The superintendents were chosen from districts that have achieved a minimum growth of 30 points over the past three years or sustained growth with an API score above 800. Only superintendents whose district population has maintained at least 2,000 students were selected to participate. The position of the superintendent has evolved from instructional leader to a more in depth position reflecting traits of a chief executive officer. The job has become complex with multiple responsibilities and added accountability measures. Although there are programs and trainings that address professional development of the superintendency, they are limited in addressing what effective skills and strategies are x being used to create trust between a superintendent and his or her board within their first 90 days of entry to a district. One of the study’s goals was to ask superintendents if there was an entry plan created to build communication based on trust with their respective board. The second question asked if board designees concur that a formal written plan was effective in communication to build trust. This also focused on the need for future studies and perhaps implementation into the professional training programs and education available to aspiring, as well as current, superintendents. 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY The job of a superintendent can be challenging and holds a role of tremendous influence. The role itself has changed over decades and has become complex over time. A veteran superintendent, although being prepared for certain trials, still remains vulnerable to new experiences of the 21 st century. A new superintendent finds him or herself in a new arena of challenges to meet the needs of his or her district. A superintendent must have a strong foundation of experience and knowledge, as well as be equipped with strategies to create, modify and maintain strong relationships with his or her constituents. The relationship that a superintendent has with his or her constituents needs to be created from a strong foundation of trust. Needless to say, securing early wins to build such a relationship is critical for the superintendent in regards to his or her longevity in the position. Therefore, it is important that the superintendent possess and implement effective skills and strategies to build credibility and trust, as well as momentum, which lead to success (Watkins, 2003). In order to build credibility and momentum that leads to success, the superintendent, as would a chief executive officer (CEO) in the field of business, has to create strong partnerships so that his/her decisions are not second guessed and, ultimately, his authority suffer. Decisions that the superintendent makes in future circumstances would ultimately lead to the loss of the position (Eadie, 2003). Building positive partnerships collaboratively in a set environment should be centered around open dialogue (Harris, P. 52) to improve student teaching and learning in the district. Furthermore, when a superintendent enters a new district, it is essential that he or she work with his or her board to create a vision, decide 2 on core values and an overall strategic plan for the district. Again, this plan, as shared when first entering the position of the superintendency, should be open for feedback to build a relationship foundation established on trust. The superintendency has had a long history of change based on trends and political movements. Beginning in the 1930’s with the formal acceptance of “superintendent” as a position, education chose its leaders based on needed stages of change (Kowalski, 2005). The multiple subsequent stages between 1865 and 1966 identified the creation of the superintendency (Callahan, 1966). The stages included teacher as a scholar, business manager, statesman, applied social scientist and communicator. The superintendency has maintained its position of the leader of a school district who works with his board, like a CEO who works closely with the board to meet demands that are part of the profession. He or she has to have the ability to be responsive to external and internal accountabilities. Some of these accountabilities include the existing mandates of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTT). A superintendent must remain unimpaired when communicating the visions of short and long-term curriculum and instructional leadership. The superintendent as a leader must have command of being able to communicate effectively. The superintendency requires skills and strategies to communicate and work collaboratively with constituents to move the district forward successfully. These effective skills and strategies are necessary in building the foundations of trust with the school board in order to meet the demands of making informed decisions, mastering a district budget, leading teaching and learning, goal setting and accountability purposes (Callan & Levinson, 2011, Eller & Carlson, 2009). There is a constraint of time on such demands, where working as a superintendent 3 requires a core commitment to the mission of schools and their success (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). A superintendent new to the district must be respondent to issues by reflecting and planning to different degrees in order to lead (Kowalski et al., 2011). Unprecedented hardship and the expanding interest in the future of public education require open communication to build trust. This trust then leads to a strong relationship between a superintendent and his/her school board to work collaboratively and leads to the success of a superintendent in his/her first 90 days of entry into the superintendency. Background of the Problem The superintendent, as a successful school leader, serves as a chief executive officer would to a company (Hoyle et al., 2005). Therefore, the position requires that the individual have particular characteristics inherent to success. A superintendent would have to possess these same types of characteristics to respond productively to the opportunities and challenges of leading diverse groups. A new superintendent would need guidance, learning opportunities and mentoring. Kowalski, McCord, Peterson, Young and Ellerson (2011) state that historical perspectives based on the research are important in setting a strong foundation of trust in order to meet the needs of public education. Politics, mandates, standards, and relationships are all incorporated to manage successful business practices. Superintendents are finding that these similar practices need to be implemented into the area of leading and managing a school district. According to Harris (2009) a superintendent has a transition period where planning strategically is essential and can be detrimental to his or her career if not done so effectively. Stevensen and Radin (2009) and Harris (2009) correlated their 4 foundational elements of success in the business sector to social influence and capital that a leader has on his or her board of directors. These foundational elements include providing leadership based on individuals who were highly knowledgeable, independent, and skilled. Goals were then created and effectively communicated to all constituents and set the tone for an organization, such as a company or a school district to be successful. Communication being key, Jentz and Murphy (2005) consider the entry period a critical time to share with stakeholders the road map to a methodical approach in communicating to lead a school district. The entry period lends itself to the creation of an entry plan that is developed as a process of learning. This process is a living document that requires modification through time and events. The problem is that research relevant to this study is limited. Defining whether or not superintendents have created an entry plan prior to entering the position and whether it was shared with their constituents is of valuable to the profession. Embedded within the plan are strategies. The strategies would therefore be used by the superintendent to address relationships that are built on trust. Covey (2006) and Hurley (2006) premise that building relationships is important in the establishment of trust. Therefore, conversations need to be engineered to be intelligent, mindful, provide clarity and used as catalysts for a series of actions (Scott, 2009; Neff & Citrin, 2005). Moreover, communication becomes a visual model to help organize ideas and tasks. Unfortunately, due to the demands of time, this does not always occur. Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler, (2002) outline that conversations are extremely important to CEOs and that they do not always happen, bringing the success of the CEO and the company to a halt. 5 The CEO working with a board of directors is parallel to a superintendent working with a board. Houston and Eadie (2007) and Eller and Carlson (2009) describe that it is difficult to work with a board and time consuming, but it can be effective for all constituents if done right. Currently, much discourse is ineffective and needs to be corrected to develop a foundation of open communication that is stable and leads to the success of a trusting relationship. Fusarelli (2006) also describes that a superintendent’s success in implementing and overseeing change has a direct correlation to the relationships superintendents initiated with their board. Therefore, a superintendent who creates a positive relationship and maintains it with his/her board does so through effective skills and strategies based on trust. Summarizing what effective strategies of communication are essential, the position of superintendent with its diverse roles will only multiply further as they have in the past 10 years (Bredeson and Kose, 2007). Therefore, the skills and strategies needed for the position of the superintendency will need to be effective and targeted during the entry period to create and maintain a positive relationship with the board based on trust. Statement of the Problem The role of the superintendent has become a complex profession that requires the skills of a leader and the strategies of a chief executive officer from the business sector. The profession calls for the managing and directing of issues that inherently focus on the daily and future challenges of a school district. These include increasing federal and state accountability systems, challenging union relationships, ongoing community needs decreasing resources, issues within special education and prudence needed to work with a school board. All of the factors mentioned are vital and call for skills and strategies to 6 build strong relationships between a superintendent and a school board in order to lead a district effectively. Hence, what strategies are successful superintendents using to build strong relationships with their school boards during their entry period? Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards within their entry period. Determinants were identified as to whether superintendents are using effective skills and strategies in formal or informal entry plans to build a strong relationship of trust with their board within the first 90 days of entry. The study examines existing frameworks and models of entry plans from the educational sector and attempt to contribute to this knowledge. The study also contributes to the literature regarding the public school superintendent. Research Questions In order to examine the strategies that successful superintendents utilize during the entry period, the following questions were developed collaboratively by the research team: 1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong relationships and trust with the board during their entry period? 2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into the superintendency? Significance of the Study The profession of the superintendent has evolved within political movements and trends over time. Accountability and responsibility associated with the profession have 7 increased and evolved as well. Strategies and skills to meet the above also address the building of a strong relationship between superintendent and board. This relationship is necessary to meet the demands required to lead a school district effectively. New and veteran superintendents vary in skills, training, and experiences that contribute to different entry plans and building strong relationships when entering a new superintendency. This study examines the current literature and framework on transitions found in education. Skills and strategies were identified and then analyzed to determine how they are used and their effectiveness in relation to the role of the superintendent. This is an important contribution to the field of education. It would be of significant value to verify any parallels between the two positions and establish if there are any common factors. This study is also important for university academia in the design of programs that address the preparation of future superintendents. The skills and strategies identified can be correlated and integrated to program design. The program design can then address the importance of developing strong relationships based on trust with the board for the successful longevity of the superintendent within the district. Lastly, the study provides professional organizations some insight as to the key elements that superintendents experience during their transition periods. Limitations Limitations of the study include: 1. The study was limited to the subjects who participated voluntarily; 2. The study was limited to the number of subjects who were surveyed and interviewed, and the amount of time available to conduct the study; 8 3. Validity of this study was limited to the reliability of the instruments used; 4. The study was limited to the validity and manner the that the personal interviews were conducted by the members of the research team; and 5. Accuracy of information as disclosed by individuals may vary. Delimitations Delimitations of the study include: 1. Participation of the individuals administered the surveys; 2. Participation was limited to only certain Superintendents within the state of California; 3. Participation was limited to superintendents with a maximum of 2 years’ experience or recently hired; 4. Participation was limited to school districts with a minimum enrollment student population of 2,000; 5. Participation was limited to school districts with a minimum API growth of 30 points over the past 3 years (2008, 2009 and 2010); 6. Or an API of 800 or above with positive growth; 7. Superintendents selected for personal interviews were selected by areas of interest of the researcher; and 8. The personal interviews were limited to current superintendents who report directly to a board of education. Assumptions The following assumptions were made regarding the study: 1. Participants were truthful in their responses; 9 2. The instruments were valid and reliable; 3. Participants were able to recall elements (strategies and skills) of their experiences within the transition period of their superintendency with reasonable accuracy; and 4. Depth of interview responses was limited by time constraints. Definitions For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as follows: ! !! ! 1. Academic Performance Index (API): a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 that reflects a school’s or local agency’s level (LAE) performance level, based on the results of statewide testing. Its purpose is to measure the academic performance and growth of schools (CDE, 2008, p.4). 2. No Child Left Behind Act: federal legislation that made schools and districts accountable for student success often imposing severe consequences for systems that do not make progress. (U. S. Dept of Education, Ed.gov). 3. Race to the Top: Emphasized reform areas that include, designing and implementing rigorous standards and high-quality assessments, attracting and keeping great teachers and leaders in America’s classrooms, supporting data systems that inform decisions and improve instruction, supporting data systems that inform decisions and improve instruction, using innovation and effective approaches to turn-around struggling schools and demonstrating and sustaining education reform. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race- top). 10 4. School Board: a committee composed of elected officials who oversee all aspects of district policy, structure, and governance. The school board hires and evaluates the superintendent. (Houston and Eadie, 2007, p. 26). 5. Superintendent: the appointed chief executive officer position of a public school district and is accountable to the school board. (Eller and Carlson, 2009, p. 2-5). 6. Transition/Entry Period is the timeline of a superintendent’s entry defined as the first 90 days. The 90-day time frame was adopted from the framework outlined by Michael Watkins (2004). Organization of the Study This dissertation is organized into five distinct chapters. Chapter one provides an introduction to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study and research questions to be answered, significance of the study, limitations, delimitations, and the assumptions and the definition of terms. Chapter two reviews the relevant literature. Chapter three presents the research methodology used in the study, the research design, sampling and data collection procedures, analysis procedures, and summary. Chapter four presents the findings of the study along with an analysis of the data. Chapter five provides a summary of the study, conclusions, and possible implications for practice, as well as recommendations for future research. 11 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Superintendents are the leaders of a population of constituents that includes students, teachers and other administrators. There are over 15,000 school districts in the United States and 977 in California. The superintendent’s role as leader requires that he or she be knowledgeable, reflective and creative in ways to lead. He or she must also manage and maintain the success of the school district by the current measures of accountability. This is both a personal commitment and professional preparation endeavor (Cullen & Levinson, 2011). Before an individual takes on this endeavor, there are fundamental elements of preparation that the individual must be trained and prepared to manage. These fundamental preparation elements help support a superintendent to provide instructional leadership, plan strategically, recommend policy to a school board, work effectively with employee groups, and, most of all, communicate with constituents (p.4). The superintendent as communicator, therefore, is key. The act of delivering information is just one component, which is followed closely by managing the same communication to meet the district’s needs (Eller & Carlson, 2009). The purpose of this study was to identify strategies and skills that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships with their respective boards within their 90-day entry period. This chapter summarizes the historical and current state of the superintendency, professional preparation and practices of programs for new superintendents. Also presented are the correlations of strong leadership theories and a comparative view of the educational leader and the chief executive officer of an 12 organization. An analysis of research-based literature is integrated as part of the study to identify specific strategies that are used to build a strong relationship between a school board and superintendent based on trust. History of the Superintendency From past to present, American public education has unfolded varied public reforms and issues. These reforms and issues have had to be addressed and resolved by the foremost leader within the local educational agency, the “superintendent.” The position itself has evolved into a dominant image of an individual who must lead through politically charged events and adapt through times in educational history. To begin, it was in the 1930’s that the formal acceptance of “superintendent” as a position in education became evident (Kowalski, 2005). Between 1865 and 1966 there were stages identified as a timeline in the creation of the superintendency (Callahan, 1966). The stages included: • Superintendent as a Teacher Scholar • Superintendent as a Business Manager • Superintendent as a Statesman • Superintendent as Applied Social Scientist • Superintendent as Communicator Kowalksi et al. (2011) define the stages as distinct to their title and their purpose. First, between 1865 and 1910, the superintendent, known as the “teacher scholar,” was recognized for authority in assuring standardization of classroom curriculum and worked full time to oversee the everyday instruction. The purpose was to function as lead educator. Second, the superintendent was recognized as the “business manager.” The 13 business manager developed after 1910 when the industrial revolution introduced the innovation of new ideas and placed demands of technical efficiency into the public school sector. Third, the superintendent was a “statesman.” The statesman was described as an individual in the educational system who served as steward to a more complex administration. This steward was involved in public citizen discourse and the influence of regulations and policy for individual rights. The purpose was to incite necessary support for education, which occupied political implications in the time of the Great Depression. Fourth was the superintendent as “applied social scientist.” The title came about in the 1950’s when America was undergoing changes as a result of post-World War II. The superintendent, at this stage, had to apply an interdisciplinary approach in varied academic fields of study. The approach employed the skills from social sciences to develop a greater understanding of large-scale social problems. The purpose was to have individuals who were ‘high level’ technicians in their expertise to maintain their organizations. Last is the superintendent as the “communicator.” This stage evolved in the 1980’s where the purpose of administrative communication served primarily to inform, instruct, evaluate and influence constituents and subordinates from top down management. Communication was crucial and key in the perceptions of how administrator effectiveness was reflected. Currently, the paradigm of the superintendency involves the varied demands imposed on the position, which include ‘philosophical, demographic, economic and fiscal’ discourse and application (p.5). The superintendent is challenged by demands that 14 include educational issues, school board and community relationships, school improvement initiatives, culture change, professional preparation and satisfaction of the vocation (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000; Kowalski et al, 2010, 2011). Understanding how the profession has developed over time is important to appreciate and value the complexities of the position of the current superintendency. The 21 st century brings all these challenges to the forefront, and the superintendent is expected to be the leader of change, a person of vision, and the individual of influence over all aspects of the local educational agency and its constituents (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). The Superintendency and Educational Reform over Time Going back over 55 years with the Supreme Court decision of Brown v. the Board of Education, the superintendency has had to employ strategic and intelligent measures to assure its public the “American dream,” (Hochshild & Scovronick, 2003). As an example of prominent historical meaning, superintendents had to deal with desegregation and prompted politicized movements, which affected school districts across America. Superintendents across the nation had to abide by a court ruling to change how and where students were taught. Superintendents, therefore, had the opportunity to lead their districts by creating positive change (p.29). In 1983, the release of A Nation at Risk, by the National Commission on Excellence, called for proactive educational change for American students. Recommendations were made to change content, change standard expectations, create a timeline to set goals and change teaching preparation. In addition, recommendations were made so that educators were held responsible for providing the necessary leadership to achieve these goals. With the aforementioned, superintendents would be held 15 accountable to fulfill guidelines of compliance, as were state officials, school board members, governors and legislators (U.S. Department of Education, 1983; Bjork, Kowalski, & Young, 2005). Just short of 20 years later, in 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act, under the Bush administration, posited a lengthy list of mandates and guidelines. Local educational agencies along with their leaders had to abide by these mandates in order to serve all student needs and raise student academic proficiency to 100% by the year 2014. With such measures being implemented over time, superintendents have had to evolve accordingly to meet the needs of their districts and were, in turn, held responsible for the overall accountability of student achievement, therefore lessening their role of just district managers (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). In 2010 an opportunity was offered to districts to apply for a financial grant titled Race to the Top. The new reform was created under President Barack Obama’s administration. Varied districts did receive the grant. Consequently, there are now superintendents who are to be held accountable in accordance to the new federal and state student accountability system expectation of Race to the Top (RTT). This only adds to the responsibilities of the superintendent. The basic premise is that every child in America graduate ready for college and career, that they be enabled with knowledge and skills to compete anywhere in the world, and to out-compete other workers (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Presently, the superintendent has an extensive list of roles and responsibilities that require the utmost attention to be a visionary, a leader, a communicator and a relationship builder in order to serve his or her student population. This population also 16 includes board members and the community. Therefore, reform is an inevitable component to the demands of the job and to maintain the position of superintendency. Challenges of the Superintendency The superintendency has had to contend with multiple daily demands. One must consider that the superintendent has had the ability to be responsive to such demands that are both external and internal. The demands have been based on accountability measures that include the existing mandates of NCLB and RTT pressures from local policy makers, such as the governor, legislators and school board officials. Also included is the maintaining and balancing of budgets, to remain unimpaired when communicating the overall curriculum and instructional leadership within their local district, and maintaining a balanced reality of what can be accomplished within resources and time. The job of the superintendent has been complex and time constraining, therefore requiring a core commitment to the mission of schools (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). The superintendent has faced challenges at various levels of demand and rigor. Negotiating and finding resolution to concerns brought about by his or her local educational community is ongoing. The superintendent survey results as presented by Kowalski et al., (2011) demonstrate that the superintendent must be responsive to concerns by reflecting and planning. Some of the findings include: • Encountering and issue generating political action • Activities commonly involving stakeholders • Visioning and planning • District climate that affects culture • Maintenance of school facilities 17 • Competition from charter and private schools to provide more competitive curriculum and services to maintain its public school population • Community and diversity as political and professional issues • Media coverage by which they reflect on an agency with its own agenda to screen, select, explain, and recondition information • Employee union conflict • Community involvement as a common practice • Student, employee and board member behavior • Administrators, teachers and support staff • Parental/Family support for students • Federal, state and local government mandates and standards • Legal interventions All of the above as findings are issues that a superintendent faces and must take an active role in to navigate through reform. Although districts may vary in size and special dynamics, the issues must still be addressed as they arise in order to ultimately serve staff, students and the community. In culmination, the evolution of the superintendency has progressed in its capabilities to maintain and sustain a proactive approach in leading schools in the 21 st century. Beginning in the 1930’s to present, the superintendent as a teacher scholar, business manager, statesman, applied social scientist and as communicator served a purpose over time. The century itself has contributed to a more demanding dynamic educational system. As a result, the position of the superintendent is compelled to learn, apply and reexamine continuous purposeful decision-making that affects a district’s 18 livelihood. Friedman (2006) states that the demands from the global economy are so great that schools must produce citizens who think linearly, analytically and logically. Moreover, superintendents must create, develop, moderate, and reflect in their abilities and skills from a systematic perspective in order to manage and lead the complexities of a school district and look at the “bigger picture” (Eller & Carlson, 2009). Therefore, looking through a global perspective, the superintendent must begin with building a strong relationship with his/her board in order to jointly make proactive plans and decisions for student learning and teaching. Superintendent Leadership Training and Preparation According to Orr (2006, 2007), the superintendent serves as the chief educational officer who is elected or appointed by a local school board. The increasing roles and responsibilities of superintendents are accompanied by measures of accountability. These responsibilities must be handled using effective strategies that demonstrate expertise and training in order to show positive growth within the profession. The programs of study for new and veteran superintendents claim to teach skills and strategies necessary in the development of the profession. These programs, although offered through national, state and regional superintendent membership organizations, non-profit organizations, university-based programs, foundations and for profit companies vary in what they offer as academic knowledge and skills to the superintendency. Teitel (2006) included a list of options for superintendency preparation and training: • American Association of School Administrators • (New) Superintendent Academy, New Jersey Association of School Administrators 19 • Project Leadership, Washington Association of School Administrators • Western Benchmarking Consortium • Aspen Institute Program for Education- Urban Superintendents Network • Connecticut Center for School Change- Superintendents Network • The Council of great City Schools • Center for Creative Leadership- Leadership at the Peak • Institute for Education Leadership (IEL)- Educational Policy Fellows Program • West-Ed Executive Leadership Center for California Superintendents • Columbia University- New Superintendent Seminar Series • Harvard University • Change Leadership Group • Public Leadership Program • Superintendent Leadership Program • University of Pennsylvania—School Study Councils • University of Pittsburgh • Stanford University- Executive Program for Educational Leaders • BellSouth Foundation- Superintendents Leadership Network • Gates Foundation / Washington State • Western Pennsylvania School Superintendents Forum • The Educational Research Development Institute • The District Management Council • The Broad Foundation • California Association of Latino Superintendents and Administrators (CALSA) 20 • Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) All of the above have specific methods of organization, delivery and funding. According to Teitel (2005), programs vary in intellectual and practical focus and theories. The trainings are also diverse in the approach of how they are linked to district, school and classroom improvement. Such an example is the Broad Foundation. First established in 2002, its purpose was to recruit, train, and position strong leaders in the field of education in order to bring about needed change and improve the overall education of students (Broad Foundation, 2011). The overall aim of the Broad trainings is that leaders learn skills and a theory base that will assist with merging people, complex systems, budgets and facilities (Quinn, 2007). Therefore, the claims are that the more one attends trainings, the more knowledge one would gain to successfully lead a district as a superintendent. AASA, in contrast, offers the forum for members to attend a national conference, post an online job bulletin, offer journal publications and other opportunities for programs and events. Although there are many training opportunities, Teitel (2006), Winter et al., (2007), and Orr (2006, 2007) all concur that significant research is still needed in order to report whether any of the agencies readily offer effective strategies utilized among superintendents. However, there were strategies that were presented in an effort for improvement. They were (a) effective efforts in context and approaches that are being used, (b) demonstrate or not a parallel of different strategies and approaches, (c) what opportunities have the greatest impact for coherence and collaboration, and (d) what opportunities should be vested in, in order to share ideas, and as well as, and (e) what evaluations should be used for capacity building. 21 In 2008, in a collaborative study by Petersen, Fusarelli and Kowalski, a profile was created that summarized the opinions of adequate academic preparation by first year superintendents and the challenges they encountered. Orr (2006), in addition to these studies, expressed the need for leadership development in the initial stages of the superintendency. It was noted that the majority of preparation programs offered were geared towards principal efficacy, not the superintendency. As for the doctoral programs that were researched by Andrews and Grogan in 2002, it was concluded that the doctoral coursework had minimal preparation for the superintendency. In addition, the 2008 study by Peterson, Fusarelli and Kowalski, reflected the findings of the same gaps that needed to be addressed in the preparation of new superintendents. These gaps were in areas such as school finance, school law, school board relations, politics of education and collective bargaining. Andrews and Grogan’s (2002) research concurred with Orr (2006). The problems were presented through a Likert scale and demonstrated that preparation was needed for the position. These results reflected the need for guidance in handling relationships with non-professional employees, administrative staff relationships, relationships with the community, dealing with ineffective employees, resolving negative social conditions, and improving poor school facilities. To further support the need for preparation into the superintendency, The American School Superintendent, the 2010 Decennial Study (Kowlaski et al., 2011), reported the following as significant findings: • 78.7% of the superintendents believed that the academic preparation good or adequate as they received it 22 • 94.7% reported that they held a state license or endorsement for their position and 85% had completed an accredited university program designed for a position as a superintendent • 45.3% possessed a doctoral degree • 81.1% rated good or excellent on the credibility of their former professors. • The areas of academia that held the highest rating pertaining to the superintendency were, school finance, school public relations, and human resource management • Most superintendents were most likely to participate in continuing education that was provided by state superintendent associations, state government and AASA • 83.3% rated their continuing education experiences as useful or very useful. • Law, legal issues, finance personnel management, school reform and improvement, superintendent and board relations and school community relations were topics identified as potential areas for continuing education • The most influential individuals in helping respondents pursue a superintendency were, other superintendents, school board members and former professors The above also vary in commitment to time, particular content areas of study, availability and purpose of individual goals of the agency from which they are offered. All of the aforementioned demonstrate that preparation for the position of the superintendent is necessary to be successful. 23 Another example is Orr’s (2006) research stating that candidates for superintendency had previous academic preparation up to 10 years prior to acquiring the position, leaving individuals in a precarious position to fulfill goals and expectations that now evolved in new issues that changed in scope, pace and priority challenge. Orr also added that a later pilot seminar program was conducted by a research university that provided a program of five weekend sessions and a week-long summer institute. The program components developed progressive thematic sessions, collaborative inquiry sessions, reflection, individual learning activities, active learning and special topics, responding to the need from the previous year’s concerns. Although these are only a few of the offered trainings and programs, they vary in scope of content and availability, therefore leaving gaps of learning and practicum in the strategies they do and do not afford to present and future superintendents. Leadership Theories for the Superintendency Current leadership theories vary in foundation, scope, implementation and practices. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), there is an artistry, a choice and leadership skills that formulate theory of how an organization can effectively be managed. Leadership, as portrayed by CEOs, is seen as an extraordinary gift or talent for formulating something new from an experience that is worthwhile. Northouse (2007) posits that leadership itself is a commodity that is highly valued and searched for, in order for people to improve how they present themselves. Northhouse also states that corporations want their employees to possess leadership because they believe that individuals have special assets they can return to their organizations. Regardless of the contrasting views, leadership is described as a process by which an individual influences 24 another individual, or a group of individuals to achieve a goal. Leadership involves an influence, a context base, a goal, as well a set of processes that allow a leader to move forward to succeed. In unifying both the work of Bolman and Deal (2008) and Northouse (2007), it can be seen that their theories and practices on leadership are based on fundamental factors of success that an individual or an organization possesses or could acquire. Bolman and Deal (2008) present a multi frame model that is comprised of the (a) structural, (b) human resource, (c) political and (d) symbolic frames. All four frames contain particular facets that are distinct in representation and approaches of attaining goals of success. To begin, the structural frame’s premise is that individuals be strategically placed in the right roles and relationships. The premise for this frame is that all involved could accommodate collective goals as well as individual differences. Moreover, the targeted goals are: • To develop strategic coordination of a guiding team • To build as an implementation plan • To support the change process by creating structures to do so • To assure that old structures are removed to carry the organization forward • Short term victories should be acknowledged and celebrated. • Keep people on a clear directive • Align the new culture to structure of the organization Next, the human resource frame emphasizes the need for a relationship between people and organizations. Energy, effort and talent are needed by organizations in order 25 to function effectively. In this frame, individuals find work to be meaningful and satisfying, and, in turn, organizations receive the talent and energy that is essential to succeed (p. 137). This frame includes: • To involve people within the organization in decision making process • Team building is an essential component • Hold meetings to have communication and clear direction and feedback • Provide resources, support and trainings if necessary • Create a team of culture Next, the political frame is founded through a process of negotiating and bargaining among the groups involved, which are geared toward a political perspective, goal, structure and policies. The political framework is a constructive approach to create agencies that are fair and well organized (p. 209). In short, the political frame works as: • A network of key players that serve as a power base • Create team of influential members • Create an agenda to set political terrain • Build alliances • Endow resources and power to ensure early wins Lastly, the symbolic frame centers on the intricacy of symbols that are the culture of an organization. Since a culture is built over time on beliefs, practices and symbolic pieces individuals collected over time, they are transferred to new members as they are introduced into the environment. The understanding of heroes and heroines in an organization, as well as value and vision are pertinent in understanding one’s place in this environment (p. 278). 26 Summarized, the key elements are: • A sense of urgency to relay an important message • Strategically give authority to one commanding officer on team • Create a vision founded on organization’s history • Have opening ceremonies with visible leadership involvement • Communicate and celebrate early signs of progress • Hold rival meetings • Reflect on the past, celebrate heroes of the conflict, and share the stories of the journey Adding to the theories of leadership, Northouse’s (2007) approach includes the (a) trait approach, (b) skills approach, (c) style approach, (d) situational approach, (d) contingency theory, (e) path-goal theory, (f) leader-member exchange theory, (g) transformational theory (h) team leadership and (i) psychodynamic approach. Overall, Northouse presents each approach to leadership as a position that produces change and movement in an organization by doing the following: • Established direction, by creating a vision, clarifying the big picture, and setting strategies • Aligned people, by communicating goals, seeking commitment, building teams and coalitions • Motivated and inspired by energizing, empowering subordinates and satisfying unmet needs Northhouse referenced Kotter (1990) and Benis and Nanus (1985) in stating that leaders are people who do the right things, influence others and create visions for others. 27 Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 27 studies investigating the influence of school district leaders on student achievement which included over 3 million student achievement scores. They found there was a significant correlation with average student achievement and goal setting, which relates to the criteria of superintendents for this study. Also found were outlined forms of non- negotiable goals for achievement and instruction that had broad alignment and support of district goals. A parallel can be made to Leightwood and Jantzi’s (2007) findings of transformational leadership, whereby the superintendent is responsible for providing professional guidance and educational leadership needed to promote student success. This concurs with Northhouse (2007) that individuals have assets that benefit an organization. Some of Leightwood and Jantzi’s findings include: • Making recommendations regarding personnel selection • Initiating the termination or suspension of employees • Preparing recommendations for policies to be adopted by the board • Providing leadership for the attainment of student performance Bolman and Deal (2008), Northhouse (2007), Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) and Leightwood and Jantzi’s (2007) findings all have approaches, traits, and characteristics that set a foundation of what good and great successful leaders set forth in order to create a strong organization. Within the organization, in this case a district, the superintendent is expected to work collaboratively with his or her constituents such as the board. Therefore, the leadership theories are essential to an organization/district so that not only a superintendent is successful, but the district is as well. In turn, the 28 superintendent needs to strive to develop and maintain an effective and strong relationship with the board in order to lead effectively. Superintendent Leadership in Contrast and Correlations to CEO Leadership A CEO, like a superintendent, has characteristics that, at times, parallel each other’s positions. These characteristics require specific skills or traits to identify, practice and reflect professional growth and advancement of the organizations. Adams (2011) questioned what the new landscape of superintendents has modeled itself for. Traditionally, superintendents have extensive backgrounds in education and moved through the ranks of the school system to become a superintendent. However, in the past 15 years, corporate America has delved into the field of education. Business CEOs are now acquiring the position of the superintendency (p. 33). There has been a shift from searching for an educational leader to a finding a leader who motivates and leads people, making the challenge of qualifications different from over 30 years ago (p. 34). The challenges of qualifications for superintendents has led many superintendent candidates to pursue graduate advanced degrees, in particular a doctorate (Hoyle, et al., 2011). Transitions of Entry Periods, with an Educator and CEO Perspective Like a CEO, a superintendent has a transition period requiring skills and knowledge to build foundations to set a presence of being the ultimate leader and communicator. Being an effective communicator is essential in order to create relationships based on trust and grounded on the premise that students come first. The superintendent, according to Harris (2009), has a transition period where planning strategically is essential. Stevensen and Radin (2009) and Harris (2009) correlate some of their foundational elements of success to social influence and capital on their board of 29 directors. They include providing a leadership base for individuals who are highly knowledgeable, independent, and skilled. The base allows goals to be set, effective communication with all constituents, and sets the tone for an organization. Hoyle (2005, p.222) best describes the similarities and best practices of a CEO to a superintendent of the skills and knowledge he or she possesses: • The moral and spiritual dimensions of leadership that were of primary importance for leading in vision and strategic planning • The politics and school district governance that were vital in collaborating with school boards and a wider community in developing inclusive, democratic district policy for all children • The sensitivity about communication as being mandatory in building community support for all programs • The organizational management and school finance to employ best practices in managing systems to utilize strategic use of finances and human resources • The curriculum and planning development as a technical core • The instructional management involved in curriculum planning • The human resource development necessary for success • The responsibility for instilling and maintaining ethical behavior on the part o staff and students. Interrelationship between Communication and the Entry Period According to Jentz and Murphy (2005) starting a new job such as the superintendency can be confusing and cumbersome. The entry period should have a plan that is used as a resource to enable an individual to grow and learn about him/herself and 30 be creative about approaching and resolving challenging situations. The old cliché of ‘hit the ground running’ contradicts the systematic and well thought out reflectiveness of intelligent approaches to resolving problems. Instead, Jentz and Murphy introduce the idea of “hit the ground learning,” (p. 738). The premise is that “entry” requires the superintendent build relationships with stakeholders and his constituents. This should be a process that develops a series of actions for learning rather than reactions to impulsive tasks, which is a contrasting trait that managers possess. The entry plan, therefore, is a clear understanding of how and where to begin. This is a systematic approach to resolving issues or carrying out tasks. Reflective Inquiry and Action (RIA), as described by Jentz and Murphy, is based on a methodology that outlines the premise that a successful entry plan includes five major components, (a) embracing the confusion, (b) asserting your need to make sense, (c) structuring the interaction, (d) listening reflectively to learn, and (e) openly processing your efforts to make sense. Like physicians, professionals such as superintendents reach a “golden hour.” This golden hour is the most valued time after an injury when prompt treatment can improve recovery and may eliminate other complications. This type of leadership is also required of superintendents. Jentz and Murphy (2005) outlined the entry plan into five areas: • Design, which includes whom to meet with: school board, administrative cabinet, principals, local community, etc. • Seek feedback: although created by the superintendent, it still requires modifications to meet the needs of the student population and the effectiveness of how a school district runs. 31 • Getting the word out, by making sure all major constituents are aware of the entry plan and goal alignment to make his or her stakeholders feel less vulnerable and willing to share valuable information. • Interviews and site visits, which is time to gather data as to what, how, who, are current expectations and leaders. • Conducting meetings that are reflective in approach to improve decision making by including stakeholders making collaborative decisions. To contribute to this theory, Watkins (2003) aligned the first 90 days of a CEO’s entry plan to the President of the United States’ first 100 days in office. Although a CEO has training and skills that are essential foundations as a leader, he/she still undertakes challenges to establish his/her new position. A successful transition period is critical in setting a common framework for the superintendent and the board. As a result, an organization and its constituents benefit. Neglecting to create an effective workable entry plan will become a failure that can end a professional career (p.1). Watkins presented a guideline on how to create, develop, and modify an entry plan over time. Included were ten components: 1.) Promoting yourself 2.) Accelerate your learning 3.) Matching strategy to situation 4.) Securing early wins 5.) Negotiating success 6.) Achieving alignment 7.) Building your team 32 8.) Creating coalitions 9.) Keeping your balance 10.) Expediting individuals All components form a foundation to an entry plan that is clear, can be communicated well, and is used as a tool to build a common language between superintendent and constituents. This common language is used to identify and express priorities, so a network of counseling can occur. The language should also lend itself the opportunities of “merging expectations that augment skills and strategies necessary that lead to a successful first 90 days, as well as a first year of transition,” as noted by Watkins (p. 237). In addition, Nelly, Bernube and Wilson (2002) and Neff and Citrin (2002) outlined approaches to an entry plan for successful transitions and livelihood of an entity and professional growth of an individual. In brief, they agree that a plan should be created and followed to assist in being an effective leader. The foundation, “the plan,” needs to be right for the leader and the organization. The plan should be within proper context and should be a series of key actions with goals and communication along the way. It can be used as a tool to ensure that communication is constant and builds trust in the relationship between superintendent and board, so information is up front for effective decision-making. Trust and Relationships Utilizing the idea of the entry plan, a set of protocols to communicate the progress of elements within the plan fosters the needed relationship between a superintendent and his or her board. Fierce Leadership, by Susan Scott (2009), premises 33 that a construct of ideas needs to be created and shared openly by an individual in order to have conversations with others that are real and forthcoming. The real then becomes a change agent’s ally. The real conversations are engineered to be intelligent, mindful, and provide clarity. They are used as catalysts for a series of actions (Scott, 2009; Neff & Citrin, 2005). The fierce conversation model includes: • Really asking, really listening, then directing (in that order) • Feed-back rich development-rich zone and ongoing personal growth • High task and high relationship in a compassionate engagement • Collaborating and sharing resources, across functions • Open, transparent respectful culture • Expose one’s view of reality and invite those with competing realities to share them • A willingness to address the issues at the center of any topic, truthfully and courageously • Shared values and ethics that guide decisions • Shared enthusiasm for original thinking, a “new normal” As a leader one is asked to have conversations to resolve issues or create new ideas. It is about doing not just talking about it, and creating a workplace that is unique in developing strong relationships that have a strong foundation to commitment. Moreover, Crucial Conversations, by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler (2002), outlined that conversations are essential for CEOs. The premise that conversations vary in opinion, where stakes are high, and emotions run strong, can make it a challenge that can be frustrating, frightening, or annoying and can have a huge 34 impact on the quality of life of those involved (p. 2). The research behind this literature is based on twenty thousand people and hundreds of organizations who have had proven results for individuals who get things accomplished and, at the same time, “build on relationships” (p.9). These relationships improve organizations by solving pressing problems such as developing skills in safety, productivity, diversity, and current topics that are part of innovative organizations. Hurley’s (2006) research literature further adds specific factors of how a “truster” views the perspective of building relationships. These ten factors were identified as 1) risk tolerance, 2) level adjustment, 3) relative power, 4) security, 5) number of similarities, 6) alignment of interests, 7) benevolent concern, 8) capability, 9) predictability, and 10) integrity. Some of the examples for these factors would include, spending time explaining options and risks, being patient, taking actions that genuinely demonstrate concern for others, under-promising and over-delivering and increase the frequency of candor, just to mention a few. All the components are based on the theory that trust results from effective communication followed by actions to support it. In other words, the assertion is that poor communication leads to mistrust, and, in contrast, open and honest communication lends itself to ‘trust.’ Therefore, there needs to be concerted effort to build trust on a regular basis via communication and follow through actions. Superintendent and Board Trust Relations Bringing the idea of trust full circle, in relation to the workings of a superintendent and his or her board, it is important that a foundation be set in order to move a school district forward through important conversations that can affect thousands 35 of individuals’ lives. Houston and Eadie (2007) and Eller and Carlson (009) premise that working with a board is manageable and effective for all constituents. The literature is based on areas that reinforce positive outcomes in working together. They are considered the cornerstones for the success of a superintendent. They include: • Being a board savvy superintendent • Updating your board’s governance design • Involving you board in strategic change • Keeping the board – superintendent partnership healthy • Keeping up with reading, resources • The importance of equal treatment • Dealing with the inner circle • Addressing individual board member requests • Superintendent – board chair interactions, norms • Basics of board communication • Successful communication, form and frequency • Board standards and operating protocols The areas require a clear understanding of effective communication in order to manage and lead a school district successfully. According to Houston and Eadie’s (2002) findings, board and superintendent relationships are based on crucial conversations that develop a foundation that is stable and lead to the success of a trusting relationship. Conclusions The position of superintendent has evolved historically in regards to reform, culture, and political climate. The current superintendency has challenges that affect the 36 everyday lives of thousands, be it administrators, staff members, parents, community members, but first and foremost, students. The choices they make as leaders create dynamic options that can lead to positive outcomes for a school district or create results that are detrimental to everyone around them and themselves as well. Over time, the federal, state and local government has infringed demands that have been difficult to manage. A superintendent now has a need for current and further training that may or may not be applicable to certain situations. There are current political and business approaches to resolving the achievement gap and blame normally targets a superintendent as leader of his or her district. Although there are a myriad of realities that create the position of a superintendent, districts are viewed as the mirror of the success or failure of their leader. The position of the superintendency has everyday opportunities that can lead to proactive relationships and in turn offset failure. Moreover, this can create an environment of academic success ultimately for its students and other constituents. According to Kowalski et al. (2011), reported that 90 % of superintendents surveyed responded that they were moderately satisfied or satisfied with their boards. According to the elements of trust and business models presented, the relationship between a superintendent and his or her board should be based on open, frequent, and essential conversations that are based within an environment created of trust and honesty. Therefore, creating and using an entry plan for example, within the first 90 days of transition for a new superintendent to a new district is an important strategy-based tool that should be used to communicate effectively and build trust. Limiting communication 37 and not having an plan of entry can lead to situations that will grow to be increasingly tense, frustrating and harmful to all involved. 38 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Introduction The 21 st century has brought about changes in educational reform that have increased the pressures of the superintendent. Sustaining district-wide academic achievement is a challenge. Due to the federal, state and locally created and monitored mandates, which include No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (Linn, 2005) and Race to the Top (RTT) (U.S. Department of Education, 2009), school district accountability continues to increase. Superintendents have the responsibility of addressing myriad issues that require educational support (Fussarelli, 2001) and administrative decisions, while addressing the needs of diverse student populations (Fusarelli, 2004). Although there are successful superintendents, Callan & Levinson (2011) note that there is an increasing need for well-trained and prepared educational academic leaders to take on the many recent vacancies due to retirement and personal changes within the profession. Filling these vacancies with skilled, knowledgeable and qualified individuals is a daunting task that takes time and effort. Once the superintendent is hired, forging strong relationships and effective communication with the board is essential and ultimately affects the longevity of their superintendency (Eller & Carlson, 2009). As educational leaders, there is a moral obligation to ensure the success of a school district. Working with organizations, sharing the district’s vision and goals (Fullan, 2001, 2005, 2006), setting academic expectations, and effectively navigating the first 90 days of superintendency is achieved by assessing and evaluating what one has 39 accomplished. This is to maintain or enhance future working relationships that have been established (Callan & Levinson, 2011). As leaders, superintendents need to reflect on their districts’ past experiences and engage in dialogue with the community to create a collaborative environment to foster relationships which will lead to improving student achievement. Callan and Levinson (2001) and Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler (2002) note that the superintendent needs to conduct conversations that provide a forum for open dialog in efforts to create a foundation for a healthy relationship between the superintendent and his or her board (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier & Glass, 2005). This study was designed to identify strategies that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships with their school boards within the first 90-day entry period. This chapter outlines the design of the study, the instrumentation development, and the procedures used to collect and analyze data. Integrated in this research study is an analysis of survey responses provided by board members and superintendents regarding their perceptions as to the use of an entry plan, strategies used for communication and preparation for the position of the superintendency. Research Questions The superintendents who participated in this study completed a survey that included the following questions: 1) What strategies are successful superintendents using to build strong relationships with the board during their entry period? 2) How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 40 3) What formal/informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into the superintendency? Research Design A qualitative method approach was used to address the research questions, in collecting, analyzing, and reporting the data in this study. Approaching a study through a qualitative lens allows the researcher to explore issues in depth and with detail (Patton, 2002). The methodology allows the researcher to collect data comprehensively and as amply as possible, therefore gaining a thorough understanding of the problem being studied (Patton, 2002). In this study, two instruments were developed to link each method and triangulate the data to strengthen validity (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). The research methods to be incorporated in this study will include two surveys and two interview protocols focusing on the leadership strategies that California superintendents apply to build strong relationships with school boards. The surveys will ask the respondents to rate leadership strategies as to their significance in regards to building strong relationships. Sample and Population Purposeful sampling was utilized in selecting the superintendents and the districts who participated in this study. The sample included pre-identified individuals to ensure that the research groups met the essential criteria of “successful” superintendents. By using quantitative measures, the primary goal of this study was to identify effective strategies utilized by superintendents to develop a foundation of trust with their board within the first 90 days of the superintendency. The population sampled is composed of 41 individuals who are able to provide information-rich cases that can be measured (Patton, 2002). The primary criterion for selecting superintendents in California was based upon districts’ achievement in the Academic Performance Index (API) over three years. The superintendents were chosen from districts that have achieved a minimum API score of 800 with positive sustained growth over the previous three years or with a 30 point or more growth also over the past three years. Only superintendents whose district population maintained at least 2,000 students were selected to participate. District performance API data for 2008, 2009 and 2010 were accessed through the California Department of Education Ed-Data website. This information was reviewed to determine which districts met the API academic growth selection criteria with a score of 750 or above within the past three years. Of these districts, a further reduction was made to include only those with superintendents that have held the position for fewer than 3 years. According to Creswell (1998), a clear selection of criteria must be identified when determining participants for a qualitative study. Purposeful sampling provides specific information that is significant to the study. A request of these individuals was made asking for their participation in the study. Instrumentation The instrumentation tools developed by the research team included two surveys and an in-depth structured interview process with set practices and protocols. The surveys were created based on the three research questions using the research literature in chapter two. Research from Bolman and Deal, Four Frame Model for Effective 42 Leadership (2008), Watkins, First 90 Days (2003), Hurley, Model for Trust (2006), Covey’s, Behaviors that Establish Trust (2006) and Scott, Fierce Conversations from X to Y: Seven Principles (2006) will facilitate the analysis of information gathered from the surveys. All superintendents who met the criteria were mailed a paper copy of the Superintendent Strategies for Building Board Relations (SSBBR) and the Board Member Perceptions Survey (BMPS). The survey designed by the research team includes questions based on research-based practices and strategies which gather information about efforts made by superintendents to build strong relations with their board in the first 90 days of superintendency. The following are the research frameworks used to form the questionnaires for both the superintendents and the school board designee. 43 Table 3.1: Conceptual Frameworks Conceptual Frameworks Leadership, Communication, & Trust A Comparison to Bolman & Deal’s Four Frame Model Bolman & Deal’s Watkins’ Hurley’s Covey’s Scott's Four Frame Model for Effective Leadership First 90 Days Model for Trust Behaviors that Establish Trust Fierce Conversations from X to Y: Seven Principles ! ! (10 Factors) ! Structural Leaders: • Do their homework • Rethink the relationship of structure, strategy and environment • Focus on implementation • Experiment • Match strategy to situation • Achieve alignment • Risk tolerance: spend more time explaining options and risks • Alignment of individual and organizational interests • Talk straight • Deliver results • Naming and addressing the issues truthfully and effectively • Impetus for change • Shared enthusiasm for agility, continued learning and epiphanies, shared standard of performance Human Resource Leader: • Communicate their strong beliefs in people • Put people first • Are visible and accessible • Empower the people • Negotiate Success • Accelerate your learning • Build your team • Expedite everyone • Security • Benevolent concern • Predictability and integrity • Level of communication: increase frequency and candor • Level of adjustment • Demonstrate respect • Listen first • Get better by learning and seeking feedback • Extend trust • Right wrongs • Improvement of leadership effectiveness, development of quality "bench" to fill future leadership positions • A relationship with customers that extends beyond price, customers are engaged on an emotional level 44 Table 3.1: Conceptual Frameworks, continued Political Leader: • Clarify what they want • Assess the distribution of power • Focus energy on building relationships and networks •Persuade first, negotiate second, and coerce only if necessary • Secure early wins • Create coalitions • Relative power • Capability • Confront reality by addressing issues • Practice accountability by holding oneself and others accountable • Create transparency • Focus on results • Deep seated accountability • Initiatives executed • High levels of alignment, collaboration, partnership at all levels throughout the organization and the healthier financial performance that goes with it • Effectively confronting attitudinal, performance or behavioral issues; enhanced employee capacity to serve as effective agents for success Symbolic Leader: • Lead by example • Frame experiences • Capture attention • Embed vision in a story • Respect and use history • Number of similarities • Clarify expectations by creating a vision and agreements • Show loyalty • The timely resolution of periodic leadership challenges, clear priorities Deal, 2008, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.355-372; The First 90 Days, by M. Watkins, 2003, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 12-15; The Decision to Trust, by R. F.Hurley, 2006, Harvard Business Review, pp. 55-62; The Speed of Trust, by S. M. R. Covey, 2006, New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 127-229; Fierce Conversations, by S. Scott, 2004, New York, NY: The Berkley Publishing Company, pp. xx-xxi. To ensure content validity of the survey questions, a pilot of the instrument was conducted with nonparticipating superintendents and their board member designees. Each participant reviewed the instrument for readability, clarity, and validity (Patton, 2002). Recommendations and feedback were used to revise the survey to ensure content validity. The updated survey instruments were submitted to the dissertation committee 45 and Internal Review Board (IRB) for final approval. Following the utilization of the survey instruments, the structured interview protocol was developed and employed to gain a comprehensive understanding of strategies superintendents use to build strong relationships with their board. Patton suggests that, in order to create questions with little to no variance, the inquiry must be open-ended, structured and carefully worded (2002). The questions were arranged with the objective of leading each participant through the same protocol while being able to ask clarifying or incisive questions. The open-ended, structured interview is an effective instrument for qualitative measurements. The instrument used is available to those who may want to replicate the study. This ensures variations among studies are minimalized, the interview maintains focus, and data analysis is not impeded, therefore making interpretations easy to access (Patton, 2002). The instruments do not permit the interviewer to probe other topics or themes that may arise during the interview. This avoids responses that provide complexities, particular dynamics, or coincidences that may occur or be employed by the superintendent in the use of his or her strategies as participants that are irrelevant to the study (Patton, 2002). Data Collection The data collection took place during the fall of 2011 using the Superintendent Strategies Survey for Building Board Relations instrument. The study followed the seven steps as outlined by Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), (a) define the research objective, (b) identify the population or sample, (c) determine the variables of the study, (d) design the instrument, (e) pilot test the instrument, (e) create a cover letter, and (f) distribute a 46 questionnaire. A cover letter and informed consent form were included with the survey to explain the purpose of the research and to obtain participation approval from superintendents and board member designees. To facilitate the process, all superintendents who met the criteria for the study and the designees were sent a return- addressed stamped envelope. As surveys were returned, records were maintained by the researcher to account for respondents and to distinguish non-respondents for subsequent mail-outs. Qualitative data was collected from 10 superintendents and 10 board members using a structured interview protocol to gain a comprehensive understanding of the strategies superintendents use to build strong relationships with their school board. This qualitative process began after all surveys were returned to the researcher. The superintendents and board members were then contacted by letter and e-mail to explain the structured interview portion of the study and invited them to participate. Interviews began with a brief review of the study’s purpose and an overview of the interview process. The researcher obtained relevant background information from each participant, including the number of years in education, the number of years as superintendent or board member, the number of years in the current district and the strategies utilized to create strong relationships between superintendent and board. To ensure accuracy, all interviews were audio taped with prior documented approval from each of the participants and then transcribed for analysis. Data Analysis Data were collected and analyzed based on the three research questions outlined in the study. The survey responses were organized, analyzed and labeled according to their 47 characteristics by frequency (Salkind, 2007). The data collected from the interviews were analyzed to identify common themes. The study’s primary goal was to examine the strategies used by superintendents to build strong relationships with their respective boards, so data was disaggregated to identify essential strategies identified by the participants. The challenge in using a qualitative study is to ensure that the data chosen, to be analyzed is relevant to a study (Patton, 2002). There are six steps outlined by Creswell (2003) for analyzing information collected from qualitative instruments: (a) organize and prepare the data, (b) read through the data to gain a general sense of the information, (c) begin a detailed analysis or coding of the data, (d) identify common themes generated from the coding of data, (e) develop detailed descriptions of the theme(s) that came about from the research questions, and (f) provide a personal interpretation of the themes, then link back to literature as it is relevant. Ethical Considerations All members of the research team participated in the Institutional Review Board process (IRB). This process includes the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI), an online component that trains researchers to consider the ethical implications of the research study. The goal was to ensure that the participants of the study would not endure any physical or emotional harm as a result of the study. Summary This chapter described the research methods that were used for this study. The methodology discussion included a description of the research design, the sample and population to be studied, the development and administration of the data collection instruments, the data collection process and techniques, the data analysis process for this 48 mixed-methods study, and ethical considerations. The data collection process began after the research team obtained approval from the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board. Procedures for this study included receiving interview permission from the superintendent participants and school board members. The instruments used for collecting data, included surveys and interviews. The data analyzed by the research team triangulated the survey questions, interview inquiries, and research literature. The following chapter (four) presents the findings from the research. A comprehensive analysis of the data collected is presented. The findings identify effective strategies used by superintendents. This study provides newly hired or experienced individuals with essential information on how superintendents build strong relationships with their respective boards based on trust during their first 90-day entry period. 49 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS The American dream is that every individual has the right to a free education. As such, local school districts need to provide this opportunity. In order for the opportunity to be afforded strong leadership is necessary to guide the school district and its students to success. The necessary leadership at the helm comes from the superintendent. The superintendent of a school district takes on the responsibility of delivering on that idea. In the superintendent’s job, there are responsibilities that need to be fulfilled in order move a district forward successfully, therefore giving all students the opportunity to grow academically and succeed. Over the years, the role of the superintendent has evolved into a position that requires unique qualities to better serve its constituents. The qualities and skills required to successfully lead a school district call for a re-envisioning of the position of the superintendency. The superintendent is the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the school district, and, as such, he or she must have a proactive relationship with his/her board. This relationship allows for collaborative effective governance that addresses the roles, the work and the structure by which the district is led. A superintendent and board need to develop and design a relationship that builds a foundation of effective strategies of communication to build trust. According to Houston and Eadie (2002), active collaboration between the superintendent and the board should demonstrate a co-equal partnership dedicated to effective strategic planning and policy leadership for the district. Therefore, today’s superintendent must be trained, taught and equipped with the most up to date strategies to effectively communicate with his or her board. This communication 50 builds trust, so that informative and wise decisions can be made, issues can be resolved, timely responses can be made to public and community demand, allocation of funding can be conducted according to educational values, and, ultimately, the needs of the students can be met. Although the position of the superintendency has its traditional career path, such as serving as principal, director and assistant superintendent there is a trend of hiring individuals from the private business sector. The strategies used by CEOs are incorporated now more often in the position of the superintendent. Hoyle et al. (2005) research indicated that superintendents from large, medium and small districts that were surveyed believed that their executive office required many of the same managerial and executive skills necessary to meet multiple issues of budget, personnel, technology, accountability, and achievement. The “educator CEO,” the superintendent, has the complex role of being a visionary and courageous individual who needs to meet the growing demands for improved student achievement. Kowalski et al. (2010), research indicated that only 51% of those superintendents surveyed would still be in the superintendency in 2015. This indicates a high turnover in the next few years. Therefore, there will be a nationwide need for highly trained superintendents to satisfy the vacancies. Being highly effective hence leads to the idea that future superintendents need to be prepared with strategies that practice strong communication to work effectively with their respective board. The primary purpose of the study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful superintendents have used to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards within their entry period. This chapter presents the findings from a 51 triangulation of research literature both in education and business, surveys and personal interviews. Determinants were identified as to whether superintendents were using effective skills and strategies in formal or informal entry plans. The research study team examined existing frameworks and models of entry plans from the educational sector and attempted to contribute to this knowledge. The study also contributes to the literature base of the public school superintendent. The chapter presents and discusses the findings of the study as part of a collaboration of a research team of nine members. Surveys responses were collected and tabulated, individual interviews conducted and transcribed and research literature was reviewed to triangulate the findings in reference to the following research questions: 1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong relationships and trust with the board during their entry period? 2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into the superintendency? Using a qualitative method, this study aimed to examine and to identify strategies or behaviors that successful superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with their school board within their entry period. Four instruments, described in depth in Chapter Three, were used in the collection of the data: (1) Superintendent Strategies for Building Board Relations (SSBBR) Survey, (2) the Board Member Perceptions Survey 52 (BMPS), (3) Superintendent Interview Guide Protocol, and (4) Board President/Designee Interview Guide Protocol. At the commencement of this study, the research team collaboratively examined all data spanning all counties in California and 977 public school districts. Ultimately, 90 districts were identified based on the selection criteria; therefore, 90 superintendents and their respective board Presidents or designees were sent invitations via U.S. mail to complete the SSBBR survey and the BMPS survey, respectively. An email inviting them to participate was also sent on the same day the surveys were mailed. Once the surveys were returned to the research team, data was collaboratively analyzed and reviewed. Sixty-four surveys were returned, a rate of 71% participation completed by superintendents employed in the state of California and 48 Board Presidents or their designee with a return rate of 53.3%. A total of 48 were matched pairs, at a rate of 51.1%. The combined group of participants was then disseminated in as equal number as possible to select and invite a limited number of superintendents and their respective board president or designee for a structured interview. Each individual member of the research team conducted an interview with a set of matched pairs, a superintendent and his/her respective board designee for one selected district. This was a total of 9 in-depth interviews with the selected superintendents and their selected board designee. On an individual basis, each member collected and organized the interview data. The data was then interpreted and analyzed using the process of triangulation by which multiple research literature sources of information were used to support findings. This methodology supported the reliability and validity of the findings. The findings from the research, as well as a detailed analysis and discussion 53 of the data, are presented in this chapter and organized according to the research questions. Data Findings Background Information of Sample and Population First, the initial population of the study consisted of those 90 superintendents who led districts in the state of California whose minimum population was comprised of at least 2,000 students and ranged to over 25,000. Forty-six percent of superintendents employed in California fulfilled the criteria. Second, the superintendents selected had districts that demonstrated growth in their Academic Performance Index (API) a numerical value of 800, or a 30 point net growth if their API was under 800, over the previous three years. The assumption that districts with an API of 800 as the number set by the No child Left Behind Act (NCLB) does not necessarily indicate substantial academic growth over the time of three years. This point in mind, allowed for the inclusion of other districts comprised of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Third, the superintendent must have been an external hire, not from within the same district as a promotional opportunity. The research team concurred that the emphasis of the study lent itself to superintendents from an outside district that were more likely to have an entry plan. Lastly, the criteria included superintendents who were in either urban or suburban districts, which allowed for a greater number of districts to participate with different demographic parameters throughout the state of California. Achievement data collected for the lifetime of the study demonstrated that all 9 superintendents showed measureable growth for their respective districts for three consecutive years. For the purpose of this study and, although the events are true, the 54 names of the superintendent and board president or designee as participants have been changed and have been assigned pseudonyms to protect their identities. Any resemblance to any one individual is strictly coincidental. The participating superintendent used for this study will be referred to as Superintendent Logan, the Board President as President Grey, and the district will be referred to as District Genner. District Genner is located in Southern California, serves over 13,400 students and is home to 16 Kindergarten to grade 8 schools and 3 comprehensive middle schools. Genner’s API over the past three years was 861 in 2011, 855 in 2010 and 837 in 2009, respectively. Genner School District is currently governed by 5 elected board members. Each serves a four-year term. The mission of the district is composed of 4 areas of focus: 1. Continuing academic growth and meeting State and Federal guidelines with focus on common core standards, 2. Integrated 21 st century learning/technology, 3. Building positive moral and spirit throughout the district and community, and 4. Maintaining fiscal solvency. Superintendent Logan was a principal for over 17 years in public schools: elementary, middle and high school. He has served also as a teacher, assistant principal, principal, and assistant superintendent in various districts in southern California. He began this position in the fall of 2007 and, at the time of this study, was still currently serving the Genner School District. Logan received his master’s degree from Azusa Pacific and his doctorate through a collaborative effort from Azusa Pacific, the University of Southern California and the University of La Verne. Board President Grey is a community member whose children once attended the district. She has a professional 55 background in accounting. She has served as P.T.A. president and, now, as Board President for Genner. She has served 3 terms, which began in the year 2000. Results Research Question One Research Question one asked: What strategies are successful superintendents using to build relationships with their board during their entry period? Qualitative Findings According to the most recent research strategies used by superintendents and CEOs, building relationships is vital to the success of their position (Hoyle et al., 2005). The use of measures such as evaluations of performance is necessary. These measures focus on traits, skills, knowledge and style in order to be meaningful to the professional development of the individual and the institution for which they serve (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2011; Watkins, 2003). Having stated this, two reoccurring themes were identified by superintendents in the study in regards to building a positive relationship with their board. The themes are as follow: (1) effective strategies used and (2) an entry plan. These themes lent themselves to setting a foundation of effective communication, whereby goals and expectations were created and led to building a strong relationship. To begin the analysis of the survey data, superintendents revealed that the most frequently used weekly strategies included a letter to board members, at 68.8%, followed closely by individual phone calls at 60.9%, in person communication at 59.4%, and emails at 53.1%. The results from the board members reflected weekly communication, from a board letter at 60.4%, email at 56.3%, and an individual phone call and in person communication at 45.8%, respectively. 56 Table 4.1:Comparison for Communication Used by Superintendents and their Board Superintendents Board Members Communication Strategy Frequency % Frequency % Individual Phone Call (Daily) 5 7.8 8 16.7 Individual Phone Call (Weekly) 39 60.9 22 45.8 Letter to the Board (Daily) 0 0.0 1 2.1 Letter to the Board (Weekly) 44 68.8 29 60.4 In Person Communication (Daily) 4 6.3 6 12.5 In Person Communication (Weekly) 38 59.4 22 45.8 Email (Daily) 13 20.3 11 22.9 Email (Weekly) 34 53.1 27 56.3 The results vary in frequency due to the multiple rankings that respondents may choose to designate frequently used communication. The preferred methods and strategies for the participants did differ somewhat. The preferred strategies by superintendents to communicate used on a weekly basis included an individual phone call to board members (60.9%), which reflected a match to the used strategy, followed closely by a weekly board letter (59.4%), which reflected a difference of 9.4% from the used strategy, in person communication (50%) with a difference also of 9.4% from the used strategy, and email (45.3%) with a difference of 14.1%. The results from the board members reflected the preferred means of communication as a weekly board letter (50%) with a difference of 10.6%, email (47.9%) with a difference of 8.4%, and individual phone call (45.8%) with a difference of 8.4%, and in person communication (39.5%) with a difference of 6.3%. Although technology lends itself to relay quick messages to individuals, the data is reflecting that between board members and superintendents it is one of the least used methods to communicate. 57 Table 4.2: Comparison for Communication Preferred by Superintendents and their Board Superintendents Board Members Communication Strategy Frequency % Frequency % Individual Phone Call (Daily) 2 4.2 2 16.7 Individual Phone Call (Weekly) 39 60.9 22 45.8 Letter to the Board (Daily) 0 0.0 1 2.1 Letter to the Board (Weekly) 38 59.4 24 50.0 In Person Communication (Daily) 4 6.3 5 10.4 In Person Communication (Weekly) 32 50.0 19 39.6 Email (Daily) 10 15.6 8 16.7 Email (Weekly) 29 45.3 23 47.9 The results vary in frequency due to the multiple rankings that respondents may choose to designate frequently used communication. Superintendent Logan agreed with Board President Grey. Logan’s preferred and used strategies correlated with the higher percentages in the result findings of using a weekly board letter, conducting a weekly phone call, a weekly in person meeting with President Grey, and a weekly email as a last option. His sentiments were: I prefer to meet with people one on one and if not I like to talk to them on the phone, I use a Bluetooth whenever I drive. It’s a great way to communicate when you’re on the freeway. I also communicate via my weekly communicate [weekly board letter]. It’s the way everyone on the board gets the same information. I like to give additional information and help. Communicating frequently and asking questions helps me to better understand where each board member is coming from. I find that when you send an email sometimes the meaning is lost or they read one way but mean another. Email is good only for it’s convenience. Board President Grey described the strategies that coincided with the superintendent and the data as: Success within a good relationship involves frequent phone calls that really help with hearing excitement or frustration of a voice. I do think that a very successful means to making sure everyone gets the same thing is the weekly letter, which we (board members) receive from the superintendent and other cabinet members. We receive updates of what’s happened in the previous week. I do think these are very successful. As board members we prefer calls over emails. 58 Logan as superintendent and CEO built and maintained his partnership with his school board as an executive and it required time and attention. The superintendent’s careful concern to having used effective strategies of communication helped foster feelings of satisfaction, commitment, and ownership that helped create and strengthen the board and superintendent partnership. The Entry Plan as a Strategy Analysis of the data confirmed that an entry plan was one of the most highly used strategies during the first 90 days of a new superintendency. 58 of the 64 (90.6%) superintendents responded yes to having an entry plan and 27 of the 64 (42.2%) presented the plan formally to their respective board. In respect to the board, 36 of the 48, (75%) reported being aware that the superintendent had an entry plan and that 25 of the 48 (52.1%) were presented formally to them. A well thought out entry plan can set a strong foundational framework that can accelerate transition of a new position and can produce an exchange of big returns for the individual and the organization (Watkins, 2003). To begin, an entry plan for a superintendent, a careful analysis of prioritizing the district’s needs has to be conducted. 59 Table 4.3: Comparison of Possessing an Entry Plan After Being Hired as Superintendent Superintendents Board Members Entry Plan Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=48 % 1a Yes 58 90.60 36 75.00 No 6 9.40 12 25.00 1b Yes 27 42.20 25 52.08 No 37 57.80 22 45.83 No Response 0 0.00 1 2.08 According to the data from the surveys, superintendents disclosed that they were prudent stewards of prioritizing challenges to meet the needs of the job and the district. The areas of challenge reported by the total 64 superintendents as a priority were: board relationships (30.6%), followed by fiscal operations and budgets (22.2%), and student achievement (13.9%). A secondary listing of priorities included, fiscal operations and budget (17.5%), labor relations with relations and collective bargaining (14%), followed by student achievement, vision and strategic planning, and community business relations with (10.5%). The last recorded item included vision and strategic planning (25.5%), labor relations/collective bargaining (16.4%), and board relationships (14.5%). 60 Table 4.4: Comparison of the Greatest Initial Challenges Before the Entry Period Superintendents Board Members Challenge Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=48 % Board Relations 22 30.6 9 16.1 Community Relations 2 2.8 5 8.9 Facilities 5 6.9 3 5.4 Fiscal Operations 16 22.2 13 23.2 Labor Relations 9 12.5 8 14.3 Media Relations 0 0.0 0 0.0 Parent Groups/PTA 1 1.4 0 0 Students Achievement 10 13.9 10 17.9 Vision/Strategic Planning 5 6.9 5 8.9 Other 2 3.55 2 3.55 Board member data reflected that their first list of priorities and challenges included fiscal operations/budget (23.2%), student achievement (17.9%) and board relationships (16.1%). A second challenge listed fiscal operations/budget and labor/collective bargaining (18.7%), and vision and strategic planning with (12.5%). Although 14.6% of the participants had no responses, some board candidates chose to make several designations of different areas as a number one priority and listing none as a second. Lastly, identified as a set of third challenges were vision and strategic planning (37.5%), community and business relations (14.6%), and student achievement (10.4%). Again, 16.7% of the respondents abstained from replying the third challenge question and responded that all challenges were a first priority, skewing the numbers in responses. In general, the numbers demonstrated that 42 of the 64 (65.6%) superintendents believed that their respective boards prioritized the same challenges. Thirty nine of 48 (81.3%) of board members corroborated that they believed their superintendent prioritized the same 61 challenges. The difference of opinion in the responses was 15.7%, approximately 4 participants. Table 4.5: Prioritization of Same Challenges: Superintendent and Board Member Superintendents Board Members Challenge Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=48 % Yes 42 65.6 39 81.3 No 21 32.8 3 6.3 No Response 1 1.6 6 12.5 Superintendent Logan confirmed through his responses both his survey and the interview that his challenges of highest priority, included fiscal operations, labor relation/collective bargaining and community business relations. Before composing a 90-day plan, I interviewed every board member one on one. I spoke to a lot of people. I spoke with everyone, from a newspaper reporter, to managers, to teachers, I talked to as many people as I could and asked 3 simple questions: 1) What are things that are going well in the district, 2) What are the things in the district that we need to continue, and 3) What do I need to do as your superintendent to be successful? I found many strengths and things that people believed we needed to work on together. I needed to work on them, if I was going to be successful. It was not a drawn out 5-year plan, but a plan nonetheless. By listening I was able to gain support for a plan. Board President Grey’s responses concurred with priorities of vision/strategic planning and fiscal operations/budget. Grey explained: One of our priorities was to find someone who was a good communicator. Someone who, was willing to work with all the players and who could gain financial support. Someone who was going to be comfortable enough with who we are, who the schools could speak to and be supported by. Someone who was going to support the community, with a well thought out plan. 62 The Superintendent and the Board President both had intentions of building and maintaining a strong fiscal foundation and building relationships. The strategies for building an entry plan heavily depended on the challenges set forth by the needs of the community and the stakeholders. Although the superintendent and the board president had separate lists of challenges, they did offer contextual explanations during their interviews. These explanations centered around their own work that helped support the development and maintenance of a successful organization as it related to their position. Watkins (2003) would concur that clear descriptions of challenges and opportunities allowed for situations and actionable guidelines to establish priorities, which it did in the case of Superintendent Logan and President Grey. Summary of Results: Literature for Research Question One In summary, the themes that emerged from the surveys and personal interviews described an alignment with the research presented in chapter two. Eadie (2003) would define the above as a process design by the superintendent, by which he paid close attention to those matters that involved high stakes, and required strong board support. If the superintendent wanted the board to feel like owners of an action, product or decision, they became part of the process, which evolved into the entry plan. Watkins (2003) would concur that the 90-day plan of action based on a conceptual framework was the key of a smooth transition for Superintendent Logan. Superintendent Logan accelerated his learning by determining the needs of the district and the community. He turned situations into opportunities with aligned goals of achievement by asking from others what he needed to do to be successful. He also created coalitions by asking others’ opinions, and negotiated his success by setting the 63 platform for a plan that included all the above. The plan became a map of imperatives for making an effective transition that was well thought out. Neely, Berube & Wilson (2002) would agree that the Superintendent had a better chance of success because he used personal contact, stakeholder input and an objective perspective to set the tone for a vision and create a 90-day entry plan suitable for District Genner. Ultimately, after reviewing the information from the data analysis and the interviews as collected, it was evident that the common theme of communication was imperative. The board president shared her sentiments of needing a communicator when she first considered Superintendent Logan to be hired. The superintendent knew he had to be visible in the community as well as open to all conversations. These conversations, as difficult as they may have been, represented the set of values that the district believed in and that superintendent had to acknowledge. Covey (2004) would validate that the actions Logan took were directly related in recognizing the values and any gaps that existed between those values and the behaviors associated with them that set the standard of how much was at stake. Results Research Question Two Research Question Two asked: How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? A superintendent, as a new hire to a district, has opportunities to apply new strategies to resolve issues and be a proactive leader. The research team wanted to assess more detailed information as to how particular strategies were implemented, how often and how their success was evaluated. Noting the common themes from question one as to 64 what the strategies were identified, it was then determined that those strategies needed to be assessed in regard to their implementation and evaluation. Highlighted themes were: 1) evaluation of specific strategies used in communication, 2) evaluation of activities to build trust, and 3) the evaluation of an entry plan that was employed after being created with common goals and therefore was evaluated over time. Evaluation of the Strategies According to Duck and McMahan (2012), communication as a fundamental strategy is not a one model fits all concept. Individuals need to bring something new, different, and meaningful to the messages they convey. Communication in a traditional form, verbal, nonverbal, and listening is important to our everyday life. Technology, social media and culture have evolved at a rapid rate and should be taken into consideration within the parameters of communication. Having stated the above, the survey results in regards to the use of strategies of communication were analyzed to affirm their effectiveness. Superintendents revealed that the most frequently used strategies included a weekly board letter to board members (68.8%), individual phone calls (60.9%), in person communication (59.4%), and emails (53.1%). The results from the board members reflected weekly communication, via a board letter (60.4%), email used at (56.2%), and an individual phone call and in person communication by (45.8%), respectively. 65 Table 4.6: Comparison for Communication Used by Superintendents and their Board! ! Superintendents Board Members Communication Strategy !! Frequency % Frequency % Individual Phone Call (Daily) ! 5 7.8 8 16.7 Individual Phone Call (Weekly) ! 39 60.9 22 45.8 Letter to the Board (Daily) ! 0 0.0 1 2.1 Letter to the Board (Weekly) ! 44 68.8 29 60.4 In Person Communication (Daily) ! 4 6.3 6 12.5 In Person Communication (Weekly) ! 38 59.4 22 45.8 Email (Daily) ! 13 20.3 11 22.9 Email (Weekly) ! 34 53.1 27 56.3 The results vary in frequency due to the multiple rankings that respondents may choose to designate frequently used communication. The superintendent used communication strategies the moment he was hired. He evaluated his own progress throughout the entry period. He found the most effective way to communicate messages by speaking and listening. In Logan’s words: I visited every school, and listened. I came away with something that I wanted to work on for the first few months. As a result of what I came away with, I highlighted the areas I thought were most pertinent to those I spoke to…areas I focused on: Student learning, curriculum and assessment, budget and resources, staffing, parents and the community. These same areas are what are included in my contract in somewhat different terms, but the same ideas. They are governance, leadership development, curriculum instruction, community relations, human resources, business and finance. I use a weekly board letter and prefer one-on-one phone calls. An email lends itself for a message to get lost sometimes. Grey’s sentiments were: I communicate with the superintendent on a weekly basis, if not more. As a board we are accustomed to using email, but we are more use to the phone calls our superintendent makes to us. I think that the way the superintendent communicates with us all at once is a successful way, either by weekly board letters or via phone calls. I think that he is also a good listener…he made it a point of talking to everyone that he could. He wanted to be visible, he wanted to meet with schools, he was someone you knew would listen. 66 Superintendent Logan and President Grey shared their sentiments that the strategies used to communicate were effective for them. The use of personal phone calls and the weekly board letter were their most used methods of communication, followed by emails. The research literature, the survey results and interviews confirmed that, as a strategy, the means of communication used were those by which the individuals were most comfortable. Therefore, they responded in a proactive and practical manner. Scott (2004) agrees that the presence of the superintendent to listen was very powerful. Scott refers to “soft eyes and ears,” and one-on-one communication. Both parties in this case were satisfied with their strategies of communication because they were effective for them. Duck and McMahan (2012) referred to our time as the “media generation,” meaning the rapid use of new media to communicate. Superintendent Logan was concerned that technology would influence an individual’s way of thinking by multiple interpretations or the wrong interpretation of one message (emails). Scott’s (2002, 2004) theory reinforces that each individual is influenced by their own standards, sense of experience, sense of reality, and their own perceptions. The behaviors of communication by Logan and Grey were judged by present norms and prevailing expectations. If there had been any changes or shifts of the strategies used by the superintendent or the president, it would have be considered a violation of what was normally practiced and would have led to negative responses and evaluations. Evaluation of the Entry Plan The entry plan emerged as one of the greater themes in regards to evaluating performance of the superintendent. The data included that 35 of the 64 (54.7%) superintendents presented an entry plan in the interview process. Board member results 67 reflected that 24 of 48 (50%) did not recall a plan being part of the interview. Shortly thereafter, the hiring of the superintendents, that data reflects that, of the 64 superintendents, 58 (90.6%) did develop an entry plan. Board members reported that 36 of the 48 (75%) recalled that the superintendent did develop an entry plan. Although both Superintendent Logan and Grey recall that the entry plan was not discussed at the initial interview process, they both agreed that it was developed over common themes after being hired, which contributed to the higher results in the data, thereafter. Table 4.7: Comparison of Possessing and Discussing an Entry Plan during the Recruitment Process Superintendents Board Members Item Entry Plan Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=48 % Yes 35 54.7 22 46.0 No 29 45.3 24 50.0 No Response 0 0 2 4.0 Total 64 48 Table 4.8: Comparison of Possessing an Entry Plan After Being Hired as Superintendent Superintendents Board Members Entry Plan Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=48 % 1a Yes 58 90.60 36 75.00 No 6 9.40 12 25.00 1b Yes 27 42.20 25 52.08 No 37 57.80 22 45.83 No Response 0 0.00 1 2.08 68 Superintendent Logan monitored his own performance of the entry plan. The data and interview responses confirmed that he was provided clear feedback and recommendations informally from the board during his entry period and was part of the 23 of 64 superintendents (36%). The board members reported that 34 of 48 (74%) recalled providing clear feedback in regards to the entry period. Superintendent Logan, having collaboratively developed the entry plan with the board with common goals, was able to review it for his progress. President Grey and the board were assisted by an outside source for the hiring process and were invited to return to review the performance of the superintendent’s entry plan a few months later. Table 4.9: Comparison of Providing Clear Feedback Superintendents Board Members Entry Plan Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=48 % Yes 23 35.9 34 70.8 No 41 64.1 12 25.0 No Response 0 0.0 2 4.2 According to the Superintendent: I felt that I could not wait for feedback. I did not want to wait until the end of the 90-day entry period, unless I was going to go down the wrong pathway. After about a week I was ready to find out. I benchmarked my own progress. It was not until a few months later that we (the board and I) conducted an evaluation meeting that was led by an outside source. My personal evaluation of my performance was informal, as where the collaborative one was formal. I felt I received great feedback that affirmed my efforts to make positive changes during the entry period and months after. In the Board President’s words: During the entry period I recall being asked by the superintendent how I believed things were going. It was not until we conducted a meeting a few months after with an outside source that also assisted us with the hiring process that we conducted a formal evaluation. I believed it was to our benefit to have outside 69 eyes hear the point of view of the superintendent and see his accomplishments, in comparison to the vision that was agreed to previously. We discussed all the previous goals, what that meant and then discussed next steps. The outside source was used several times over the course of a year. I do believe that was very important and contributed to the success of the relationship that we as a board have with our superintendent. Superintendent Logan, although not having formally discussed the progress of the entry plan with his board within the first 90 days, was nonetheless critical. He managed to examine his own professional development within a short amount of time. This gave him the advantage of diagnosing progress before the first formal evaluation that was soon conducted thereafter by an outside source as requested by his board. President Grey stated that having an outside source made it possible to have an individual evaluation process with an objective, non-biased view, since board members are elected officials who have their ears to the public voices and really need to concentrate on the progress and success that classrooms are producing. Communication of the Entry Period with the Board Communication as a separate entity during the entry period was crucial to building trust between the superintendent and his/her boards. In examining the data, the level of trust at the beginning of the superintendent’s entry period to the level after the first 90 days was significant. Twenty four of 64 (37.5%) of superintendents perceived that the highest level of trust was already established at the beginning of the entry period. Twenty of 48, (41.7%) of board members perceived that trust was already established at the highest level. The numbers represented at the end of the entry period were 42 of 64 (65.6%) of superintendents and 36 of 48 (75%) of board members’ responses perceiving that the highest level of trust was established after the first 90 days. The difference in 70 superintendent responses from the beginning of the entry period to the end of the entry period was 28.1%. The difference in responses before and after the entry period from board members was 23.3%. Table 4.10: Comparison Chart of Trust at the Beginning and End of the Entry Period Superintendent Board Member Trust Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=48 % Upon the initial entry period 24 37.5 20 41.7 By the end of the entry period 42 65.6 36 75.0 As Hurley (2006) points out, half of all managers do not trust their leaders at the beginning of relationships; superintendents and their subordinates do not differ. Hurley, related risk tolerance, level of adjustment, and relative power to the innate willingness individuals have or not to trust others. Superintendent Logan felt he was trusted at the highest level of a scale of one to five, five being the highest, on the first day in the district. He described his experience as: I believe that the board trusted me implicitly. I felt I was given the opportunity to move the district forward immediately. Along the way I was given recommendations and advice by board members. I began to hear complaints because there was a sense that things were changing too quickly. Board members and I met, we discussed the direction they saw the district needed to move and I presented my points of view as well. I didn’t conduct a survey or questionnaire. I gathered my information and worked closely with the board. All the suggestions and my personal evaluation of my progress was affirmed at the formal evaluation that was conducted few months after. It did not matter if I spoke with them on the phone or in person. We consistently communicated our thoughts and ideas as well as asked me for updates on ongoing projects or events. I felt they appreciated all the work I was doing, and they stated it several times. That is how I checked that I was on the right pathway. By the end of the 90 days I knew that I had found and reviewed issues that needed my attention. I believe it completely reaffirmed that they had found the right candidate for the position. Also, that the plan was set in 71 motion based on common goals. They trusted I would accomplish them. I believe the level of trust was strong at the end of the 90 days, they saw me interact [with others], saw me in action, day in and day out. I spoke with them over and over, phone conversations, board meetings, it was ongoing communication. Grey described her experience in evaluating trust with the superintendent as: I know that I trusted the superintendent. It could have been that other board members may have not trusted him as much, but that is where conversations are measured. You have to question his motives, such as why he did things the way he did. I think they perceived his motives as the previous superintendent’s and couldn’t separate the past from the present. Regardless, he set goals and achieved them. He went out to learn what the schools were about, and we as board members heard about it. Sometimes we only hear from one or two people and we have to be cautious of that. At the 90 days, I think there was still some uncertainty from other board members. It was not until after some time that the majority of the board did have complete trust in him. The key was the conversations, the constant communication. Houston and Eadie (2002) would agree that Logan was board savvy. He employed a well-designed process of communicating on a regular basis. Logan made communication frequent and effective during his entry period. Summary Results for Research Question 2: Evaluating Success In evaluating the success of individual strategies, the entry plan and communication itself during the first 90 days of entry were crucial. It was determined that Superintendent Logan and Board President Grey both felt that trust was accomplished by building the relationship through consistent and clear communication. Covey’s (2004) fifth habit elaborates on the beliefs from Logan and Grey, by stating that the communication between them was done by not assuming thoughts, feelings, motives, and interpretations. Instead, the superintendent and the board president reciprocated the practice of listening to understand, where focus was on an individual’s receiving deep communication from the other. There was a sense of inherent personal motivation to be 72 understood, to be affirmed, to be validated and to be appreciated. The board president heard from principals as well as community members. They felt valued and appreciated by being heard. Covey calls this the “unsatisfied need that motivates.” Seeking first to understand a principle or a thought was the most vital area of interpersonal relations, to build trust. Houston and Eadie’s (2002) research supported that communication was the binding that built a strong relationship between Logan and Grey. According to the interviews, there was an effort to keep information pertinent, accurate, timely and relayed in a manner that was easy to understand. The goals of the entry plan were the agreement between the CEO-Superintendent and the Board that served as performance expectations that needed to be addressed and fulfilled. The plan was used as a vehicle to build a close and healthy partnership of trust (Neff & Citrin, 2006). Results Research Question Three Research Question 3: What formal or informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into the superintendency? According to Orr (2006, 2007) the superintendent serves as the chief educational officer that leads a school district. In 2005, Teitel reported a list of associations that offered programs for the preparation of the superintendency. In 2008, Peterson, Fusarelli and Kowlaski presented the need for leadership development in the initial stages of the superintendency. The programs identified in the study were geared toward principal-ship and missed the scope of the larger needs of knowledge needed by an individual who sought the position of superintendent. In the data collected, the superintendents were 73 asked very specific questions of formal and informal training and preparation. The emerging themes were as follows: (1) what specific formal training prepared them for the superintendency (2) what informal training prepared them for the superintendency and (3) what strategies of trust through these trainings assisted them in building strong relationships with their respective board. Formal Training and Preparation for a New Superintendent In the American School Superintendent, 2010 Decennial Study (Kowalski et al., 2011) it was reported that 78.7% of superintendents believed that the academic preparation they received was simply good or adequate. In the responses for this study under formal training, 46 of the 62, (74.1%) of superintendents responded that they believed that their formal training adequately prepared them for the entry into the superintendency, whereas Board responses reflected that 46 of 47 (97.9%) believed that their superintendents were adequately trained formally. Table 4.11: Comparison Chart of Adequate Formal Training Perceptions of a Superintendent Superintendent Board Member Formal Training Perception Frequency % Frequency % Adequate 46 73.0 46 97.9 Not adequate 17 27.0 1 2.1 No Response 1 1.6 1 2.1 Superintendent Logan did not feel that his formal training prepared him adequately for the superintendency, indicating a “no” to his response, but that the extensive knowledge he acquired was beneficial. The superintendent shared his sentiments: 74 I did my Master’s degree in Educational Leadership through a local institution not far from here and my doctorate through a joint effort of two different acclaimed universities. I believe that my formal training prepared me as best as it could. I do believe that once you sit in the chair of superintendent, only then do you know if you are completely prepared. In reading a lot of literature articles, journals, studies, all, a combination of knowledge gathering have enriched my knowledge base. The board president shared her sentiments as, “ I do believe that our superintendent did receive adequate training in the formal aspect, as well as from other sources.” The Superintendent and the board president agreed that the knowledge base of academia was adequate in training for the superintendency. It is safe to assume that the academic portion of training is only part of what is necessary to be adequately equipped with a complete knowledge base to serve as a superintendent. Currently, over 26 entities offer training for superintendent preparation (see chapter 2 for the list). The programs are offered through memberships to organizations, both non- and for profit, university based programs, and foundations. All of have their own, methods, theories and curricula. The above findings concur with Kowalski et al (2010) research, that 891 superintendents of 1,353 responded on their survey for the 2010 study, that formal preparation they received was sufficient theoretically but insufficiently practice based. Informal Training and Preparation for a New Superintendent According to the data analyzed, 61 of 62 (98.4%) superintendents who responded believed that they received adequate informal training for the position. In the results for the follow up question, as to where they believed they received their most effective training for the superintendency, prior administration had a positive influence of 40 of 59, 67.8%. Mentorship reflected that 9 responded (15.3%), and professional associations 75 at only 1 respondent (1.6%) who agreed that they were adequate. Thirty one board members’ first choice was prior administration (71%). Mentorship was second, with 8 responses (23.8%) and university preparation was third, with 3 (6.8%). Table 4.12: Comparison Chart of Adequate Informal Training Perceptions of a Superintendent Superintendent ! Formal Training Perception Frequency % ! Adequate 61 98.4 ! Not adequate 1 1.6 ! No response 2 3.2 ! Table 4.13: Comparison of Perception of most Effective Preparation for a Superintendent! ! Superintendents Board Members Preparation ! Frequency % Frequency % Prior Administration ! 40 67.8 31 71 Mentorship/ Partnership ! 9 15.3 8 18.2 University Preparation ! 6 10.2 3 6.8 Professional Associations ! 1 1.6 0 0.0 The results vary in totals due to the multiple rankings that respondents may choose to designate what was their first choice. The surveys from both Superintendent Logan and the Board President Grey, confirmed the same results. In priority of effectiveness, prior administrative experience ranked the highest. In the superintendent’s words: I believe that a lot of the leadership qualities you develop over time as a superintendent aren’t necessarily from books or classes. It’s on the job training I attribute a lot of what I’ve learned from my experience of over 17 years as an elementary, middle and high school principal. In many ways a superintendent is like principal, you oversee your school, in this case a district and respond to its needs. I do think again that until you’ve sat in the superintendent’s seat, you won’t know if you are ready. If I could go back I would request specific training, 76 because I think my previous experience at another school district allowed me to see from my mentor what where some of the things I would do and those that I wouldn’t. I think I received the best education that I could formally, but I would have wanted scope to have been broadened, by perhaps focusing on district budgets, principal evaluation, business and finance, dealing with parent issues, district level issues, political arenas, partnerships, and professional relationship skills of a leader. I suppose just on a larger scale that, would have benefitted not only the district, but myself as well. The board president’s words resonated the same sentiment of experience being a valuable asset of adequate training. I think that effective training comes from prior administrative experience, from being in the same role in another district. I also believe that it’s more than on the job training, that all the previous roles in other districts were also an asset on his resume. I looked to see what his previous assignments had been and what he had accomplished in other districts. In the following table illustration the numbers reflect that, of the 64 respondent’s surveys, Superintendents had experience at a higher frequency of previously serving in the position of superintendent with 43 (67.2%) responding respectively. However, of those 43, the numbers further disaggregated with mixed results, 29 (45.3%) served as Assistant Superintendents in curriculum, 17 in human resources (26.6%), and 6 in business (9.4%). The was followed by serving in a principal-ship, with 54 respondents serving in the position (84.4%), followed by teacher with 49 respondents (76.6%), and director and assistant principal with 33 each (51.6%). 77 Table 4.14: Comparison Chart of Previous Professional Experience of Superintendents Superintendent ! Professional Experience Frequency % ! Prior Superintendency 37 57.8% ! Deputy Superintendent 19 29.7% ! Assistant Superintendent 43 67.2% ! Business 6 9.4% ! Curriculum 29 45.3% ! Human Resources 17 26.6% ! Director 33 51.6% ! Principal 54 84.4% ! Assistant Principal 33 51.6% ! Teacher 49 76.6% !! Superintendent Logan concurred that his experience as a principal prepared him for this position to a great extent, in his words: …I attribute a lot of what I learned as a principal because in some ways, it’s like being a superintendent…principal you sort of oversee your own kingdom as where the superintendent oversees the entire district. President Grey also concurred by saying: I think that the roles that he had in previous districts prepared him…because I know that is one of the things we looked at when his resume was submitted. We wanted to see what his assignments had been, what he had accomplished with other districts before he came to our district…it comes from prior administrative experience from being in that role in another district. Overall, the board president and the superintendent both concurred that although informal training was part of the traditional career path to reach the superintendency, opportunities of professional growth presented themselves. The opportunities that afforded themselves became favorable conditions for Logan to demonstrate his abilities, skills and knowledge to create strategies by way of actions. These actions, which were 78 carried out strategically, molded him as a leader and ultimately led him to being hired as superintendent. Therefore, the superintendent’s informal training was enriching in experience and knowledge. Watkins (2003) would agree that the superintendent promoted himself with his accomplishments and accelerated his learning by using both formal and informal training to move forward professionally. Training in Communication for the Superintendent for Better Board Relations Built on Trust In the first 90 days of the superintendency, the data showed that superintendents had a frequency rating of an overall, very satisfied, with 51 of 64 (79.7%) superintendent respondents. Twelve of the 64 (18.7%), superintendents responded that they were satisfied, and 1 responded as being unsatisfied (1.6%). Board members responded with 41 of 46 (89.1%) being very satisfied, 4 of 46 (8.7%) just satisfied, and 1 very unsatisfied (2.2%). To follow, another survey question directly asked if “the superintendent had any training on how to effectively communicate with the board?” The results showed that 42, (66%) of the superintendents had received some type of training on how to communicate with their board and 22 (34.4%) had not. The board member representative results reflected that 45 of the 47, (96%) who did respond said, yes, that their superintendent did receive some type of training to communicate with their board, 2 (4%) said, no. Eadie (2003) and Houston and Eadie (2007) describe the relationship of a superintendent and their board as bond that is cultivated by a deep understanding that systematically applies knowledge and action for success of the district. The relationship requires regular communication aimed at strengthening the role of the governing body. As well as, reinforce the vision and understanding about the CEO-board partnership to preserve 79 credibility and reputation that is part of training to build a strong relationship between a superintendent and his or her board. An added question to the survey included results for what types of activities were used to build trust during the entry period. Table 4.15: Comparison of Perception of Rating the Overall Relationship Between the Board and the Superintendent During the Entry Period Superintendents Board Members Kowalski et al Study Overall Relationship Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Very Satisfied 51 79.68 41 89.13 1099 60.20 Satisfied 12 18.75 4 8.70 Unsatisfied 1 1.56 0 0.0 Very Unsatisfied 0 0.00 1 2.17 No Response 0 0.00 2 4.2 The results vary in totals due to the multiple rankings that respondents may choose to designate what is their first choice. Table 4.16: Comparison of Perception of Effective Training in Communication for a Superintendent with the Board Superintendents Board Members Effective Training Frequency n=64 % Frequency n=47 % Yes 42 65.6 45 96.0 No 22 34.4 2 4.0 The superintendent results reflected that frequent communication promoted the most trust with 46 of the 68 responses listing it as a first choice, at 67.6%. Meeting with key stakeholders followed second, with 14 of the 64 respondents, at 20.6%, securing early wins was third with 5 of the 68 responses, with 7.4% and other sources with 3 of 68, at 4.4%. Next the question was asked as to “what activities were used to build strong relationships with the board?” The results included, individual communication with 42 of 80 65 responses (64.6%), followed by retreats with 12 of 65 (18.5%), followed by informal meetings with 5 of 65 responses (7.7%), followed by additional workshops with 4 of 65 (6.2%) and community and team building ranked last with 2 of 65 responses (3.1%). The board results reflected 28 of the 48 responses placing individual communication first, informal meetings with 9 of 48 (18.8%) retreats and community team building at 5 each (10.4%), respectively, and additional workshops with 1 response (2.1%), placing it last. To reiterate, the level of trust from research question 2, also reflected that at the beginning of the entry period already 20 of the 48 board members (42%) trusted their superintendent and at the end of the entry period 36 of 48 (48.7%) ranked the trust level at 5, the highest level ranking. This confirms that the strategies used in activities to communicate worked in a proactive manner to build trust between the majority of superintendents and their respective boards. Table 4.17: Comparison of Perception of Frequent Activities Used to Build Relationships Superintendents Board Members Activity Frequency % Frequency % Individual Communication 42 64.60 28 58.30 Retreats 12 18.50 5 10.40 Informal Meetings 5 7.70 9 18.80 Additional Board Workshops 4 6.2 1 2.1 Community Team Building 2 3.1 5 10.4 81 Table 4.18: Comparison of Perception of Frequent Activities Used to Promote Trust Superintendents Board Members Activity Frequency % Frequency % Frequent Communication 46 67.6 40 85.1 Secure early Wins 5 7.4 1 2.1 Meeting Key Stakeholders 14 20.6 6 12.8 Other 3 4.4 0 0.0 The superintendent shared his commitment to building trust in the following statement: I think I have a very positive relationship with my board members. The board normally votes 5-0, in my favor for decision and on a rare occasion 4-1. I believe we have a good working relationship, because I talk with them. I share ideas with them. The relationship is one of respect, not just protocols to be courteous. I believe we share the same values as far as wanting to do what’s best for our students and that’s important. I believe they trusted me at the beginning of this position and they trust me now. We annually attend the California School Board Association (CSBA) Conference, for 2-3 days. We also attend the Orange County School Board Association meetings on a quarterly basis. A rule of thumb for a superintendent is if you have a couple of board members attending a function or event, it’s always a good idea to go with them. Use it as an opportunity to bond, to talk and share thoughts. These opportunities of sharing time and events are ideal to building working relationships, at dinner, lunch, breakfast: all the things you don’t get the chance to do in a hectic pace that we all have throughout the school year. I also believe that the workshops and services we received from our outside resource were also very helpful. The board president shared her vision of commitment to building the relationship of trust with the superintendent: I believe that our superintendent had adequate training in communicating with the board. Whenever there is controversy, we discuss it. He had early wins that made think about how much we could trust him. With the slipping of the economy, it was nice to see him assuring us of a secure budget, that was balanced and that all interested parties were involved. His focus was on kids, he communicated that all the time. To keep programs that worked. We created a budget advisory committee together, involved the PTA, teachers and community members. Bringing everyone together made it easy to present a valid proposal that was important to 82 all. Our votes as a board are typically 5-0 in favor, and sometimes 4-1. I believe we have a very good relationship, where we are mostly on the same page. I have always been able to express my feelings and ideas with a sense of trust, and speak for the community. I know there is trust, that what I say will not be misused. He has always been willing to listen to our goals, frustrations, purposes, via emails, phone calls or in person. I trusted him at the beginning and I trust him now. It is evident that communication between the board and the superintendent was a fundamental component in establishing trust. The concept of continuous communication to build trust affects all people all the time (Covey, 2006). One must have confidence that people will work with their full integrity and abilities. To add to the development of building trust, question 19 of the survey focused on which factors respondents believed led to the success of the superintendent. This question helped identify key factors that contributed to effective communication that considered among the underlying reasons that may have been part of either formal or informal training. The following results were ranked in order of 1 through 3, 1 being the highest. If only analyzing the highest ranked choice, of the 64 superintendents, inter- personal skills was ranked highest with 27 (42.2%) as a number one choice, followed by experience with 23 (35.9%) and trustworthiness with 5 at (7.8%). When looking at second highest in ranking interpersonal skills ranked first with 18 (28.1%), followed by trustworthiness with 13 (20.3%), and experience with 16 (18.8%), respectively. As a third ranking of factors, experience was first with 23 (25%), next prior experience with 15 (23.4%) and trustworthiness with 9 (14.1%). In examining board member responses, results showed that, in first rank, experience was first with 19 (39.6%), followed by interpersonal skills with 15 (31%), followed by trustworthiness with 5 (1%). As the second factors ranked in success were 83 experience with 12 (25%), followed by trustworthiness with 10 (20.8%) and interpersonal skills with 9 (18.8%). Lastly the factors ranked in third were experience and training both with 10 (20.8%), followed by prior success and trustworthiness with 7 (14.6%) and interpersonal skills with 5 (10.6%). In further analyzing the results, both the superintendents and board members concurred that the top 3 factors that contributed to their success during the entry period were interpersonal, experience and trustworthiness. Table 4.19: Comparison of Factors that Led to Success "#$%&'()%(*%()+ ,-.&*!/%01%&+ 2.3)-&+!-4! "#33%++ 5+) 6 7(* 6 8&* 6 5+) 6 7(* 6 8&* 6 9:$%&'%(3% 78 8;<= 57 5><> 5? 7; 5= 8=<? 57 7; 5@ 7@<> A&.'('(B @ @ ; C<> > 57<; 5 7<5 D ><8 5@ 7@<> E&'-&!"#33%++ 7 8<5 5@ 5;<? 5; 78<D 7 D<7 C 5D<? C 5D<? F()%&$%&+-(.G! "H'GG+ 7C D7 5> 7><5 C 5@<= 5; 85 = 5><> ; 5@<D A&#+)I J-&)K'(%++ ; C<> 58 7@<8 = 5D<5 ; 5 5@ 7@<> C 5D<? E&-4%++'-(.G! L-((%3)'-(+ @ @ @ @ 7 8<5 @ @ @ @ @ @ M)K%& 5 5<? @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D 7<5 Superintendent Logan shared his sentiments regarding his factors of success to his experience, his ability to relay information to others by speaking to them one on one, and having a sense of trust with his board. His statement was as follow: I think they [the board] trusted me implicitly. I think to come in and begin to move the district forward…there’s a wait and kind of thing. I talk to them one on one…I am told that they appreciate what I am doing…I made sure that I was on the right pathway. I can confirm that (again) through my conversations with them they would tell me what I needed to know. Board President Grey shared that: I think being a good listener and realizing that constructive criticism is helpful. He [Logan] was able to interpret what was happening, his skills to be able to speak to all people allowed him to be a people person. He was able to relay 84 messages because he understood them and understood the problems that they were talking about. Both Grey and Logan responded on their surveys that interpersonal skills, experience and trustworthiness, were in their top three choices for factors that led to the success of the superintendent during the entry period. Watkins (2003) and Jentz & Murphy (2005) would concur that having these three factors as primary elements, the superintendent as leader was able to promote himself, to build trust through conversations and accelerate his learning about the district. Summary Results for Research Question 3: Formal and Informal Preparation to Build a Strong Relationship with the Board Watkins (2003), Covey (2004), and Scott (2002, 2004), concur that the people you trust work closely to you to move things quickly and smoothly. They know that no amount of energy is enough if an agreement needs to be reached. In a high trusting relationship, you can say the wrong thing and people still understand what you mean. Jim Burke, former CEO and chairman of Johnson and Johnson, once stated, “ You can’t have success without trust, the word trust embodies almost everything you can strive for that will help your success.” Logan and Grey both shared sentiments, that although trust in general is not easily extended, for them it was obtainable by effective strategies that both parties used with ease and were effective. Discussion of Results Overall, an effective and successful superintendent must possess effective strategies of communication in order to build a strong relationship of trust with their respective board. The findings from the survey results, the interviews conducted and the 85 literary research (Covey, 2006; Houston and Eadie, 2003, 2007; Watkins, 2003; Duck and McMahan, 2012; Hurley, 2006; and Wanjert and Miles, 2009), all led to the same results, that effective communication strategies are imperative to building a strong trusting relationship. The strategies include effective habits by which communication is conducted, what and how activities are shared, and what goals are designed collaboratively to create a strategic entry plan. Lastly, they all merged to bring about success of for the school district and the superintendent. The entry plan, although inferred through the research, presented itself as a key strategy in developing successful communication between the Superintendent Logan and Board President Grey. The entry plan as outlined by Watkins (2003) based on trust should include: Step 1) Accelerating learning, know the job as quickly as possible Step 2) Communicating with all stakeholders to address all issues and formulating a list of priorities. Step 3) Formulating strategies that will work based on the needs of the district and your style as a leader. Step 4) Matching strategies to situation, employ those best suited for the job. Step 5) Knowing your style to succeed, this will secure you the early wins you need to gain trust. Step 6) Negotiating success because not all battles can be won but other opportunities can present themselves, which allows for critical conversations to occur to gain consensus. 86 Step 7) Maintaining a strong team by allowing them to grow and affording them opportunities to do so, Step 8) Continuing to create relationships and strong coalitions both internal and external to achieve your goals, Step 9) Keeping your perspective and staying balanced; one can’t afford to lose focus and make bad decisions. Make time for yourself to reboot and reflect on you. To conclude a superintendent who is well equipped with essential strategies to communicate effectively with his or her respective board only benefits in respects to his or her success. As reflected in the data using the effective strategies superintendents set the platform of being a trustworthy individual. Each strategy that was used to communicate set protocols for him or her as it did for Superintendent Logan to manage and ultimately lead his district successfully. 87 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS Introduction Since the early 1800s, the head of schools has been called a superintendent. Over the years, the position has become more formalized and evolved from gaining knowledge as a practitioner to becoming a corporate role model (Eller and Carlson, 2009). As the profession has developed, so have the roles that must be fulfilled to meet the challenges associated with the superintendency (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). The challenges include addressing and resolving issues about accountability, depleting resources, contentious union relationships and precarious politics. Moreover, previous research has described that a superintendent’s success in implementing and overseeing change has a direct correlation to the relationships superintendents initiate with their board (Fusarelli, 2006). Although every district and superintendent is different, Eller and Carlson (2009) add that success is based on the needs of the board and the strengths a superintendent possesses as the leader of the school district. As a result, a superintendent is expected to foster a collaborative relationship with his/her respective school board to accomplish the necessary governing work to guide a district toward success. Therefore, understanding effective strategies successful superintendents employ to build relationships based on trust with their respective boards is essential to the success of the position. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the specific strategies utilized by superintendents to foster working relationships with their respective boards. Second, this study also provided research-based information as to how the strategies 88 were evaluated on their overall success during the superintendent’s entry period. Lastly, the hope of this study was to also demonstrate how effective formal/informal leadership preparation factors contributed to the success of the superintendent. The three research questions serving as the foundation for this study were: 1. What strategies/behaviors were successful superintendents using to build strong relationships and trust with their board during their entry period? 2. How did superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry into the superintendency? Summary of Findings A discussion and summary of the findings are presented in response to the three research questions that guided this study. There were a total of 8 research findings that shed light to the three research questions and the study overall. Research Question One: What strategies/behaviors did superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their board during their entry period? Both survey and interview data collected for this study were consistent with the research literature. Superintendents indicated that they felt that the best strategies utilized to build strong relationships and trust with their board during their entry period are to have a clear entry plan and to communicate with their boards on a regular basis. In regards to the entry plan, 90.6% of the superintendents did report developing an entry plan after being hired. Board members indicated on their survey results that only 46% of the 48 surveyed recalled the plan being created after the superintendent was hired, as 89 well. Although, the numbers varied by over 36%, this did not deter from the success of the superintendents within their district, based on the criteria to participate in this study. A follow up question was asked to determine if the superintendent received clear feedback of the entry plan within the first 90 days. The results showed that less than half of the superintendents felt they received clear feedback during their entry period with 64.1%. Only 23 of the 64 (35.9%) superintendents felt they did receive clear feedback. The board member results indicated that 34 of the 48 (78%) felt that they had provided clear feedback during the entry period. Even though the numbers may differ substantially between the superintendent and the board member responses, it stands to believe that the entry plan was used as a platform for many cases as it did for Superintendent Logan according to his interview, as a strategy of identifying needs of the district and served as a navigating guide to lead successfully. Watkins (2003) and Jentz and Murphy (2005) would agree that creating an entry plan as a first step set the foundation to determine strengths and vulnerabilities that needed to be addressed and agreed on collaboratively between the superintendent and his board. Moreover, it served as a systematic plan that was written with specific goals. Therefore, the entry plan that was used by the superintendent such as Logan in this study was an effective strategy in diagnosing characteristics of challenges of his school district. Once these challenges are identified, then goals were collaboratively created between the superintendent and his board. Some of the challenges identified from the superintendent and board surveys included board relations, fiscal operations and student achievement. Both Logan and Grey concurred in their interviews with the findings of the surveys. 90 Identified as second were the set of strategies used by superintendents with their respective boards, on a weekly and daily basis. The survey data indicated that superintendents used a board letter (68.8%), an individual phone call (60.9%) and in person communication (59.4%) more on a weekly basis than on a daily basis with their, respective board members. Both Superintendent Logan and Board President Gray not only used the same methods but preferred them as well and ranked them as their top three choices. The research literature by Covey (2006) and Hurley (2006) would conclude that these types of communication all lent themselves to creating transparency by which both the superintendents and the board members were comfortable with using. Overall, identified from the survey results, the research literature and the interviews concluded that a superintendent must identify specific strategies to address the needs of the school district. Therefore a strategy such as an entry plan can be created to visualize a “road map of imperatives,” so he or she can lead the school district successfully within the first 90 days (Watkins, 2003). Research Question Two: How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? The research literature, the survey results and the superintendent and board member interview response data indicated that communication strategies, communication activities and the entry plan were emerging themes. Therefore, highlighted in this section are: 1) evaluation of specific strategies used in communication, 2) evaluation of activities based on those strategies to build trust, and 3) the evaluation of the entry plan as it was employed to create goals that were assessed during the entry period. 91 The triangulation between the research literature, survey results and interview responses supported each other. The data from the surveys indicated that according to superintendents and board members, board letters (68.8% and 60.4%), individual phone calls (60.9% and 45.8%), in person communication (59.4% and 45.8%), and emails (53.1% and 56.3%), all were identified as most frequently used means to communicate on a weekly basis. The survey results indicated that preferred methods included individual phone calls, letter to the board, in person communication and email as the top four choices. The numbers represented in both sets of results reflected that the strategies were used almost as much as they were preferred. Both Superintendent Logan and President Grey found that there was a comfort in use in their strategies to communicate on a weekly basis. This affirmed that the communication strategies used and preferred allowed for real problems to be addressed, provoked learning, motivated individuals to tackle challenges and that the relationship that was ultimately created was enriched. Hurley (2006), Covey (2006) and Scott (2002, 2004) would affirm that communication between superintendents and their respective boards was effective during the first 90 days, since they all shared their sentiments favorably in respect to the strategies that were used and preferred. The results from the surveys indicated that the activity of individual communication, in order to build relationships between respective boards and their superintendents were directly related in high results to activities that were used to promote trust. Superintendents (64.6%) and board members (58.3%) rated individual communication as most frequently used activities. In addition, superintendents rated the activity of using frequent communication as most used to promote trust with 67.6% and 92 board members at 85.1% respectively. Covey (2006) and Hurley (2006) affirm that the level of communication increased as frequency and candor become greater. Both Logan and Grey shared their positive sentiments of having a relationship that was based on frequent and individual communication, which allowed for a sense of frankness to foster. Therefore, it is clear that individual and frequent communication both are an integral strategy and activity that work collaboratively to build a strong relationship of trust between the superintendent and his or her board. The evaluation of the entry plan was the next critical communication strategy used that was assessed for effectiveness. The majority of the superintendents (90.6%) surveyed responded that they developed an entry plan after they were hired for the position. However, of these superintendents, only 35.9% reported receiving clear feedback during their entry period. This leads to the question of clarity, as to what is considered clear feedback from both superintendents and their respective board, because board member responses reflected that 74% provided clear feedback about the superintendent’s entry plan, which is contradictory to the percentage reported by the superintendents. Although, there were a high percentage of superintendents (64.1%) who reported that they were not provided clear feedback during the entry period, it did not adversely affect their success in their respective districts. This is demonstrated through their API results for the three previous years and also in the selection criteria of participating candidates as successful superintendents of this study. In the case of the individual specific interviewees of this study an outside agency was used to assist in finding a qualified superintendent and thereafter also participated in 93 the creation of an entry plan. The entry plan was then used for the evaluation of the superintendent’s performance. Although Superintendent Logan’s entry plan was not evaluated until six months after being hired, he used it to his advantage to gauge his own performance by benchmarking his own success of early wins. Therefore, it was determined that the entry plan was used to guide the superintendent, in an informal manner of his own progress. Evaluated in a formal manner the superintendent had the advantage to demonstrate early wins and therefore gain trust in a larger scope. Watkins (2003) would concur that early wins built the superintendent’s credibility and therefore led to trust with his board. Research Question Three: What formal /informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry into the superintendency? Superintendents are perceived to have strong experience and knowledge of the profession that affords them the skills to successfully lead a school district. Therefore, specific effective training and knowledge should be outlined for success in the profession. The data from the research results, the surveys and the research literature identified three themes of superintendency preparation and their effectiveness as it pertained to this study: (1) the specific formal training, (2) the informal training, and (3) the strategies of trust that trainings offered superintendents to build strong relationships with their respective boards. According to the data, superintendents felt that, although formal preparation was useful in providing them with academic knowledge, it was informal preparation that truly presented the experience necessary to develop essential abilities and skills for the position. The survey results reflected that the top primary choices for both 94 superintendents and board members were experience (35.9%), interpersonal skills (42%) and trustworthiness (7.8%). Complimenting this information, the superintendent and board member also corroborated that experience was of upmost importance. Although the superintendent of Genner School District possessed a doctorate, it did not sway from the fact that years of experience in previous positions in public education in other districts afforded him opportunities by which he employed his skills in a practical manner. Kowalksi et al. (2010) concur with the findings that, of the most related experience, the principal-ship (elementary, middle school and high school) was the position most often held by those who participated. In regards to the surveys in this study, the superintendents responded that the majority (84.4%) had previously been principals. Houston and Eadie (2007) find that in-depth knowledge and skills as related to this study were invaluable assets that were deployed to situations as actions, so that superintendents led their districts effectively. Therefore, the skills learned and practiced as a principal were valuable to the position of superintendent. In addition to experience, interpersonal skills were considered important factors for the success of the superintendent. Both Logan and Grey agreed that trust began with the interpersonal skills first demonstrated at the interview and developed after being hired and throughout the entry period. According to Board President Grey, Logan made himself accessible to open conversations about the state of the district, what improvements could be made and what should be maintained within the district to be successful. To provide a more thorough assessment of the strategies, superintendents and board members were asked to provide their perspectives on training that specifically 95 addressed trust in building board relationships. Superintendents (65.6%) believed that they received effective training in communicating with their board. Board members who responded (96%) believed that superintendents received effective training in communicating with them. Therefore, the factor of interpersonal skills as related to communication was a valuable asset in promoting trust between the superintendent and his or her respective board. An effective superintendent keeps his or her board abreast of the major fields of K-12 education and governance using strategies to communicate effectively (Houston and Eadie, 2002). Therefore, a superintendent who is prepared through formal and informal realms has a greater knowledge base of such strategies, which he or she can employ. It is evident that a superintendent who has command of effective communication strategies can foster a strong relationship and the trust necessary to lead a district successfully. Limitations The limitations as stated in chapter one were: 1. The study was limited to the subjects who participated voluntarily; 2. The study was limited to the number of subjects who were surveyed and interviewed, and the amount of time available to conduct the study; 3. Validity of the study was limited to the reliability of the instruments used; 4. The study was limited to the validity and manner that the personal interviews were conducted by the members of the research team; and 5. Accuracy of information disclosed by individuals varied. Further limitations were discovered in the process of conducting this study. Such limitations include (a) the multiple reporting methods that interviewees used to prioritize 96 their first ranked choices, (b) the background of educational and professional experience that may have set a bias as to how each respondent felt toward the questions being asked and responded accordingly, and (c) that other board members were not interviewed to further analyze responses for further accuracy. To gain a better understanding of the findings, a holistic approach in analyzing and interpreting the links among the research literature, the instruments of measurement and the interviews was necessary. Thus, the practices identified under each question were not separate practices or strategies but were interconnected and part of a greater purpose. Therefore, the identified strategies that were used by successful superintendents as the most effective in communicating with their board that resulted in a strong relationship based on trust. Implications for Practice The results of this study had implications for superintendent practice in the areas of communication strategies, superintendent preparation, entry plans and experiences. To begin a superintendent should communicate in a clear and concise manner. Knowing when and how to employ particular strategies can give the superintendent the advantage to convey information effectively. Hurley (2006) would concur that a higher frequency in communicating lends itself to building trust. Both board members and superintendents in this study shared that they used and preferred in-person, letter to the board, individual phone calls, and email as the best means to communicate on a weekly basis. Second, is the informal and formal preparation for effective communication between a superintendent and his or her respective board. The superintendent has innate responsibilities to lead and maintain a successful district using effective communication 97 strategies. Therefore, a potential superintendent should take advantage of multiple opportunities of professional development and use the learned skills as a practice base. Formal preparation for effective communication between a superintendent and the board includes the idea that educational institutions have the obligation to provide and train superintendent candidates with current and effective strategies to communicate. The purpose is to establish common guidelines within academia so that veteran and novice superintendents learn and use successful strategies to establish a strong relationship based on trust. Kowalksi et al. (2011) and Glass (2006) agree that academic programs to train superintendents to communicate with boards are much needed. Third is the creation and implementation of an entry plan for a majority of superintendents employed within their first 90 days in office. Watkins (2003) states that an entry plan serves in navigating the complex responsibilities and priorities of an organization. Lastly, that experience by large, contributes greatly to the success of not only the superintendent but affords opportunities to him or her where there is practical hands on involvement with other individuals. These opportunities to be able to work with others can then be fostered to expand on interpersonal skills to build on relationships. Scott (2006) would also concur that the experiences only help to strengthen the skills a person seeks, as long as they align with the professional growth, and each opportunity is used as a platform to learn from it. Recommendations for Future Research Despite the limitations of the study, the findings contribute to the literature on strategies used by superintendents to build a strong relationship based on trust with their respective board. The current findings do provide some insight into current effective 98 strategies used by successful superintendents within the state of California. The strategies identified can be used to target areas for future research they include, first, a follow-up study to include more interviews conducted to increase the sample size, such two, or all board members. Second, a study can be conducted to include other administrators such as principals or district personnel to survey their perceptions in respect to the effectiveness of communication strategies of their respective superintendent. Third, the recommendation can be made that successful CEOs be part of a study to create a comparative analysis of strategies most frequently used versus preferred, to build a strong relationship of trust with their respective board and how those correlate to the educational field. Additionally, research can also be conducted to identify strategies that only first year superintendents are employing to lead in their first year in the superintendency versus veteran superintendents. Lastly, a study can be conducted to examine the correlation between only formal entry plans in relation to API. Conclusion The superintendent is the chief executive officer of his or her district. As such, inherent responsibilities and challenges are part of the everyday job. For a new superintendent, entering a district for the first time can be overwhelming with the pressures of accountability and tasks at hand. This being said, one of the foremost characteristics a superintendent must possess, is that of an effective communicator. As outlined by the study a superintendent must possess strategies to effectively communicate with his or her respective board and constituents. The effective strategies that were employed by successful superintendents in the state of California for the purpose of the study afforded them with accolades of accomplishments via their API 99 standing. Although API was only one measure and was used to identify the superintendent of this study, superintendent Logan did share his overall belief of what he felt had made him successful with his board: my priority has been to maintain good relationships with the people I work with, the board being some of these people. There is priority in communicating with all of them. API is one piece of the puzzle that is communicated to being successful but not the most important. As superintendent my job is to bring people together for the purpose of understanding that we are here to educate students, that they [students] are learning in the classrooms, all that is done via communication. First, as outlined by Houston and Eadie (2007) a savvy superintendent is one who ultimately and consistently produces a high impact and effective governance. Second, that a successful superintendent assists in creating a feeling of strong ownership in a school board in relation to its governing work, that they have collaboratively created between them. In order to have strong district governance the superintendent must employ effective strategies to build a relationship of trust with his or her board. The findings in the study revealed that successful superintendents did implement similar strategies that they considered very important in order to build a strong relationship of trust with their board. The strategies and methods were, 1) board letters, emails, individual phone calls, and in person communication, coupled with the commitment of frequency and frankness by which these strategies were used, 2) communication activities that were employed to build a strong relationship of trust such as frequent and individual communication 3) an entry plan implemented by a majority of superintendents that was used as a road map for a successful entry period, and 4) the formal and informal preparation that prepared individuals for the superintendency in respect to building a strong relationship with their board. 100 The findings of the study indicated that the success of a superintendent is contingent on the relationship he or she created and maintained with his or her respective board. Therefore it is essential that effective strategies of communication are used, positive interpersonal skills to deliver such communication are employed, experience be skillfully developed, and a well thought out entry plan can be created and evaluated over time to support the professional growth of the superintendent and be used to gauge success as well. All of the above factors are vital to the success of building a strong relationship based on trust between a superintendent and his or her board. 101 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and Grogan, M. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Paper commissioned for the First Meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation. Wingspread Conference Center. Racine, WI. Behan, B. (2007). New CEO boardroom survival guide. Chief Executive, 225, 29- 32. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: strategies for taking charge. New York, N.Y: Harper & Row Publishers. Björk, L. G., Glass, T. E., and Brunner, C. C. (2005). Characteristics of American school superintendents. In L. G. Björk, & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 19- 43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., and Young, M. D. (2005). National education reform reports: Implications for preparation and development. In L. G. Björk, & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 45-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bredeson, P. W., and Kose, B. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of school superintendents’ instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(5), 1-21. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v15n5/. Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Callan, M.F., and Levinson, W. (2011). Achieving success for new and aspiring superintendents. (pp.233-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 0104410). In L. G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 19-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cohen, K. R. (2008). Building CEO-board relationships that last. Trustee, 61(9), 21. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, N.Y: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust. New York, NY: Free Press Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mix methods approaches (2rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. 102 Duck, S. and McMahan, D.T. (2012). The basics of communication: A relational perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Eadie, D. (2003). Eight keys to an extraordinary board-superintendent partnership. Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishing Group. EdSource (2008). Data retrieved from: http://www.edsource.org on February 8, 2011. Eller, J., and Carlson, H.C. (2009). So now you’re the superintendent! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, N.Y: Ferrar, Straus, and Gioux Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Jolimont, VIC. Mercer House. Fullan, M. (2006). Partners in learning: Learning to lead change, building system capacity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Furaselli, B. C. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues, of continuity, conflict, and community(1), 44-57. Furaselli, B. C. and Furaselli, L. D. (2005). Reconceptualizing the superintendency. In L. G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 187-206). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., and Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Glass, T., Björk, L., and Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American School Superintendent: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrator. Glenn, J., Hickey, W., and Sherman, R. (2009). Consultant perceptions of skills that school boards value in superintendent applicants. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(4), 1-20. Greene, J.C, Caracelli, V.J., and Graham, W.D. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evalaution and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. Hatrick, E. B. (2010). Searching for excellence in a superintendent. The School Administrator, 67(9), 41-42. Hochschild, J., and Scovronick, N. (2003). The American Dream and Public Schools. (pp.29-32). New York, NY: Oxford University Press 103 Houston, P. and Eadie, D. (2002). The board savvy superintendent. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Hoyle, R. (1993). On the relation between data and theory. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1094-1096. Hoyle, J. R., Björk, L. G., Collier, V., and Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO: Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hoyle, J. R. (1993). Professional standards for the superintendency. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrator. Hurley, R. F. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, 55-62. Jentz, B. C., and Murphy, J. T. (2005). Starting confused: How leaders start when they don’t know where to start. Phi Delta Kappa, 86(10), 736-744. Kotter, J.P., (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York, N.Y: The Free Press. Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L. G. Björk, & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, I. P., and Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The American School Superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrator. Kowalski, T. J., Petersen, G. J., and Fusarelli, L. D. (2009). Novice superintendents and the efficacy of professional preparation. Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(4), 16-26. Leightwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199. Lytle, J. H. (2009). The context of superintendency entry: A veteran educator’s discourse on using the transition period to your advantage. School Administrator, 66(5), 1- 9. Marzano, R., Waters, T., and McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Neff, T. J., and Citrin, J. M. (2005). You’re in charge-now what? Building the CEO- board relationships. New York, NY: Crown Business. 104 Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. Orr, M. T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and determination. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1362-1403. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., and Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial conversations: tools for talking when stakes are high. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies Peterson, G.J., Fusarelli, L.D., and Kowalski, T.J. (2008). Novice superintendent perceptions of preparation adequacy and problems of practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education. 3(2), 1-22. Quinn, T. (2007). Preparing non-educators for the superintendency. Educational Digest, 73(4), 54-60. Reina, D. S., and Reina, M. L. (2007). Building sustainable trust. Organizational Development Practitioner, 39(1), 36-41. Salkind, N.J. (2008). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Scott, S. (2004). Fierce conversations: Achieving success at work and in life one conversation at a time. New York, N.Y: Berkley Publishing Group. Scott, S. (2011). Fierce leadership: A bold alternative to the worst “best” practices of business today. New York. N.Y: Crown Publishing Group. Smith, J. L. (2008). A recipe for effective leadership. Quarterly, 43(13), 42-44. Solomon, B., and Preis, S. (2006). School board relationships, roles, and effectiveness: A case study. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration Annual Convention. Sutton, C., Jobe, M.P., McCord, R. S., Jordan, T., and Jordan, K. F. (2008). 2007 state of the superintendency mini-survey: Aspiring to the superintendency. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrator. Teitel, L. (2006). Supporting school system leaders: The state of executive training programs for school superintendents. Harvard Graduate School of Education, 65-79. 105 Townsend, R. S., Johnston, G. L.. Gross, G.E., Lynch, P., Garcy, , L. Roberts., B. and Novotney, P.B. (2007). Effective superintendent school board practices: Strategies for developing and maintaining good relationships with your board. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Wajnet, T. and Miles, S. A. (2009) Advice to a new CEO: How to handle your board. Forbes Magazine, 1-3. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://forbes.com/2009/11/12/ceo-board-relations-leadership-ceonetwork- managing.html Waters, J. T., and Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. A working Paper. Denver, CO: McRel. Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical strategies for new leaders at all levels. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 106 APPENDIX A Superintendent Recruitment Letter June 10, 2011 Dear Superintendent _______________________, Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may determine what strategies and/or behaviors superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during the entry period. The current study may serve as a useful best practice resource for new superintendents who strive to establish, create and maintain strong relationships with their school boards, such as yours. My name is Adriana Pestonji and I am a part of a thematic research team under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. You have been identified as a successful superintendent and someone who can add to the knowledge base of superintendent research. If you agree to participate in this research study, please complete the superintendent survey and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Also included in this packet is a survey for your board president or designee. A copy of the board president or designee survey has been included for your information. We would appreciate your assistance in ensuring that your board president or designee receives the information and returns their survey. Your participation in the study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at anytime. Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. All information obtained in connection with this study will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and dissertation committee members. No data will be presented in any manner where an individual and/or district can be identified. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the participation in this study, you can contact Adriana Pestonji or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Adriana G. Pestonji Dr. Michael F. Escalante Researcher Dissertation Chair guerr1@usc.edu mescalan@usc.edu 107 APPENDIX B Board Member Recruitment Letter June 10, 2011 Dear Board Member of______________________________, I would like to congratulate you on having a successful superintendent leading your school district. My name is Adriana Pestonji and I am a part of a thematic research team under the guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. You have been identified as being part of a successful governance team and someone who can add to the knowledge base of superintendent/school board research. Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this packet. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may determine what strategies and/or behaviors superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during the entry period. The current study may serve as a useful best practice resource for new superintendents who strive to establish, create and maintain strong relationships with their school boards, such as yours. If you agree to participate in this research study, please complete the board member survey and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Your participation in the study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at anytime. Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study. All information obtained in connection with this study will be kept confidential and anonymous by the researcher and dissertation committee members. No data will be presented in any manner where an individual and/or district can be identified. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the participation in this study, you can contact Adriana Pestonji or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Adriana G. Pestonji Dr. Michael F. Escalante Researcher Dissertation Chair guerr1@usc.edu mescalan@usc.edu (818) XXX-XXXX (818) XXX-XXXX cell 108 APPENDIX C Superintendent Survey Your responses will remain anonymous and will not be shared with any board members. These questions refer to the Entry Period (initial 90 to 100 days) of the Superintendency. 1. Did you have an entry plan? A plan of action for the first 90 to 100 days. Yes No If yes, was it a formal written document? Yes No 2. Was there any discussion of any entry plan during the interview/recruitment process? Yes No 3. During the entry period (initial 90 to 100 days), how often did you review your entry plan with the board? Does not apply Never 1-2 times 3-4 times More than 4 4. What did you perceive to be your greatest initial challenges? Rank Top 3 _____ Board relationships _____ Community/business relations _____ Facilities _____ Fiscal operations/budget _____ Labor relations/collective bargaining Superintendent Survey 109 _____ Media Relations _____ Parent Groups/PTA _____ Student achievement _____ Vision/strategic planning _____ Other ______________________ 5. Did the board prioritize the same challenges? Yes No 6. How often did you use these methods or strategies to communicate your board during the entry period? Select how often (D=Daily, W=Weekly, M=Monthly, N=Never) _____ Blog (Web Journal) _____ Email _____ Fax _____ Group phone call (i.e., Blackboard Connect/Connect-Ed, TeleParent) _____ In person communication _____ Individual phone call _____ Retreat (Board/Superintendent) _____ Social networking (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) _____ Text message _____ Through other staff members _____ Letter to the Board _____ Other ______________________ 7. What methods or strategies did you prefer to use to communicate with your board during the entry period? Select how often (D=Daily, W=Weekly, M=Monthly, N=Never) 110 _____ Blog (Web Journal) _____ Email _____ Fax _____ Group phone call (i.e., Blackboard Connect/Connect-Ed, TeleParent) _____ In person communication _____ Individual phone call _____ Retreat (Board/Superintendent) _____ Social networking (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) _____ Text message _____ Through other staff members _____ Letter to the Board _____ Other ______________________ 8. Which best describes your leadership efforts or focus during the entry period? Rank in order: 1 (high) to 4 (low) _____ Structural (Organizational) _____ Political (Networking/ Negotiating) _____ Human Resources (People Skills) _____ Symbolic (Visionary) 9. How would you rate your overall relationship with your board during the first 90 to 100 days? _____ Very satisfied _____ Satisfied _____ Unsatisfied _____ Very unsatisfied 111 10. Do you believe your formal/informal training adequately prepared you for entry into the superintendency? Formal Yes No Informal Yes No 11. Where did you receive your most effective training for entry into the superintendency? Rank your top 3 responses _____ Foundations _____ Government agency _____ Mentor/partnership _____ Personal research _____ Prior administrative experience _____ Professional associations _____ University based programs _____ None _____ Other _______________________ 12. Did you have any training on how to effectively communicate with your board members? Yes No 13. What activities did you use during the entry period with your board to promote trust? Rank in order of importance _____ Frequent communication _____ Secure early wins _____ Meeting with key stakeholders _____ Other __________________________ 14. What activities did you use during the entry period to build strong relationships with your board? Rank in order of importance _____ Retreat _____ Community/team building 112 _____ Individual communication _____ Additional board workshops _____ Informal meetings _____ Other __________________________ 15. What was your perception of the board’s level of trust with you upon initial entry? Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 High 16. What was your perception of the board’s level of trust with you by the end of the entry period (90 to 100 days)? Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 High 17. Did the board provide direct, clear feedback to you about your performance at the conclusion of the entry period? Yes No 18. What factor(s) lead to you being hired? Check all that applies Experience Training/Education Prior success Interpersonal skills Trustworthiness Political connections Professional connections Other _____________________________ 19. What factor(s) led to your success during the entry period? Rank top 3 _____ Experience 113 _____ Training/Education _____ Prior success _____ Interpersonal skills _____ Trustworthiness _____ Political connections _____ Professional connections _____ Other __________________________ 20. What professional experience prepared you for the superintendency? Check all that apply Prior superintendent experience Deputy Superintendent Asst. Superintendent Business Curriculum Human Resource Director Principal Assistant principal Teacher Other _____________________________ 114 APPENDIX D Board President/Board Member Designee Survey Your responses will remain anonymous and will not be shared with the Superintendent. These questions refer to the Entry Period (initial 90 to 100 days) of the Superintendency. 21. Was the board aware of the superintendent having a plan of entry? A plan of action for the first 90 to 100 days. Yes No If yes, was it formally presented to the board? Yes No 22. Was there any discussion of any entry plan during the interview/recruitment process? Yes No 23. During the entry period (initial 90 to 100 days), how often did the Superintendent review his/her entry plan with the board? Does not apply Never 1-2 times 3-4 times More than 4 24. What did the board observe to be the greatest initial challenges facing the superintendent when he/she started the job? Rank Top 3 _____ Board relationships _____ Community/business relations _____ Facilities _____ Fiscal operations/budget _____ Labor relations/collective bargaining _____ Media Relations Board President /Board Member Designee Survey 115 _____ Parent Groups/PTA _____ Student achievement _____ Vision/strategic planning _____ Other ______________________ 25. Did the Superintendent prioritize the same challenges? Yes No 26. How often does your Superintendent use these methods or strategies to communicate with the board during the entry period? Select how often (D=Daily, W=Weekly, M=Monthly, N=Never) _____ Blog (Web Journal) _____ Email _____ Fax _____ Group phone call (i.e., Blackboard Connect/Connect-Ed, TeleParent) _____ In person communication _____ Individual phone call _____ Retreat (Board/Superintendent) _____ Social networking (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) _____ Text message _____ Through other staff members _____ Letter to the Board _____ Other ______________________ 116 27. What methods or strategies did the board prefer the Superintendent use to communicate during the entry period? Select how often (D=Daily, W=Weekly, M=Monthly, N=Never) _____ Blog (Web Journal) _____ Email _____ Fax _____ Group phone call (i.e., Blackboard Connect/Connect-Ed, TeleParent) _____ In person communication _____ Individual phone call _____ Retreat (Board/Superintendent) _____ Social networking (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) _____ Text message _____ Through other staff members _____ Letter to the Board _____ Other ______________________ 28. Which best describes the Superintendent’s leadership efforts or focus during the entry period? Rank in order: 1 (high) to 4 (low) _____ Structural (Organizational) _____ Political (Networking/ Negotiating) _____ Human Resources (People 117 Skills) _____ Symbolic (Visionary) 29. How would the board rate the overall relationship with the Superintendent during the first 90 to 100 days? _____ Very satisfied _____ Satisfied _____ Unsatisfied _____ Very unsatisfied 30. Does the board believe the Superintendent was adequately trained for the position? Yes No 31. Where does the board believe the Superintendent received his/her most effective training for entry into the superintendency? Rank your top 3 responses _____ Foundations _____ Government agency _____ Mentor/partnership _____ Personal research _____ Prior administrative experience _____ Professional associations _____ University based programs _____ None _____ Other _______________________ 32. Was the Superintendent properly trained on how to effectively communicate with board members? Yes No 33. What activities did the Superintendent use during the entry period that most effectively promoted trust with the board? Rank in order of importance _____ Frequent communication _____ Secure early wins 118 _____ Meeting with key stakeholders _____ Other __________________________ 34. What activities did the Superintendent use during the entry period that helped build a strong relationship with the board? Rank in order of importance _____ Retreat _____ Community/team building _____ Individual communication _____ Additional board workshops _____ Informal meetings _____ Other __________________________ 35. What was the board’s level of trust in the Superintendent upon initial entry? Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 High 36. What was the board’s level of trust in the Superintendent by the end of the entry period (90 to 100 days)? Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 High 37. Did the board provide direct, clear feedback to the superintendent about his/her performance at the conclusion of the entry period? Yes No 38. What factor(s) lead to the board’s decision to hire the Superintendent? Check all that applies Experience Training/Education Prior success 119 Interpersonal skills Trustworthiness Political connections Professional connections Other _____________________________ 39. What factor(s) does the board believe led to the Superintendent’s success during the entry period? Rank top 3 _____ Experience _____ Training/Education _____ Prior success _____ Interpersonal skills _____ Trustworthiness _____ Political connections _____ Professional connections _____ Other __________________________ 40. What minimum professional experience would the board like to see in a Superintendent? Check all that apply Prior superintendent experience Deputy Superintendent Asst. Superintendent Business Curriculum Human Resource Director Principal 120 Assistant principal Teacher Other _____________________________ 121 APPENDIX E Conceptual Framework Conceptual Frameworks Leadership, Communication, & Trust A Comparison to Bolman & Deal’s Four Frame Model Bolman & Deal’s Watkins’ Hurley’s Covey’s Scott's Four Frame Model for Effective Leadership First 90 Days Model for Trust Behaviors that Establish Trust Fierce Conversations from X to Y: Seven Principles (10 Factors) Structural Leaders: • Do their homework • Rethink the relationship of structure, strategy and environment • Focus on implementation • Experiment • Match strategy to situation • Achieve alignment • Risk tolerance: spend more time explaining options and risks • Alignment of individual and organizational interests • Talk straight • Deliver results • Naming and addressing the issues truthfully and effectively • Impetus for change • Shared enthusiasm for agility, continued learning and epiphanies, shared standard of performance Human Resource Leader: • Communicate their strong beliefs in people • Put people first • Are visible and accessible • Empower the people • Negotiate Success • Accelerate your learning • Build your team • Expedite everyone • Security • Benevolent concern • Predictability and integrity • Level of communication: increase frequency and candor • Level of adjustment • Demonstrate respect • Listen first • Get better by learning and seeking feedback • Extend trust • Right wrongs • Improvement of leadership effectiveness, development of quality "bench" to fill future leadership positions • A relationship with customers that extends beyond price, customers are engaged on an emotional level 122 Political Leader: • Clarify what they want • Assess the distribution of power • Focus energy on building relationships and networks •Persuade first, negotiate second, and coerce only if necessary • Secure early wins • Create coalitions • Relative power • Capability • Confront reality by addressing issues • Practice accountability by holding oneself and others accountable • Create transparency • Focus on results • Deep seated accountability • Initiatives executed • High levels of alignment, collaboration, partnership at all levels throughout the organization and the healthier financial performance that goes with it • Effectively confronting attitudinal, performance or behavioral issues; enhanced employee capacity to serve as effective agents for success Symbolic Leader: • Lead by example • Frame experiences • Capture attention • Embed vision in a story • Respect and use history • Number of similarities • Clarify expectations by creating a vision and agreements • Show loyalty • The timely resolution of periodic leadership challenges, clear priorities 123 APPENDIX F Research Question Alignment Chart Survey Question Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Research Question 3 1 X X 2 X X 3 X 4 X X 5 X X 6 X X 7 X X 8 X X 9 X 10 X X 11 X X X 12 X X 13 X X 14 X X 15 X X 16 X X 17 X X X 18 X X X 19 X 20 X Totals 16 16 6 Question 1 : Strategies Behaviors = Relationships, Trust 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Question 2 : Implement/ Evaluate 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Question 3 : Training / Preparation 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study looks at the transition period of the superintendent, specifically what strategies and skills, as well as frameworks, are employed as part of their entry plan. This is a qualitative study centered on the following research questions: 1. What strategies are successful superintendents using to build strong relationships with the board during their entry period? 2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists superintendents for entry into the superintendency? ❧ This study utilizes information gathered from districts across the state of California. The study was conducted by 9 members of a cohort at the University of Southern California through a collaborative thematic dissertation process. The thematic dissertation group employed two research instruments: a qualitative paper survey of both superintendents and board member designees, and a qualitative interview protocol administered through personal interviews with 45 superintendents and their designees. The superintendents were chosen from districts that have achieved a minimum growth of 30 points over the past three years or sustained growth with an API score above 800. Only superintendents whose district population has maintained at least 2,000 students were selected to participate. ❧ The position of the superintendent has evolved from instructional leader to a more in depth position reflecting traits of a chief executive officer. The job has become complex with multiple responsibilities and added accountability measures. Although there are programs and trainings that address professional development of the superintendency, they are limited in addressing what effective skills and strategies are being used to create trust between a superintendent and his or her board within their first 90 days of entry to a district. One of the study’s goals was to ask superintendents if there was an entry plan created to build communication based on trust with their respective board. The second question asked if board designees concur that a formal written plan was effective in communication to build trust. This also focused on the need for future studies and perhaps implementation into the professional training programs and education available to aspiring, as well as current, superintendents.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board training: its effect on southern California governance teams

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

California school boards: professional development and the Masters in governance training

Asset Metadata

Creator Guerrero-Pestonji, Adriana (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 05/02/2012

Defense Date 02/23/2012

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

Tag Board,Communication,entry plan,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationships,strategies,Trust

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email apest@sbcglobal.net,Apestonji@gusd.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-22056

Unique identifier UC11289401

Identifier usctheses-c3-22056 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GuerreroPe-711.pdf

Dmrecord 22056

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Guerrero-Pestonji, Adriana

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