Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A tale of two principals: the complexity of fostering and achieving organizational improvement
(USC Thesis Other)
A tale of two principals: the complexity of fostering and achieving organizational improvement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A TALE OF TWO PRINCIPALS:
THE COMPLEXITY OF FOSTERING AND ACHIEVING ORGANIZATIONAL
IMPROVEMENT
by
Frances Jacqueline Martinez-Kellar
________________________________________________________________________
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 Frances Jacqueline Martinez-Kellar
ii
Man knows himself only to the extent that he knows the world;
He becomes aware of himself only within the world,
And aware of the world only within himself.
Every object, well contemplated, opens up a new organ
Of perception within us.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
iii
Dedication
For my Family: Past, Present, and Future.
iv
Acknowledgements
My completion of this dissertation is the culmination of countless hours writing,
researching, and reflecting on all I have learned during my three years of study here at
USC. It also represents what will now become the close of a very long period of my life
in which I have been a student in a formal educational setting consecutively for close to a
quarter century. To my great fortune, I have been surrounded by a number of people who
have supported and encouraged me through all of my endeavors. I wish to now take a
moment to formally acknowledge and deeply thank all those who have helped contribute
to the success of this incredible achievement.
To begin, this dissertation, and all the work it entailed, would not have possible
were it not for my Dissertation Committee Chair, Dr. Julie Slayton. Julie, I am forever
grateful for your mentorship, constant support, and encouragement for my ideas - even
when I was still unsure what those ideas were. Thank you for always challenging me to
press upon those ideas and for pushing me towards a potential I did not even realize was
possible. Though I have not said it until now, thank you for being my role model in
encouraging me to challenge the status quo and to sharply question the “world of
education” as I knew it. I will miss walking away from your office with a few new titles
of books or articles to read; you have made me a better scholar, a more inquisitive
researcher, and an even more passionate educator for it. From the bottom of my heart:
Thank You.
A great deal of gratitude is also reserved for Dr. Robert Rueda, Dr. Sylvia
Rousseau, and Dr. Paula Carbone, all of who have served as my dissertation committee
members. Dr. Rueda and Dr. Rousseau: I am incredibly thankful to have been a student in
v
your classes. I knew from the engaging lectures and thought provoking papers that I had
during my very first semester in the Ed.D. Program, I had come to the right place. Thank
you for your encouragement and feedback, especially during this dissertation process. Dr.
Carbone, thank you for your enthusiasm and interest in the work I have presented to you.
I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to share my ideas with you.
Throughout all my years of schooling, my family has been a pillar of support and
encouragement amidst the many, many challenges we have faced as a family. Mom and
Dad: Thank you for encouraging me to dream bigger, reach higher, and relentlessly
pursue all that I desire for myself. You have taught me the value of hard work,
dedication, and the incredible magnitude of an education; those are values I have carried
and will always carry with me for the rest of my life. Thank you for being the parents I
needed. To my sisters: Thank you for always serving as an unspoken reminder of the role
I play as your older sister and how I must always lead by example. Though our journeys
may differ, may you always strive for the farthest galaxy and explore the uncharted
waters our family has yet to tame. Thank you also to my aunts and uncles who,
throughout my life, have helped in many ways and have been tremendously supportive in
all my endeavors. At this moment, I wish to also acknowledge my grandparents: Frances
Rios, Ralph Rios, Josephine Martinez, Francisco Martinez, Sr., my aunt, Yolanda Rios,
and my uncle, Robert Martinez – all of who would have been so incredibly proud to see
me graduate as Dr. Frances Jacqueline Martinez.
Above all, I am indebted to my husband-to-be, Jerry Kellar, who has been nothing
short of amazing as I have worked to earn this degree and complete this dissertation.
From late night coffee runs, to waking me in the early hours of the morning to write, to
vi
supporting me in my decision to take a year from full-time work for the first time in my
professional life, just so I could devote all my energy and resources to completing the
dissertation; everything he has done for me throughout this journey greatly demonstrates
his unwavering encouragement, support, and love as I pursued my dream of earning my
doctorate. Jerry, I look forward to supporting all the dreams you have for yourself – just
as you have supported mine. I am excited for a long and prosperous life with you filled
with so many opportunities to create many more wonderful memories and to embark
upon exciting new adventures. Our life, even amidst the piles of books and papers, is a
delightful one; now it’s time to live our life together gloriously. Let the celebration begin!
vii
Table of Contents
Epigraph ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
Abstract xi
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Problem and Its Underlying Framework 1
Background 2
Accountability Mechanisms and No Child Left Behind 2
Issues in Leader Development 5
School Reform Efforts 7
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Research Question 12
Importance of the Study 13
Methodology 13
Assumptions 14
Limitations 14
Delimitations 15
Definition of Terms 16
Chapter 2: A Review of the Literature 18
The Role of the Principalship in Organizational Improvement 18
Trait Perspective 19
Behavioral Perspective 27
Operational Perspective 41
Approaches to Leadership: Stylistic Practice 51
Instructional Leadership 52
Transformational Leadership 58
Distributed Leadership 65
Cognitive Elements of Leadership: Mental Models, Leader Self-Efficacy and
Leader Creativity 70
Mental Models 70
Leader Self-Efficacy 75
Immunities to Change 84
Leader Creativity 86
Conceptual Framework 92
Conclusion 104
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 106
Research Question 106
Research Design 106
Conclusion 117
viii
Chapter 4: Findings 119
Case Study 1: Principal A – Crystal Castle Academy 120
Case Study 2: Principal B – Elysian Fields High School 155
Cross-Case Inductive Analysis 185
Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations for Further Study 191
References 202
Appendices 216
Appendix A: Achieving Informed Consent 216
Appendix B: Principal Interview Protocol 218
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 220
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Faculty Participants 221
Appendix E: Timeline for Study 222
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Inductively Developed Thematic Categories Emerging from
the Benchmark Analysis Worksheet – Crystal Castle Academy, Principal A 126
Table 2: Inductive Cross-Case Categorization Emerging from
Case Studies for Principal A (Crystal Castle Academy) and
Principal B (Elysian Fields High School) 187
x
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Nine Realms of Responsibility 32
Figure 1.2: Leadership Traits Identified by DeRue, Wellman, Nahrgang,
and Humphrey (2011) 35
Figure 1.3: DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey (2011)
Integrated Model of Leader Trait and Leader Behavior Theories 39
Figure 1.4: Machida & Schaubroeck (2011) Model of Leader Development
Through Lens of Leader Self-Efficacy 77
Figure 1.5: Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, and Harms (2008) Framework for
Leader Self-Efficacy And Leadership Efficacy 82
Figure 1.6: Outline of Sternberg’s (2007) Eight Approaches to Creative
Leadership 89
Figure 1.7: Presentation of Conceptual Framework 92
xi
Abstract
This dissertation served as a pilot study that tested a set of ideas drawn from the existing
literature grounded in organizational learning theory, leadership theory, sociocultural
theory, and the social and psychological constructs demonstrating leader behavior and
capacity. The study examined the intersection within four individual components of
leadership and how that intersection lead to demonstrated leadership behaviors and
practices that influenced the possibility of enacting organizational change. To answer the
following research question: to what extent does a principal’s own mental models, level
of leader self-efficacy, her immunities to change, and her level of leader creativity
influence the principal to enact her style of leadership in fostering and achieving
organizational improvement, a multi-case study method employing both a single-case and
a cross-case inductive analysis was used to examine the interactions and intersections of
these leader elements and leader behaviors as they occurred within the organizational
context. Interviews, observations, and documents collected at two separate high schools
served as the primary methods for data collection. The findings suggest that the role of
the principal is an increasingly complex one when it comes to understanding how the
intersection of a principal’s mental models, levels of leader self-efficacy and her own
immunities to change lead a principal to enact a level of leader creativity that influences
the level of leadership practices she will employ to promote transformational
organizational change. Implications for the field include improving opportunities for
professional development and reflection for principals as well as a need to rethink the
expectations placed on principals and what they are able to accomplish without the
appropriate levels of developmental support.
1
Chapter 1: Statement of The Problem and The Underlying Framework
There has been a continuous dialogue among various stakeholders regarding the
best ways to address and close the persisting achievement gap in the United States. Some
of this dialogue has led to the development of legislation and educational policy. Starting
with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and its subsequent
reauthorizations – No Child Left Behind (2001) and, most recently, Race to the Top
(2010) – policy makers have sought to establish accountability mechanisms that focus on
improving academic quality and student achievement. Yet, these newest approaches with
NCLB (2001) and Race to the Top (2010) focus on the classroom level rather than the
context within which these classrooms reside or the leadership necessary to create real
change in either academic quality or student achievement.
Leadership is integral towards achieving organizational improvement (Northouse,
2007 Sternberg, 2007; Hallinger, 2003; Ruff & Shoho, 2005; Machida & Schaubroeck,
2011). Several authors have conducted research in areas investigating the psychological
aspects of leadership such as leader creativity, mental models, and leader self-efficacy
and how these elements influence leadership practice (Sternberg, 2007; Ruff & Shoho;
Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Others have focused their research on investigating the
behavioral aspects of leadership surrounding the ways a leader builds organizational
relationships and promotes a culture of inquiry or reflection (Hallinger, 2003; Northouse,
2007). This study examined the extent to which a principal’s leadership practice leads to
the possibility of instructional improvement. This study also examined the ways in which
the interpersonal and psychological attributes of a leader influence the choices and
practices that lead to or constrain the possibility of organizational improvement.
2
Background of the Problem
Educational reform is not a new idea. Hargreaves and Goodson (2006) suggest
that since the 1990’s to the present, American education has experienced a period in
reform surrounding standardization and marketing. They also assert that this most recent
wave of educational reform has been the result of a loss of faith by the general public
surrounding the lack of schools’ ability to increase students’ academic performance and
close the achievement gap (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). The authors attribute this loss
of faith to the surplus of information that has become increasingly available over the past
decade. In a world that has seen an increase in the accessibility of information through
technological advances, especially within the past decade, our world has become more
integrated socially (ibid.). The release of data surrounding achievement losses or gains
reported by schools and made available to the public has added to the debate on what
stakeholders are doing to improve gaps in academic performance (ibid.). Hargreaves and
Goodson (2006) argue that the public’s loss of faith in our schools have led to accepted
beliefs surrounding the need for increasing levels of school accountability, establishing
performance targets, developing and implementing high-stakes testing, and implementing
intervention (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). These accepted beliefs by stakeholders
highlighted by Hargreaves and Goodson (2006) lie at the heart of our most recent reform
efforts in education and educational policy in the advent of No Child Left Behind (2001).
Accountability Mechanisms and No Child Left Behind (2001)
The accountability mechanisms outlined in No Child Left Behind (2001) have
held schools, school districts, and states to a higher standard than what existed prior to
3
the enactment of this law. The law requires states to: 1) adopt standards and assessments
that prepare students to succeed in college, the workplace, and the global economy; 2)
build and manage data systems that measure student growth and inform teachers and
school leaders about instructional progress; 3) recruit, reward, retain, and develop
effective teachers and school leaders, particularly in high need areas; and 4) turn around
the lowest-performing schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). These are the core
requirements geared at establishing external and internal accountability measures for
states, districts, and schools.
No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB, 2001) blueprint for strengthening schools
suggest that schools will meet these requirements by: 1) providing more rigorous
coursework, 2) hiring science and math professionals to serve as adjunct teachers, 3)
using empirically proven methods of instruction, and 4) continuing to hold schools
accountable for results (United States Department of Education, 2002). NCLB (2001)
also places a large emphasis on the recruiting and hiring highly qualified teachers.
However, NCLB (2001) delves little into discussion about what constitutes high-quality
instruction. Furthermore, the NCLB (2001) blueprint mentions training teachers in
empirically based instructional methods, but fails to fully define what this actually means.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2006) point to the ambiguity of improving teacher
learning and training as they describe Title II of NCLB (2001), otherwise known as the
Improving Teacher Quality Program, where it states that state funds received through
NCLB (2001) may be utilized to ensure teachers obtain the necessary training to possess
the subject-matter knowledge and instructional skills needed to teach their academic
subjects. Furthermore, funds can be used to support principals in developing their
4
instructional leadership skills in order to help teachers teach and students learn (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 2006).
In the section of Title II that discusses improving teacher quality, it is noted that it
is only 79 words in total length (ibid.). This is important to note because the brief
description of Title II within NCLB (2001) does not exhibit a level of depth in
understanding on not only defining what improving teacher quality meant, but defining
how principals can support the improvement of teacher quality through their enactment of
instructional leadership. Furthermore, Title II makes repeated use of the terms subject-
matter knowledge, academic subjects, or academic content standards. There is a great
deal of emphasis on teacher development in the area of curriculum and content
knowledge, but in a section that was supposedly devoted to improve the quality of
teaching, there is little discussion about how teachers can achieve enhanced capacity for
content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006).
Furthermore, leadership is mentioned only twice in Title II stating that principals need to
have the instructional leadership skills to help teachers teach and to help students meet
the challenges within the content standards set forth by their respective state
governments. Title II does not go into any further detail as to how leaders are to develop
the skills necessary to meet these demands.
The program blueprint of No Child Left Behind (2001) fails to account for one
large component: school leadership. As Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) point
out: school leaders now have the responsibility to improve teaching and learning for an
increasingly diverse student population, dexterously facilitate teaching learning and
professional development, and navigate the pressing political climate and educational
5
reform context both at the state and federal levels (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey,
2008). To complicate matters even more, much of the legislation surrounding education
reform fails to account for the capacity and development of leadership (Darling-
Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, & Weeks, 2007). When it comes to leadership,
assumptions are being made that school leaders automatically possess the capacity for not
just leadership, but the kind of change leadership that results in the school achievement
outcomes desired from No Child Left Behind (2001) and Race to the Top (2010). Policy
makers and other stakeholders are not taking into account the underlying attributes and
hidden complexities of leadership.
Issues in Leader Development
Darling-Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, and Weeks (2007) discuss issues in
leader development in the advent of No Child Left Behind (2001). The authors argue that
policymakers have placed a large emphasis on reform efforts surrounding a direct
connection to student learning, teacher recruitment and training, credentialing and
evaluation, and curriculum issues surrounding the development of content standards,
textbooks, standardized testing, and accountability (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
Furthermore, the considerable role the principal must play in creating the necessary
conditions for improving student learning outcomes has been overlooked (ibid).
Principals have experienced increasing demands through these reform efforts but
leadership development has not sufficiently prepared principals with the capacity needed
to meet these demands (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Darling-Hammond et al. (2007)
highlight that preparation programs for principals in the U.S. have traditionally consisted
of “a collection of courses regarding general management principles, school laws,
6
administrative requirements, and procedures, with little emphasis on knowledge about
student learning, effective teaching, professional development, curriculum, and
organizational change” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007, p. 4). Principals entering schools
post-NCLB are under-prepared to meet the challenges of organizational improvement
through instructional leadership and, therefore, the extent to which a principal feels
prepared to meet the organizational challenges may influence the extent to which she is
able to lead (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) examine leadership development
through another lens but also support Darling-Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, and
Weeks’ (2007) argument that school leaders have not been sufficiently trained to meet
the varying demands placed on them to lead schools. Helsing et al. (2008) assert
professional development programs need to employ a framework that tackles an
individual’s immunities to change. The authors identify immunities to change as “the
underlying barriers that prevent an individual from making progress towards a desired
professional goal” (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008, p. 441). At present, the
authors assert that professional development programs do not address an individual’s
underlying assumptions, beliefs, or mental models that give rise to levels of the kind of
cognitive dissonance, or opposing thoughts and ideas that are needed to contemplate on
the work needed to achieve a desired professional goal. Helsing et al. (2008) also argue
that understanding the underlying behaviors and assumptions that lead principals to act is
important because “their actions affect student achievement” (Helsing et al., 2008, p.
458).
7
The development and enactment of No Child Left Behind (2001) was thought to
address the increasing need for innovation in preparing students for a 21
st
-century world
(Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). As the 21
st
-century approached, stakeholders discussed
the need for future generations of students to be equipped with certain skills in order to be
competitive in an increasingly global economy (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). Among these
skills included students possessing the ability to: think critically and creatively, solve
complex problems, possess collaboration skills, and be skilled with new forms of media
(Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The call for action in preparing future generations of students
with skills in innovation, creativity, critical thinking, and adaptability is juxtaposed by the
demands for schools to meet the narrow and focused testing targets or Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) outlined in NCLB. As a result, principals, school leaders, and teachers
are in constant tension in determining the appropriate direction to go with respect to
improving teaching and learning for student achievement. Within the school context, the
persistent threat of failing to meet AYP and the resulting consequences (e.g., public
embarrassment, associated stigma, threats to school funding, school restructuring
methods, and staff/faculty/administrative replacement) influence actions and decisions
made by teachers and school administrators (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008; Hamilton,
Stecher, & Yuan, 2008).
School Reform Efforts
In the wake of NCLB, there have been a large number of efforts to address the
gaps in student achievement and organizational performance. Yet, even with these reform
efforts the focus has been placed on teaching and the needs of students and teachers
rather than placing focus on developing the leadership needed to facilitate improvement
8
in teaching and learning. Three such reform efforts of note include the 21
st
Century
Schools Movement (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008), Ted Sizer’s Coalition of Essential
Schools, and Ed Hirsch’s Core Knowledge.
Schoen and Fusarelli (2008) discuss the 21
st
Century Schools reform movement
as being “rooted in constructivist approaches” where educators, business leaders, and
policy makers work to instill in students the essential skills that will be required in our
rapidly changing and technology-driven global society (p. 183). Schoen and Fusarelli
(2008) state that business and industry leaders are finding themselves in evolving global
markets where there is rapid change with respect to communication, product
development, and service and delivery systems. As a result, there is an increased need for
a new type of workforce that “understands systems thinking, can work collaboratively, is
flexible, innovative, resourceful, and able to access and apply new information to solve
complex problems” (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008, p. 185). In order to prepare students with
these imperative skills, instructional methods and practices must be cultivated and
employed to meet these increasing demands (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). However, this
educational reform movement continues to place emphasis on improving teaching and
learning through improved instructional methods as opposed to providing resources for
improving leadership capacity to lead instructional change.
Ted Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools is another type of educational reform
movement focused on improving student learning through providing a more
comprehensive education. In providing what Sizer calls a comprehensive education, his
organization aims to equip students with the “intellectual, emotional, and social habits
and skills to become powerful and informed citizens who contribute actively toward a
9
democratic and equitable society” (retrieved from www.essentialschools.org, 2011). Sizer
argues that no two schools are the same and, therefore, it is through increased
professional collaboration that stakeholders can share practices and ideas that can help
one another reach success. Resources provided by the organization center on improving
classroom practice and organizational practice, but are lacking in developing leadership.
A final educational reform movement of focus is E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge.
Hirsch asserts there is a “core” of knowledge that needs to be taught at each grade level
with each grade level knowledge base building on the previous years’ of a student’s
progress. This sequence of skill sets that students need to acquire lead to a narrowly
focused curriculum that pushes students to the next level within that learning continuum.
The curriculum is focused and narrow, starting at kindergarten and builds into 12
th
grade
in the following subject areas: visual arts, world history, American history, math, science,
geography, language arts, and music (retrieved from www.coreknowledge.org, 2011).
However, much like Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools, resources provided by the
organization center on instructional improvement and do not provide much support in the
development of leadership.
The reform efforts among 21
st
Century Schools, Sizer’s Coalition of Essential
Schools, and Hirsch’s Core of Knowledge appeal to both sides of the NCLB conundrum
regarding preparing students for a 21
st
-century society while meeting the focused
performance targets in high-stakes standardized testing. The 21
st
Century Schools
movement focuses on providing students with the skills necessary to compete in our
evolving global economy (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The Coalition of Essential Schools
has the look of a constructivist model of education (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). The
10
Coalition of Essential Schools model attempts to help students, mentored by teachers, to
construct meaning of their learning and develop interest in a collaborative setting. Core
Knowledge, on the other hand, seems to model a more direct model of instruction where
well-developed and carefully crafted lessons are derived from specific and targeted
learning objectives. One commonality between these three reform efforts lies in the
approach to educational reform focused on classroom instruction, but lacking clear
approaches to cultivating leadership that supports these reform efforts.
From the literature presented here, educational reform efforts do share a common
goal that involves increasing students’ academic performance and closing the persisting
achievement gap. From policy in No Child Left Behind (2001) to reform efforts like 21
st
Century Schools, the Coalition of Essential Schools and Core Knowledge, all
stakeholders involved are looking to find what will work to improve educational
outcomes for all students and to, finally, close the achievement gap. Despite these reform
efforts highlighted by Hargreaves and Goodson (2006), Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2006),
and Darling-Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, and Weeks (2007), we are continuing to
find ourselves in the same conundrum involving ways to improve the academic
performance and achievement of the students we teach – even after the implementation of
No Child Left Behind (2001).
Statement of the Problem
The accountability mechanisms with No Child Left Behind (2001) infer that the
role of the principal is becoming more and more complex. Principals are faced with an
increase in responsibility for ensuring school performance targets are met for Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) and the Academic Performance Index (API), which measures
11
performance on high-stakes standardized tests. This increase in responsibility has also
increased a need for identifying strategies and methods principals and other school
leaders can utilize to improve organizational performance specific to improving
instructional practice.
Principals are expected to change instructional practice and support increased
student learning, but do not necessarily have the appropriate support in order to
effectively lead in this capacity. Educational reform efforts and educational policy such
as No Child Left Behind (2001) and Race to the Top (2010) do not specifically outline
appropriate support measures for fostering leader development in instructional
improvement. Yet, principals still are expected and responsible for enacting change in an
era of increased school accountability, but with a persisting absence of the adequate and
necessary support that will enable them to effectively lead.
Thus, a principal is often left to lead an organization, under-prepared and under-
supported, while relying on her own perception of how she should lead given what she
already knows. The problem, then, lies with the principal’s actions and leadership
practices infrequently translating into actions that are likely to create improvements in
teaching and student learning. As a result, our schools are filled with well-meaning
principals who cannot create the kind of change they are expected to make (Darling-
Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, & Weeks, 2007; Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey,
2008).
Purpose of the Study
Factors like a leader’s level of self-efficacy, mental models, levels of creative
thinking, and one’s immunities to change are factors that have not been traditionally
12
considered as being important in educational reform, especially in cultivating an
understanding in what enables a leader to even possess the capacity to accomplish the
tasks she sets out to accomplish (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011; Helsing, Howell,
Kegan, & Lahey, 2008; Sternberg, 2007). To understand what influences leadership
practice, we must engage in a deeper examination of the interaction of an principal’s
level of leader self-efficacy, mental models, leader creativity, and her immunities to
change, and how the intersection of these elements influence the capacity of leadership
practices aimed at achieving organizational change. No Child Left Behind (2001), Race
to the Top (2010) and other reform efforts have placed a great deal of focus on the
instructional perspective of the educational reform argument, much to the detriment of
discussing how leadership builds the very instructional capacity needed to create change.
The purpose of this study focused on the intersection of a principal’s level of
leader self-efficacy, mental models, leader creativity, and her immunities to change, and
how the interaction of these elements lead the principal to employ organizational
practices that promote a culture of inquiry while cultivating and maintaining
organizational relationships that lead to the possibility of fostering and achieving
organizational improvement.
Research Question
The following question guided my inquiry:
• To what extent does a principal’s own mental models, level of leader self-
efficacy, her immunities to change, and her level of leader creativity influence the
principal’s ability to enact her style of leadership in fostering and achieving
organizational improvement?
13
Importance of the Study
This study focused on the leadership elements linked to one’s leader self-efficacy,
mental models, immunities to change, and leader creativity, which are believed to
influence principal practices that promote a culture of inquiry and cultivate in-group/out-
group organizational relationships in an effort to foster and achieve organizational
improvement. This study contributes to the limited literature and empirical research that
exists with respect to leader self-efficacy, leader creativity, immunities to change, and
mental models influencing a principal’s leadership practices. Furthermore, this study
contributes to the increased need for understanding the importance of leader development
as we continue to move forward in this age of accountability. Finally, the study’s
implications and findings may prove useful to current and aspiring administrators who
desire to improve their capacity for leadership and achieving instructional improvement.
Methodology
A qualitative multi-case study was employed to examine the extent to which a
principal’s leader self-efficacy, mental models, immunities to change, and leader
creativity influenced the leadership practices that lead a principal to the possibility of
achieving organizational improvement. The multi-case study was conducted focusing on
two high schools where the principals were working with their leadership teams and
faculty members in attempting to achieve a desired level of organizational change. The
two high schools studied consisted of a school that were an independent charter and a
school that was a non-charter, both operating within the same district. Data collection
occurred at each site separately in an effort to keep all data organized and clearly
distinguished between the schools. Formal interviews were conducted with both the
14
principals and several faculty members. I conducted direct observations of, professional
development meetings, faculty meetings and leadership team meetings of which the
school principals were either facilitators or active participants. Principal Shadow Day
observations were also conducted to observe the Principal in action during a typical
workday.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this study two assumptions are made. First, it was assumed that
responses gathered from the individual interviews with the principals were truthful as
their responses were self-reported. Second, it was assumed that behaviors and dialogue
observed within faculty meetings were typical on any given day outside of the days I
observed.
Limitations
There are five limitations identified with this study. First, there is a limitation in
the generalizability of this study as I am focusing on only two high schools. As a result, it
is difficult to determine whether the results obtained from this study can be replicated at
additional schools or in different organizational contexts. Second, the timeline of data
collection will only span two months versus a nine-month academic year and may not
allow for enough data to be collected to gain deep enough insight into whether or not
instructional improvement is achieved by the principal. Third, the qualitative nature of
the study and the small number of participants interviewed only provides individual
portraits that are, perhaps, unique to the school and the individual principal and may not
be representative of the entire population of principals in California schools. Fourth,
answers obtained from participants cannot be anticipated to coincide with the questions
15
asked within my own instrumentation. Finally, my own researcher bias acts as a
limitation as the inferences I make from the observations and interview notes are made
from my own lens and may not always align with what the participants are thinking when
providing their responses.
Delimitations
There are three delimitations, or the characteristics that limit the scope of the
study’s inquiry as indicated by the researcher, within this study. The first involves school
site selection as I am purposefully sampling the school sites for my case study. The
second delimitation involves the timeline established for data collection where I will
spend two months at the selected school sites. Third, my instrumentation and measures
for data collection and analysis, such as interview protocols, will be established by me
and implemented by me.
16
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API) – In California, the API was established as law in
1999; the law was established in an attempt to generate an academic accountability
system for K-12 public schools. The API is calculated using student performance scores
from standardized state assessments in multiple content areas. The API score range for a
school is from 200 (low) to 1000 (high). (California Department of Education, 2010).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) - A set of annual academic performance benchmarks
that states, school districts, schools, and subpopulations of students are supposed to meet
and achieve if the state is receiving funding under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Alignment – The extent to which curriculum, instruction, textbooks and other
instructional materials, assessments, teacher preparation and professional development,
and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the educational program’s
objectives and standards.
Assessment – A test students take to measure academic knowledge and skills; can also
refer to a system for testing and evaluating students, groups of students, schools or
districts.
Benchmark: A specific level of student achievement expected and established for
students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.
California Standards Test: Exams that are a part of the Standards Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content standards.
Core Academic Standards: The basic K-12 academic content standards that are
assessed at the statewide level for the state’s testing system.
17
Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district influenced by the state’s
academic content standards.
Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully.
Professional Learning Communities: An organizational practice in which the teachers
in a school and its administrators continuously seek and share learning and then develop
goals and plans to act on what they learn in order to improve teaching and learning for
student outcomes.
18
Chapter 2: A Review of the Literature
At the core of each public school site in K-12 education is the leader – the
principal (Crum, 2008). The principal plays a pivotal role in improving the quality of
instructional practice to boost student achievement and close educational and
performance gaps (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott & Cravens, 2007). For this review, I
draw from three bodies of literature. These three bodies of literature provide insight into
the role leadership plays in supporting organizational change and instructional
improvement. First, I will examine the current role of the principalship. Second, I will
examine three leadership styles associated with principal leadership: instructional
leadership, transformational leadership, and distributed leadership. Third, I will examine
literature on four psychological elements of leadership: leader self-efficacy, mental
models, immunities to change, and leader creativity. I will conclude this review of the
literature with the presentation of my conceptual framework that will serve as the basis
for my study’s methodology.
The Role of the Principalship in Organizational Improvement
With the adoption and implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001),
the role of the principal has changed immensely (Hess & Kelly, 2007). Prior to the
enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), the principal’s responsibilities were
primarily to complete paperwork, act as building manager and as a disciplinarian (ibid.).
With the introduction of new accountability measures in NCLB requiring schools to
demonstrate improvement in student achievement and the use of data to inform and drive
student results, the principal’s role has expanded to include a larger focus on teaching and
learning (King, 2002). Researchers have sought to examine the role of the principalship
19
in organizational change from various perspectives. Some have researched the principal’s
role from a traits perspective (Zaccaro, 2004, 2007; Northouse, 2007; Vroom & Jago,
2007). Some researchers have discussed the principal’s role from a behavioral
perspective (DeRue and Wellman, 2009; Fullan, 2001, 2002; Hinds & Pfeffer, 2001;
Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Other
researchers have examined the principal’s role from an operational perspective (Printy,
2008; Leithwood, 2005; Scharmer, 2009; Schein, 2010; Portin, Schneider, DeArmand, &
Gunlach, 2003; Wood, 2005; Rynes, 2001). This section of the review of the literature
will focus on the principal’s role in organizational change. I will first present theoretical
research addressing the traits, behavioral and operational perspectives of the
principalship. I will then direct my focus on several studies from researchers whom have
sought to explore the principal’s role in organizational change.
Trait Perspective
Research from the trait perspective has typically centered on the attributes a
leader needs to possess in order to be considered effective (Elmore, 2000, 2005, 2006;
Fullan, 2001, 2002; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004; and Northouse, 2007).
Northouse’s (2007) theoretical perspective on trait research in leadership focuses on
identifying “innate qualities and characteristics possessed by leaders” (p. 15). Numerous
research has centered on identifying specific traits associated with effective leadership
such as: having vision, passion, communication skills, intelligence, ability to establish
trust, having integrity, organizational relationships, establish a culture of inquiry, and
being a facilitator (Bennis, 1989; Fullan, 2001, 2002, Northouse, 2007, Bolman & Deal,
2008). Northouse (2007) asserts that there are five central attributes of a leader that the
20
Trait Perspective indicates are effective leadership traits. According to Northouse (2007)
these attributes consist of: 1) intelligence, 2) self-confidence, 3) determination, 4)
integrity, and 5) sociability. According to the theory, organizations will work better if a
leader possesses these traits (ibid.). The five traits identified by Northouse (2007) as the
major leadership traits are expanded upon below.
Northouse (2007) identifies the first major leadership trait to be intelligence.
When it comes to the trait of intelligence, Northouse (2007) explains that this trait is one
where the leader has a “strong verbal ability, perceptual ability, and reasoning” ability
indicating that a leader possesses a level of intelligence that enables them to acquire
“complex problem solving skills and social-judgment skills” (p. 19). The author also
cautions that leaders with an IQ level that is strikingly different from their organizational
members may prove problematic as the leader may experience difficulty in
communicating ideas with organizational members (ibid.). Northouse (2007), however,
does not illustrate this position with any reference to studies conducted that support this
definition of intelligence, which makes it difficult to conceptualize the leader’s
demonstration of intelligence in an applied setting.
A second trait Northouse (2007) identifies from his theoretical perspective is self-
confidence. Northouse (2007) defines self-confidence as the “ability to be certain about
one’s competencies and skills” (p. 19). Self-confidence, in essence, is the underlying
belief that one is sure that she has the ability to make an impact or make a difference
(ibid.). Without self-confidence and an inherent belief in what a leader wants to
accomplish, it becomes difficult for the leader to even begin communicating her ideas to
her organizational members (ibid.).
21
A third trait Northouse (2007) discusses involves a leader having integrity. The
trait of integrity refers to the idea being honest and trustworthy (Northouse, 2007).
Leaders with integrity take responsibility for their actions and maintain a strong set of
principals (ibid.). Within the trait of integrity, there is a subset of traits as Northouse
(2007) adds the descriptors of “loyal, dependable, and not deceptive” in defining the trait
of integrity (p. 20). Because leaders with integrity are seen to be faithful, trustworthy, and
possessing a strong moral code, they are able to cultivate a sense of trust among
organizational members because “integrity makes a leader believable and worthy of our
trust” (Northouse, 2007, p. 20).
A fourth trait elucidated by Northouse (2007) involves a leader’s ability to be
determined. Within this trait is a subset of traits where a leader is defined by Northouse
(2007) to be persistent, dominant, driven and one who takes initiative. Leaders who are
determined are ones whom assert themselves of their beliefs and positions while
preserving through any obstacle towards completion of a goal. Northouse’s (2007) brief
explanation of “determination” yields little examples from research illustrating what a
determined leader actually looks like, but one can only conclude that a determined leader
is one who, despite challenges and tribulations, never gives up in pursuit of a goal.
The final trait Northouse (2007) identifies is sociability. Sociability refers to the
leader’s ability to seek out and engage in positive social relationships (ibid.). Descriptors
Northouse (2007) offers to illustrate the trait of sociability include: courteous, tactful,
friendly, outgoing and diplomatic. From these descriptors, it becomes difficult to separate
trait or characteristics from behaviors or behavioral actions employed by the leader,
which may speak to the level of ambiguity in identifying central traits of effective
22
leadership – a potential weakness. Nevertheless, Northouse (2007) asserts that leaders
who are social have strong interpersonal skills and are able to create cooperative
relationships with their organizational members. Again, the author offers no additional
research to illustrate his definition of sociability.
There are strengths that one can take away from Northouse’s (2007) theoretical
perspective of the five major traits of leadership. First, the trait perspective is naturally
appealing (Northouse, 2007). In the mainstream media, so many images are created of
leaders as people who are special and have certain gifts that enable them to do
extraordinary things (ibid.). As a result, the idea that a leader is someone who has specific
attributes or characteristics and that those attributes can help an organization are
appealing to the general public (Northouse, 2007). Second, the trait perspective is one of
the first bodies of research aimed at studying leadership (ibid.). Therefore, there is certain
longevity to this research that allows for a certain “level of credibility that other
approaches lack” (Northouse, 2007, p. 24). A third strength identified by Northouse
(2007) is that the focus of the trait perspective theory focuses on the leader. This
deliberate focus on the leader allows for deeper insight on how the personality traits
influence the process of leadership enacted (ibid.). Lastly, the identification of specific
traits found within a leader acts as a benchmark for what one needs to look for to become
a leader (Northouse, 2007).
Though there are strengths in Northouse’s (2007) approach to defining the idea of
the trait perspective in leadership, it is not without weaknesses. First, Northouse (2007)
fails to illustrate his definitions of the five traits with any additional research. The lack of
empirical studies fails to provide a deeper understanding of the five traits and how these
23
traits are applied in leadership. Second, while Northouse (2007) only spoke to five major
traits associated with effective leadership, additional research as noted by the author has
identified other traits such as the ability to have insight, the ability to be cooperative, the
ability to be alert, and possessing task knowledge and cognitive ability (ibid.). The
various lists of traits do not provide a definitive or clear list of what actual attributes are
most closely associated with effective leadership (Northouse, 2007). The lack of a clear
list of traits allows for ambiguity in defining what constitutes an effective leader. Third,
the trait perspective on leadership focuses exclusively on the leader and not
organizational members or the organizational situation (Northouse, 2007). The author
defines leadership as a process that consists of the leader, the organizational members
and the organizational situation (Northouse, 2007). Placing sole focus on the leader from
the trait perspective only presents a one-third viewpoint in understanding the full context
of leadership. As a result, Northouse’s (2007) trait perspective lacks an ability to examine
leadership in relation to leadership outcomes.
Northouse’s (2007) work is just one piece that has explored the idea of the trait
perspective in understanding effective leadership. Northouse’s (2007) work and
explanation of the five central leadership traits is important for the purpose of my study
because there is a foundational level of leader traits that are necessary for a leader’s
potential effectiveness (Northouse, 2007). It is also important to understand that the types
of individual traits possessed by a leader may bear influence on a leader’s level of
effectiveness and may also influence the actions a leader will take within an organization.
This is discussed further in the study conducted by DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman and
Humphrey (2011), whose work are reviewed later in this chapter.
24
While some argue that traits in a leader are essential to effective leadership
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007), others argue that
placing sole focus into the study of leadership traits creates a perception that leaders who
possess these traits operate as heroic individuals whom bear sole responsibility for an
organization’s improvement (Hallinger, 2005; Marks & Printy, 2005; Robinson, Lloyd &
Rowe, 2008). Other researchers such as Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004) provide an
extension from the trait perspective of leadership asserting that focus must not only be
placed on the traits of the leadership but on how these characteristics eventually influence
leadership behavior.
Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader (2004) first define the term trait to refer to personality,
temperament, disposition, abilities and demographical characteristics. In defining what
the term trait refers to early on, the authors are able to provide a guideline for the types of
labels that can be associated with traits in leadership. The authors provide an empirical
review and summary of trait research compiled from research gathered between the years
1990 and 2003 (Zaccaro et al., 2004). From their compilation of research, the authors
examined patterns of identified traits and identified five primary categories of leader
attributes (Zaccaro et al., 2004). These categories are: cognitive abilities, motivation,
social appraisal skills, problem solving skills, expertise, and tacit knowledge (ibid.).
When it comes to understanding the category of cognitive abilities, Zaccaro et al. (2004)
mirror similar traits identified from Northouse (2007) with regard to a leader possessing
reasoning abilities, verbal abilities, complex problem-solving abilities and intelligence
(Zaccaro et al., 2004). Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader’s (2004) category of motivation can be
thought to overlap Northouse’s (2007) determination trait as the authors identify
25
descriptors such as the leader’s need for dominance and need for achievement. This
aligns with the determination trait because the leader is both motivated and determined to
succeed at goal attainment (Northouse, 2007; Zaccaro et al., 2004). Social appraisal skills
are similar to what Northouse (2007) defines as sociability. Zaccaro et al (2004) explain
that social appraisal skills, or social intelligence, refer to the leader’s ability to
“understand the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of persons, including oneself, in
interpersonal situations and to act appropriately upon that understanding” (Zaccaro,
Kemp & Bader, 2004, p. 115). The authors assert that social intelligence lies at the heart
of effective leadership (ibid.).
Finally, Zaccaro et al (2004) present a category that Northouse (2007) did not –
expertise and tacit knowledge. The authors define tacit knowledge as knowledge that is
not overtly taught or verbalized but is knowledge that one must acquire in order to
succeed in a given environment (Zaccaro et al., 2004). The authors add to their definition
asserting knowledge “emerges when individuals acquire new experiences and have the
cognitive appraisal skills that allow them to draw lessons from these experiences”
(Zaccaro et al., 2004, p. 118). Reflecting on lessons obtained from experiences enable a
leader to build on their own tacit knowledge and can increase potential for leadership
effectiveness (ibid.).
There are strengths to having thematic categories as Zaccaro et al. (2004) present
in their research. By creating thematic categories such as cognitive abilities, motivation,
social appraisal skills, problem solving skills, and expertise and tacit knowledge, we can
now group the extensive list as briefly described by Northouse (2007) and place various
attributes into appropriate categories. Furthermore, Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader’s (2004)
26
discussion of tacit knowledge as a leadership trait is something that Northouse (2007) did
not discuss but would appear to be relevant in understanding how this trait can influence
leadership effectiveness. A leader’s ability to cultivate knowledge from learned
experiences can increase the level to which a leader will be effective given she has
reflected on and learned from previous experiences and, as a result, builds on her existing
knowledge base.
While Zaccaro et al. (2004) provide an overview of five categories they identified
from their review of research, there are three limitations in their approach to the trait
perspective. First, the authors present five generalizing categories with which to explore
traits associated with effective leadership. In doing so, they fail to paint a clearer picture
regarding the attributes of a leader. Second, their review of past research on leadership
traits fails to generate any new theory regarding the relationship between leadership traits
and leadership effectiveness. Third, while the authors conclude arguing that we have yet
to fully understand the impact of leader traits and their effects on leadership (Zaccaro,
Kemp & Bader, 2004), they fail to draw connections among specific traits that may
contribute to leadership effectiveness as well as draw connections between leadership
traits and associated behaviors.
The trait perspective in research, in its own category, is an appropriate beginning
into the study of effective leadership because a primary question that is typically asked
across the literature on leadership centers on determining who an effective leader is
(Bennis, 1989; Fullan, 2001; Northouse, 2007; Zaccaro, 2007). However, this one
perspective in research is not enough to fully conceptualize whom effective leaders are,
their behavioral actions and practices, and how those behaviors and practices improve an
27
organization (Vroom and Jago, 2007; Zaccaro, 2007). It becomes necessary to examine
the research of those whom have studied leadership from a behavioral perspective
(Fullan, 2001; Goldring, Huff, May and Camburn, 2007; DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman
and Humphrey, 2011).
Behavioral Perspective
Fullan (2001) establishes five broad factors in leadership: having moral purpose,
understanding the change process, relationship building, coherence making, and
knowledge creation and sharing. From the phrasing of these terms, Fullan (2001)
indicates that these components are what a leader does versus simply defining who a
leader is. Doing so allows for traits and behaviors to be linked in a cyclical relationship.
Fullan (2001) asserts these five components of leadership behaviors work to influence
commitment with organizational members and resulting in either “good things
happening” or “bad things happening” (p. 4). The five components of leadership
behaviors, as theorized by Fullan (2001) are elucidated below.
Fullan (2001) states that the leader having moral purpose means that the leader
acts or behaves with the intent to make a positive difference in the lives with whom she
interacts. Having moral purpose entails treating others fairly and decently; if a leader
does not treat her organizational members well she “will be a leader without followers”
(p. 13). Fullan (2001) fails to provide clear and concise definitions for what it means to
have moral purpose, but I refer to Northouse’s (2007) idea of possessing integrity as a
closely aligned definition for having moral purpose.
Fullan (2001) also discusses the importance for a leader to understand the change
process. The word “change” is ubiquitously used to denote a metamorphosis within an
28
organization, an individual, or a moment in time (Elmore, 2000; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2004, 2005; Senge, 1990, Argyris, 1974, 2008). For Fullan (2001), a leader
must work to establish a culture of change. This culture of change is established and
fostered by the leader involving the principal’s ability to “produce capacity to seek,
critically assess, and selectively incorporate new ideas and practices – all the time, inside
the organization as well as outside of it” (Fullan, 2001, p. 44). Fullan (2001) does not
provide concrete examples of how a leader establishes a culture of change thereby
presenting a challenge of effectively illustrating this theoretical perspective within a
leader’s ability to understand the change process.
Fullan (2001) also asserts that a leader must be aware of the importance of
building organizational relationship and that relationships are essential in working
towards organizational change. Relationship building is done through establishing the
human connections, which are prevalent within organizations (Fullan, 2001). Human to
human interaction, especially within a school, is an act that takes place daily and,
therefore, calls for special attention from the leader to ensure that relationships are built
and maintained (Fullan, 2001; Northouse, 2007). From this similar viewpoint, Fullan
(2001) highlights that the leader must work to develop organizational relationships that
will help to yield desired results. However, Fullan (2001) does not provide concrete
examples or strategies of how leaders can develop the very relationships that can help
them achieve the desired results they seek. Nevertheless, the author suggests it is
important that the relationships built help move the organization forward rather than
stagnates or hinders it from progressing (Fullan, 2001, 2002). In essence, the role of
29
building relationships serves to build capacity within the organization to achieve
improved results (ibid.).
Another component of effective leadership lies in the leader’s ability to build
knowledge (Fullan, 2001). In this category, building knowledge also involves creating,
sharing and managing knowledge (ibid.). Fullan (2001) asserts that in order for leaders to
effectively engage in the process of building knowledge, the organizational culture must
be set up to promote knowledge creation and sharing. Individuals within the organization
need to feel as though they can share their ideas and information (ibid.). Establishing
knowledge sharing routines either through professional development or departmental
meetings create a collaborative culture that is conducive to knowledge building (Fullan,
2001). Again, Fullan (2001) speaks from a theoretical perspective and provide no real
empirical evidence that further illustrates how a leader engages in the practice of building
knowledge within an organization.
Finally, Fullan (2001) asserts that a leader must also practice coherence making.
The act of coherence making involves a leader’s ability to navigate the chaos that is
associated with change (Fullan, 2001). The author advises that leaders must be aware of
the constant that is change and that the world is a complex one (Fullan, 2001). Though
change is seen to be inevitable and fraught with its own share of complexities, leaders
need to recognize its potential value for improvement (ibid.). Fullan (2001) presents two
requirements when engaging in coherence making. First, a leader and organization must
work to self-organize (ibid.). When a leader and organization self-organize, there is a
focused concern on examining patterns of relationships and actions and determining new
relationships and actions (Fullan, 2001). Second, a leader may select to use strange
30
attractors, which are experiences or factors that attract and influence organizational
members towards a certain direction (ibid.). Strange attractors, in the process of
coherence making, are not predictable, but are seen as useful in garnering appropriate
support for a given practice or idea (Fullan, 2001). An example in which a leader utilizes
self-organization and strange attractors in coherence making would be the creation of a
school-wide vision. The leader may reflect on contextual evidence from demographics to
performance data and organize that information in a way that sets up the vision for the
school towards organizational improvement. The leader may then insert strange attractors
that range from emotional appeals to charismatic anecdotes in an effort to attract
organizational members in adopting the school-wide vision. While Fullan (2001) speaks
to coherence making from a theoretical perspective and does not provide empirical
evidence to support his points, he asserts that coherence making is an important practice
that a leader must employ throughout the entire process of leadership in a culture of
change. One large limitation to Fullan’s (2001) theoretical perspective is that little
empirical evidence is provided to effectively illustrate his model of the five components
of leader behavior. Empirical studies, in addition to theory, are needed to understand the
behavioral perspectives and practices of principal leadership. Goldring, Huff, May and
Camburn’s (2007) study is one that aimed to explore factors that inform a principal’s
behavioral practice.
Goldring, Huff, May, and Camburn (2007) explored what explained a principal’s
behavioral practice with their study on the role of the organizational context and how it
influences leadership practice. Goldring et al. (2007) established the following research
questions in their study:
31
1) To what extent can principals be grouped or classified according to the time they
invest across major realms of responsibility?
2) How does the context in which principals work explain how they allocate their
time?
3) Do principal’s individual attributes explain allocation of time across major realms
of leadership?
To address their research questions, Goldring et al. (2007) selected a Southeastern school
district that consisted of 29 elementary schools, nine middle schools, four high schools,
and four alternative/special education schools. The sample population for this district
involved 2,070 teachers and 46 principals. Goldring et al. (2007) collected data in two
ways. First, surveys were sent to the sample population with the authors receiving an
87% response rate from the teachers and a 90% response rate from the principals.
Second, principals were asked to keep a daily log for one week detailing their time
allocation, behaviors and actions in leadership during the course of their workday. The
response rate for the logs was 96% (ibid.).
In order to analyze the data and conduct their cluster analysis, Goldring et al.
(2007) established nine categories that were determined by the authors to be major realms
of responsibilities for a principal. These responsibilities are illustrated in Figure 1.1 on
page 32 of this chapter.
32
From the information presented in Figure 1.1 above, Goldring et al. (2007)
establish that a principal has nine major responsibilities than span across areas of human
resources management, instructional leadership, professional development and fostering
relationships with students, parents, and community stakeholders. Goldring et al. (2007)
assert while principals assume all nine areas of responsibility during the course of a
33
workday, some principals spend more time in specific areas than others. The authors
draw the conclusion that the school’s context – the school’s situation, culture,
performance according to state standardized tests, and demographics – determine the
behaviors and practices of the principal across the nine realms of responsibility.
From the data collected, Goldring et al. (2007) determined that there were three
groups of principals among their sample: eclectic principals, instructional leader
principals, and student-centered principals. Those who were found by the authors to be
eclectic principals were found to have a more even distribution across the nine realms of
responsibility and varied in the ways principals spent their time throughout their workday
(ibid.). Principals identified as instructional leaders spent a majority of their time in the
area of instructional improvement through monitoring and observing instruction and
providing and supporting teachers’ professional development (ibid.). Principals identified
as student-centered spent more of their time in the area of student affairs dealing with
issues surrounding attendance, discipline, student issues and hall monitoring (Goldring et
al., 2007). Goldring et al. (2007) were able to conclude, according to the events written
by the principals, that the school’s specific situations and environments surrounding the
principal influenced the way the principal allocated their time across their nine realms of
responsibility.
Goldring et al.’s (2007) study sheds light regarding the factors that provide a more
predictive measure into understanding the practice of a principal in a school. Their
argument that organizational context shapes the ways in which principals exercise their
responsibilities across the nine major realms provides an extension from the trait
perspective described in the earlier section. One can then conclude that the organizational
34
context plays a larger role in influencing the practices and behaviors of a principal (ibid.).
A major strength of this study lies in the large participation of principals from one entire
school district. Because the findings were gathered from data collected from principals in
an elementary, middle, high, and alternative education school setting, Goldring et al.
(2007) are able to draw a conclusion about factors influencing principal practice in a
more universal context. The organizational context that shapes principal practice and
behavior is not limited to one school setting but can be seen across all school settings.
However, conducting the study at only one school district also acts as a limitation
because it is unclear if the results found from this study are generalizable enough to
observe across similar school districts (Goldring et al., 2007). Nevertheless, Goldring et
al. (2007) provide deeper insight into principal leadership and contribute to the research
in the field by highlight the importance of organizational context in shaping principal
behavior and practices. DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman and Humphrey (2011) add to
Goldring, May, Huff and Camburn (2007) with their meta-analytic test in understanding
trait and behavior theories of leadership.
DeRue et al. (2011) present a contextual model that integrate trait and behavior
theories in leadership. The integration model serves as a means to understand how trait
and behavior theories in leadership can blend together to illustrate aspects of effective
leadership. DeRue et al. (2011) also believe that leadership traits can be categorized, just
as Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader (2004) categorized leadership traits. There is a distinction
with the way DeRue et al. (2011) categorize leader traits. The authors establish three
categories for grouping leadership traits: 1) demographics, 2) traits related to task
competence, and 3) interpersonal attributes (DeRue et al., 2011). When it comes to
35
identifying specific traits within these categories, DeRue et al. (2011) provide the best list
in comparison to what Northouse (2007) and Zaccarco, Kemp and Bader (2004)
attempted to do. The outline of the three categories and the associated traits are displayed
in Figure 1.2 presented below:
Figure 1.2 above highlights traits identified by DeRue et al. (2011) and the way in
which the authors decided to categorize these traits. DeRue et al.’s (2011) list of traits
bear some similarity and overlap to the traits discussed in Northouse (2007) and Fullan
(2001). First, intelligence is a trait that is repeated and reinforces the need for a leader to
have the ability to think critically and problem solve (DeRue et al., 2011; Northouse,
2007). Second, communication skills are also present with the list above highlighting the
importance of the leader’s ability to clearly communicate with organizational members or
as Fullan (2001) calls it, coherence making. Third, the traits of openness to experience,
36
emotional stability, agreeableness and extraversion overlap the traits of relationship
building as seen in Fullan (2001) and sociability as seen in Northouse (2007). One
addition to this categorical list that is not fully expressed in Fullan (2001) or Northouse
(2007) but is observed in DeRue et al. (2011) involves the category of demographics. The
traits associated with the demographic category (ie: gender, age, ethnicity/race, physical
traits, education level, experience) provide insight in the individual context of the leader
and the background and experiences that shape the leader’s perspective and influences
the behavioral actions associate with leadership traits a principal possesses (DeRue et al.,
2011).
While DeRue et al. (2011) believe traits to be an important element in
understanding effective leadership, the authors assert leadership behavior versus
leadership traits explain more of the variance in leadership effectiveness. DeRue et al.
(2011) bridge the relationship of leader traits to leader effectiveness with a model of
behavioral orientation. There are four categories associated with behavioral orientation:
1) task processes, 2) relational dynamics and 3) change-oriented behaviors, and 4)
passive leadership (ibid.). According to task processes, this refers to the ways in which a
leader defines task roles for members, coordinates tasks and performance targets for the
group, and determines standards for performance (ibid.). Relational dynamics refer to the
ways that a leader engages in organizational relationship by developing members through
continued professional development and considering needs of members in the group
(DeRue et al., 2011). Change-oriented behavior refers to the development and
communication of a vision for change while also encouraging organizational members
towards innovative thinking and risk taking (ibid.). Finally, passive leadership refers to
37
leaders who engage in laissez-faire leadership or is not actively engage as a leader within
the organization (ibid.). This may be due in part to a lack of awareness that a problem
exists within the organization or a non-existent problem that does not call for leadership
interference (DeRue et al., 2011). The four behavior categories presented by DeRue et al.
(2011) offer four ways in which a leader can behave, which can influence the extent to
which the leader can enhance or hinder organizational performance and her own level of
leadership effectiveness (ibid.).
To examine their arguments, the authors referred to previously published meta-
analytic estimates and conducted an analysis of primary studies on trait theories and
behavior theories in leadership (ibid.). Their meta-analysis was comprised of 59 studies.
13 of the 59 studies were identified as existing meta-analytic studies and the remaining
46 were primary research studies (ibid.). The authors of the study established 11
hypotheses with which to conduct their meta-analysis of the literature on leadership traits
and behaviors (DeRue et al., 2011). Three of the 11 hypotheses were concerned with
testing the relative validity of leader traits in explaining leadership effectiveness and
organizational performance (ibid.). Four of the 11 hypotheses were concerned with
testing the relative validity of leadership behaviors in explaining leadership effectiveness
and organizational performance (DeRue et al., 2011). One of the 11 hypotheses was
concerned with determining the importance of leader traits and leader behaviors
concurrently in explaining leadership effectiveness and organizational performance
(ibid.). The remaining three hypotheses were concerned with testing the validity of an
integrated model where leader behavior and leader traits, organizational member
attributions and group identification processes mediated the relationship between leader
38
traits and the four criteria established by DeRue et al. (2011) to measure leadership
effectiveness (ibid.).
To engage in their meta-analysis, DeRue et al. (2011) established four criteria for
explaining leadership effectiveness. These criteria were: 1) leadership effectiveness, 2)
group performance, 3) member job satisfaction, and 4) satisfaction with leader (DeRue et
al., 2011). The authors gathered the data from the studies and looked for emerging
correlations among the four leadership criteria (DeRue et al., 2007). Articles located for
the purpose of the authors study were in the area of leadership (ibid.). After data
collection, the authors engaged in coding data from articles in accordance with the four
criteria they established for their study.
DeRue et al. (2011) concluded leadership behavior predicted more of the variance
across a variety of the leadership effectiveness criteria they had established. In addition,
one trait that was found to be the most consistent predictor of leadership effectiveness
and organizational performance across the four criteria was conscientiousness (ibid.).
However, when it came to examining the literature on leadership traits alone, traits
explained between two and 22% of the variance among the leadership effectiveness
criteria (ibid.). In explaining leader behavior, task-oriented and change-oriented
behaviors were found to be the most important for organizational performance while
relational-oriented behaviors were less important in predicting organizational
performance (DeRue et al., 2011). Passive leadership, in addition, was found to be
ineffective in enhancing group performance and leadership effectiveness (ibid.).
The meta-analysis completed by DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey
(2011) add to Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader (2004) in that the authors were able to support
39
that leadership behavior is a strong predictor in explaining leadership effectiveness and
its influence on organizational performance. DeRue et al. (2011) also find that leader
traits do still have a place within the literature, but are not found, when studied alone, to
be a large predictor of leadership effectiveness and its influence in organizational
performance. Therefore, the authors present their integrated model, which is present in
Figure 1.3 below:
DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey’s (2011) model highlights one
interesting outcome from their research. The authors’ model highlights the discovery that
the style of transformational leadership was found to be a consistent predictor of
leadership effectiveness across the four criteria established in their study (DeRue et al.,
40
2011). Transformational leadership will be discussed in further detail in Section Two of
this chapter.
While the results of the study support DeRue et al.’s (2011) argument of
leadership behavior as a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness, it is not without its
limitations. First, one of the hypotheses was not testable due to a lack of data on follower
attributions and group identification processes (DeRue et al., 2011). Therefore, the
authors were unable to determine if leader traits and behaviors exhibited a correlation
between follower attributions (or the qualities or features possessed by members as a
result of a characteristic or behavior exhibited by the leader) and overall organizational
performance (DeRue et al., (2011). Another limitation found within the study is the lack
of study on the role of organizational context and the ways it influences leadership
behavior – an area that Goldring, Huff, May and Camburn (2007) explored within in their
study and was discussed earlier in this section of the chapter. Despite these limitations,
the authors are able to assert that their research points to a need for the level of
integration among the paradigms in leadership literature relevant to understanding leader
traits and behaviors and how they explain leader effectiveness and organizational
performance. The strength of this study lies in its ability to provide a comprehensive
meta-analysis of the leadership literature to date (DeRue et al., 2011). Most literature in
the field has centered on studying either leader traits or leader behaviors separate from
one another (ibid.). It is clear from DeRue et al. (2011) that leader traits and leader
behaviors work in tandem towards fostering leadership effectiveness and impacting
organizational performance.
41
The work of Fullan (2001), Goldring, Huff, May and Camburn (2007) and
DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman and Humphrey (2011) illustrate the need for understanding
and integrating leader traits and leader behavior in predicting leadership effectiveness and
organizational improvement. In an evolving educational climate with No Child Left
Behind (2001) and Race to the Top (2010), the question surrounding the role of the
principal in organizational improvement is one that needs to be addressed. However, with
contrasting viewpoints from the leadership literature, it becomes difficult to pinpoint just
exactly who a leader needs to be and what they need to do in order to be as effective as
they are expected to be. DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey’s (2011) study
provides a more updated and comprehensive definition of the principal’s role in
organizational improvement.
Operational Perspectives
There are a group of researchers whom have examined the principal’s role
through operational perspectives or the ways in which the leader functions and operates
within the organization (Printy, 2008; Leithwood, 2005; Scharmer, 2009; Schein, 2010;
Portin, Schneider, DeArmand, & Gunlach, 2003; Wood, 2005; Rynes, 2001). There are
many functions and operations that a principal exercises during the course of her
workday, but in terms of working to improve the organization there are three functions
that are integral to organizational improvement and change: fostering a culture of inquiry
(Argyris, 1991, 2002, 2008); facilitating and monitoring instructional improvement
(Halverson, Grigg, Prichett & Thomas, 2006; Portin, Schneider, DeArmand, & Gunlach,
2003); and facilitating and managing the act of change (Wood, 2005; Northouse, 2007;
42
Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). This section of the chapter will examine literature focused on
these three functions.
The foundation of a culture of inquiry centers on the process through which an
individual or organization: 1) reflects on past results, 2) establishes a plan for change, 3)
implements that plan and 4) evaluates the results in accordance with the established
improvement plan (Argyris, 2002, 2008; Dufour, 2002; Fullan, 2005; Halverson, Grigg,
Prichett & Thomas, 2006). This process of inquiry, however, is not one that is found
within many organizations (Argyris, 2001).
Argyris’ (1974, 1991, 1999, 2002, 2008) work on organizational learning centers
on the dilemmas of learning experienced within an organization. Argyris (2001) states
organizations tend to make two mistakes when attempting to become an organization
centered upon learning. First, organizational members typically define the practice of
learning as the practice of solving problems (ibid.). Second, leaders and organizational
members tend to make the assumption that getting people to learn is largely dependent on
levels of motivation (ibid.). To avoid making these two mistakes, Argyris (1991) states
individuals need to look within themselves and reflect on their own behavioral practices
that may be contributing to the issues identified within the organization and then change
the way they act. Argyris’ (1991) argument is best explained in his single-loop and
double-loop learning theories.
In order for a leader to be considered effective in facilitating and monitoring
organizational change, she must be able to engage her members in what Argyris (2008)
calls double-loop learning. Double-loop learning is defined as the practice when “errors
are corrected by changing the governing values and then the actions,” (Argyris, 2002, p.
43
206). In double-loop learning, there is a process of reflection that begins with the leader
and organizational members diagnosing a particular problem from the presentation of
various data brought forth by the leadership (ibid.). The organization works to devise a
solution to address the identified issue and begins to implement the solution (ibid.). Once
the solution has been implemented, the organization evaluates the effectiveness of the
implementation of the solution and designs appropriate courses of action aimed at
changing the underlying practices and beliefs of the organization and organizational
members (Argyris, 2008). It is through the cyclical process of identifying the problem,
devising a solution, implementing the devised solution and evaluating the solution’s
effectiveness that the leader is able to engage the organization in continuous reflection –
or a culture of inquiry (Argyris, 2008). The leader’s ability to foster and develop a culture
of inquiry through the practice of double-loop learning (Argyris, 2002) allows the leader
to facilitate and monitor change within the organization’s beliefs and values and the
resulting change in organizational practice. However, when a leader is not effective in
fostering a culture of inquiry within her organization, she runs the risk of the organization
persisting in a state of single-loop learning.
Argyris (2002) states single-loop learning occurs “when errors are corrected
without altering the underlying governing values” (p. 206). During single-loop learning,
the individual tends to avoid reflecting on himself when addressing organizational issues
and will resort to blaming other organizational members or individuals for the reasons as
to why he was unable to perform a certain task well (Argyris, 2002). The individual may
correct actions or behaviors as recommended by the leadership, but does not change his
own underlying or inner beliefs thereby allowing the corrected action to be merely
44
superficial in nature and one that will not be made a more permanent part of the
individual’s inherent practices (Argyris, 2002). Most of Argyris’ (2008) theory behind
single-loop versus double-loop learning resides with the individual’s cognitive process of
reflection. However, in an organizational context, individuals who engage in single-loop
learning as a collective can prevent the organization from moving forward.
The research highlighted by Argyris (1974, 1991, 1999, 2002, 2008) is highly
theoretical in nature in defining the principal’s operational function of fostering a culture
of inquiry. However, it is through the principal’s ability to foster a culture of inquiry that
a school is able to begin the process of organizational and practice change because
members are engaged in a continuous cycle of data analysis and reflection (Argyris,
2002). The operational function of fostering a culture of inquiry does present its share of
challenges for the principal given the organizational climate and managing the myriad of
responsibilities a principal has (Portin, Schneider, DeArmand, & Gunlach, 2003).
Halverson, Grigg, Prichett and Thomas (2006) sought to determine what principals
actually do to promote a culture of inquiry and foster instructional improvement in an
organizational setting. Their study is discussed in the next paragraphs.
Halverson, Grigg, Prichett & Thomas (2006) considered how principals engaged
in levels of inquiry and facilitating and monitoring instructional improvement with their
study focusing on how leaders “build data-driven instructional systems to systematically
improve student learning” (Halverson et al., 2006, p. 159). The concept of data-driven
decision-making (DDDM) aligns with what Argyris (2002, 2008) discussed in terms of
utilizing data as a means of devising plans for creating and implementing change within
45
an organization. In their study, Halverson et al. (2006) aimed to address the following
research questions:
• Did school leaders create practice to collect, acquire and store data? If so, how?
• Did school leaders create practices to reflect on data and set goals? If so, how?
• Did school leaders create interventions based on the data? If so, how?
• Did school leaders create practices to learn from their interventions? If so, how?
To address the research questions above, the authors selected four school sites that had
demonstrated strong practices in DDDM according to the reputation of the schools’
ability to raise student achievement scores (Halverson et al., 2006). The authors gathered
data at the four school sites for one year, which included data from school artifacts such
as school site improvement plans, budget information, staffing charts, and various
handouts (Halverson et al., 2006). The authors also gathered data in the form of field note
observations (ibid.). The data was coded and analyzed to examine practices aligned with
DDDM and Data-Driven Instructional Systems (DDIS).
Halverson, Grigg, Prichett and Thomas (2006) identified six organizational
functions from their data collection examining DDIS: data acquisition, data reflection,
program alignment, program design, formative feedback and test preparation. With these
six organizational functions, connections can be drawn between the study conducted by
Halverson et al. (2006) and Argyris’ (1991) theories in double-loop learning. Halverson
et al. (2006) observed that the school sites engaged in the practice of gathering and
storing various achievement data, such as test scores, and engaged in the practice of data
reflection examining areas of need according to the data analyzed. From the data
analysis, the organizations worked to devise solutions that were aligned with the school’s
46
mission of improving student achievement through their identified practices of “program
alignment and program design” (Halverson et al., 2006, p. 166). Once the schools
implemented their designs, they evaluated their designs through formative feedback
(ibid.). These very practices are what Argyris (2002) outlines in double-loop learning.
The one differentiating factor found by Halverson, Grigg, Prichett & Thomas (2006) was
that the organizations focused their feedback and analyses on test preparation where the
organizations linked “their instructional program to explicitly summative testing
practices” (Halverson et al., 2006, p. 166). Since the schools’ focus was on improving
student achievement, measured by state exam scores, all the analyses of data and
solutions derived were aimed at meeting this particular goal.
Northouse (2007) presents a theory to explain how leaders build relationships
within their organization as a means of facilitating and managing change. This theory is
known as the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). According to LMX, the focus is
placed on the interactions between the leader and the members. LMX asserts that in
relationship building there are typically two groups: the in-group and the out-group
(Northouse, 2007). The in-group typically refers to the types of relationships between
leader and member that are “expanded and negotiated role responsibilities (extra roles)”
(Northouse, 2007, p. 152). These responsibilities that are negotiated between the leader
and the member are not typically found to be contractual agreements between the two
parties but are supplemental duties that may be delegated by the leader depending on the
relationship formed (ibid.). Individuals found to be in the out-group are individuals
whose relationship with the leader solely consists of “defined roles” as outlined in their
“formal employment contract” (Northouse, 2007, p. 152).
47
Within these two groupings, a leader has the opportunity to build relationships
with individuals that are enriching (particularly in the in-group) and can work to serve the
interests of the organization (Northouse, 2007). On the other hand, a member identifying
herself in the out-group may not feel wholly part of the organization, which opens up
criticism for the level of fairness associated with the manner of relationship building by
identifying or categorizing members in an in-group or out-group (ibid.). Northouse’s
(2007) discussion of the LMX Theory serves to highlight not only the importance but
also the potential consequences associated with varying levels of the leader’s relationship
building capacity. In addition, the LMX Theory (Northouse, 2007) supports the idea that
leadership is a process that takes place within a group context with the leader working to
influence organizational member towards the pursuit of goal attainment.
Portin, Schneider, DeArmand and Gunlach (2003) examined the espoused
practices of principals using in-depth interview data from 21 principals. Portin et al
(2003) drew five major conclusions after analyzing the data. First, the core job of the
principal was to diagnose problems and organizational needs and make decisions about
how to best meet them. Second, school leadership was found to be critical in seven areas:
instruction, culture, management, human resources, strategic leadership, external
development, and micro-politics (Portin et al., 2003). Third, the authors found that the
principal is responsible for ensuring leadership exists and occurs in all seven areas (ibid.).
Fourth, the authors determined that school governance mattered and that a school’s
governance structure affected the ways in which key leadership functions were performed
(Portin et al., 2003). Finally, the authors concluded that principals master their role in
leadership through actual practice and on-the-job experience (ibid.). Portin et al (2003)
48
assert “the ability to understand and deliver lies at the heart of school leadership” (p. 9)
and the ways in which a principal is able to diagnose the needs of the organization is a
key measure of their success as a principal (ibid.).
In continuing to examine key traits of effective leadership, Wahlstrom and Louis
(2008) contribute to the literature on leadership attributes with their study, which found
that a leader’s ability to establish a sense of trust within a teacher becomes less important
when there is a large presence of shared leadership and professional community. Arriving
at this conclusion, the authors’ quantitative study gathered data from a database that
retained results from a survey developed for the national research project Learning from
Leadership (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). From the database, the authors were able to
obtain 4,165 surveys that had been completed and stored (ibid.). The information
obtained from the surveys highlight teachers’ reflective responses from grades K-12
taken from a sampling of schools across the United States. From the results of the
surveys, the authors were able to focus on the relationships established between the
leadership and teachers interactions and how it influenced their improvement in
instructional practices (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) established several variables as a means for
examining the relationship between leadership and the teacher’s perceptions of the
leadership in influencing their instructional practice. The first two variables that were
found to reflect the teacher’s perceptions of a school site leader’s behavior involved trust
and shared leadership (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Three factors were determined to be
indicative for examining a teacher’s instructional practice: the idea of shared
contemporary practice through teacher collaboration; focused instruction centered on
49
management of classroom and content; and flexible grouping where instructors are able
to utilize student groupings as a means of enhancing the learning experiences within the
classroom (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). From the results of the survey, the authors
concluded that these three variables of instructional practice were influenced when there
was an increased sense of shared leadership and collaboration in addition to an
established professional learning community (Walstrom & Louis, 2008). Trust in
leadership, as a result, was not a point of focus for faculty in a middle or high school
setting when the organization engaged in more collaborative practices (ibid.).
While the study is useful in deepening one’s understanding of how principal-
teacher interactions lead to changes in instructional practice, its limitations stem from the
fact that the study is limited to survey-only based forms of data. Such a limitation, as
Wahsltrom and Louis (2008) point out, does not paint an accurate picture of the true
behaviors of teachers and their actions towards instructional improvement since what one
responds to on a survey question may not be wholly reflective of the actual practices a
teacher may engage in while in front of their students. In addition, Wahlstrom & Louis
(2008) also point to another limitation involving the fact that the responses from the
survey largely reflect the teachers’ perceptions of the behaviors of the leadership as
opposed to the authors actually measuring the behaviors of the school site leadership and
their influence on changing a teacher’s instructional practice.
Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) believe that while a principal can create an
environment in which there is trust, the principal may not be decisive in determining the
appropriate instructional strategies teachers can utilize to improve their practice. The
authors, then, reinforce the point that leaders have the potential capacity to influence the
50
instructional decision making teachers will engage in, when all stakeholders are made
part of that decision making process (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
The studies conducted by Portin, Schneider, DeArmand, & Gunlach (2003),
Halverson, Grigg, Prichett & Thomas (2006), Northouse (2007), and Wahlstrom & Louis
(2008) shed light into the perceptions of the operational functions of the principalship and
how a principal establishes goals and influencing organizational members to pursue and
achieve their goals in a shared setting. Whatever the situation faced by the school-site, the
principal’s role centers on the idea that they must work with all organizational members
to foster a culture of inquiry (Argyris, 2002, 2008); facilitate and monitor instructional
improvement (Halverson, Grigg, Prichett & Thomas, 2006); and facilitate and manage
the act of change (Argyris, 2002; Elmore, 2000, 2002, 2005; Wood, 2005). These
practices are essential and foundational in facilitating organizational change.
Conclusions
This section of the chapter focused on the principal’s role in organizational
change and instructional improvement. Researchers have sought to examine the
principal’s role in organizational change from the trait, behavioral, and operational
perspectives (Northouse, 2007; Argyris, 2002, 2008; Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, &
Thomas, 2006; Fullan, 2001, 2002; DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011).
After reviewing the literature from these three perspectives on leadership, I draw four
main conclusions. First, a leader’s cognitive abilities, motivation to lead, problem solving
skills, relationship building skills, and expertise may bear influence on the types of
behaviors and practices she will employ (Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). Second, the
individual leader context and the organizational context may influence not only the types
51
of practices employed by the leader, but they may also influence the extent to which these
practices are employed in working to achieve organizational change (DeRue, Nahrgang,
Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Third, one major leadership practice a principal can
employ involves promoting and fostering a culture of inquiry where all organizational
members frequently engage in processes like double-loop learning (Argyris, 2002, 2008).
Finally, one major leadership practice that is essential in leading to the possibility of
organizational change involves the principal’s ability to cultivate and maintain
organizational relationships through increased collaboration (Halverson, Grigg, Prichett,
& Thomas, 2006) and through utilizing in-group and out-group relationships (Northouse,
2007). These two leadership practices can bear a great deal of influence on the possibility
of achieving organizational change specific to instructional improvement. However, the
styles in which a principal will select to lead may vary. The next section of this review of
the literature will focus on several stylistic approaches a leader may choose to lead in
organizational improvement and instructional practice change.
Approaches to Leadership: Stylistic Practice
The first section of this chapter focused on the principal’s leadership role in
organizational improvement from the trait, behavioral, and operational perspectives. I
will now shift my focus towards the stylistic models a leader selects within an
organization to facilitate and cultivate organizational change. From the literature
reviewed, three prominent stylistic models in leadership will be examined: instructional
leadership (Hallinger, 2003, 2005; O’Donnel and White, 2005), transformational
leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003; Hallinger, 2003, 2005; Letihwood, Wahlstrom, Louis
and Anderson, 2010), and distributed leadership (Elmore, 2005; Spillane, Camburn, &
52
Pareja, 2007; Spillane & Healy, 2010; Harris, Leithwood, Day, Sammon, & Hopkins,
2007). These three leadership styles have been chosen for focus in this section because
each style of leadership incorporates two primary leadership practices identified from the
first section of this review. Each of the leadership styles incorporate the practices
involving promoting and fostering a culture of inquiry (Argyris, 2002, 2008) and
cultivating and maintaining organizational relationships (Northouse, 2007). The
examination of these three stylistic models of leadership will deepen my understanding of
the stylistic models a leader can choose to lead an organization.
Instructional Leadership
Hallinger (2003) asserts instructional leadership centers upon a strong leadership
that directs its focus on curriculum and instruction. Typically, the principal would bear
sole responsibility for overseeing, coordinating, supervising and developing all items
related to curriculum and instruction for the school site (Quinn, 2002). Because the role
of the instructional leader tends to rest with the principal, there is a large component
where the instructional leader is seen as decisive and strong (Hallinger, 2003; Quinn,
2002). Furthermore, the instructional leader is typically goal-oriented with a focus placed
upon improving student achievement outcomes and, as a result, is very much involved in
the decision-making processes surrounding curriculum selection and design (Hallinger,
2003). Hallinger’s (2003) review of the literature surrounding instructional leadership
will be reviewed in this section first before presenting the findings of Quinn’s (2002)
study.
Hallinger (2003) asserts there are three dimensions centered on instructional
leadership: 1) defining the school’s mission, 2) managing the instructional program, and
53
3) promoting a positive school-learning climate. The first dimension involves the
principal’s ability to define and clearly communicate the school’s mission (ibid.).
Typically, the school’s mission under the model of instructional leadership is goal-
oriented with the focus placed on improving students’ academic outcomes, which are
usually demonstrated on state accountability exams such as the California Standards
Tests (CSTs). The school’s mission focused on improving student outcomes is seen to be
a much more focused vision than a broader goal of, for example, preparing students to be
socially responsible and global participants (ibid.). The second dimension involves the
principal managing the instructional program (Hallinger, 2003). Principals who employ
the model of instructional leadership manage the instructional program by working with
the faculty on improving teaching and learning. This can be done with the development
and implementation of various professional development selected by the principal as
most appropriate to achieve the organizational goal of improving teaching and learning
(ibid.). The principal leads from a combination of expertise with curricula and charisma
in working with teachers to improve instructional practice (Hallinger, 2003). The
instructional leader is known for her increased involvement and allocation of time in the
area of improving instructional practice. The third and final dimension highlighted by
Hallinger (2003) involves the principal promoting a positive school-learning climate. The
principal, as an instructional leader, is one who seen as a culture-builder (ibid.). As a
culture builder, the principal creates an environment that promotes and fosters high
expectations and standards for both students and teachers (Hallinger, 2003). Practices
involved fostering and support a school-learning culture involves frequent reflection on
various data as highlighted in the work on Data Driven Decision Making (DDDM) and
54
Data Driven Instructional Systems (DDIS) conducted by Halverson, Grigg, Prichett &
Thomas (2006) discussed earlier in this chapter.
Though Hallinger (2003) did not conduct a study where the practices and
attributes of instructional leadership were observed in an educational setting, the author
does point to some specific challenges that may be experienced by the principal under
this stylistic model of leadership. One specific challenge Hallinger (2003) points to
involves the difficulty in a principal’s ability to allocate sufficient time to devote to
improving learning and teaching – particularly at the secondary level. The challenge with
time allocation involving instructional leadership at the secondary level is attributed to
school context – particularly the size of student population (ibid.). The larger the school,
the more challenging it becomes to track the progress of a student population size of, for
example, 2,000 students versus a student population size of 450 (ibid.). Hallinger (2003)
offers his rationale that a principal cannot be solely one type of leader due to the fact that
principals assume numerous roles in managerial, political, instructional, institutional,
human resource, and symbolic contexts in leadership. Principal behavior, especially
within the model of instructional leadership, is further explored in the study conducted by
Quinn (2002).
Quinn (2002) asserts there are four primary dimensions associated with
instructional leadership that involves a leader being: 1) a resource provider, 2) an
instructional resource, 3) a clear communicator, and 4) a visible presence. These four
dimensions expand upon Hallinger’s (2003) initial three dimensions of developing a
school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a school-learning
climate as they are specific to the behaviors a principal employs under the instructional
55
leadership model. According to Quinn (2002), when the leader is a resource provider, she
works to gather any and all appropriate resources within the organization, the district and
the community in an effort to assist her organizational members towards improvement of
practice. As an instructional provider, the leader is focused on establishing goals for
instructional improvement and works to provide the necessary resources through
professional development to assist in the improvement of classroom instruction (ibid.).
As a communicator, the leader is focused on maintaining consistency in articulating the
organization’s goals while clearly communicating the practices that are to be
implemented in achieving the established goal. An example of this could involve the
principal clearly articulating appropriate accountability measures and standards for
performance with regard to instructional practice (Quinn, 2002). Finally, as a visible
presence, the leader is focused on being a presence on campus through conducting
classroom visits and observations, attending departmental meetings, engaging in
impromptu conversations with both staff and students alike, walking the halls while
greeting those present (ibid.). The four dimensions of instructional leadership expanded
upon above are validated in Quinn’s (2002) study.
Quinn (2002) studied the relationship between the instructional leadership
behaviors of principals and the impact on teachers’ instructional practice. The study
examined the ways principals encourage and work in partnership with teachers to
construct an environment that values and supports student engagement (Quinn, 2002).
The author drew data from surveys conducted at eight elementary schools, eight middle
schools, and eight high schools. Four dimensions of instructional leadership were
established by Quinn (2002) to serve as categories for the survey that was sent to the
56
selected schools: resource provider, instructional resource, communicator, and visible
presence. From these dimensions, the author associated the dimensions with the
following behaviors outlined in the Instructional Practice Inventory (IPI): active-
learning/active-teaching, teacher-led conversation, teacher-led instruction, student-
work/teacher engagement, student-work/teacher disengagement, total disengagement
(Quinn, 2002). The results from the questionnaire were analyzed to determine significant
relationships between the dimensions of instructional leadership and the identified
behaviors from the IPI. Of the four dimensions examined, the dimension of instructional
resource correlated the most significance with the behaviors of active-learning/active-
teaching and the behaviors surrounding engagement (Quinn, 2002). Results from Quinn’s
(2002) study answer her research question by highlighting the practices of instructional
leadership with the author concluding that the notion of leadership possessing the ability
to impact instruction is valid.
The strength of Quinn’s (2002) study lies in the confirmation that when principals
are strong in the area of providing instructional support, they are able to effectively lead
as instructional leaders and, as a result, contribute to the increased levels of student
achievement. Furthermore, Quinn’s (2002) supports the argument that strong
instructional leadership positively influences and impacts teaching and learning. The
study also afforded an opportunity to quantitatively measure and support Quinn’s (2002)
assertions about the relationship between principal behaviors and the impact on
instructional practice. However, the strength the of the study’s quantitative nature is also
its limitation. Qualitative data for this study would have provided deeper insight into the
nuances of leadership that are difficult to quantify (Quinn, 2002). Individual perspectives
57
from the principals and teachers would have allowed for a closer look into the
relationships between the leader and organizational members as they work together to
improve instructional practice. Nevertheless, Quinn’s (2002) study does support the
dimensions described by Hallinger (2003) regarding the behaviors associated with
instructional leadership.
Hallinger (2003) and Quinn (2002) highlight benefits observed through the
stylistic model of instructional leadership. When a leader places focus on improving
instruction, it is concluded that focus on instructional improvement will transfer into
improvements in instructional practice (Quinn, 2002). Focusing on instructional
improvement also has seen to bear an impact on student learning due to the increased
focus on instructional methods and student learning outcomes (Quinn, 2002).
Additionally, the model of instructional leadership also identifies the principal as the sole
individual who is at the forefront of establishing the goals for achievement improvement
in instructional practice (Hallinger, 2003). However, as school sites are introduced to new
or modified accountability mechanisms seen in legislation such as No Child Left Behind
(2001) and Race to the Top (2010), instructional leadership practices where the principal
is solely the one who initiates the process for instructional improvement will lead to
organizations where the principal will become increasingly overwhelmed. Through the
model of instructional leadership, the principal is the one initiating the articulation and
modification of the organizational goals pertaining to instructional improvement. With
the principal as the sole initiator of the improvement plans in this model, little
involvement or input is typically solicited from the teachers other than to implement the
recommended tools and strategies (Hallinger, 2003). This, in turn, leads me to explore the
58
theories behind the idea of transformational leadership and the ways in which the leader
works to transform the overall organization through the increased involvement by the
organizational members.
Transformational Leadership
While instructional leadership allowed for the principal to direct her focus
towards the improvement of instructional practice, the principal administered much of the
guidance and direction in this stylistic model of leadership. The focus of transformational
leadership for the leader rests on her ability to engage in “shared or distributed
leadership” rather than operating as sole controller (Hallinger, 2003, p. 338). The
building and cultivating of relationships as a practice in transformational leadership
validates what Fullan (2001) argues in that organizational relationships are necessary and
foundational towards accomplishing organizational change. In this section, Hallinger’s
(2003) review of transformational leadership will be reviewed as a theoretical
perspective. I will then support Hallinger’s (2003) conceptualization of transformational
leadership with the findings from the conducted by Marks and Printy (2003).
Hallinger (2003) asserts there are eight components in the model of
transformational leadership. These eight components involve attributes and practices such
as: 1) providing individualized support, 2) developing and communicating shared goals,
3) possessing vision, 4) providing intellectual stimulation, 5) culture building, 6)
establishing and communicating high expectations, 7) providing rewards, and 8)
modeling (ibid.). Practices such as providing individualized support, intellectual
stimulation and possessing vision highlight the need for a principal to be understanding
of the needs of the organization’s members as opposed to acting as sole operator as was
59
suggested within the instructional leadership model Hallinger (2003) described earlier in
his article. Hallinger (2003) draws the distinction between the two models of leadership
by asserting transformational leadership involves a bottom-up approach versus the top-
down approach with instructional leadership.
Furthermore, transformational leadership depends on the principal’s ability to
foster and manage existing organizational relationships while moving towards achieving
established or predetermined goals (Hallinger, 2003). This differs from instructional
leadership where the focus is heavily placed on instructional improvement. The model of
transformational leadership works to achieve the organizational goals through what
Hallinger (2003) defines as second-order changes (ibid.). Hallinger (2003) states that
when it comes to organizational change, there are two types of changes: first-order
change and second-order change. Hallinger (2003) defines first-order change as changes
that have a direct impact on the quality of curriculum and level of instruction that is
delivered to students. First-order changes within an organization can also include
establishing school-wide goals, the principal directly supervising teaching, and the
principal’s direct coordination of curriculum (ibid.). The preliminary practice of creating
first-order changes comes from an instructional leadership model as the leader is first
focused with determining improvement plans based on the monitoring of teacher and
student work. First-order changes are meant to have a direct impact on implementation,
but do not necessarily change the organizational culture or motivational behaviors of
those participating in the organization (Hallinger, 2003).
Once the leader determines the appropriate goals for instructional improvement,
the leader can then focus on achieving the three goals associated with transformational
60
leadership which involve helping organizational members cultivate and maintain a
professionally collaborative culture; fostering professional development; and helping
organizational members engage in more effective problem solving (Hallinger, 2003).
Second-order change, as described by Hallinger (2003), emphasizes the creation of a
climate where organizational members become increasingly committed in accomplishing
the school’s established mission. Teachers believe in the mission communicated by the
principal and, in turn, become self-motivated to work towards organizational
improvement without specific or persistent guidance from the principal (ibid.). The
organization works together in a process of continuous learning with increased
professional collaboration that includes sharing of practices and results as a means of
monitoring progress towards improved practice. Second-order changes exemplify the
construct of transformational leadership because the organization is, in essence,
transformed within their practice. The principal is no longer acting solo but has
influenced organizational members to work alongside the principal as they work towards
organizational improvement. It is the combination of enacting first-order changes with
second-order changes that permit a leader to engage in the act of transformational
leadership.
The strength of transformational leadership resides in its focus on transforming
the organization whereby the practices employed by the leader work to influence
organizational members to pursue one direction or implement one type of practice in
place of another (Hallinger, 2003). While transforming the organization and the
organizational culture is an admirable and desirable effect, the focus placed on
implementing a desired level of change may not always be tied to impacting student
61
learning especially if most of the organizational change centers upon changing the
organizational members themselves (Hallinger, 2003). This is not to say, however, that
transformational leadership does not have a place in the context of leadership. There is an
evolutionary point of reference to make here between instructional leadership – where the
principal was the sole director of change regarding the selecting, articulating and
designing strategies for improving instructional practice (Hallinger, 2003) – and
transformational leadership – where the principal attempts to influence the organization
through the establishment of more interpersonal relationships that foster a collaborative
environment conducive to engaging in problem-solving and professional learning
(Hallinger, 2003). Engaging organizational members in activities associated with
accomplishing the shared goals established by the leader increases the level of
involvement and collaboration that is needed in transformational leadership. The leader is
no longer the sole participant in cultivating and facilitating organizational change, but
helps to influence the members to participate in activities that will promote the desired
change. Marks and Printy (2003) examine the level of collaboration between principals
and organizational members within the model of transformational leadership in their
study, which is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Marks and Printy (2003) examined the relations between principals and teachers
and their level of active collaboration pertaining to matters of instruction and improving
the quality to teaching and student learning. Their study was grounded in the two
conceptualizations of leadership already discussed: instructional and transformational.
Marks and Printy (2003) established the following research questions:
62
1) What is the relationship between transformational and shared instructional
leadership in restructuring elementary, middle and high schools?
2) How do schools with varying approaches to leadership differ according to
their demographics, organization and performance?
3) What is the effect of transformational and shared instructional leadership
on school performance as measured by the quality of pedagogy and the
achievement of students? (Marks & Printy, 2003, p. 378).
To answer the three research questions established by Marks and Printy (2003), the
authors conducted a mixed-methods study where they gathered a sample of eight
elementary, eight middle, and eight high schools for a total of 24 sites. The researchers
gathered their data during the course of two weeks during the school’s study year: one
week in the fall and one week in the spring. Teachers were asked to complete surveys
that included questions about their instructional practice, professional practices and
perceptions about their school and the organization. The survey yielded an 80 percent
response rate with 910 teachers participating in the survey (Marks & Printy, 2003). The
authors then conducted interviews with 25 to 30 staff members at each school and also
conducted interviews with school and district administrators. Marks and Printy (2003)
also conducted observations at each school where they say in on faculty and school
governance meetings. Documents were also obtained and analyzed examining the
schools’ efforts towards restructuring (ibid.). Classroom observations were also
conducted with the authors sitting in on core class instruction from three mathematics and
three social science teachers from each school (ibid.). Observations were stated to have
occurred for at last half of a class session and teachers were observed at least four times
63
(ibid.). Finally, the authors collected documents from student work, which was rated by
“trained researchers and practitioners according to established standards for authentic
achievement” (Marks & Printy, 2003, p. 379).
Dependent and independent variables were established for the study conducted by
Marks and Printy (2003). The independent variables for examining the relationship
between leadership and school performance were leadership and school demographics
(ibid.). The dependent variables established were pedagogical quality, assessment task,
and academic achievement (ibid.). From their results from the collected data, the authors
determined the following:
• Nine schools out of 24 scored “low” on both forms of leadership (instructional
and transformational)
• Six schools out of 24 scored “high” on transformational leadership but “low” on
instructional leadership
• Seven schools out of 24 scored “high” on both forms of leadership
Two schools from the sample of 24 schools were dropped from the data analysis due to
missing data pertaining to measures of leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003). From their
data, the authors concluded that a principal who lacks capacity for demonstrating
prominent elements of transformational leadership (e.g., communicating vision,
providing individualized support, building relationships) is also likely to be poorly
equipped to share and distribute responsibility with teachers in matters pertaining to
curriculum and instruction (Marks & Printy, 2003). Schools that were found to have
scored low on both forms of leadership were found to not benefit from the principal’s
leadership influence either in a transformational or instructional leadership model (ibid.).
64
The schools that demonstrated strong measures in transformational leadership, but not
instructional leadership, were found to have principals who placed their focused in areas
outside of instruction (ibid.). This supports Hallinger’s (2003) assertion that in order for
instructional leadership to be effective, a larger focus must be placed on improving the
quality of teaching and learning in the organization.
One major finding from Marks and Printy (2003) lies in the integration of both
transformational and instructional leadership as a means of enhancing organizational
performance. From their results, the authors found that schools that integrated both
transformational and instructional leadership models (with instructional leadership
“shared” between leadership and organizational members) provided evidence of
enhanced pedagogical practice in addition to increased levels of student achievement.
However, Marks and Printy (2003) do not provide details about how principals and
teachers “shared” instructional leadership (p. 392). Nevertheless, the study finds that a
strong transformational leader is essential in garnering support and commitment from the
organizational members towards organizational improvement (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Strengths that reside within the study conducted by Marks and Printy (2003)
involve the discovery of the collaborative power of leadership shared among principals
and teachers in the organization. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of
integrating both instructional and transformational leadership suggesting that the two
models of leadership work in tandem to support and promote organizational
improvement. One weakness observed within the study is the lack of longitudinal data to
fully measure the impact of the integrated models of leadership over longer spans of time.
The two-week data collection period provided only a snapshot of analysis for the authors
65
to examine the relationship between leadership and school performance. Nevertheless,
the study does point to the suggestion that both models of leadership, when integrated,
yield positive results for the organization.
From transformational leadership, it is clear that the leader plays an important role
in shaping the organizational culture providing opportunities for organizational change
(Hallinger, 2003; Marks and Printy, 2003). Transformational leadership, however, is
limited by the mere act of influence on the part of the leader and does not fully explore
how the leader monitors the actions of the organizational members in progressing
towards desired change. It is not enough to have a leader persuade organizational
members to believe in the mission and believe in the practices that will help accomplish
the mission, but there is a level of shared responsibility that needs to be assumed by all
parties. From the literature on instructional leadership and transformational leadership
one thing is clear – the leader, alone, cannot make every significant change necessary
towards accomplishing the established goals (Hallinger, 2003). The next section will
address the idea of distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000, 2002, 2005; Spillane, Halverson
& Diamond, 2004, 2005) and how a leader works to allocate responsibilities across the
various organizational roles.
Distributed Leadership
Elmore (2000) presents an argument for the concept of distributed leadership. He
asserts that distributed leadership involves a leader creating multiple roles and
responsibilities for various organizational members that establishes a chain of command
exhibiting a clear “division of labor” (Elmore, 2002, p. 24). As a result, the knowledge
base and institutional practices within the organization become spread among the roles
66
established versus being compartmentalized within one individual – the leader (ibid.).
Thus, leadership does not reside within one individual, but within the collective group
through the guidance and support of the leader (ibid.).
Elmore’s (2000) conceptualization of leadership extends from the trait leadership
perspective (Northouse, 2007). Distributed leadership focuses on the actions taken by the
leader, not the “traits” possessed by the individual (Elmore, 2000). In fact, Elmore (2000)
asserts the trait perspective on leadership is romantically antiquated. American culture
subscribes to the belief that there are traits inherent in an individual that qualifies them as
an “effective” leader (Elmore, 2000). He argues we internalize such interpretations of
trait theories in leadership because we are fond of the idea that an individual possessing
key traits we deem admirable will be paramount in solving our problems with that
individual becoming our subsequent “hero” (Elmore, 2000, p. 13). From this position, the
author is able to argue that change and organizational improvement involve all
participating members via the support and guidance of the leader delineating
responsibilities according to the relevant talents and abilities of the members rather than
the leader acting as a one-woman show (Elmore, 2000).
Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2004) add to Elmore’s (2000) theory of
distributed leadership with their definition that leadership is an activity that is
“constituted – defined or constructed – in the interaction of leaders, followers, and their
situation in the execution of particular leadership tasks” (Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2004, p. 10). The authors argue that we must consider the underlying cognition
in leadership that a leader engages in through the creation of interacting roles between
leaders and organizational members (ibid.). Doing so allows for deeper understanding
67
regarding how leaders behave within the distributed leadership model. It becomes
necessary to redefine the elements that exist in the practice of leadership (Spillane et al.,
2004). Spillane et al. (2004) assert that leadership should no longer be seen as a function
of an individual’s knowledge base, skill set, or persona but, rather, as a practice that is
circulated amongst leaders, members and the very situations they collectively face.
However, the authors’ theoretical perspective on distributed leadership does not illustrate
the use of this model in an educational setting. Timperley’s (2005) study provides a
richer illustration of the practice of distributed leadership within an educational setting.
The findings of Timperley’s (2005) study are described below.
Timperley (2005) studied the distributed leadership model in an elementary
school setting where schools were involved in school improvement plans centered on
improving student literacy. Using interview and observation data from seven schools with
21 teachers and the school principals over the course of four years, Timperley (2005)
found a school’s organizational context influenced the ways in which a principal was
involved in distributing leadership roles among organizational members.
Timperley (2005) directed her focus on the principal’s role in distributed
leadership with her profile on two principals from the seven schools in her study.
Timperley (2005) found that the first principal’s belief in his role in distributed leadership
involved his ability to build and maintain trust within his teacher leaders especially in
situations where the principal was not familiar with certain content areas such as the
literacy program implemented at their site. The principal believed trust was a major
component in ensuring success within his employment of distributed leadership. Though
the principal was encouraging of teacher leaders to assume leadership roles within the
68
literacy program, he still provided support when needed to ensure effective
implementation (Timperely, 2005).
The second principal profiled in Timperley (2005) believed personal involvement
was key in her utilization of the distributed leadership model. The principal took part in
the professional development that her teachers attended for the literacy program. The
principal’s attendance at the professional development allowed the principal to gain a
stronger understanding of the instructional program that was planned for school-wide
implementation. The principal’s participation in the professional development also
allowed her to be a stronger support source for teacher leaders who worked to implement
the literacy program school-wide. In contrast to the first principal who explicitly trusted
teacher leaders to lead program implementation in a content area with which he was
unfamiliar, the second principal decided to participate in the same professional
development so that she may gain content knowledge of the program in order to further
support members when needed (Timperely, 2005). It was not clear from Timperely’s
(2005) study if the second principal exhibited a lack of trust, but the principal’s
organizational focus in the distributed leadership model involved allocating leadership
roles among members and ensuring that the principal had enough content knowledge to
support her teacher leaders in their assigned roles (Timperley, 2005).
Timperley’s study (2005) highlighted the ways in which a principal may
distribute leadership. A principal’s ability to delegate or distribute leadership
responsibilities allows for the allocation of time to additional responsibilities that
consume the principal’s workday (Timperley, 2005). Furthermore, the longitudinal data
over the course of four years is strength to Timperley’s (2005) study. The length of the
69
study by Timperley (2005) provided deeper insight into interactions among principals
and teachers within certain organizational contexts. One limitation found with the study
involves a lack of secondary schools in the sample Timperley (2005) selected. The focus
on elementary schools does not illustrate how principals engage and utilize distributed
leadership models at the secondary school level.
Conclusions
The three stylistic models of instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Quinn,
2002), transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Marks & Printy, 2003) and
distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000, 2002; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004;
Timperley, 2005) illustrate various models a leader may employ when leading an
organization. Four conclusions are drawn after reviewing the literature on these three
leadership styles. First, each of these leadership styles highlights a place of focus for the
leader in determining the type of organizational change that is desired (e.g., improving
instruction, transforming the underlying beliefs and practices, or distributing leadership
across roles). Second, all three of these leadership styles share a common idea that
collaboration is crucial in working towards achieving potential organizational change.
Third, leadership style is one that is chosen by the leader and may be dependent on the
organizational context and what the leader is seeking to accomplish in her role. Finally,
whichever model a principal chooses to implement will influence and determine the
overall focus and vision of the principal and the organization.
70
Cognitive Elements of Leadership: Mental Models, Leader Self-Efficacy,
Immunities to Change and Leader Creativity
I will now turn my attention to four cognitive elements of leadership that inform
the research question for my study: mental models, leader self-efficacy, immunities to
change, and leader creativity. In this section I begin with Senge’s (1990, 2006) theoretical
constructs of “mental models.” I then present findings from a study conducted by Ruff
and Shoho (2005) where the authors studied the influence of mental models in the
principalship. Next, I will turn my attention to literature on leader self-efficacy as
discussed in Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) and Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, and Harms
(2008). I will then present results from a study conducted by Leithwood and Jantzi (2008)
where the authors examined the contributions of leader efficacy on student learning and
organizational improvement. I will then speak to Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey’s
(2008) work on immunities to change and will speak to the results of their case study
findings. I will conclude with a presentation of Sternberg’s (2007) theoretical
conceptualization of creativity in leadership. The literature reviewed in this section will
shed light on the ways in which a leader’s mental constructs may influence her leadership
practices and how her mental constructs are further influenced by her confidence about
her ability to be a successful leader.
Mental Models
Senge’s (1990, 2006) work highlights the concepts of mental models and the role
they play in a leader’s practices and decision-making processes. Senge (2006) defines
mental models as a system of thought whereby what an individual thinks and believes
influences that individual’s actions, decisions, and practices within an organization.
71
There are four key disciplines of the system of mental models. These disciplines include
the extent to which one can:
• Admit differences between one’s espoused theories and her actual practice
• Recognize and identify moments when one moves from making observations to
generalizations
• Articulate what one tends not to overtly communicate, and
• Foster and balance practice of inquiry and advocacy (Senge, 2006, p. 176).
Mental models are systems of evolving thought that “shape how we act” (Senge,
2006, p. 164). Mental models are derived from one’s own experiences and observations,
which have the capacity to shape one’s perceptions about the way she sees and interprets
the world (ibid.). In turn, an individual’s mental models have the capacity to shape the
very actions and behaviors that individual may employ (ibid.). This is especially true
within organizational settings. Similarly, the mental models of a leader within an
organization also bears influence in the various organizational practices employed in
order to perform at a desired level (ibid.). Furthermore, the underlying assumptions and
beliefs, or mental models, of individual organizational members can also shape and
determine the ways in which that organization performs or behaves (Senge, 2006).
Mental models become an integral piece in understanding organizational learning
because if a leader is able to understand the underlying assumptions and belief systems
within an organization, she may be able to navigate a pathway towards determining
potential gaps and design a plan for organizational improvement (Senge, 2006).
Furthermore, understanding the mental models espoused within a school site can help
determine why the school functions the way that it does as well as investigating what
72
allows or does not allow for the principal to affect instructional improvement. While
Senge’s (2006) theoretical construct of mental models is convincing in understanding the
systems of thought employed by leaders in an organization, there are no studies presented
to illustrate how mental models operate within an educational setting. In support of
Senge’s (1990, 2006) argument, Ruff and Shoho’s (2005) study of mental models in the
principalship serve to illustrate the concept of mental models observed in an educational
setting.
Ruff and Shoho (2005) examined the mental models of three elementary school
principals at various stages in their profession. Through a mainly qualitative study, the
authors interviewed and observed three principals: one male and two female. The male
principal was in his first year as principal, one of the female principals had 6 years of
experience and the second female principal had more than 20 years of experience and had
received national recognition as an outstanding leader. Ruff and Shoho (2005) sought to
address the following two research questions:
1) What are the mental models used by urban elementary school principals to
construct their role as instructional leaders? and
2) How, if at all, do the mental models of urban elementary school principals vary
with differences in reputation and job experience?
A three-month study included observations of the three principals in addition to
interviews with both the principals and the teachers with whom the principals worked.
Observations were conducted in naturalistic and structured settings to examine principal
actions and behaviors in both planned and unplanned settings. Data analysis included
examining what was written and spoken in interviews and observations with the authors
73
focusing on what was “consistently unsaid, commonalities in causal reasoning processes,
the ways in which metaphors are used, and the repetition of the same network of ideas”
(Ruff & Shoho, 2005, p. 560). Patterns were determined from the data analysis and the
authors determined a common cognitive structure, which reflected the use of mental
models (Ruff & Shoho, 2005). However, the stages of experience for each the three
principals also reflected the types of mental models with which each leader operated.
Each of the principals interviewed and observed for Ruff and Shoho’s (2005)
study illustrated different types of mental models in accordance with their present
experience in the principalship. The “rookie” principal’s mental model involved a deep
belief in the importance of looking to data to determine the appropriate improvement plan
and using that data to drive instructional and organizational improvement goals. His
reference to data and research was observed in his instructional planning, teacher
evaluation, and problem solving with teacher and parent stakeholders (Ruff & Shoho,
2005).
The principal with 6 years of experience also focused on improving instruction
and providing instructional leadership, but her mental model was directed more towards
team building and conflict management through fostering member interaction and
maintaining organizational relationships. This principal’s mental model was tied to
personal involvement. She was quoted as frequently asking herself the question: “How
should I be involved?” (Ruff & Shoho, 2005, p. 566). The principal’s mental model
involved a deep desire to be personally involved and interact with faculty, staff, parents
and students and she was known to be a visible presence within the school (ibid.). Unlike
the first-year principal whose mental model focused on the use of data for organizational
74
and instructional improvement, the six-year principal believed that her role involved
creating an environment where everyone – students and faculty – is successful (ibid.).
Finally, the nationally recognized principal, who had led her school site for the
past 23 years, exemplified a mental model that was more of a “transformative”
instructional leader model. She sought to improve the organization’s instructional
practice through a student-centered vision (Ruff & Shoho, 2005). The award-winning
principal believed in the value of fostering individual relationships and in being a visible
and enthusiastic presence at the school, but that leadership involved all organizational
members, not just the principal alone (ibid.). The principal’s interactions with students,
parents, and teachers were found to be individualistic in nature as she worked with each
individual and tailored interaction according to his or her needs. As a result, the principal
was found to be in a constant interaction within her own mental model as she would
“routinely question preexisting assumptions and adjust her perception of what is
important to be observed” (Ruff & Shoho, 2005, p. 571). This constant level of awareness
allowed the principal to become more in tune with the faculty, staff, parents, and students
with whom she interacted frequently (ibid.).
The findings from this study suggest that the mental model with which a principal
operates can influence the level to which he or she is able to work to improve
instructional practice within an organization. Furthermore, while the issues,
organizational contexts and routines were similar within the generalized role of the
principal, the individualized meaning a principal associated with the various issues,
organizational context and routines were different and, therefore, demonstrated differing
mental models. Strength from this study resides in the authors’ ability to delve deeper
75
into the mental models or cognitive systems that influence practices observed in
leadership and how principals choose to operate within their leadership roles in a school.
While Ruff and Shoho’s (2005) work sheds light into the importance of
examining mental models in school leadership, there are several limitations found within
this study. First, the timeline of the study was only three months. The brief glimpse into
the mental models of the principal’s leadership does not fully illustrate how the
principals’ mental models aid in organizational and instructional improvement during the
entire course of the academic year. One can only make an assumption that the mental
models exhibited by the principals could have a positive affect on the overall
improvement of the organization and student performance. A second limitation involves
the principal selection. While the selection of solely elementary principals illustrates
principal leadership within an elementary school context, the authors did not include
principals at the secondary school level. Therefore, it is not clear if such mental models
are consistent across all grade levels or if mental model vary at the secondary level.
Finally, the qualitative focus on only three elementary school principals provided limited
data in terms of recurring mental models. Each of the three principals had differing
mental models, which raises the question as to whether or not mental models are solely
unique to the individual or if there are recurring patterns in mental models that can be
seen in groups of principals are differing grade levels across the K-12 educational setting.
Leader Self-Efficacy
Research on the role of leader self-efficacy in organizational improvement and
leader development is limited (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans
& Harms, 2008). Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) provide a theoretical examination in
76
the ways self-efficacy beliefs influence leader development and assert that leader self-
efficacy is key to understanding the ways a leader develops in effective practice.
Furthermore, the authors assert that the varying levels of a leader’s self-efficacy influence
the extent to which a leader is effective in organizational improvement and personal
professional development (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011).
Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) define leader self-efficacy as: “a leader’s
confidence in his or her attributes, knowledge and skills in areas need to lead others
effectively” (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011, p. 2). Machida and Schaubroeck (2011)
draw from self-efficacy literature and social cognitive theory to develop and present a
model of leader development in relation to a leader’s self-efficacy. An illustration of this
model is presented in Figure 1.4 on page 77 of this chapter. Essentially, there are four
self-efficacy models the authors believe are relevant to leader development: preparatory
self-efficacy, efficacy spirals, learning self-efficacy, and resilient self-efficacy (ibid.). All
four concepts discuss the process in which a leader works to cultivate practice, combat
challenges, and learn from her practice in order achieve optimal leader development and
organizational improvement (ibid.). These concepts are explored in more detail in the
paragraphs below.
Preparatory self-efficacy centers on a leader’s belief in his ability to learn the
skills needed to perform required tasks associated with the professional position in
leadership (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Preparatory self-efficacy may develop from
an individual’s participation in a mentorship program, leadership credential program, or
other forms of professional development where the individual is involved in skill
acquisition (ibid.). Through the development of skills, a leader may then reflect on his
77
learning self-efficacy. Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) assert that learning self-efficacy
involves the leader’s judgment about her own ability to learn and master a new skill and
essentially use that skill to accomplish a certain task within a situation that centers on a
leader’s performance.
The leader’s belief in her ability to learn a certain task that will help in her
leadership performance will allow for her to engage in the necessary preparation to be
able to accomplish that task or learn a particular skill (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011).
During the learning process, a leader may experience various challenges, which prompts
the leader to refer to her resilient self-efficacy (ibid.). According to the authors, resilient
self-efficacy centers on an individual’s beliefs that, despite obstacles or challenges she
78
may face, the leader believes she can learn and thrive from these experiences and will
grow as an individual and as a leader (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011).
During the process of learning and skill acquisition, the individual leader may
experience what Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) refer to as “efficacy spirals”. Efficacy
spirals refer to fluctuations in self-efficacy beliefs where the leader may begin with high
levels of self-efficacy and experience decreases in self-efficacy beliefs based on
experiences gained through learning leadership skills and challenges experienced (ibid.).
Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) assert that leaders need to maintain a cycle of self-
correction where the individual reflect on learning experiences and determine areas for
growth. There is a caution to the extent of efficacy spirals in that “when leaders are
learning to lead, repeated and uninterrupted failure will tend to decrease self-efficacy and
encourage downward efficacy spirals” (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011, p. 4). As a result,
a leader who experiences what she believes to be persistent failure may feel demoralized
and may experience a cycle of “learned helplessness” (ibid.) where the leader believes
she no longer has control over her ability to improve performance. While downward
efficacy spirals are ones to be avoided, Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) emphasize that
self-correcting cycles are necessary for maintaining and improving preparatory self-
efficacy, learning self-efficacy, and resilient self-efficacy.
Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) also address what they assert are two key
influences on leader self-efficacy: developmental experiences and learning orientation.
The authors illustrate developmental experiences for leaders as experiences that contain:
feedback, challenges, and support (ibid.). Feedback for developing leaders can come
from various sources such as supervisors, peers, mentors and the individual leader (ibid.).
79
Feedback for developing leaders is seen to be incredibly important in leader development
because feedback has the capacity to clarify changes a leader needs to make in order to
close certain performance gaps. Feedback can also increase a leader’s self-efficacy –
particularly for those who may have initially had low self-efficacy. Feedback, finally, has
the potential to enhance a leader’s learning self-efficacy as the leader may examine
alternative strategies that may have been originally overlooked prior to receipt of
feedback (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Second to feedback, the authors discuss how
challenges serve as development experiences (ibid.). Machida and Schaubroeck (2011)
assert challenges are necessary to leader development and can include: a) unfamiliar
responsibilities, b) establishing and moderating change, c) working across boundaries
where she may not have authorization, and d) managing diversity. Challenges within the
four categories mentioned above afford leaders with opportunities to examine differing
perspectives thereby contributing to her learning self-efficacy. Support is the final
element in developmental experiences that support leader self-efficacy. Machida and
Schaubroeck (2011) discuss support as strategies and people who assist the leader in
development. This can include mentorships, vicarious experiences through the use of
modeling, and talking to others about developmental experiences to confirm or clarify
lessons learned (ibid.). A support system where a leader has individual with whom she
can discuss her experiences and challenges is essentially to her leader self-efficacy and
leadership development.
Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) also highlight that learning orientation, in
addition to developmental experiences, bear influence on a leader’s self-efficacy. The
authors describe learning orientation as emphasizing learning, mastery and increasing
80
one’s level of competence (ibid.). Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) assert that those with
high learning orientation exhibit a desire to investigate and learn new methods that may
improve one’s capacity for the long term. This is different from a performance orientation
where the individual is more concerned with seeking methods that will aid in increasing
immediate performance (ibid.). In the context of leader development, a leader with a high
learning orientation is more likely to build and maintain learning efficacy in an effort to
acquire methods and skills that will improve her leadership capacity for the long term
(ibid.). Furthermore, leaders with a high learning orientation are more inclined to be more
reflective about their practice through self-evaluation and setting goals for self-
improvement in leadership (ibid.).
Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) provide a comprehensive overview of the
elements and key factors associated with leader self-efficacy. The authors theory on
leader self-efficacy is extremely useful in understanding how a leader’s beliefs about her
capacity to lead and manage organizational change may ultimately influence the extent to
which she is effective in her own practice and development. However, there is a
limitation to Machida and Schaubroeck’s (2011) theoretical exploration. Their definitions
of leader self-efficacy are generally based in theory. The absence of an empirical work
from the authors fails to provide an illustration of what leader self-efficacy really looks
like in an educational setting. While the authors make a convincing argument about the
importance of leader self-efficacy in leader development, it is not clear what practices or
elements found within an educational setting are most effective in contributing to
increasing or decreasing levels of leader efficacy and, ultimately, leader development and
effectiveness (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011).
81
Hannah, Avolio, Luthans and Harms (2008) also contribute to the theoretical
literature on leader self-efficacy. The authors define leader self-efficacy as leaders’
“beliefs in their perceived capabilities to organize the positive psychological capabilities,
motivation, means, collective resources, and courses of action required to attain effective,
sustainable performance across their various leadership roles, demands, and contexts”
(Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008, p. 2). The authors believe that in order for
leaders to move organizational members towards collective or group performance, they
have to exercise high levels of personal agency (or action) and foster similar levels of
personal agency in those members whom they are leading (Hannah et al., 2008). The
authors go on to draw a distinction among leading versus leadership (ibid.). Hannah et al.
(2008) define leading to be the behaviors and actions employed by individual leaders.
The authors, on the other hand, see leadership as the positive influences occurring within
an organization of which the leader is part (ibid.). From their distinction of leading versus
leadership, the authors suggest that there is great value in developing a more
comprehensive understanding of the contributions and actions derived from a leader’s
self-efficacy in building a collective leadership efficacy (Hannah et al., 2008). Building a
collective leadership efficacy requires interacting with organizational members and
fostering organizational relationships, which is aligned with Northouse’s (2007) Leader-
Member Exchange Theory discussed earlier in this chapter.
Hannah et al. (2008) also speak to the concern of limited literature on leader
self-efficacy and present a multi-level framework for illustrating the interactions within
leader efficacy and its impact on building collective leadership efficacy, which is
presented in Figure 1.5 on page 82 of this chapter.
82
From Hannah et al.’s (2008) conceptual model, it is understood that there is a dyadic
relationship between a leader’s self efficacy and an organizational member’s self-
efficacy. The interactions that occur between the leader and member are influenced by
each participating party’s level of self-efficacy, which, in turn, translates into behavioral
actions taken by both individuals (Hannah et al., 2008). This level of interaction between
leader and follower(s) aids in fostering a collective efficacy among the leadership and
organizational members, which leads to collective action and increased organizational
performance (ibid.).
Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, and Harms (2008) make several key propositions as a
result of their review of research for leader self-efficacy: 1) Higher levels of leader self-
efficacy (LSE) will result in higher levels of leader emergence and performance, 2) LSE
will be moderated in its impact on leader emergence and performance by the extent to
which the LSE matches the demands of the task and the context in which the leader is
embedded, 3) leaders with a greater breadth of generalization of their LSE will be more
83
adaptable across contexts and situations, 4) a leader’s level of thought efficacy will be
related to the leader’s ability to learn and formulate leadership solutions, 5) higher levels
of leader thought efficacy are expected to result in higher levels of leader development,
emergence and performance and 6) a leader’s level of self-efficacy for self-motivation
will be related to the level of effort they allocate to both thinking through and performing
in challenging circumstances (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008). The strength
from Hannah et al.’s (2008) propositions is that they align to the theoretical arguments
made by Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) pertaining to leader self-efficacy. The
propositions also highlight that there is a need to study leader self-efficacy in an
organizational setting. However, the authors do not support their propositions with an
empirical study in an educational setting, making it difficult to see how these propositions
may or not be true in an applied setting. The limitation identified within Hannah et al.
(2008) is one I plan to address within my study and will discuss during the presentation
of my conceptual framework at the end of this chapter.
The theoretical perspectives on leader self-efficacy presented in Machida and
Schaubroeck (2011) and Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, and Harms (2008) address an
underlying element that was not fully addressed in past literature on leadership attributes
from either the trait, behavioral or operational perspective. From the work of Machida
and Schaubroeck (2011) and Hannah et al. (2008), an assertion can be drawn that an
principal’s belief in her ability for building organizational capacity may influence the
extent to which she is able to employ in practices associated in either the stylistic
approaches of instructional, transformational or distributed leadership. This is an
assertion that I wish to explore within my overall study.
84
Immunities to Change
Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) argue for the need to make
professional development programs more developmental and introduce a framework for
addressing a concept they call immunities to change. The authors define immunities to
change as the “underlying barriers that prevent an individual from making progress
towards a desired professional goal” (Helsing et al., 2008, p. 441). The framework
developed by Helsing et al. (2008) was tested employing single-case study methodology
where they examined the professional and personal development of one participant as she
navigated her process for increasing her capacity to ascertain her own mental models,
belief systems, and expectations and understanding how to use those internal constructs
to mediate her personal and professional responsibilities and relationships.
Helsing et al. (2008) stated they were facilitators of a professional development
program that was implemented for school and district leaders where the goal involved
guiding and supporting school and district leaders as they engaged in widespread
organizational change. Over the course of two years, Helsing et al. (2008) engaged 16
program participants in examining issues surrounding leadership capacity through a
series of action-oriented exercises. The goal of the exercises was to help the participants
understand and address systemic change and identify their immunities to change. Of
those 16 participants, 14 participated in follow-up activities during the course of a year to
work on mitigating their immunities and change their underlying behaviors and beliefs
that they were unconsciously demonstrating through their leadership practice. After
examining the data collected, Helsing et al. (2008) proceeded to conduct a single case
85
study with one of the program participants to follow her developmental journey in more
detail.
Interviews with the participant and focused reflection activities offered insight
into the beliefs the participant had about her capacity to complete the tasks and
responsibilities assigned with her professional role. The focused reflection activities are
what, according to the authors, raise the immunities to change to the level of the
individual’s conscious mind (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008). The authors
believe that their framework on immunities to change provide an opportunity for
individuals to consider “they do not just hold their fears in a passive way; they also
actively (if unconsciously) work to prevent what they are afraid of from occurring”
(Helsing et al., 2008, p. 448).
The concept of immunities to change is an important one to consider in that
Helsing et al. (2008) assert that the behaviors enacted by educators and educational
leaders may affect student achievement. Therefore, identifying and altering the
underlying behaviors and constructs that are preventing educators from reaching an
optimal performance level within the organization is important in ensuring that the
desired level of organizational change and improvement can be reached (Helsing et al.,
2008). When those beliefs and assumptions are not brought out in the open for an
individual to acknowledge, levels of practice and performance will remain where they are
because individuals will remain unaware of the underlying expectations and assumptions
that are consequently affecting their behaviors and practices (ibid).
Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey’s (2008) work makes two important
contributions to the field of research and the field of professional development. First, the
86
authors have now called attention to the need for more effective opportunities for
professional development that take into consideration theories of learning and
development, especially for adults. Second, Helsing et al.’s (2008) framework for
identifying and addressing an individual’s immunities to change is one that bears
potential fruit in the reframing of professional development programs for educators and
educational leaders. Identifying and mitigating the mental models and underlying beliefs
that negotiate leadership behaviors and practices is a practice not readily seen in many
leader development programs (Helsing et al., 2008). However, given the limitation of
presenting only one case study, more research would need to be conducted in order to
substantiate the authors’ assertions.
Leader Creativity
According to Sternberg (2007), creativity in leadership is important and is the
component whereby a leader generates the ideas that organizational members will
(hopefully) follow. The author argues that the organizational environment powerfully
influences the extent to which an individual is able to develop and use whatever potential
skill sets he has and it is important for a leader to exercise creativity in problem solving
by devising ideas that can move the organization forward (ibid.). Sternberg (2007)
cautions “organizations that do not transform themselves risk stagnation and dying” and
that an organization “lacking creative leadership is unlikely to be prepared to face the
challenges rapid change entails” (Sternberg, 2007, p. 39). The author presents a systems
model of leadership focusing on how one originates, makes, and acts on decisions
(Sternberg, 2007). Key components in Sternberg’s (2007) model include: wisdom,
intelligence, creativity, and synthesis. The key components in Sternberg’s (2007) model
87
are focused upon the individual leader. Sternberg (2007) argues that effective leadership
involves a synthesis of the leader’s characteristics surrounding wisdom, intelligence and
creativity.
From his perspective, a leader needs wisdom to balance and navigate the
interest of all stakeholders in an organization and ensure that the actions taken by the
leader and the organization seek a common goal. Furthermore, a leader must use
academic and practical intelligence (Sternberg, 2007). Academic intelligence is needed to
evaluate and determine whether ideas generated are good (ibid.). Practical intelligence is
needed in order to devise strategies for implementation of an idea or program in addition
to devising ways to persuade organizational members of the value of that idea or program
(ibid.). Creativity, as stated earlier in this section, is needed to generate new ideas to
improve organizational performance (ibid.). Creativity, especially creativity in leadership,
can take on many forms (Sternberg, 2007). Sternberg (2007) focuses his discussed on
eight forms of creative leadership. The eight approaches to creative leadership are
discussed below.
Sternberg’s (2007) eight approaches of creative leadership are broad
organizational models that involve a leader’s selection of organizational direction and
movement. The eight approaches are highlighted in Figure 1.6 on page 89. Of the eight
creative approaches to leadership, I would like to address the following two approaches
in more detail: forward incrementation and redirection (Sternberg, 2007). First, the
forward incrementation approach is considered to be the most easily recognized form of
creative leadership as most approaches to leadership, according to the author, fall into
this approach (ibid.). In forward incrementation, the leader attempts to continue the
88
momentum of the organization in the direction it is already going (Sternberg, 2007). The
leader works to extend the previous ideas held by the preceding leader or leadership team
with the promise of progress through the use of continuity (ibid.). The leader keeps the
original ideas and may update or upgrade small elements of a particular program or
practice, but does not radically change the original product or idea (Sternberg, 2007). As
a result, the leader’s methods are seen as creative and are not rejected by the
organizational members (ibid.).
In Redirection, the leader makes an attempt to take an organization from the
direction it is currently heading and redirect it towards a different direction (Sternberg,
2007). Sternberg (2007) cautions that leaders who employ a redirection approach in
leadership need to match their leadership style with the organizational culture and its
environment. If a leader is not able to match their leadership style to the organizational
context, even “their best intentions may go awry” (Sternberg, 2007, p. 35). The approach
of redirection fits closely with the model of transformational leadership in that a leader
works to transform an organization from its original starting point and move it in an
entirely new direction from where it was once headed. One large component involved
within this leadership approach is the importance of fostering and maintaining
organizational relationships. As Sternberg (2007) cautions, a leader who does not
recognize the organizational context and works to cultivate and maintain organizational
relationships, the leader will experience challenges in trying to redirect the organization
towards its new path.
89
Sternberg (2007) also makes the argument that individuals decide to be creative –
whether as a leader or an organizational member. He asserts that in order to be creative,
90
an individual should exhibit the following elements for a creative attitude in leadership:
1) redefine problems, 2) analyze ideas and problems, 3) devise and sell solutions, 4)
recognize how knowledge can both help and hinder creative thinking, 5) be willing to
take sensible risks, 6) be willing to tackle obstacles, 7) believe in one’s ability to
accomplish goals and tasks, 8) be willing to allow uncertainty, and 9) be willing to find
extrinsic types of rewards for things that one is intrinsically motivated to do (Sternberg,
2007).
Finally, Sternberg (2007) adds three skills that a leader should employ in any of
the eight approaches to creative leadership: selective encoding, selective comparison, and
selective combination. In selective encoding, the leader must be able to differentiate
relevant information from irrelevant information within their field of experience (ibid.).
In selective comparison, the leader must be able to relate new information to older pieces
of information (ibid.). In selective combination, the leader must be able to take encoded
information and combine it to create new and productive uses (ibid.). The three skills that
Sternberg (2007) highlights here speak to the notion that a leader must cognitively
engage in various thought processes as the leader makes his way towards locating,
creating and implementing novel ideas aimed at organizational improvement. Such skills
are what Sternberg (2007) refers to as “(Successful) Intelligence,” which he defines to be
the “skills and dispositions needed to succeed in life, given one’s own conception of
success, within one’s socio-cultural context” (Sternberg, 2007, p. 37). He ends by stating
that the reasons that leaders often fail is not because they are lacking intelligence and
creativity, but because they do not take advantage to use the intelligence and creativity
that they have (ibid.).
91
The strength in Sternberg’s (2007) article lies in his descriptive approaches to
creative leadership. Creativity is such a broad element in cognition and can vary in
different contexts. Sternberg (2007) does well to illustrate the levels of creative thought
associated with certain approaches in leadership. Furthermore, his work highlights the
importance of creativity in organizational improvement and reminds the reader that
organizations and leaders need to avoid the pitfalls of stagnation. However, Sternberg’s
(2007) lack of an empirical study fails to fully illustrate how these approaches in creative
leadership could be observed in an applied setting – especially in an educational setting.
This limitation in Sternberg’s (2007) article is one I plan to address within my study and
conceptual framework.
Conclusions
The literature reviewed in this section speaks to a need for further investigation
surrounding how a leader’s mental models, leader self-efficacy, immunities to change,
and leader creativity, influence the type of leadership behaviors and practices she will
choose to employ. This need for further investigation surrounding these four elements is
due to the limited literature exploring the ways that leader self-efficacy, mental models,
immunities to change, and leader creativity can potentially influence leadership practice
and the possibility of achieving organizational change (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011;
Sternberg, 2007; Ruff & Shoho, 2005). These four elements are ones that I am choosing
to explore in greater detail within my study. They are also the elements that will serve as
a foundational construct as part of my conceptual framework which is presented on the
following page.
92
Conceptual Framework
The earlier sections in this chapter reviewed the following bodies of literature: 1)
trait, behavioral, and operational perspectives on the current role of the principalship, 2)
leadership styles, and 3) the individual elements of leadership involving mental models,
leader self-efficacy, immunities to change, and leader creativity. These three bodies of
literature reviewed have influenced what will serve as my conceptual framework for my
study, which is presented in Figure 1.7 below:
Drawing on literature from organizational learning theory, leadership theory,
socio-cultural theory, and the social and psychological constructs influencing leader
behavior and capacity for leadership, I assert there exists an intersection between a
93
principal’s own mental models and their beliefs about their capacity for leadership. This
intersection is mediated by the principal’s immunities to change, which in turn translates
into levels of creativity that will propel the principal to adopt prominent leadership
practices and a set of behaviors that are then demonstrated within the organizational
environment. The types of organizational behaviors demonstrated by the leader and
organizational members are believed to lead the organization towards the possibility of
fostering and achieving organizational improvement. I explore these elements in further
details below. I will begin the presentation of my conceptual framework by discussing
my conceptualization of mental models, leader self-efficacy, immunities to change, and
leader creativity. I will then direct my focus to the set of behaviors that I argue are
influenced by these four elements and will present my conceptualization of how a leader
promotes a culture of inquiry and builds organizational relationships. I will end the
presentation of my conceptual framework with my conceptualization of how I will define
organizational change for the purpose of this study.
Individual Leader Elements: Mental Models
Drawing on the work of Senge (2006), for the purpose of this dissertation I define
mental models as the underlying assumptions and unspoken beliefs influencing a
principal’s behavior and actions that are visibly demonstrated within the organizational
environment. These unconscious assumptions and beliefs are not espoused or explicitly
stated, rather a principal’s own mental models live in her demonstrated leadership
practices and behaviors. The ways in which such constructs and assumptions are formed
derive from the images we carry from experiences and observations and are also images
in which we make sense of the environment around us, which ultimately lead us to act in
94
ways that are consistent with our unconscious assumptions. The caveat to examining
leadership behavior in the context of mental models is that a principal’s espoused belief
may differ from the theories-in-use whereby what the principal says she wants to
accomplish or her explicit statements about how she views herself in her role as principal
may, in fact, differ from the mental models she demonstrates within her organization.
For the purpose of this dissertation, I examined the behaviors and practices a principal
enacts and how those behaviors demonstrate the underlying beliefs and assumptions she
possesses about her leadership as well as how they impact her ability to enact
organizational change (Senge, 2006).
Individual Leader Elements: Leader Self-Efficacy
Drawing on the work of Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) and Hannah, Avolio,
Luthans, and Harms (2008), for the purpose of this dissertation I define leader self-
efficacy as a leader’s belief in her capacity to effectively improve organizational practice
as perceived by her own psychological capabilities, leader attributes, and developmental
experiences. Operating as an extension from traditional definitions of self-efficacy, I
argue that because a leader is in a unique position whereby she is responsible for the
ultimate success or demise of an organization through instructional improvement she
must be able to estimate her ability to fulfill her role in instructional leadership. The
principal’s perceived ability to fulfill her instructional leadership role is influenced by
three factors: 1) her perception of prior developmental experiences as a prior teacher, 2)
her perceived level of knowledge and leader capacity involving instructional
improvement, and 3) her perceived leader attributes involving her ability to communicate
95
clearly, manage relationships, and reflect on her own practice (Machida & Schaubroeck,
2011). I elucidate on these factors below.
Developmental experiences are the experiences acquired by the leader that work
to shape her practice (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Drawing on the framework
presented by Machida and Schaubroeck (2011), I believe developmental experiences can
occur in three areas: feedback, challenges, and support. Feedback can occur in both
formal and informal contexts. Feedback in a formal setting may occur during a
performance evaluation with supervisors where the assessment clarifies changes that need
to be made to close certain performance gaps. Feedback can also occur in an informal
setting with peers or mentors where performance is not evaluated but guidance is given
for a specific challenge or experience shared by the leader (Machida & Schaubroeck,
2011). Feedback can increase a leader’s self-efficacy as the leader is able to obtain
information that she may find helpful to her and may choose to incorporate feedback
obtained as she works on her own development as a leader. For the purpose of this
dissertation, I examined the type of feedback a principal receives in her role as a leader in
addition to examining the feedback the principal received in her role as a teacher. The
principal’s developmental experiences as a teacher and the feedback received regarding
her prior instructional practice can influence the level of leader self-efficacy she
possesses in her belief in her ability to lead in instructional improvement.
Challenges are events that every leader experiences and usually come in the form
of unfamiliar professional responsibilities, receiving higher levels of responsibility, and
working across boundaries where a leader might not usually have authority (Machida &
Schaubroeck, 2011). These kinds of challenges are necessary towards leader development
96
because challenging events provide opportunities for reaching beyond previously
perceived limits of one’s own leadership capacity. Challenges, once met and mastered,
provide opportunities for increasing a leader’s self-efficacy as the experiences gained
from meeting the challenges serve to further cultivate her development. For the purpose
of this dissertation, I focused on the challenges a principal has experienced with regard to
improving instruction. Challenges experienced can be discussed from both perspectives
involving the principal’s current leadership role in instructional improvement and from
the challenges she experienced as a teacher improving her own instructional practice. The
ways in which the principal approached the challenges she experienced can influence her
level of leader self-efficacy in working to improve instructional practice in her role as
principal.
The support a leader receives, both early in and throughout her career, can have a
large impact on improving a leader’s self-efficacy, especially in the early stages of leader
development (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Support in the form of mentorships allow
a developing leader to share experiences with her mentor in addition to obtaining advice
from her mentor through the sharing of vicarious experiences where her mentor shares
experiences as a means of sharing a lesson learned that can benefit the leader in her
current stage of development. The sharing of experiences can help improve a leader’s
self-efficacy as she begins to see that the experiences and challenges she is facing is not
new and that others have been in her position, lived through those experiences, and have
lessons to share that can help her navigate through similar circumstances. For the purpose
of this dissertation, I focused on the different types of support the principal received both
in her role as principal and in her previous role as a teacher. It is believed that the level of
97
support the principal received as a teacher can influence her level of leader self-efficacy
in being able to support instructional improvement at her own site. Furthermore, the level
of support the principal received as a teacher may influence the ways in which she
provides instructional support to her teachers to improve their practice. Lastly, the
feedback the principal receives in her role as a principal specific to instructional
improvement can influence her level of leader self-efficacy in her belief in her ability to
support instructional improvement at her site as an instructional leader.
In addition to developmental experiences, I argue that leader self-efficacy is also
influenced by the principal’s perceived level of knowledge and leader capacity. A
leader’s perceived level of knowledge and leader capacity will involve her perception of
skills, acquired through educational or professional experiences, that she believes equip
her to lead her organization. In order to capture insight into the leader’s perception of her
level of knowledge and leader capacity, I asked questions surrounding the leader’s
learning orientation – or the psychological construct emphasizing learning, mastery, and
increasing one’s competence (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Individuals with a high
learning-orientation possess a desire to investigate new methods and strategies that can
enhance their own capacity (ibid.). From a leadership perspective, it is believed that a
leader’s learning-orientation, in conjunction with developmental experiences, can
influence the extent to which a principal develops her own leader self-efficacy (Machida
and Schaubroeck, 2011). For the purpose of this dissertation, I directed focus on the
principal’s learning orientation with respect to the ways in which the principal worked to
improve her own instructional practice as a teacher and to improve her practice as an
instructional leader. The ways in which the principal has worked to develop her own
98
learning with respect to improving instruction, both as a former teacher and as a current
principal, can influence the principal’s level of leader self-efficacy in being able to
achieve improvement in instruction at her own site.
Finally, I argue that leader self-efficacy is influenced by the principal’s perceived
leader attributes involving the perceived extent of her ability to communicate, manage,
and reflect during the course of her workday. Drawing on the literature from the trait,
behavior and operational perspectives of the role of a leader (Northouse, 2007; Fullan,
2001, 2002; Hallinger, 2003; Argyris, 2002, 2008), I argue that within leader attributes,
the most important attributes a leader can possess to promote organizational change
involve her ability to communicate clearly, manage relationships, and reflect on her
practice surrounding the improvement of instruction. With respect to leader self-efficacy,
the extent to which a leader believes she is effective in employing these behaviors in her
own practice can enhance her belief in her ability to lead her organization in achieving
instructional improvement. For the purpose of this dissertation, I placed focus on the
principal’s ability to communicate with her faculty with regards to conversations centered
on instructional practice and instructional improvement. I also focused on the ways in
which the principal manages relationships in instructional leadership that involve
working with faculty members to discuss potential strategies for improving instructional
practice. Finally, I directed my focus on the ways in which a principal reflects on her
leadership practice in improving instruction through her ability to self-reflect on the
practices she employs towards promoting and supporting instructional improvement.
99
Individual Leader Elements: Immunities to Change
I assert a principal’s own mental models intersect with her levels of leader self-
efficacy, which would theoretically influence the leadership practices she chooses to
employ. However, that relationship is not as linear as one might postulate because of the
mediating factor of a principal’s own immunities to change. Drawing Helsing, Howell,
Kegan, and Lahey’s (2008) work, I define immunities to change as the underlying barrier
and beliefs that inhibit a principal from working to achieve her espoused desired level of
change. It is the mediating element of a principal’s immunities to change that will
determine the extent to which a principal is able to recognize areas of weakness and room
for personal and professional growth so as to determine the appropriate strategies and
practices necessary to enact organizational improvement. Because these immunities are
unconscious to the principal, I examined behavioral patterns and practices that
demonstrate her established immunities to change. Though it may be suggested that
immunities to change is strikingly similar to Senge’s (2006) conceptualization of mental
models, I argue that, for the purpose of this dissertation, immunities to change reside
solely within the individual and the extent to which she is able to develop in her own
professional practice whereas mental models are operational constructs illustrating how a
principal demonstrates her leadership.
Individual Leader Elements: Leader Creativity
Drawing on the work of Sternberg (2007), for the purpose of this dissertation I
define leader creativity as the skills or dispositions necessary to generate ideas that
influence strategies and practices employed to improve instructional practice. For the
purpose of this dissertation, I focused on leader creativity with respect to the leader’s
100
ability to engage in selective encoding, selective comparison, and selective combination
(Sternberg, 2007). Selective encoding refers to the leader’s ability to examine
information and distinguish relevant information from irrelevant information within a
specific field of experience. The principal’s ability to selectively encode will allow her to
engage in the process of focusing on information that is most relevant to addressing the
task or issue at hand. Selective comparison refers to the leader’s ability to relate old
information to new information. The principal’s ability to selectively compare allows her
to engage in the process of comparing differing sources of information in order to
examine changes of performance over time and determine next steps for continued
growth and improvement. Selective combination refers to the leader’s ability to take
information that was selectively encoded and combine it in a fresh and inventive way that
is also productive for the improvement of the organization. These three skills highlight
the process of creative thinking as the leader works to generate new ideas from
information obtained that is relatively fresh and new while also being appropriate for the
task or goal that a leader is trying to accomplish. For the purpose of this dissertation, I
placed focus on the ways in which a principal engaged in any or all of the skills in
creative thinking (selective encoding, selective comparison, and selective combination)
and how they translate into strategies, devised practices, and solutions centered on
improving instructional practice.
From this perspective, I argue there is an intersection among the elements of
leader self-efficacy, mental models, and leader creativity that lead a principal towards a
set of behaviors that are then demonstrated within the organizational environment that
can lead to the possibility of organizational change surrounding instructional
101
improvement. I will now focus on two specific behaviors in leadership that I believe are
influenced by the three leader elements presented within my conceptual framework.
Leader Practice: Promoting a Culture of Inquiry
Drawing on the work of Argyris (2002, 2008), for the purpose of this dissertation
I define promoting a culture of inquiry as the organizational process whereby the leader
fosters and facilitates double-loop learning centered on improving instructional practice.
For this study, I referred to Argyris’ (2002, 2008) definition of double-loop learning
involving the practice when “errors are corrected by changing the governing values and
then the actions,” (Argyris, 2002, p. 206). In double-loop learning, there is a process of
reflection that begins with the leader and organizational members diagnosing a particular
problem from the presentation of various data brought forth by the leadership (ibid.). The
organization works to devise a solution to address the identified issue and begins to
implement the solution (ibid.). Once the solution has been implemented, the organization
evaluates the effectiveness of the implementation of the solution and designs appropriate
courses of action aimed at changing the underlying practices and beliefs of the
organization and organizational members (Argyris, 2008). It is through the cyclical
process of identifying the problem, devising a solution, implementing the devised
solution and evaluating the solution’s effectiveness that the leader is able to engage the
organization in continuous reflection – or a culture of inquiry (Argyris, 2008). The
leader’s ability to foster and develop a culture of inquiry through the practice of double-
loop learning (Argyris, 2002) allows the leader to facilitate and monitor change within
the organization’s beliefs and values and the resulting change in instructional practice.
102
For the purpose of this dissertation, I placed focus on the ways in which a
principal engages her faculty in double-loop learning specific to improving instructional
practice. I examined the extent to which both the principal and the faculty members look
to various forms of data identify problem pertaining to instructional practice. I also
examined the ways in which the principals worked to devise solutions to improve the
problem(s) identified with respect to instructional practice and how those solutions are
implemented.
Leader Practice: Building Organizational Relationships
Drawing on the work of Northouse (2007), for the purpose of this dissertation I
define building organizational relationships as the process whereby a leader recognizes,
cultivates, and maintains in-group and out-group relationships in an effort to manage
instructional improvement. I drew upon Northouse’s (2007) Leader-Member Exchange
Theory (LMX) as a means of illustrating the use of in-group and out-group relationships
within organizations. LMX asserts that in relationship building there are typically two
groups: the in-group and the out-group (Northouse, 2007). The in-group typically refers
to the types of relationships between leader and member that are “expanded and
negotiated role responsibilities (extra roles)” (Northouse, 2007, p. 152). These
responsibilities that are negotiated between the leader and the member are not typically
found to be contractual agreements between the two parties but are supplemental duties
that may be delegated by the leader depending on the relationship formed (ibid.).
Individuals found to be in the out-group are individuals whose relationship with the
leader solely consists of “defined roles” as outlined in their “formal employment
contract” (Northouse, 2007, p. 152).
103
For the purpose of this study, I sought to examine the extent to which a principal
recognizes the existence of in-group and out-group organizational groupings. I also
examined the extent to which the principal is able to cultivate these relationships for the
purpose of building relationships with individuals that are enriching while working to
serve the interests of the organization in improving instructional practice. A principal’s
ability to build organizational relationships through the recognition, cultivation, and
maintenance of in-group and out-group member relationships is thought to bear an
influence on the extent to which a principal is able to facilitate organizational change
surrounding the improvement of instruction.
Desired Organizational Outcome: Second-Order Transformational Change
Within my conceptual framework, I argue that there is an intersection among the
elements of mental models, leader self-efficacy, immunities to change, and leader
creativity that lead a principal towards a set of leadership behaviors and practices. It is
through the interaction between leader elements and leader behavior demonstrated within
the organizational environment that a principal could increase the likelihood of achieving
organizational change.
For the purpose of this study, I define second-order transformational change as
the transformation of organizational practice whereby members alter the behaviors and
underlying practices that were previously employed so as to yield organizational
improvement. I expected to see organizational practices associated with promoting a
culture of inquiry involving collaborative discussions among faculty and the
administration surrounding reflections on professional and instructional practice.
However, within the construct of this study’s design (discussed in Chapter 3), I could
104
only infer whether this organizational outcome was possibly achieved in this study due to
the limitations of my data collection timeline that will prevent me from conducting data
collection for the entire school year. As a result, data collected from this study will only
allow me to infer whether or not the organizational outcome would be theoretically
achieved given the data I collected examining leader elements and organizational
practices.
Conclusion
Research presented in this chapter demonstrated there are various perspectives on
the role of the principal and the ways in which a principal can foster and achieve
instructional improvement in organizational change. Trait, behavioral, and operational
perspectives of leadership have been an extensive focus for empirical study (Northouse,
2007; DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Portin, Schneider, DeArmand, & Gunlach, 2003).
Furthermore, a large body of research has focused on the stylistic practices of leadership
surrounding instructional, transformational, and distributed leadership (Hallinger, 2003,
2005; Marks & Printy, 2003 Spillane & Healey, 2010) with connections drawn between
two predominant leadership practices involving promoting a culture of inquiry and
building organizational relationships. Lastly, much of the literature reviewed on the role
and practices of leadership discuss the role of change in an organization as an ever-
appealing goal (Argyris, 2002, 2008; Hallinger, 2003; Fullan, 2001, 2002) and one that
can be transformative – or second-order – in nature.
One large limitation discovered from the literature review is the lack of empirical
literature surrounding aspects of leadership involving leader self-efficacy (Machida &
Schaubroeck, 2011; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008); leader creativity
105
(Sternbern, 2007), immunities to change (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008), and
mental models (Senge, 2006; Ruff & Shoho, 2005) and the demonstrated interactions
between these elements. This is an area of literature that has been limited in its empirical
exploration and is one area that I desired to gain further insight within my study. The
conceptual framework presented near the end of the chapter highlights the bodies of
literature that have influenced the very ideas I explored within my study. The next
chapter will discuss the selected methodology for my study that was employed to address
my established research question.
106
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Individual leader elements surrounding one’s mental models, level of leader self-
efficacy, immunities to change, and leader creativity – and the confluence of those
elements – are believed to influence the extent to which a principal is able to engage in
practices involving promoting a culture of inquiry and cultivating organizational
relationships. The level or extent to which the principal enacts these practices is thought
to translate into the likelihood of fostering and achieving organizational change. The
conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2 guided the course of this study examining
the interactions surrounding a principal’s individual leader elements and her
demonstrated behaviors leading to the likelihood of the possibility of achieving
organizational change. The following question guided my study:
• To what extent does a principal’s own mental models, level of leader self-
efficacy, her immunities to change, and her level of leader creativity influence
the principal’s ability to enact her style of leadership in fostering and achieving
organizational improvement?
This chapter reviews the study’s research design, site and participant selection,
instrumentation, and the procedures for data collection and analysis.
Research Design
A qualitative multi-case study methodology was employed for this study and was
most appropriate because it allowed for an “in-depth description and analysis of a
bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p. 39). Merriam (2009) defined a bounded system as a
“single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries” (ibid.). In this context, the
researcher narrowed the focus of study around a single unit of analysis – the individual
107
principal as she operated within the organizational context of her school. This qualitative
case study methodology was selected because I was deeply interested in investigating the
“holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (Yin, 2009, p. 4) as they
occur in an organizational setting.
A multi-case study method served the purposes of my study for several reasons.
First, case study research is particularistic meaning it is focused on a certain situation,
event or phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). As a result, the cases chosen for the subject of
study is integral as it can reveal information that can lead toward a deeper understanding
of certain phenomena and what it might mean on a larger scale (ibid.). Second, case study
research is descriptive meaning that the presentation of the data collected and analyzed
will entail an intensely “rich, thick description of the phenomenon” studied (Merriam,
2009, p. 42). Merriam (2009) defines thick description as being a “complete, literal
description of the incident or entity being investigated” (ibid.). Third, case study research
is heuristic meaning it will elucidate the reader’s understanding of the phenomenon
studied (ibid.).
With respect to my study, the case study method served the purpose of deepening
my understanding, and my readers’ understanding, of the phenomenon surrounding the
extent to which a leader’s interpersonal and psychological factors influence her
leadership practice. Furthermore, the descriptive nature of this case study and the fact that
I chose to focus on the principal at each of the two schools where I gathered data will
allow for a rich analysis of the phenomenon I expressed in my Conceptual Framework.
108
Site Selection Criteria
The case study for this dissertation took place at two high schools within one
district. School selection involved the selection of one independent charter high school
and one non-charter high school. I chose to select two differing schools, contextually, to
afford a more interesting comparative analysis. Furthermore, choosing two schools to
examine afforded an opportunity to represent the “critical case in testing a well-
formulated theory” (Yin, 2009, p. 47). As a critical case, my multi-site case study served
to “confirm, challenge, or extend the theory” (ibid.) postulated in my Conceptual
Framework. Furthermore, focusing my case study at one site allowed for more in-depth
investigation in studying the extent to which a leader’s practice is influenced by the
individual elements discussed in my conceptual framework, thereby creating depth in my
subsequent analysis. The school sites selected for this study exhibited the following
criteria:
1. Two high schools within same district (Independent Charter versus Non-Charter)
2. Principals of the two high schools had beginning or emerging experience as
principal (0-5 years)
3. Both organizations underwent some form of change (ie: new principal, new
leadership structure)
The criteria for site selection were important, as I wanted to select schools that were
exhibiting a need for organizational change and instructional improvement. Furthermore,
the fact that I chose to conduct my case study at a high school versus an elementary
school is important because most studies that have sought to examine elements such as
mental models have typically taken place in an elementary school setting (Ruff & Shoho,
109
2005; Youngs, 2007). The limited number of studies in this area of study at a high school
is a reason for choosing to conduct my multi-case study in a high school setting. While
organizational structures and student population sizes may differ between elementary and
secondary school settings, it is important to examine the ways in which a principal, in a
high school setting, is able to engage in practices that will lead to organizational change.
Participant Selection
This study focused on the principal at the selected school sites. Because the study
examined the extent to which individual leader elements influence engagement in
leadership practice, the principal was a prominent participant for this study. However, I
also recruited participants from the school faculty in order to examine the impact of the
leader’s leadership practices in influencing organizational change. Faculty participants
were recruited, with the help of the principal. The following criteria was used for
participant selection:
Principal Selection Criteria
1. A principal who was an emerging principal with 0 to 5 years of administrative
experience as a principal
2. A principal who was leading her organization under some form of change
Faculty Participant Criteria
1. Faculty participant was a member of an established Leadership Team
2. Faculty participant was a teacher at the school site; not part of an established
Leadership Team
I chose to focus on a principal who was leading her members through some type of
organizational change because I wanted to see how her leadership behaviors,
110
demonstrated as a result of the intersection of her individual leader elements, led her to
the likelihood of achieving her desired level of organizational change.
I chose to select faculty participants from two different groups: those who
participate in the leadership team and those who do not. Having participants from both
groups provided insight into faculty members’ perceptions of the impact of the leadership
practices on their own professional practice in achieving instructional improvement.
Furthermore, having participants from both groups also provided insight into the impact
of in-group and out-group relationships, as faculty members who participated in a
leadership team resembled the closest ideal to being a part of the in-group as outlined in
Northouse (2007).
Data Collection
The primary instrument of data collection and analysis was myself – the
researcher (Merriam, 2009). Within a case study, data collection methods can vary and
can take on many forms such as the following six sources outlined in Yin (2009): 1)
documentation, 2) archival records, 3) interviews, 4) direct observations, 5) participant-
observation, and 6) physical artifacts. Yin (2009) asserts that for a case study to be a
“good” representation of the phenomenon studied, “multiple sources of evidence” are
needed to create the most comprehensive illustration in order to answer the research
questions posed for this study (Yin, 2009, p. 103). As the primary instrument of
collecting data for my study, I collected data from three of the six sources of evidence
outlined by Yin (2009). With the exception of a participant observation, I collected data
in the form of documents, archival records, in-depth interviews, direct observations, and
physical artifacts. These five sources of data were collected to examine the extent to
111
which the individual leader elements influence the principal’s leadership practices in
promoting a culture of inquiry and building organizational relationships in an effort to
support organizational improvement.
The primary source of the data collected was from the principal. Collecting data
from the individual participant allowed for cultivating a deeper understanding into the
individual’s behavior, attitudes, and perceptions that influenced the actions and practices
associated with leadership to support organizational improvement (Yin, 2009).
Furthermore, data collected from the individual participant also shed light in explaining
how and why the organization works the way that it does from the lens of the principal
(Yin, 2009). Supplemental data was collected from faculty participants as a means of
interpreting the impact of the principal’s leadership practices from the lens of the
organizational members. Each of the five sources of data collection for this study is
described in further detail below.
Interviews
Interviews are considered one of the most important sources for data collection
within a case study (Yin, 2009; Merriam, 2009). In a case study, interviews may take the
form of “guided conversations rather than structured queries” (Yin, 2009, p. 106). This
allows the interviewee to divulge information in a fluid manner (ibid.). Questions posed
during interviews served to address the “why” behind a particular process or decision that
occurred in the manner that it did (ibid.). Two interview formats were utilized during the
course of the study. The first involved in-depth interviews (Yin, 2009). In-depth
interviews contained open-ended questions that allowed for the interviewer to ask key
respondents “about the facts of the matter as well as their opinions about events” (Yin,
112
2009, p. 107). In-depth interviews took place at the beginning and the end of the study
where the principal was able to discuss in greater detail her insight into various aspects of
her perceptions about her leadership within the organizational context (See Appendix B).
For the purpose of this study, I also posed interview questions surrounding a
leader’s developmental experiences from feedback received, challenges experienced, and
support received both in the principal’s role as a leader working to improve instructional
practice and her formal role as a teacher where she worked to improve her own
instructional practice. This data was gathered from one-on-one interviews conducted with
each principal individually. Collecting data from interviews where the principal shared
her developmental experiences from the three areas discussed earlier helped elicit insight
on how these developmental experiences shaped the principal’s own level of leader self-
efficacy in leading her organization.
In-depth interviews with faculty participants were also conducted with one
scheduled at the beginning of the study and a follow up email at the end due to the
circumstances surrounding faculty members’ hectic schedules. These in-depth interviews
were conducted to obtain insight into faculty members’ perceptions about the principal’s
leadership practices and the extent to which faculty members’ believe those practices
have influenced their own professional practice towards achieving instructional
improvement. While the interviews conducted offered an opportunity to gain insight into
the perspectives of the faculty members, my findings did not incorporate this data as it
did not contribute wholly to my understanding of the intersection of the individual leader
elements and leadership practice as proposed in my conceptual framework. Furthermore,
the data gathered from the faculty interviews did not aid in my ability to answer the
113
research question addressed in this study. Interview protocols for both the principal and
faculty member participants were developed with some influence from the interview
protocol outlined in Ruff’s (2002) dissertation work (See Appendix).
In addition, I used in-depth interviews to gather data surrounding a leader’s
perceived level of knowledge and leader capacity through the presentation of questions
aimed at learning about the leader’s educational background as well as her professional
and developmental experiences that she believed assisted in her leader development and
instructional practice. Collecting data from interviews where the principal shared her
experiences from her educational background, professional development, and her
perceived learning orientation provided insight on how the leader’s mental models,
perceived level of knowledge, and perceived leader capacity have worked to shape the
principal’s own leader self-efficacy in leading her organization towards instructional
improvement.
Direct Observations
Direct observations afforded an opportunity to examine the unit of analysis in a
case study in its most “natural setting” (Yin, 2009, p. 109). Observations allowed me to
see the principal’s behaviors and leadership practices in action. Observations, in
conjunction with interviews and documentation, enriched my illustration of how a
principal’s individual leader elements influence the extent to which he or she engages in
promoting a culture of inquiry and building organizational relationships. For the purpose
of this study, direct observations were conducted at faculty meetings and leadership team
meetings where the principal was either the primary facilitator or a participant. I
conducted observations in these two settings in order to identify the underlying beliefs
114
and assumptions the principal makes with respect to her role as a leader while examining
the ways in which her behaviors and practices demonstrate those mental models.
In addition to observing the principal in action at faculty meetings, I also
conducted two shadow days at each of the high schools. Each shadow day consisted of an
8-hour observation where I essentially observed the principal in action during the course
of a normal workday. These observations offered rich data sets where I was able to
examine the principal’s leadership practices and checked for consistency in the manners
in which she behaved on a given day. Each of the shadow days allowed me to see the
principal engage in meetings with her leadership team, her faculty, individual teachers, as
well as impromptu student interactions. The shadow days ultimately provided me the
opportunity to see the principal as she operated and enacted her leadership within the
organizational context.
The use of observations allowed me to examine the attributes of the principal
within the organizational context. When I observed the way the principal communicates,
I observed the way she communicates with faculty on strategies and practices for
improving instruction. When I observed the way the principal managed relationships, I
focused my observation on the interactions between the principal and the faculty
members and how the principal worked to cultivate relationships centered on improving
practice. I relied upon my conceptual framework as a reference during the observations to
examine the extent to which the principal’s individual leader elements influenced the
ways in which the principal enacted leadership practices that lead to the possibility of
achieving the desired organizational outcome she sought out.
115
Documentation
Documents collected in case studies can take on many different forms (Yin,
2009). For the purpose of my multi-case study, I collected documents chosen by the
principals that both believed represented they ways in which they engaged their
leadership. Documentation collected spanned from PowerPoint presentations to Excel
spreadsheets indicating a formal observation schedule for the principal’s teachers to
worksheet and exercises the principal used with her faculty. Documentation is important
in a case study because it can be used to substantiate and supplement evidence from other
sources collected (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, inferences can be made according to the
information presented within the documents gathered (ibid.). Such inferences made can
offer clues and generate additional questions in an effort to cultivate a deeper
understanding of the principal’s leadership practices and how the principal works to
achieve instructional improvement.
Case Study Data Analysis
I relied on several theoretical propositions within this multi-case study, which
were illustrated within my study’s conceptual framework presented at the end of Chapter
2. The first involves the assertion that there exists an intersection among a principal’s
mental models, leader self-efficacy, and leader creativity, and that a principal’s
immunities to change serve as mediating factors for understanding the extent to which a
principal is able to enact practices associated with organizational change (Machida &
Schaubroeck, 2011; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008; Helsing, Howell, Kegan,
& Lahey, 2008; Sternberg, 2007; and Senge, 2006). The second assertion within my
study’s conceptual framework is that the two prominent leadership practices involve a
116
principal promoting a culture of inquiry and building organizational relationships
(Argyris, 2002, 2008; Northouse, 2007). The extent to which a principal employs these
practices is influenced by the individual leader elements stated in the first assertion.
Finally, the confluence of a leader’s individual elements and the leadership practices
employed influence the likelihood to which organizational change (Hallinger, 2003) is
achieved. This case study, however, only sought to infer the extent to which
transformational organizational change could be theoretically achieved due to the time
constraints associated with the data collected period that did not afford me the
opportunity to see whether or not the principal was able to achieve the goals she
established for her organization.
Each of the theoretical frames discussed observed influenced my study’s
conceptual framework and it is these theoretical frames that were used when engaging in
my data analysis. Relying upon the previously stated theoretical frames, I engaged in data
analysis surrounding explanation building (Yin, 2009) where my goal was to “analyze
the case study data by building an explanation about the case” (p. 141). Data was
transcribed and coded looking for patterns that were related to the relationship between
individual leader elements and the extent to which the leadership practices are employed
to support the possibility of organizational change. The patterns determined from the data
were to explain the phenomenon surrounding the possibility of instructional improvement
achieved through the ways in which a principal promotes a culture of inquiry and the
ways a principal cultivates and maintains organizational relationships.
117
Validity and Reliability
To increase the validity within this study, I employed several case study tactics
(Yin, 2009). First, to increase construct validity, or the operational procedures for the
theories to be studied, I used multiple sources of evidence in my data collection process.
To increase internal validity, I engaged in pattern matching and explanation building
during the data analysis of the two case studies. To increase external validity, I referred to
the theoretical frames anchored in Chapter 2 and used them to develop the conceptual
framework for the multi-case study. Validity in a qualitative study is important as the use
of multiple strategies in a case study’s data collection process can assist in increasing
accuracy among the findings (Yin, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Creswell, 2009).
When came to increasing the reliability in my multi-case study, it was important
that the methods for data collection were consistent between both the researcher (me) and
the study participants (the principals) (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009). Therefore, to address
the study’s reliability, I clearly outlined the operational procedures taken for my data
collection so that future researchers may replicate the same data collection process with
the expectation of producing similar results (Yin, 2009). Operational procedures included
my being present for every observation, conducting equal amounts of observational time
between the cases, and utilizing the same observation and interview protocols during
each school site visitation.
Conclusion
This study focused on the intersection between individual leader elements
surrounding the principal’s own mental models, level of leader self-efficacy, her
immunities to change, level of leader creativity, which were believed to influence the
118
extent to which a principal is able to engage in practices that lead to the likelihood of
achieving organizational change. The school principal served as the unit of analysis for
each of the two case studies. In-depth and focused interviews with both the principal and
the faculty participants took place at the very beginning and at the end of the study.
Though faculty interviews were conducted at the beginning of the data collection process,
the data collected from the interviews did not aid in addressing the research question set
forth for the purpose of this study and, as a result, are not reported in the findings. Direct
observations took place at faculty meetings and leadership team meetings during the
principal will either facilitate or be an active participant. Direct observations were also
conducted in the form of shadow days that consisted for two 8-hour observations at each
of the two high schools where I was able to see the principal operate and enact her
leadership within the organizational context. Documentation served as a supplemental
method of data collection. The conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2 guided the
course of this study examining the interactions between individual leader elements, leader
practice, and the possibility of organizational change. Finally, data collection commenced
upon passing the Qualifying Exam and successful completion of IRB.
119
Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the intersection of a principal’s
individual leader elements involving the principal’s own mental models, level of leader
self-efficacy, creative thinking, and her immunities to change, as well as how those
individual elements influenced leadership practices enacted leading to the possibility to
foster organizational improvement. The first three chapters of this dissertation offered an
introduction to the problem surrounding leadership capacity and development, a review
of the literature surrounding principal leadership, and the methodological design that was
utilized for this study. This chapter will now present the findings that emerged from the
data collected and analyzed using the conceptual framework that was constructed for the
purpose of this study.
A qualitative study employing a multi-site case study methodology was conducted
with data collected from observations, interviews and document collection (Yin, 2008;
Merriam, 2009). Pseudonyms for the school sites, principals and faculty participants were
created to ensure that all participants’ identities were kept private. The findings for each
case study will be presented separate from one another within this chapter. First, the
background of the case will be presented followed by the case study’s findings in relation
to the research question (Yin, 2008). Finally, a cross-case analysis will be presented
following the presentation of the findings for each case study. All findings presented
served to answer the following research question for this study:
• To what extent does a principal’s level of self-efficacy, creative thinking, and own
mental models, as well as one’s immunities to change, influence the principal’s
ability to enact her style of leadership in promoting organizational improvement?
120
Case Study 1: Principal A - Crystal Castle Academy
Crystal Castle Academy is an independently run charter school operating within
Morcheeba Unified School District. The student population consists of approximately
350 students of which 95% are Hispanic/Latino. Approximately 94% of the student
population is categorized as socio-economically disadvantaged; approximately 31% of
the students enrolled are English Language Learners and approximately 3% are students
with disabilities. The school’s API score for the 2010-11 academic year was 723 and
their similar schools rank is 4 while their statewide rank is 5. Located in an urban
neighborhood, this independent charter shares space with a Christian church where their
auditorium space doubles as the school gym and is also where Sunday Services are held
for the church. Upon first glance, it is easy to miss this school while driving down the
street upon which it is located. Industrial shops face the school and a local burger eatery
is within walking distance on the corner.
Crystal Castle Academy’s banner is the only thing that assists a visitor in
identifying the school’s location within the small building complex. Double French doors
serve as the entrance to the office. Upon first entering, one will immediately see a
Biology class taking place to the right in one classroom where students are taking copious
notes as the teacher lectures them on DNA structures. Just a few feet across from the
Biology class, an enthusiastic art teacher walks around monitoring students as they work
on their next artistic piece. Alternative rock music emanates from the art classroom and
quietly fills the lobby and reception area, breaking up the silence of a couple of students
sitting in chairs working on homework. Chairs surround the perimeter of the front office
space and the walls are decorated with student-produced art ranging from abstract
121
paintings to a charcoal sketch portrait of Albert Einstein. A glass case is located to the
right side of the office lobby and contains more student artwork, school apparel, and
several photos. Another glass case mounted to the wall displays the charter school’s
accreditation and credentials. To the left of the office, a large bulletin board is displayed
and updated monthly with important student announcements ranging from the lunch
menu to club meetings and homework lab hours.
Classrooms are immediately seen down either hallway on the left and right side of
the receptionist desk. The school contains two floors of classrooms with the majority of
the classrooms located on the second floor. With the various staircases and doorways, it
is easy to become lost and Principal A often referred to the layout of the school as a
“labyrinth” (personal communication, November 4, 2011). The receptionist desk is
decorated with a banner saying “Falcon Pride.” The Principal’s office is located right
behind the receptionist desk; though slightly tucked away in a corner, the windows from
the door make the Principal readily visible.
Research Question #1: To what extent does a principal’s level of self-efficacy, creative
thinking, and own mental models, as well as one’s immunities to change, influence the
principal’s ability to enact her style of leadership in promoting organizational
improvement?
An examination of the data collected revealed that when it comes to the
relationship between a principal’s leadership and organizational change, high levels of
leader self-efficacy and well-intentioned mental models are not enough to influence
practices associated with organizational change when these two elements intersect with a
principal’s own immunities to change in addition to some external constraints. This, as a
122
result, leads to low levels of creative thinking with the principal ultimately enacting
traditional approaches in conducting professional development and practicing leadership.
Individual Leader Elements: Mental Models, Leader Self-Efficacy,
Immunities to Change, and Leader Creativity
Individual Leader Element: Mental Models
According to Senge (2006), mental models refer to the unconscious constructs
and assumptions individuals possess. These unconscious beliefs and assumptions are
what drive overt behaviors and actions. More importantly, mental models are not
espoused or explicit statements that an individual makes, but mental models are
demonstrated in the behaviors and actions living within the individual’s own professional
practice. An examination of the observations of Principal A’s words and behaviors across
the data set revealed three prominent mental models in relation to her perception of her
role in leadership: 1) the principal is an instructional leader; 2) the principal uses data
with teachers; and 3) the principal models the behaviors and practices she expects from
her faculty.
Mental Model 1: “The Principal Is An Instructional Leader”
One instance where Principal A’s first mental model is on full display is during a
pre-observation meeting she conducted with a teacher. Throughout the meeting, the
teacher and Principal A engaged in a dialogue where the teacher shared what she was
planning to do for an upcoming lesson that Principal A would observe. Principal A asked
the teacher several questions such as, “What are you planning to do to measure the
learning that you’re anticipating will take place?” (personal communication, November 4,
2011). As the teacher continued to share ideas and plans for her lesson, Principal A
123
offered feedback and suggestions to help the teacher enhance her lesson, especially when
it came to help the teacher with strategies for Checking for Understanding:
Something you can try using… you know the sheet protectors? The clear ones.
Every kid can have one with a white board marker and then put the sheet of the
questions in there and then have the kids circle answers or work on problems and
then hold them up. You can then quickly see who’s got it right and who doesn’t.
Then you can target the kids who did not get it right and then give them corrective
feedback immediately. (Principal A, personal communication, November 4, 2011)
Principal A’s mental model of a principal being an instructional leader is evident here in
her pre-observation meeting with the teacher. Hallinger (2003) and Quinn (2002)
identify prominent practices associated with instructional leadership that include the
principal serving as: manager of the instructional program, resource provider, climate
builder, and vision setter. In the example provided above, Principal A is acting as a
resource provider to the teacher by offering suggestions for the teacher’s exercise in
Checking for Understanding when she recommends the use of sheet protectors and
markers for use with her students. Principal A uses the pre-observation time to not
merely go through the motions of the pre-observation form, but to advise the teacher as
Principal A recommends that the teacher has the students circle answers and hold them
up so that she can quickly see who is understanding the material and who is not.
Additional data that came out of this same interaction included Principal A offering
advice on the level of questioning the teacher could employ with respect to questions
involving identifying subject matter terms and questions aimed at promoting more critical
thought. Principal A advising the teacher on the various types of questions to use when
Checking for Understanding further supports the principal’s desire to act as a resource
provider.
124
This behavior is consistent with the literature offered by Quinn (2002) whereby
the author asserts that the principal manages the instructional program by working with
faculty to improve teaching and learning via various professional development selected
by the principal. Furthermore, the level of involvement of Principal A in the dialogue
with the teacher by offering strategies and ideas demonstrates her desire and focus to help
teachers improve their instructional practice, which is an indication of instructional
leadership as noted by Hallinger (2003) and Quinn (2002).
Additionally, Hallinger (2003) argues that instructional leadership requires a great
deal of time a principal must devote to defining and managing the school’s vision and
managing the instructional program by providing appropriate resources and professional
development. Quinn (2002) adds to the list of instructional leader responsibilities by
asserting a principal must be a visible presence, which requires the principal to conduct
frequent classroom visits and observations – formal or informal – and greeting various
students and staff in the halls and engaging in impromptu conversations. There were a
number of instances where Principal A was observed enacting practices associated with
instructional leadership. For example, the following were activities in which Principal A
carried out: 1) Principal A conducted classroom observations of 2 teachers; 2) Principal
A conducted a pre-observation meeting with one teacher and a post-observation meeting
with another teacher; 3) she met with the ELL Facilitator to discuss a restructure of the
program to support student learning; 4) she worked on a presentation where she planned
to share benchmark results on assessment data; 5) she met with her directors to discuss
teacher observations and devise strategies to support improvement in instruction; and 6)
she led a professional development meeting where she led teachers through a community
125
building exercise that they could use with their students during class. Each of these
activities represents the practices associated with instructional leadership, discussed by
Hallinger (2003) and Quinn (2002), as Principal A worked to define and manage the
school’s vision, manage the instructional programs, provide resources and support via
professional development, and maintained a visible presence on campus by conducting
classroom observations and engaging in impromptu conversations with both staff and
students.
Ultimately, Principal A’s demonstration of her mental model that the principal is
an instructional leader is a finding that is consistent with Senge’s (2006) theory
pertaining to the idea that mental models lead an individual to adopt and employ various
behaviors and practices unconscious to them. There are unspoken beliefs and
assumptions Principal A is making regarding her role as principal and her role to lead her
faculty instructionally. As result, this first mental model is demonstrated in the behaviors
and practices she employs.
Mental Model 2: “The Principal Uses Data With Teachers”
Principal A’s second mental model identified from the data – the principal uses
data with teachers – was evident from the examination of observations of the Principal
and documents collected. For example, one form that Principal A provided involved a
“benchmark analysis” where she worked with teachers to examine results from the first
periodic assessment. The types of questions Principal A created and posed to her teachers
in this “Benchmark Analysis” are illustrated in Table 1 on page 126 and 127 of this
chapter.
126
127
Principal A asking her teachers to look at the data is consistent with what
Halverson, Grigg, Prichett and Thomas (2006) speak to in their study on data driven
decision making (DDDM). According to the authors, there are six predominant practices
associated with DDDM that include: gathering various forms of data, engage in data
reflection, align school-wide or instructional programs to goals set according to data,
design programs in according with targeted goals, obtain formative feedback on results,
focus on test preparation.
From the data set, it is evident that Principal A is a frequent practitioner of the
DDDM model that Halverson et al. (2006) espouse. For example, Principal A frequently
gathered various forms of data, engaged in reflection on that data, and worked to
establish school-wide programs and goals in accordance with the data acquired. Principal
A collected and analyzed data focused on student achievement to improve learning
128
outcomes. She then offered feedback on results in the form of a PowerPoint presentation
to her staff. The evidence collected demonstrates that collecting and looking at data is a
large part of Principal A’s own leadership practice.
The way this second mental model is demonstrated indicates that Principal A is
focusing more on the actual data than the relationship between the data and actual
practice. That is seen in the types of questions that are asked with Principal A placing a
majority of the emphasis on the data and very little on practice as demonstrated by the
final set of questions on the worksheet. Much of the questioning posed by Principal A
through this worksheet places focus on the student learning outcomes and the tangible
data that resulted from teachers’ instructional practices; however, Principal A does not
press upon teachers to really examine their own practice.
As a result, Principal A’s behaviors, as demonstrated in the questions she derived
for the worksheet, exemplify the mental model the principal uses data with teachers. The
key here is that both the principal and the teachers are looking at data rather than actually
discussing the practices that get them the quantitative or measured result. This is not to
say that such conversations are not taking place, but considering the level of questioning
presented within the document, it is not likely that the quality of conversation is high
surrounding actual reflection of practice.
Mental Model 3: “The Principal Models the Behaviors and Practices She Expects From
Her Faculty”
The third and final mental model identified from the data – the principal models
the behaviors and practices she expects from her faculty – was demonstrated across the
various data sources. One instance where Principal A exemplified the behaviors and
129
practices she expects from her faculty occurred during a professional development
session. During this meeting, Principal A asked Ms. Connor to lead the meeting. Ms.
Connor asked teachers to conduct a formative evaluation on the principal where they
were asked to write down things they believed Principal A was doing well in addition to
offering suggestions for improvement in Principal A’s practice. While Principal A said
she planned to look at the data at a later date and use it to reflect on her practice (personal
communication, December 5, 2011), this was a behavior that I was not able to visibly
observe. In asking teachers for feedback, Principal A demonstrated the practice of
gathering data – a practice that she expects her faculty to employ.
Modeling is a leadership practice that is discussed consistently across the
literature (Hallinger, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Northouse, 2007). Here, Principal A possesses a
level of knowledge and beliefs that she desires to impart on her faculty in an effort to
encourage school-wide adoption of a particular practice. Here Principal A is modeling
that data collection for the purpose of improving practice is important by asking them to
give her feedback about her own performance. This behavioral practice is one that she
wants her teachers to adopt.
Principal A’s three prominent mental models that emerged from the data set – the
principal is an instructional leader; the principal uses data with teachers; and the
principal models the behaviors and practices she expects from her faculty – are all
unspoken beliefs and assumptions that are well intentioned. Furthermore, these three
mental models, and the behaviors that are demonstrated from them, are all consistent with
the literature on effective leadership practices (Northouse, 2007; Hallinger, 2003, 2005;
Marks & Printy, 2003; Leithwood, Wahlstrom, Louis, & Anderson, 2010; Fullan, 2001;
130
Argyris, 2002, 2008; Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, &Thomas, 2006). As Principal A enacts
her mental models, the observed behaviors involving goal setting and adoption,
relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing, and reflection are ones in which
the aforementioned authors have indentified and defined in various ways as practices
associated with effective leadership at its most basic and superficial level. Based on the
evidence examined, Principal A’s well-intentioned mental models would appear to have
the initial capacity to propel her organization towards the desired level of change or
improvement. However, Principal A’s mental models are not enough, alone, to create the
desired level of change and are influenced further by the intersection of Principal A’s
level of leader self-efficacy.
Individual Leader Element: Leader Self-Efficacy
Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) assert that leader self-efficacy is defined as a
principal’s beliefs in her abilities, skills, and knowledge level to lead others effectively.
The authors add that the level of the leader’s own beliefs in self-efficacy influence the
extent to which the leader is able to achieve organizational improvement as well as
developing personally as a professional (ibid). An examination of her responses during
several interviews provide evidence that Principal A possesses a high level of self-
efficacy in her capacity to do well, especially in her new role as principal. There are
many experiences Principal A shared that speak to the level of confidence she has in her
ability to do well in a specific role or on a specific task despite any obstacles she may
encounter. Principal A, a former Mathematics teacher, shared her experience in high
school when trying to take more advanced math courses after moving to a town in
Northern California:
131
I ended up getting to high school really far ahead in math because I had to take
classes at the community college since they did not offer any of the kinds of math
that I needed at the high school level. (Principal A, personal communication,
October 27, 2011)
Principal A taking advanced math courses at the college level while still in high school
would eventually lead her to pursue a preliminary double major in Mathematics and
Dance at a public state school in California. While she took a year from school to pursue
a dancing opportunity with Sesame Street Live, she returned to the school where she was
studying, dropped the dance major and focused on finishing her Bachelor’s in
Mathematics. When it came to deciding to pursue a career in teaching and education,
Principal A recalls
I knew that I loved math and I knew I could teach dance really well so I was like
'oh I'm sure I can be a teacher. (Principal A, personal communication, October 27,
2011)
Given the experiences Principal A had in teaching dance and her feelings of confidence
in being able to teach dance and, in her opinion, teach it well, she definitely possessed a
high level of self-efficacy in being able to teach. Such high levels of confidence and
conviction in her ability to do well stem from past experiences of success she has had that
lead her to think and believe that if she was successful in a previous circumstance, then
she can expect to do well in the next endeavor. Such thoughts about her ability to do well
are also evident in her decision to enter school administration given the experiences she
had at a former site:
It was one of those schools that you would say was “dysfunctional”…. I felt very
frustrated there and I was the department chair there, but I just felt like stifled
because the leader that was running that school was not good; [they] didn't know
some of the things about a charter school. It was like they just took someone from
the district office and it was like crumbling. And then I thought, "I can do way
better than her. I can do much better than her. I think I should just get my admin
credential.” At the time, I was struggling with the decision of "Am I going to get
132
my pure Ph.D. in Math or do admin credential?” (Principal A, personal
communication, October 27, 2011)
Principal A deciding to enter administration seemed to derive from the experience of
having a model leader whose practices and ideas were different than her own. As a result,
if Principal A observes an area where she believes she can do better, then she finds a way
to do so.
Principal A has had various experiences where her ability or level of competency
to fulfill a certain role has been questioned. The first significant experience comes from
her undergraduate and graduate work in Mathematics:
Did I ever fit in there? Noooo. I got asked to leave a class the first day because I
didn’t “look” like I was supposed to be in Abstract Algebra… I mean I’m used it.
It was really bad in my Master’s program too. A professor once asked if I was a
[exotic dancer]. My own professor! “No. Actually I teach at this university. You
know. The same one you teach at?” It was funny. I’m not like one of those people
who says “Oh they don’t think I’m this…” where I let it affect me. I’m like
“whatever. I’ll show you.” This isn’t something that is new to me nor is it
something that I allow to define me. (Principal A, personal communication,
October 27, 2011)
Principal A is still questioned about her ability to lead after having entered her new role
as Principal at Crystal Castle Academy. Having started her first year in her doctoral
program at a highly reputable university in Southern California, Principal A says she has
been facing a lot of questioning by her colleagues and her colleagues at her own district:
I deal with it every day. Every day. It’s gotten better. When I met with the
teachers at the beginning of the year they were like “oh what do you teach?” And
I would respond, “No. Actually, I’m your boss.”… I deal with this in my cohort
where they judge me in saying things like “just cause at Charter schools they can
hire whomever they want.”… I deal with it when I go to the district too. At BTSA
meetings, all the principals are saying things like “Really? You look a little
young.” And I respond with things like, “Thanks for the compliment. I’m not that
young.” I deal with it every day…. If I was ten years older and I met people and
told them what my position way, I don’t think they’re reaction would be like
“you??” (Principal A, personal communication, October 27, 2011)
133
Principal A has faced a great deal of doubt and disbelief at the fact that she is principal.
However, the comments of past professors, former and current colleagues, and fellow
administrators, did not impact her own confidence in her ability to succeed in her role as
Principal. Thus, her level of leader self-efficacy is high as seen in her actions of
persistence and remaining determined to do succeed in her role as principal. Her self-
efficacy acts as a barrier of protection from those who doubt her abilities and she finds
strength in her beliefs about her capacity to lead.
Leader self-efficacy, according to Machida and Schaubroeck (2011), is key to
understanding the ways in which a leader cultivates her leadership practice. The authors
asserted that an individual’s level of leader self-efficacy influences the extent to which a
leader is effective in organizational improvement and their personal professional
development. Furthermore, much of Principal A’s level of leader self-efficacy derives
from what Machida and Schaubroeck argue is preparatory self-efficacy, which refers to
the belief in one’s ability to learn the required skills necessary to perform the tasks
associated with the leadership position. Much of what Principal A discussed about her
beliefs in her ability to lead were reinforced from the administrative credential program
through which she acquired the skills she believed would be useful to her to enact her
leadership.
Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, and Harms (2008) also proposed that higher levels of
leader self-efficacy translated into higher levels of leader emergence and performance.
While the data examined did show Principal A’s higher levels of leader self-efficacy and
how such levels influence the extent to which Principal A believes in her capacity to
succeed in her role as Principal, her ability to develop as a leader and improve her
134
performance is limited to other constraints, contrary to what Machida and Schaubroeck
(2011) and Hannah et al. (2008) theorize. As it turns out, the relationship between leader
self-efficacy and levels of performance and improvement is not as linear as the authors
have postulated.
Individual Leader Element: Immunities to Change
As Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) argue, individuals possess
“underlying barriers that prevent an individual from making progress toward a desire
professional goal” (p. 411). These underlying barriers are what Helsing et al. (2008) refer
to as “immunities to change” (ibid). In order to alleviate one’s immunities to change,
Helsing et al. (2008) suggest that the individual work to solve “adaptive problems” versus
“technical problems” (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008, p. 438). The authors
define “technical problems” as ones in which an individual can implement tactics and
procedures that will lead to externally driven results that are outside of the individual
(ibid). “Adaptive problems” are ones in which the individual often makes “fundamental
changes to their values, beliefs, habits, ways of working or ways of life” (Helsing et al.,
2008, p. 438). “Adaptive problems” are more challenging to identify and solve, as
opposed to “technical problems,” because they require the individual to look deep within
themselves and identify ways to change the internal constructs and behaviors that are
preventing them from achieving an espoused goal (Helsing et al., 2008). Similar to
Senge’s (2006) work on mental models, these hidden assumptions must be raised to the
level of one’s conscious mind in order to create the level of cognitive dissonance needed
to understand how the barrier prevents an individual from improving and subsequently
135
looking for the appropriate strategies necessary to mitigate these barriers in an effort to
achieve desired change.
An examination of the data for Principal A at Crystal Castle Academy revealed
that while she has well-intentioned mental models and though her level of leader self-
efficacy is high, her ability to enact the desire level of change in addition to improving
within her own leadership practice is limited by the levels of her own immunities to
change, which she may not be fully conscious of as Hannah et al. (2008) assert. Analysis
of the data set revealed two prominent immunities to change exhibited by Principal A: 1)
Principal A’s level of reflection is more technical than adaptive and 2) Principal A’s level
of self-efficacy is contrary to what she espouses.
Immunity to Change: Principal A’s Level of Reflection is More Technical than Adaptive
One of Principal A’s immunities involves her process for problem solving.
Principal A spoke to the importance of having sources of support and mentorships to help
her develop as a leader as well as to help her solve problems of practice (personal
communication, October 27, 2011). During our conversation, she reflected on the
different experiences she had where she went from having no support in her previous
roles to a great deal of support in her present role as principal:
When I first moved down here I didn’t have anybody. I had people I looked to for
math content knowledge when I was getting my master’s like my professors and
such but I did not have an instructional mentor. At all. That’s a bad thing about
charter schools is that it’s not provided to you within the structure of the
organization. Usually. You usually have to find it. So when I entered my admin
program, I met Paul Estevez; he was the first person that I was like “oh my god!
Yes! You are inspiring! I want to be like you!” And then when I was in the
program, I wasn’t getting it professionally at work but I was in school with the
CEO of another organization and I had Paul and I was with all these power
charter people. I felt like I could really look to them when I needed guidance for
any question I had professionally as well as personally. Things like how do you
deal with being a charter leader – it’s very hard. It’s tiring. It’s hard. But, then I
136
came here. This is the first time in my entire career that I actually have mentors
that are embedded in the actual organization. One of them, his name is Edward
Donaldson. He was the principal here for like three years. He was the one that
really developed the school into what it was and he – I think he’s like the director
of teachers at [private university]. So it’s like – he was here. He created it. He
knows it. So he’s like a mentor to me and I talk to him. He’s helping me with this
“Teaching the Road to Mastery” thing. So teachers are getting observed by me, by
Edward, and also Brenda Norris. She is the Principal Emeritus. She was the first
principal of this school back when it started with seven kids. (Principal A,
personal communication, October 27, 2011)
Principal A appeared excited at the opportunity of having several individuals whom could
act as mentors. The ways in which she described how her mentors help her align to what
Helsing et al. (2008) refer to as solving “technical problems” rather than “adaptive
problems” as is illustrated when she shares that one of her current mentors helped her as
she worked to implement her “Teaching the Road to Mastery” program. Because she
focuses on acquiring strategies to solve a given problem and does not always internally
reflect on the internal constructs – or “adaptive problems” – preventing her from
achieving her espoused goals, she consequently focuses on the externally directed
solutions rather than those that are internally directed. As a result, Principal A
demonstrates an inability to recognize or ask for the supports she truly needs. This was
especially evident during an observation in which Principal A met with Brenda Norris
and the Executive Director of Crystal Castle Academy.
During this meeting, Principal A, the Executive Director of Crystal Castle
Academy, and Brenda Norris sat down to discuss operational issues involving campus
activities, student progress, instructional issues, and teacher induction with BTSA. Two
interesting conversations took place during this meeting. The first involved Principal A’s
current level of capacity and her potential for “burn out,”
137
Principal talks about how there was a lot of resistance from students initially
during her first few weeks as principal. Ms. C talks about how kids are now
wanting to meet with Principal A and are becoming more open to sharing issues
about other students, other teachers, personal issues. Executive Director says
they’ll talk about it more during the retreat since they’ll have more time to talk.
Executive Director tells Principal A, “I’m saying that from a place of not-burning
you out and how to figure out the climate change within the school” to which
Principal A replies, “it’s not a bad thing. It’s good.” Students say she’s
“awesome” and they’re feeling like they can come talk to her more but that it’s a
lot of face time. Executive Director says, “So the open door, not that you have an
open door, but the open door is wearing out.”
Principal says, “Well… it’s not really wearing me out. There are legitimate issues
that I need to know about like 30 students coming together and advocating that
they’re not getting what they need. Not in a malicious way. But saying that they
need more from their teacher. Things like that I want to be involved in. But right
now it’s like a give and take where I look at my schedule. It’s a color of the
rainbow. Right now I’m not able to see every teacher or be in the classrooms.
We’re going through the cycles that we’ve been talking about with the teacher
observations.”
Principal talks about how grateful she is that Edward and Brenda are there to help
with them. Principal says, “it’s not like I can’t handle it. But there’s a lot of like
face time.” Executive Director says, “There’s more than just you. And we need to
talk. Your capacity is high but your capacity to gauge your ability is also low
because you seem to be able to handle more than most people. I’m saying that in
the nicest way possible.”
During this conversation, it is clear that the Executive Director is trying to offer some
feedback to Principal A regarding Principal A’s ability, or lack thereof, to gauge her
threshold for how much she is able to take on at a given moment. At the beginning of this
meeting, Principal A repeats that she feels “fine” and that she is “doing fine” (personal
communication, November 17, 2011). Here, Principal A’s immunity to change is evident
in that she either is not conscious of or does not want to recognize that there is a limit to
what she is able to handle all by herself.
Her inability to reflect on what is an “adaptive problem,” as demonstrated by the
Executive Director advising Principal A that she needs to learn to gauge her capacity in
138
what she is able to handle, is also leading to her inability to recognize that the Executive
Director is offering constructive feedback on how Principal A is coping in her new role
as principal. The Executive Director offers to talk with Principal A about this in more
detail during their scheduled leadership retreat, but it cannot be determined whether or
not Principal A will take heed of the advice the Executive Director may have to offer.
Therefore, Principal A’s receptivity to the feedback she is offered from her mentors
influences the extent to which Principal A is able to engage in true reflection of her
practice and identify the necessary and appropriate measures to develop and improve
upon her own leadership.
Immunity to Change: Principal A’s Level of Self-Efficacy is Contrary to What She
Espouses
The previous example offered also lends itself to Principal A’s second immunity
to change involving her level of leader self-efficacy and the revelation that it is contrary
to what she espoused. During the meeting between Principal A, the Executive Director,
and Brenda Norris, Principal A made certain comments such as “it’s not really wearing
me out,” “I’m fine,” and “it’s not like I can’t handle it” (personal communication,
November 17, 2011). These comments demonstrate Principal A’s desire to demonstrate
strength because in making statements such as “I’m fine,” she is trying to show everyone
that she is capable of handling everything that is directed her way and that she does not
require much help. This outward perception of “I can handle it” thereby creates a false
sense of high self-efficacy (her perceived high level of self-efficacy was identified and
discussed earlier in this chapter) because while the outward perception points to
139
confidence, it is clear that Principal A believes that she cannot and must not demonstrate
weakness:
This may not be a good mindset but my mindset is like “I only have one shot to be
the principal here for the first year.” I want to do as much as I possibly can and
fill in as many holes as I possibly can ‘cause I don’t want to lose any time. And
maybe that’s not smart of me. Maybe I should have been like “maybe I want to
focus on just two things this year.” That’s probably better… There’s a lot of
pressure particularly right now because it’s my first year that I don’t want to run
the risk of something bad happening. I want to over exert myself and make sure
that I do everything in my power to not let it happen. I think I’ll relax a little bit
after my first year. (Principal A, personal communication, December 5, 2011)
Principal A’s comments above suggest that all eyes are on her and what she is able to do
or not able to do in her first year as principal. Therefore, Principal A believes that she
must work exceedingly hard and not appear to show any sign of weakness for fear that
she will “lose time” or not be able to “fill in as many holes.” Consequently, Principal A’s
desire to not show weakness will inevitably limit her ability to ask for help when she
really needs it.
The interesting thing about Principal A’s comments is that there appears to be
some recognition of behaviors that she is currently engaging in that she thinks are not
entirely good for her leadership performance, but she is going to continue employing
such behaviors in an effort to do as well as she can in her first year as principal and then
“relax” after the first year is done. However, considering that, from the data set, Principal
A has always employed an exceedingly strong work ethic, along with a constant feeling
that she is “never satisfied” (personal communication, December 5, 2011) this idea of
trying to “relax” after her first year seems like a distant dream because Principal A will
always find something to strive for. The problem is that if her external supports like her
mentors and Executive Director are trying to warn Principal A about her potential for
140
burn out and Principal A is not heeding the warning signs, the consequences are
worrisome for all those who are under her leadership.
Each of Principal A’s immunities to change - 1) Principal A’s level of reflection is
more technical than adaptive and 2) Principal A’s level of self-efficacy is contrary to
what she espouses – is also seen within the intersection of her mental models and the
behaviors and practices she employs to enact her style of leadership. As a result, the
behaviors and practices Principal A employs play themselves out in way she leads her
faculty. For example, her focus on solving “technical problems” is evident in the
externally directed questions she poses to her staff where she asks questions focusing on
results or elements that are outside of the individual faculty members rather than asking
questions targeting “adaptive problems” which are more internally constructed and
driven. Additionally, Principal A’s unwillingness to be vulnerable to show weakness
lends itself to the extreme ways Principal A tries to show she is efficacious as she
presents a front of being “fine” and her inability to recognize and heed constructive
feedback offered to her. The intersection of Principal A’s perceived levels of her mental
models, her perceived levels of leader self-efficacy – coupled with her immunities to
change – impact the extent to which she is able to think creatively in her leadership.
Individual Leader Element: Leader Creativity
Sternberg (2007) defined creativity as having the “skills and dispositions for
generating ideas and products that are: a) relatively novel, b) high in quality, and c)
appropriate for the task at hand” (p. 34). With respect to leadership, creativity is
important as it enables the principal to generate the ideas that her faculty will eventually
follow. Sternberg (2007) also cautions that a leader who lacks creativity may be able to
141
get her members to go along with her ideas but the ideas that her members subscribe to
may be mediocre or antiquated ideas (ibid). This implies that the extent to which a
principal is creative in her leadership is reflected in the mental constructs and beliefs she
possesses about the ways she thinks about, engages in, and enacts her leadership.
Therefore, leader creativity can be thought of as working in confluence with a principal’s
own mental models, her level of leader self-efficacy and the mediating factor of her
immunities to change.
An examination of the data set revealed two points. First, Principal A exhibits low
levels of creativity and tends to implement traditional leadership practices. Second,
Principal A, from the surface, exhibits a style of creative leadership that Sternberg (2007)
defines as “Re-initiation” whereby she is attempting to move her organization forward
towards a performance level that her faculty had not previously pursued. When asked
about what it meant to be creative in her leadership, Principal A responded:
I think you have to be creative here. I think you have to be more creative here in a
charter school because there aren’t things mandated – well I mean there are some
things mandated like NCLB; there are certain things you have to do. But the
difference is the way you get to the non-negotiable is completely up to us – as
long as we’re compliant and acting in the best interest of the students. I think
creativity is best when you utilize different stakeholders’ abilities most
effectively… I guess I just don’t use the word creative. I think you have to be
crafty. When you have limited resources you have to be crafty because if you
don’t find a way to do it it’s not going to get done and has the potential to impact
our students negatively. Everyone has a genuine love for the students that
whatever we need to do to get it done whether it’s me driving to a group home or
someone that’s in a transitional living program and showing up and her doorstep
and making her get in the car to come school – I’ll do whatever it takes. (Principal
A, personal communication, October 27, 2011).
Principal A’s perception of creativity is consistent with what Sternberg (2007) describes
to be more problem solving than actually generating and enacting novel approaches
towards achieving organizational improvement as seen in Principal A’s description of
142
picking students up from their homes and bringing them to school to solve the problem of
attendance. This is not to say that Principal A is not creative, but rather her levels of
creativity are low given the various constraints she faces within her own level of
leadership, which are made further complex within the confluence of her mental models,
levels of leader self-efficacy and the mediating factors of her immunities to change.
Furthermore, the data revealed that when it came to creative thinking, Principal A
implemented traditional problem solving approaches and leadership practices rather than
taking what Sternberg (2007) referred to as sensible risks. This was evident during three
different instances where Principal A was observed talking with her Director and
Executive Director about supporting teachers’ improvement in practice. During these
conversations, Principal A was observed sharing concerns about several teachers’
instructional practice and the methods she thought of to support teacher improvement
involved additional observations, conferences with teachers, and offering strategies for
improving classroom practice. While these are all traditional ways of acting as a support
provider to her faculty (Hallinger, 2003; Quinn, 2002), it is not clear how these
traditional approaches are helping Principal A achieve the goal of helping her teachers to
improve their own practice.
Principal A’s desire to help her organization improve is reflective of a style of
creative leadership that Sternberg (2007) refers to as “Re-initiation.” In this style of
creative leadership, the principal attempts to move the organization in a direction that had
not been previously pursued and then strives to move the organization forward from that
new point. This style of creative leadership is especially applicable for Principal A as she
is in her first year at Crystal Castle Academy. Principal A’s vision to improve
143
instructional practice through the use of data was not a vision that the organization
previously had especially given the high turnover rates of administration in previous
years:
We just did our first benchmark analysis… coming in blindly, I come from
another [organization] where it’s like “you analyze data this way and you look at
data that way” and you look at the bubble kids and you look at the distracter
questions you know what I mean? And I really had to take a step back because the
teachers here had never really analyzed data by standard. And I was like “Whoa.”
I swear I learn something new everyday here. And it’s nothing bad about the
teachers. It’s just that they have not been given that tool yet. (Principal A,
personal communication, October 27, 2011)
Here, Principal A recognized that in order for her to move the organization
forward in the direction she desired, she first had to give her faculty the “tools” to engage
in practices that Principal A believes are required to continue progressing in the direction
she wants to take the organization. Therefore, Principal A was attempting to re-initiate
the organization towards adopting new behaviors and practices is consistent with the style
of creative leadership offered by Sternberg (2007). Once those practice and behaviors
were successfully adopted, Principal A could then direct the organization to focus on
increasing performance and moving forward in organizational improvement.
In this style of creative leadership, Principal A’s adopts technical solutions to
solve external problems. For example, the benchmark analysis worksheet (discussed
earlier) is an attempt at having her teachers look at data in ways she believed they had not
looked at data before. The worksheet attempted to solicit reflections from teachers about
the data and think about solutions for improving the externally derived results via
improving student scores. Additionally, in the quote presented above, Principal A
believes that her teachers simply need a “tool” to solve the problem of a lack of
knowledge in analyzing data. Furthermore, since Principal A possesses an immunity to be
144
internally reflective, she does not ask the same of others and, unbeknownst to her,
imparts her technical problem solving response skills onto her teachers thereby teaching
them to behave similarly. Thus, the analysis of data that Principal A thinks she is having
her faculty engage in is merely a surface level examination or just looking at data as
opposed to doing something more internally reflective with it. As a result, the extent to
which Principal A’s faculty is able to improve at the level to which she desires is
reflective of the extent to which Principal A is able to recognize her own needs of
improvement. Principal A’s surface level practices translate into surface level practices
within her faculty, which in turn lead to surface level results thereby negating any real
change in adaptive problems of practice.
Individual Leader Elements: Conclusion
The relationship between Principal A’s mental models, her level of leader self-
efficacy, leader creativity, is an increasingly complex yet relational one that is made
further complicated by her own immunities to change - a finding not anticipated at the
conception of the framework utilized for the purpose of this study. Furthermore, the
intersection of these individual leader elements leads Principal A to adopt and implement
leadership practices that, at the surface, are consistently demonstrating the mental models
she initially possesses.
Leadership Practices
As initially postulated in my Conceptual Framework, the intersection of a
principal’s own mental models, level of leader self-efficacy, and leader creativity were
thought to serve as the foundational catalyst in influencing a principal towards a set of
leadership practices. While the findings presented in an earlier section also add the
145
element of a principal’s immunities to change, the data set revealed that the leadership
practices employed by the principal is derived from the underlying constructs and beliefs
she possesses. In the case of Crystal Castle Academy and its principal, Principal A, the
confluence of all four elements influence the extent to which Principal A’s engages
predominantly in the follow two leadership practices: promoting and fostering a culture
of inquiry and building and maintaining organizational relationships.
Leadership Practice: Promoting and Fostering a Culture of Inquiry
Argyris’ (2002) work on single-loop learning and double-loop learning focuses
on the argument that individuals need to look within themselves and reflect on their own
behavioral practices that may be contributing to the issues prohibiting the organization’s
improvement process. In order for a leader to be considered effective in facilitating and
monitoring organizational change, she must be able to engage her members in double-
loop learning, which Argyris (2002) defined as the practice when “errors are corrected by
changing the governing values and then the actions,” (Argyris, 2002, p. 206). There is a
process of reflection that begins with the leader and organizational members diagnosing a
particular problem from the presentation of various data brought forth by the leadership
(ibid.). The organization works to devise a solution to address the identified issue and
begins to implement the solution (ibid.). Once the solution has been implemented, the
organization evaluates the effectiveness of the implementation of the solution and designs
appropriate courses of action aimed at changing the underlying practices and beliefs of
the organization and organizational members (Argyris, 2008). It is through the cyclical
process of identifying the problem, devising a solution, implementing the devised
solution and evaluating the solution’s effectiveness that the leader is able to engage the
146
organization in continuous reflection – or a culture of inquiry (Argyris, 2008). The
leader’s ability to foster and develop a culture of inquiry through the practice of double-
loop learning (Argyris, 2002) allows the leader to facilitate and monitor change within
the organization’s beliefs and values and the resulting change in organizational practice.
However, when a leader is not effective in fostering a culture of inquiry within
her organization, she runs the risk of the organization persisting in a state of single-loop
learning, which Argyris (2002) states occurs “when errors are corrected without altering
the underlying governing values” (p. 206). During single-loop learning, the individual
tends to avoid reflecting on himself when addressing organizational issues and will resort
to blaming other organizational members or individuals for the reasons as to why he was
unable to perform a certain task well (Argyris, 2002). The individual may correct actions
or behaviors as recommended by the leadership, but does not change his own underlying
or inner beliefs thereby allowing the corrected action to be merely superficial in nature
and one that will not be made a more permanent part of the individual’s inherent
practices (Argyris, 2002). Most of Argyris’ (2008) theory behind single-loop versus
double-loop learning resides with the individual’s cognitive process of reflection.
However, in an organizational context, individuals who engage in single-loop learning as
a collective can prevent the organization from moving forward.
In the case of Crystal Castle Academy, the data revealed Principal A espoused a
deep desire to “create a culture of inquiry” (personal communication, October 27, 2011).
For Principal A, this meant having teachers and staff use and analyze various forms of
student achievement data:
147
We’re looking at all of the data standard by standard – using Data Director of
course – ad then identifying standards of concern, percentage of mastery, what are
they going to put into action for it. And also looking at bubble students and asking
“who are our bubble students?” This way we can make sure in every single one of
our classes we know who they are and how we can try to help them – not only
focus on them, but it’s good to know. (Principal A, personal communication,
October 27, 2011)
Principal A presents a belief that a culture of inquiry focuses heavily on outcome data
from student scores and other types of quantitative data. Principal A instructing her
teachers on how to look at data in ways that they were not previously familiar with is
evident of an attempt at changing the underlying values and actions as suggested by
Argyris (2002).
At the surface, Principal A’s behaviors and activities she is engaging in with her
faculty demonstrate the beginnings of the double-loop learning process. This was evident
during a professional development meeting where teachers met within their departments
to look at data from observations they conducted within their departments. The questions
Principal A asked her faculty to reflect upon with their groups included:
Questions on board for teachers to answer in groups: 1. What was the most
interesting/impressive/exciting thing you saw? 2) What was one technique/lesson
that you saw that you would like to use? 3) What is one way that the teacher you
observed is similar to you? 4) What is one way that the teacher you observed is
different from you? 5) What was one item or area you have a question about
regarding your partner’s teaching? 7) What do you appreciate most about your
partner’s teaching? Teachers are to spend approximately 10 minutes discussing
then will share out as a whole group. (Professional Development Observation,
personal communication, December 8, 2011)
While there are questions that Principal A offers to her teachers to get them to begin a
process of reflection, the level of questioning focuses only on external and superficial
responses rather than delving deeper into examining the teacher’s instructional practice.
Similar to the types of questions presented in Principal A’s Benchmark Analysis
148
worksheet (see Table I), the level of questioning demonstrates Principal A’s limitation in
promoting and fostering a culture of inquiry as demonstrated by the generic level of
questioning she presents to her faculty on more than one occasion. Yet, the questions in
the reflection section of the worksheets are limited in the level of inquiry that represents
true reflection of practice.
Much of what Principal A asked of her teachers in this document reflects a
traditional approach in examining external data or looking at the “results” and engage in
some form of discussion pertaining to the results. Such conversations are consistent with
the types of “Data Drive Decision Making” that was discussed in Halverson, Grigg,
Prichett, and Thomas (2006) whereby much of the focus is placed on collecting,
interpreting and reflecting on data to inform decision making. However, asking questions
where the focus is only on what the teacher observed in the peer observations and asking
questions where answers can be written in few words leaves little room for true “double-
loop learning” as argued by Argyris (2002, 2008). Rather, the cycle of double-loop
learning becomes much more superficial to focus on the external data only and not
looking at the internal practices that are delivering the results examined. The
consequence of failing to engage in true double-loop learning is that Principal A and her
faculty will continue to practice surface level examination of data and will be unable to
achieve the internal level of reflection that leads to changing the governing and
underlying behavior Argryis (2002, 2008) asserts as necessary towards achieving
improvement.
While the level of questioning provides a start for the kind of dialogue Principal A
wants to engage in with her faculty, the level of experience she has in being a principal
149
and an instructional leader limit her level of questioning. The gap in knowledge and skill
set is something that could and should be addressed by the external supports and
mentorships Principal A has started to build. However, if Principal A is not aware of this
gap in knowledge, if her sources of support are not sufficient in providing Principal A
with the appropriate and necessary tools she needs to close this knowledge gap, and if the
principal is failing to recognize the need for these supports given her own immunities to
change, Principal A will continue to employ the level of questioning she is currently
using with her faculty, thereby creating a point of stagnation. This is not to say that
improvement is not taking place; improvement has been made in opening the faculty’s
eyes about simply looking at the student achievement data, but that growth will be short-
lived or will plateau if Principal A is not looking for additional strategies to take her
faculty to the next level in their cycle of inquiry.
Leadership Practice: Building and Maintaining Organizational Relationships
Fullan (2001) asserts a leader must be aware of the importance of building
organizational relationships and that relationships are essential in working towards
organizational change. Building and maintaining organizational relationships is done
through establishing the human connections, which are prevalent within organizations
(Fullan, 2001). Human to human interaction, especially within a school, is an act that
takes place daily and, therefore, calls for special attention from the leader to ensure that
relationships are built and maintained within the organization in order to work towards
achieving desired performance goals (Fullan, 2001; Northouse, 2007). A consequential
formation of relationships include in-group and out-group relationships as described in
Northouse’s (2007) Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX).
150
According to LMX, the focus is placed on the interactions between the leader and
the members. LMX asserts that in relationship building there are typically two groups:
the in-group and the out-group (Northouse, 2007). The in-group typically refers to the
types of relationships between leader and member that are “expanded and negotiated role
responsibilities (extra roles)” (Northouse, 2007, p. 152). These responsibilities that are
negotiated between the leader and the member are not typically found to be contractual
agreements between the two parties but are supplemental duties that may be delegated by
the leader depending on the relationship formed (ibid.). Individuals found to be in the
out-group are individuals whose relationship with the leader solely consists of “defined
roles” as outlined in their “formal employment contract” (Northouse, 2007, p. 152).
Within these two groupings, a leader has the opportunity to build relationships
with individuals that are enriching (particularly in the in-group) and serve the interests of
the organization (Northouse, 2007). On the other hand, a member identifying herself in
the out-group may not feel wholly part of the organization, which opens up criticism for
the level of fairness associated with the manner of relationship building by identifying or
categorizing members in an in-group or out-group (ibid.). Northouse’s (2007) discussion
of the LMX Theory serves to reveal not only the importance but also the potential
consequences associated with varying levels of the leader’s relationship building
capacity.
When it comes to building organizational relationships, Principal A explicitly
states that she believes they are important (personal communication, October 27, 2011).
Principal A discussed one of the first activities she had her faculty engage in during her
first few weeks as principal:
151
So the first thing I did was give the teacher aspects of the school’s instruction,
discipline, culture, community, plus change. And then I gave them a homework
assignment where I asked teachers to reflect, “What are some things that are
working here? What are some things you could change?” All of these different
aspects of the school. So before they really knew me the first thing they learned
about me was that I was like “I’m asking you. Tell me what you love. Tell me
what you would change. What are your strengths? What support do you need?”
So I’m getting information from them. They turned it all into me. I analyzed it,
percentified it, and looked for common things. I was asking a lot of questions as
the beginning. Also the first two weeks of school I saw down with every single
teacher during their prep period individually and asked, “Talk to me about where
you’re at, personally, professionally. What do you struggle with most in your
classroom? What are your short-term goals? What are your long term goals?” It
was tiring. But I had it all written. I then had a whole group discussion where I
was not telling them what I wanted to do but just really asking them questions and
learning about them – not just in a fake way – but genuinely learning about them.
And that helped. Also, something I do everyday is I go to classrooms after school.
Not every single one. About two classrooms. I’ll ask the teacher I’m visiting,
“How are you today?” I’ll check in with them and ask how their day is going. It’s
important for me to get to know them. (Principal A, personal communication,
October 27, 2011)
Principal A does care about her faculty and exhibits an interest in making sure she gets to
know her faculty members. Since this is her first year as principal, it was important for
her to understand the needs of her faculty and organization. Last year, Crystal Castle
Academy underwent drastic changes in leadership after the principal who started the year
left the position after a month only to be replaced by another individual who did not
appear to be a good fit for the school (Principal A, personal communication, October 27,
2011). As a result, the teachers, students, and parents worked to run the school as best
they could despite the lack of leadership. Once Principal A assumed the role, it was
important to her that she works to assuage the concerns of her stakeholders (personal
communication, October 27, 2011).
Principal A’s ability to build relationships was evident during an observation of a
professional development session in which the teachers were asked to provide formative
152
feedback for the principal. This meeting, described earlier in this chapter, served as a
reflection tool for Principal A where she could gather data based on the teachers’
perceptions of her performance. Faculty responses during this meeting were highly
positive with teachers saying that Principal A makes them feel “cared about,”
“important,” “listened to,” and “supported” (personal communication, December 8,
2011). Teachers also spoke to feeling as though they are learning from Principal A,
especially with “learning to look at the data” (personal communication, December 8,
2011). Much of the conversation focused on how teachers were now learning the
importance of looking at the data and how they now feel more comfortable approaching
Principal A with concerns or questions they have. The teachers’ perceptions of Principal
A’s performance and the relationship they feel they have with her illustrated the
principal’s ability to build and maintain organizational relationships as theorized in
Fullan (2001) and Northouse (2007).
Leadership Practices: Conclusion
The data presented demonstrate the finding that the leadership practices employed
by Principal A are derived from the underlying constructs and beliefs she possesses.
These underlying constructs and beliefs are the result of the intersection of the principal’s
own mental models, level of leader self-efficacy, and leader creativity that influence
Principal A towards a set of leadership practices. Furthermore, both Principal A’s
individual leader elements and the extent to which the leadership practices involving
promoting and fostering a culture of inquiry and building and maintaining organizational
relationships are implemented are mediated by the principal’s immunities to change.
Though focus has been placed on the individual constraints within Principal A’s
153
emerging leadership capacity, it is also important to examine some of the external
constraints keeping Principal A from achieving her desired level of organizational and
leadership performance.
External Constraints
An examination of the data revealed an unanticipated finding of the external
constraints that served as impediments in Principal A’s ability to enact her desire to lead
instructionally. An example of how challenging it was for Principal A to do the things
associated with instructional leadership can be seen in the day to day responsibilities and
issues Principal A needed to address. Principal A was observed to be a definite presence
on campus. Each day I visited, I saw students greet her in the halls and Principal A also
greeted students by name - even reminding a student he needed to serve detention with
her later that day. Upon beginning my visits at Crystal Castle Academy, Principal A
initially stated that she wanted to work on developing and implementing professional
development and conduct classroom visits and observations all in an effort to meet her
goals for improving instructional practice. This was evident when she said, “I’m in the
classroom everyday. 90 minutes. It’s something I think is so critical it’s blocked off in
my calendar. Every single day; it’s my sacred time” (personal communication, October
27, 2011).
Principal A’s commitment to block of time to conduct classroom observations as
“sacred time” demonstrates her initial desire to be an instructional leader. It is evident
that Principal A believed being in the classroom was important in her role to support her
teachers and their practice. At the beginning of the study, Principal A shared many ideas
154
for improving the school’s instructional program and devising ways to support the
learning needs of her students. However, by the time we conducted our final interview:
I thought that I would be able to immediately focus on instruction from the get
go… I want to spend an hour and a half in the classroom. But I find myself,
particularly in the last three to four weeks, getting sucked into the vortex of
having to deal with issues because if I – I gotta deal with them you know?
Parents, drugs, attendance contracts, kinds of things that an Assistant Principal
would absolutely fill that role. But since we don’t have one I have to do all that –
which means it’s pulling me away from the classroom. (Principal A, personal
communication, December 5, 2011)
Principal A understands that in order to lead instructionally, she needs to conduct
frequent visits and classroom observations in order to determine how to best support the
improvement of her teachers’ instructional practice. However, the fact that Principal A is
the sole administrator for the school presents a significant challenge in her ability to
devote the extensive amount of time require of instructional leadership as discussed by
Hallinger (2003) and Quinn (2002). The various other issues that Principal A has to
attend to serve as external constraints that keep her from enacting her style of
instructional leadership. Therefore, while Principal A has the deepest desire to be an
instructional leader, her ability to fully enact this style of leadership is limited by the
myriad of other responsibilities she must meet as principal of Crystal Castle Academy.
Conclusion: Organizational Outcome
In sum, Principal A’s leadership practices are a byproduct of her intersecting
levels of high leader self-efficacy and well-intentioned mental models, which are
mediated by her own immunities to change. The interactions of these elements lead
Principal A towards more traditional pathways in leadership practices while executing a
low level of leader creativity. Though her organization is seeing mild improvements in
the level of their own professional practice, these improvements are superficial at best
155
and, if Principal A is not cognizant of her own current limitations in her present level of
leadership, the organization will begin to reach a plateau in their performance thereby
delaying the progress towards reaching the desired organizational change or outcome
Principal A is seeking.
Case Study 2: Principal B - Elysian Fields High School
Elysian Fields High School (EFHS) is located in a primarily residential area
within Morcheeba Unified School District, the same district where Crystal Castle
Academy is located. The school looks incredibly polished with manicured lawns, various
sports fields for football and baseball games, and large murals of the school mascot
decorating various building walls around campus. Upon driving up the entrance driveway
of the school, signs point in the direction of the administrative office which is nestled in a
U-shape building containing offices for the Guidance department, the College and Career
Centers, and various classrooms.
Walking into the administration office, a visitor is typically greeted by the front
office receptionist and asked to sign in for a visitor badge. The walls of the administrative
office are decorated with photographs of student athletes, marching band performances,
and other student events. A large glass case showcasing trophies won and other accolades
is seen to the left upon immediately entering the office. Leather couches and chairs are
placed within the office entrance and allow for a place to wait if meeting with the
principal or other staff. The Principal’s office is tucked away in a corner not readily
visible upon entering the administrative office. The conference room where the Principal
hosts a plethora of planning meetings is adjacent to her office and has an adjoining door
connecting her office to the conference room.
156
Elysian Fields High School is comprised of approximately 2,400 students with
approximately 85% of the student population consisting of Hispanic/Latino students. At
least 75% of the student population is identified as socio-economically disadvantaged;
approximately 35% of the student population is identified as English Language Learners;
and approximately 1% of the student population is identified as students with disabilities.
The school’s API for 2010-11 academic year was 811 and their similar schools rank is 10
while their statewide rank is 8. EFHS is a district school that has an open enrollment
“school of choice” model that defers enrollment to students residing within the
community, but does require an application to enroll. Any remaining spots left for
enrollment are then subject to a lottery where any student can apply to enter the lottery
and, if selected, earns a spot for the following year.
EFHS has a large decision making body known as the Instructional Leadership
Team (ILT). This team consists of Principal B, four Assistant Principals (Curriculum and
Instruction, Activities, Student Services, and Guidance), a Lead Counselor, Athletic
Director and Course Leads from each department. There are a total of 20 Course Leads in
the following areas: 1 for Special Education, 4 for English Language Arts, 2 for Math, 3
for Social Studies, 2 for Science, 2 for Physical Education, 3 for Visual and Performing
Arts, and 3 for Foreign Language (personal communication, October 27, 2011). The
Course Leads concept is new to the ILT model, replacing the role of Department Chairs.
In doing so, Principal B believed that the creation of Course Leads provided a structure
where leadership is shared and more voices could be included at the decision making
table. According to Principal B, the makeup for the Course Lead structure was simply on
the basis of the number of faculty who applied for the role. Essentially, Principal B
157
“wanted to take as many people as [had] applied” (personal communication, October 27,
2011).
Research Question #1: To what extent does a principal’s own mental models, level of
self-efficacy, creative thinking, and her own immunities to change, enable the principal to
enact her style and practice of leadership towards promoting organizational
improvement?
An examination of the data collected revealed that when it comes to the
relationship between a principal’s leadership and organizational change, high levels of
leader self-efficacy and well-intentioned mental models are not enough to influence
practices associated with organizational change when these two elements intersect with a
principal’s immunities to change along with some external constraints. This, as a result,
leads to low levels of creative thinking with the principal ultimately enacting traditional
approaches in conducting professional development and practicing leadership.
Individual Leader Elements: Mental Models, Leader Self-Efficacy, Immunities to
Change, and Leader Creativity
Individual Leader Element: Mental Models
As described in Case Study 1, mental models comprise of the unconscious mental
constructs and assumptions individuals possess (Senge, 2006). Though not explicitly
espoused, these unconscious beliefs and assumptions are demonstrated in the behaviors
and actions living within the individual’s own professional practice. An examination of
the data set for Principal B revealed two prominent mental models in relation to her
perception of her role in leadership: 1) the principal is not personally responsible for
158
building capacity in others and 2) structural organizational change yields instructional
improvement.
Mental Model 1: The Principal is Not Personally Responsible for Building Capacity in
Others
Elmore (2000) defines the style of distributed leadership as one in which the
leader, or principal, creates and delegates multiple roles and responsibilities for various
organizational members. Leadership, as a result, resides within the collective group with
the principal guiding and supporting organizational members as they enact their roles
within the distributed leadership structure (Elmore, 2000; Spillane, Halverson &
Diamond, 2004; Timperley, 2005). Practices associated with distributed leadership
involve the principal delegating or disseminating leadership roles among her
administration and faculty, building and maintaining trust with her members, and
becoming personally involved in various activities such as professional development
(Timperley, 2005; Elmore, 2000; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004).
The data revealed Principal B possesses a mental model in which it is believed
that leadership involves distribution of tasks rather than distribution of leadership.
Evidence of this mental model is reflected in a PowerPoint presentation she created to
introduce the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) model to her team. In this document,
Principal B described the goals and outlined responsibilities of the individual Course
Leads which included the following: “facilitating monthly department meetings,
representing department at district meetings, determining technology needs for
department, assessing instructional material needs, preparing minutes of department
159
meetings, communicating ILT information to department members, and overseeing
CST/CAHSEE success plans” (personal communication, December 12, 2011).
In the description of Course Lead responsibilities, Principal B’s language denotes
the delegating of tasks as she lists the various responsibilities her Course Leads will
assume. In addition, while the slides also describe that administration will support
teachers in “ongoing development of teacher-leaders who will provide instructional
leadership campus wide” (personal communication, December 12, 2011), it is not
explicitly stated what types of support will be offered, how the support will be given, or
what type of professional development in which Course Leads will participate in order to
build their capacity for instructional leadership.
Observations subsequent to this PowerPoint also supplement evidence illustrating
Principal B’s distribution of tasks versus leadership. A Principal Shadow day afforded the
opportunity to observe Principal B meet with her course leads from the Math Department.
During this meeting, the Course Leads updated Principal B on student progress regarding
at-risk students who were failing Algebra I. The course leads also shared their concerns
for the data and Principal B asked about the common trends they observed with the
students who were failing. Part of the meeting also involved the course leads discussing
issues pertaining to their department and what they were planning to discuss with their
members at the next department meeting. During this meeting, Principal B listened to the
Course Leads share their plans and would offer clarification on questions the Course
Leads had regarding course offerings and student enrollment. However, no suggestions
were offered in terms of supporting the course leads in their role as leaders:
Course leads share concerns about one of the department members who is
unhappy with the ILT implementation; Principals says it’s normal that there is
160
some resistance; Principal says, “it’s more common here than at any other school
I’ve been to.” Course lead asks if there are suggestions for dealing with the
teacher; Principal laughs and says “No… I think it’s important to let people vent
than if they don’t go to either of you; if they get it off their chest then at least
they’re airing it out. A person who’s really helped us get through this is [______]
who always says, “are you looking for a solution or do you just want to
complain?” Or something like that in a much nicer way. It’s really about asking
people to find a solution rather than continue to be a part of the problem.” AP of
Instruction tells Course Leads that letting the teachers vent can be helpful and that
sometimes that’s all they want to do. Principal says, “teaching is so isolating…
you’re with kids the whole day. So having that adult contact is what keeps them
sane even if it’s to vent.” Principal isn’t really offering suggestions to the Course
Leads as a means of building their own leadership capacity to find ways to work
with resistant or difficult teacher. Course Leads are just expected to deal or cope
with the resistant teacher on their own? (Shadow Day, personal communication,
November 28, 2011)
During this meeting, it was evident that the Course Leads were enacting their task
responsibilities with respect to communicating instructional and departmental needs,
planning minutes and agenda for their next department meeting, and discussing issues
that can be communicated back to their department members. Much of the conversation
between Principal B and her Course Leads centered on just structural or procedural issues
rather than capitalizing on opportunities for building leadership capacity as demonstrated
in Principal B’s inability to offer substantial advice to the Course leads on how to assist
department members who are exhibiting some resistance. Furthermore, Principal B had a
great opportunity in this example to support the development of leadership with her
Course Leads for the purpose of improving their practice as teacher leaders. The fact that
Principal B offered limited advice to the course leads – which was also reinforced by her
Assistant Principal – illustrates limitations in the ways in which Principal B believes she
is trying to “distribute and share leadership” within her organization (personal
communication, October 27, 2011).
161
Consistent with Senge’s (2006) work on mental models, Principal B’s behaviors
demonstrate her unconscious belief that she is not personally responsible for building
capacity within others. Any capacity building that is taking place focuses on structural
and procedural change versus building internal capacity in her Course Leads. By
assigning her Course Leads tasks to complete, Principal B implicitly exercises her belief
that Course Leads bear responsibility but the administrative team still retains authority in
leadership. As a result, Principal B’s conceptualization of what she defines as distributed
leadership is contrary to how Elmore (2000) and Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond
(2004) define this leadership style.
Mental Model 2: Structural Organizational Change Yields Improvement
Hallinger (2003) argues that for any principal to generate transformational
change, she must create conditions that lead to second-order change as opposed to first-
order change. According to the author, first-order change results from the principal
seeking to influence conditions that lead to outward or directly visible changes within the
organization (Hallinger, 2003). In contrast, second-order change consists of changes that
are reflected in the transformation of organizational practice whereby the members alter
the behaviors and underlying practices that are keeping them in their present state of
performance. The principal must work to help individuals create personal goals and then
link those to the broader goals of the organization (Hallinger, 2003) while creating a
climate “in which teachers engage in continuous learning and in which they routinely
share their learning with others” (Hallinger, 2003, p. 338).
An examination of the data revealed that much of the change present within
Elysian Fields High School, under the leadership of Principal B, is related to first-order
162
change. Evidence of first-order change consists of Principal B’s restructuring of the
organization’s leadership model through her implementation of the Instructional
Leadership Team (ILT). This particular model, according to Principal B, did away with
the traditional Department Chair role and replaced it with the role of Course Leads,
which, as described in the document submitted by Principal B and referenced in an earlier
example, is no different a role than a Department Chair. The only thing that has changed
is the name of the role, but the tasks that the individual Course Lead is responsible for is
still the same. The level of these tasks supports the observation that much of the changes
that have taken place with respect to the leadership team are structural in nature.
Additional supplemental data from Principal B’s first interview further supports
the idea that changes she has implemented are more structural in nature:
The first thing we really worked on and restructured was the use of our PLCs. We
always talked about PLCs and some people even went to DuFour training when
the school first opened, but a couple of years ago for the first time – so that core
content teachers in the same content had common preps in order to meet during
the day as often as they wanted to work on designing common assessments,
conducting item analysis, and other instructional tasks – we wanted to make sure
there was built in collegiality. Our teachers had complained that there wasn’t
enough time. Nobody’s getting raises right now in this economy so the
commodity is time. So we decided to build that into the day. (Principal B,
personal communication, October 27, 2011).
Unbeknownst to Principal B, the above example illustrates her mental model of
structural change yields improvement as demonstrated by her decision to build
collaboration time into the school day. Implicitly, Principal B believed that affording
teachers time to collaborate would lead to improvement in instructional and professional
practice. This change of offering common preps illustrates a first-order change whereby
overt structural changes are made as a means of influencing outwardly visible change
(Hallinger, 2003). Though Principal B creates the conditions to foster structural change,
163
little is observed in the ways in which she is trying to change the underlying practices and
behaviors surrounding instructional improvement. As a result, the surface-level structural
changes will only yield surface-level results due to the fact that Principal B is not
working to create the conditions necessary to foster second-order change.
Principal B’s two prominent mental models that emerged from the data set – the
principal is not personally responsible for building capacity in others and structural
organizational change yields instructional improvement – are both representative of the
unspoken and unconscious beliefs and assumptions she possesses. These beliefs and
constructs also serve to illustrate how Principal B makes sense of her role as leader
(Senge, 2006). Furthermore, Principal B’s mental models, and her demonstrative
behaviors, also exemplify her operational and structural style of leadership as opposed to
an instructional leadership focus that was observed with Principal A. Nevertheless,
Principal B’s mental models are not enough, alone, to understand the relationship
between her leadership and organizational change. Her level of leader self-efficacy and
its intersection with her mental models allow for deeper understanding into the leadership
practices Principal B employs.
Individual Leader Element: Leader Self-Efficacy
As discussed in Case Study 1, Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) define leader
self-efficacy as the principal’s beliefs to lead other effectively given her abilities, skills
and knowledge set. It is this level of belief in her capacity to a lead that influences a
principal to employ practices associated with organizational improvement (Machida &
Schaubroeck, 2011). An examination of Principal B’s responses during two interviews
offers insight into her high level of leader self-efficacy. During the conversations I had
164
with Principal B, she struck me as a woman who was definitely efficacious about her
ability to succeed despite any and all challenges she may have faced. Principal B first
provides an example dating back to her high school experience where she discussed a
conflict she had about a former English teacher:
When I was in high school I never got along with my English teacher. And he
hated me. I had him for three out of four years in school. And I know why he
couldn’t stand me – because I didn’t do the reading. In my day we didn’t have
computers we had Cliffsnotes. So I’d read the Cliffsnotes and would still be able
to do well on the test so he could never prove that I didn’t read it… and on the last
day of school I had found out that he had not submitted my letter of
recommendation for [private university in the northeast] thinking that if he didn’t
submit it that I wouldn’t get in. Well I had asked for more letters than was
required. So on the last day of school he told me, “Hey [Principal’s Name]. Good
luck at [______]. I guess you’ll need it.” And I flipped my 80’s hair around and
said, “Well (first name of teacher), at least I’m not going to be an English teacher
for the rest of my life.” (Principal B, personal communication, October 27, 2011).
Principal B’s reflection on her high school experience with the former English teacher
speaks to the level of confidence she possessed in her ability to gain admittance to the
private university she attended in the northeast. Her asking for more letters than was
required hints at the fact that, on some level, she knew that her English teacher, given
their slightly tumultuous relationship, would not follow through on submitting a letter of
recommendation. Nevertheless, Principal B appeared very efficacious in her ability to
succeed despite what others may say or think.
Principal B’s level of self-efficacy is further exemplified by the manners through
which she obtained her administrative credential:
I started to take classes at [private university] in [northern California] and
instead found that they had an assessment you could take for I think like
$500. I think it was called the SLLA. I was bored of these classes and I
signed up for the test thinking, “Well I’ll just take the gamble and if I
don’t pass then I’m still in the program. Well I passed it and then my
friends in the program were saying, “Oh I can’t believe you. Now you
don’t have to go to class or pay for the quarters.” So I got it. I got a job
165
right away and moved down here where my parents live. And that’s when
I started being an AP. (Principal B, personal communication, October 27,
2011)
The idea that Principal B learned she could take the exam for her administrative
credential versus taking courses she deemed to be “boring” provides insight into the way
Principal B views setting and accomplishing personal and professional goals. Some may
argue that Principal B’s decision to take the exam for the administrative credential
instead of finishing the coursework in her credential program indicates a desire to take
the shortcuts to goal completion. For Principal B, she found the path that she needed to
find to help her accomplish the desired goal she set.
Whether or not Principal B’s intention for taking the exam instead of finishing the
program she was enrolled in is reflective of taking short cuts, she managed to circumvent
various procedures and formal structures that have been established to provide students
and practitioners with the level of knowledge and competency that is needed to be the
effective leader necessary to implement organizational change. As a result, it would
appear that Principal B never gave herself the opportunity to get the external supports
from an administrative preparatory program to influence and support her leadership
development. Regardless of the fact that Principal B pursued an alternative route towards
entering administration, it is concluded that her beliefs in her capacity to succeed and do
well only served to influence her educational and professional choices. It is also this
belief in her ability to do well that enables her to believe that the choices she makes are
effective with respect to her own leadership practice.
Similar to Principal A, Principal B exhibits a high level of preparatory self-
efficacy in which she believes that the skills and experiences she has acquired have
166
prepared to perform the necessary tasks required of her as principal (Machida &
Schaubroeck, 2011). This is demonstrated as she describes her feelings upon assuming
the role of principal at Elysian Fields High School:
Researcher: When did you assume the principalship here?
Principal B: 2008.
Researcher: After you graduated from [___________]?
Principal B: Thank goodness I had done my dissertation and had a few months
off to be a normal person and then I became principal… Nothing really prepares
you for the role of principal until you are actually the principal. That’s been a
tough lesson… My predecessor had a long history at the district. She was what we
think of as that charismatic leader. You know she could get people to do things
because she was [former principal’s name]. “Oh you’re working for [____]. Oh
[____]. Her reputation was so strong. So sharp. So it was daunting to follow her
because a lot of things about her are not me. So one thing that was scary about
taking over was stemming from my own dissertation in that the first step for a
promising new school to go downhill is when you change principals. That would
be changing to me. I was very aware that I was living my dissertation in that
sense. During my interview for the job the superintendent asked, “How are you
going to turn [____]’s Elysian Fields High School into Principal B’s Elysian
Fields?” And I said, “That’s not my goal. My goal is to turn it into everyone’s
Elysian Fields. You can’t have a school move forward based on one person.”
(Principal B, personal communication, October 27, 2011).
In this example, Principal B is aware that while she is not like her predecessor, she
believes in her ability to move the school forward and change it in a way that affords
opportunities for what she considered to be more of a distributed leadership model.
Furthermore, Principal B referencing her previous research is evidence of her level of
preparatory self-efficacy in that her saying that she was “living her dissertation” refers to
her existing level of knowledge in how to handle the transfer of leadership from her
predecessor to herself. Because she is aware of the potential challenges, Principal B
believes that she has the tools necessary to embark upon those challenges.
In sum, Principal B’s level of leader self-efficacy reflects her belief that she
possesses the capacity to do well as principal. Though the data examined demonstrates
167
Principal B’s high level of leader self-efficacy and the extent to which she believes in her
capacity to lead, her ability to develop as a leader and improve her performance is limited
by other constraints, contrary to what Machida and Schaubroeck (2011) and Hannah,
Avolio, Luthans, and Harms (2008) theorize. These constraints, otherwise known as
immunities to change, reveal that the relationship between a principal’s leader self-
efficacy and her levels of performance and improvement are not as linear as the
aforementioned authors have suggested.
Individual Leader Element: Immunities to Change
As described in Case Study 1, the underlying impediments that prevent the
principal from making desired progress and improvement are what Helsing, Kegan, and
Lahey (2008) refer to as immunities to change. Similar to Senge’s (2006)
conceptualization of mental models, these barriers are unconscious to the principal and,
therefore, must be raised to their level of consciousness in order to spur the level of
cognitive dissonance required to devise the appropriate strategies to mitigate these
impediments and improve their practice (Helsing, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008). In the case of
Principal B, the data set revealed that she possesses the following two immunities to
change: 1) Principal B lacks an inability to be self-reflective in recognizing areas for
personal and professional improvement and 2) Principal B employs a deficit-mindset
model with her teachers.
Immunity to Change: Principal B lacks an ability to be self-reflective in recognizing
areas for personal and professional improvement.
The ability to be self-reflective requires an ability to engage in double-loop
learning (Argyris, 2002) where it is argued that an individual needs to look within
168
themselves and reflect on the behavioral practices they employ that potential contribute to
the issues prohibiting growth and improvement. The data revealed that, while Principal B
looks at various forms of data, she did not engage in any level of deep self-reflection
where she questioned her own actions and beliefs in order to determine whether or not
such actions are supporting the achievement of her desired goals.
Evidence of Principal B’s lack of self-reflection was captured during one of the
principal shadow days. During that observation, Principal B worked with an educational
consultant who is working with the school to support their established improvement plans
and the implementation of the ILT model. During this meeting:
Principal B shared her concerns about some members who have exhibited some
form of resistance for the ILT model. Principal B says to the consultant that there
is some level of distrust and that the atmosphere seems to reflect paranoia and an
“admin is out to get us” feeling. Consultant asks, “how serious do you want to
take this?” Principal says, “there’s no contract violation here.” One of the
Assistant Principals says that it’s really three teachers who are causing the issues.
Consultant listens as Assistant Principals share concerns about the teachers who
are appearing resistant and are complaining about the model. Consultant suggests
inviting opportunity for teacher to feel included and asks, “Is there a way to help
the people who aren’t… or who didn’t decide to apply for ILT. Is there a way to
give them something to do to feel a part of it?” AP replies, “She’s social chair.”
Consultant asks, “how’s that going.” Principal says, “fine… they give these little
Jaguar of the month awards… funny little things like that.” Assistant Principals
talks about teachers and how they’ve been feeling, especially the course leads.
Consultant advises, “I would caution against making bold steps to counter this
model. Use this as an opportunity to reiterate with ILT that they are on the right
path and that there are making signification changes; you need to let them know
that they have the full confidence of their colleagues. If they are getting beat up
by their colleagues… you want to reinforce that they’re doing good. That they are
valued. That it’s about… how are you spreading decision making out to include
people to have the input to make those decisions.” Principal nodded head in
agreement. Consultant adds, “perhaps the ILT team can reach out to [teacher] and
try to find a way to include her?” (Principal Shadow Day, personal
communication, November 7, 2011)
Several observations were drawn from this piece of data presented. First, the
educational consultant is not asking Principal B questions that would prompt her to
169
reflect on her behaviors and practices that may or may not be contributing to the tension
felt by the administrative team within the organization. The lack of questioning on the
part of the consultant adds to the number of missed opportunities Principal B has to
engage in reflection of her own practice and how her behaviors are contributing to the
overall climate of her organization. Furthermore, since the consultant is not, in this
example, engaging the principal in self-reflection, one cannot expect Principal B to
engage in the kinds of self-reflective practices associated with double-loop learning as
described by Argyris (2002). Second, the advice the consultant offers to Principal B
reaffirms her beliefs that her model and approach is the right one to employ and that the
teachers are the ones who need to acclimate to the structural changes she has
implemented with the help of her administrative team. Since the advice does not counter
what Principal B already believes is correct, there is no need for her, according to the
unconscious constructs and beliefs she already possesses, for her to change the way she
does things in order to alleviate some of the tension within her organization.
The problem that lies with Principal B’s lack of self-reflective practices is that if
she is not aware of areas in which she can afford to improve upon her own practice, she
will not take advantage of the opportunities and strategies to improve. Therefore, much of
the types of problems Principal B will solve will involve ones that are readily visible to
her or those that are “technical problems” through which she will implement tactics and
procedures that lead to externally drive results (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008).
Her lack of self-reflection, therefore, inhibits her to solve “adaptive problems” where she
is unable to make changes to her underlying beliefs, values, habits and modes of
operation (Helsing et al., 2008).
170
Immunity to Change: Principal B employs a deficit-mindset with her teachers.
Milner (2010) offers a conceptualization of the deficit-mindset specific to
teachers’ expectations and assumptions about students’ potential for learning. In his
description, he states that beliefs that result in low expectations derive from conversations
teachers may have about students and teachers’ interpretations about students’
performance (Milner, 2010). As a result, these beliefs and interpretations translate into
practices and behaviors that make it difficult to foster positive learning opportunities for
students (ibid). Milner (2010) adds, “deficit thinking exists when educators hold negative,
stereotypic, and counter productive news about culturally diverse students and lower their
expectations of those students accordingly” (p. 36).
Though Milner’s (2010) depiction of the deficit-mindset and its occurrence within
the teacher-student dynamic, this mindset is applicable to Principal B’s situation at
Elysian Fields High School. An examination of the observation data revealed instances in
which Principal B demonstrated a deficit-mindset with her teachers. This was evident
during a meeting between Principal B, her educational consultant, and her administrative
team:
AP talks about one of the teachers who used to teach at another school site with
her and talks about the poor attitude she had then and that she has it now.
Principal says teacher is acting “bossy” and is alienating herself…. AP says
“She’s playing that “victim card”… AP reports that teacher said, “how would you
feel if you were told you an obstacle to this school moving forward. Would that
make you want to apply for leadership team?” Consultant asks if that was the
word that was used and Principal says, “I don’t remember if that was the exact
word but I said something like “ I need you guys to work with me instead of
against me at these meetings.” Consultant asks, “So how do you get her on
board?” AP says “I’ve tried to move her from a complaint level to a solution
level. You know “I hear your complaint but what do you think we can do to
resolve this…”Consultant asks if other teachers see her as a positive or negative
and Principal says she believes it’s the latter. Consultant suggests, “If you could
find a way to engage her that’s genuine… maybe you can make some progress
171
otherwise if she’s shutting down every overture you make to her you’ll have to
give up and let her isolate herself… and if that were to happen how is that going
to affect the school as a whole?” Consultant also suggests having the principal
meet with the teacher and the teacher’s union rep to see if they can work to find a
solution to the negative feelings she has and how they can make this a better
environment for her. Principal says “I don’t think it would go well. (APs nod in
agreement). I don’t mean to be a pessimist about it but… it’s what her past
reactions have been like.” Consultant keeps offering ideas but AP and Principal
keep saying that it won’t work.
AP talks about another teacher with whom she just had a post-observation
conference. She talks about her surprise at the fact that the teacher also expressed
similar concerns to the teacher they were talking about earlier in the meeting (see
above notes). Principal and admin appear surprised at the fact that this particular
teacher is expressing concern over ILT model and its implementation. Principal
said “well she can complain… and [____] said she was high maintenance over at
[_____]. Principal then says, “Did we pick the wrong people?” Principal also
asks, “Who got to her?” then names a name. APs all agree… “the buddies from
[_____] or so I have been told.” AP says, “I’m a little worried she’s
contaminated” Principal says “well put it in context… it’s not surprising…”
(Principal Shadow Day, personal communication, November 7, 2011)
There are two prominent observations that emerge from the example offered above, both
of which illustrate Principal B’s deficit-mindset. First, on several occasions, the
educational consultant offers suggestions for handling the difficult teacher to which
Principal B replies that she does not believe the suggestions or ideas will work to solve
the issue at hand. The administrative team, who also agrees that the solutions offered by
the consultant will not work to solve the problem at hand, also reinforces this belief. This
immediate disregard for the suggestions offered illustrates Principal B’s deficit-mindset
in that she already holds the expectation that nothing will work to help this teacher
improve her behavior, her attitude, or her professional practice. Second, the words used
to describe the two teachers talked about during this observation denote the deficit-
mindset as the principal and the administrative team use words like “contaminated”,
“high-maintenance”, “bossy”, “alienating”, and “victim-card” (personal communication,
172
November 7, 2011) to describe what the administrative team believed to be the attitudes
and behaviors of these two teachers. The word choice illustrated by Principal B and the
administrative team further evoke this deficit-mindset in that the words used contribute to
the “negative, stereotypical, and counterproductive views” of these two teachers, which,
in turn, influence the attitudes and expectations the administrative team and Principal B
have of these two teachers (Milner, 2010, p. 36).
The deficit-mindset Principal B employs in this example illustrates her own
immunity to change, which is something of which she is not cognizant. Since an
immunity to change, according to Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) lies within
the principal’s unconscious, Principal B is, therefore, unaware that her low level of
expectations may, in fact, be contributing to the various conflicts experienced within the
organization. As Milner (2010) advises:
The deficit-mindset contributes to an unending cycle: educators do not teach with
rigor and high expectations; students do not learn; students’ scores suffer; and
then all involved wonder why. I have learned that blame for failure is too often
placed on students without any serious interrogation of the role that teachers and
school structures play (p. 36).
In the context of leadership and the case of Principal B, the lack of clear communication
and capacity building between administration and the faculty results in teachers’ feelings
of confusion, displeasure, and distrust; this, in turn, results in less-than-desirable
cultivation of leader development and weak implementation of the ILT model. As a
result, the administrative team is then left wondering why certain issues are continuously
rising to the surface and why teachers are still feeling upset. As discussed in Milner
(2010) much of the dialogue observed between the assistant principals and Principal B
centered on placing blame on the teachers who are upset at the current climate of the
173
school. Rather than asking questions that reflect deeply on the current situation or
engaging in some form of reciprocal dialogue with the consultant about potential
strategies for working with the teachers, both Principal B and the assistant principals
seems conclusive on the idea that nothing they could do would work to help the teachers
feel more comfortable with the structural changes taking place within the organization.
Principal B’s immunities to change: Principal B lacks an inability to be self-
reflective in recognizing areas for personal and professional improvement and Principal
B employs a deficit-mindset model with her teachers appear to interact with one another
frequently throughout the data examined. Because Principal B lacks an ability to be self-
reflective about her practice and her performance as a leader, she is unable to recognize
the types of expectations she has for her teachers and her Course Leads and how those
expectations influence the ways in which she behaves with her faculty. As a result, her
immunities to change mediate the intersection of Principal B’s beliefs in her capacity to
lead and the unconscious assumptions she makes about how she enacts her style of
leadership. The confluence of these elements translates into low levels of leader
creativity, which is discussed in the next section.
Individual Leader Element: Leader Creativity
As referenced in Case Study 1, Sternberg (2007) states that creativity in
leadership is important as it enables the principal to generate the ideas that her members
will eventually follow. Furthermore, Sternberg (2007) reminds us that leaders who
engage in lower levels of creativity run the risk of implementing ideas within the
organization that are archaic or mediocre. In addition, levels of leader creativity and the
extent to which a leader is creative is reflected in the established mental models and
174
beliefs about the ways a principal thinks about, engages in, and enacts her leadership.
Therefore, leader creativity is believed to work in confluence with a principal’s own
mental models, her level of leader self-efficacy, and the mediating factor of her immunity
to change.
An examination of the data revealed, similar to Principal A, that Principal B
exhibited lower levels of creative thinking in her leadership. This finding is not surprising
considering the identified mental models and the extent of her immunities to change as
described earlier. As a result, the practices and strategies Principal B employs reflect
traditional leadership practices. At the surface, Principal B exhibits a style of creative
leadership that Sternberg (2007) defines as “Advance Forward Incrementation” whereby
Principal B appears to want to take her organization in the direction it is already going
with respect to improving the leadership structure. This is evident in the ways in which
Principal B changed the structural components of her leadership team by eliminating the
role of Department Chair and introducing the role of Course Leads in an effort to
promote a more “distributed leadership structure” (personal communication, October 27,
2011). However, this direction may be moving at a pace her organizational members are
not ready for it to go, which is an unintended consequence of the creative leadership style
described by Sternberg (2007) thereby spurring feelings of resistance as was observed
with the administrative team’s discussion of some of the teachers in earlier examples.
Similar to Principal A, Principal B also adopts technical solutions to solve
external problems. When asked about what it meant to Principal B to be creative, she
responded:
The budget is always a reflection of your priorities. We were creative with the
textbooks. We don’t have class sets anymore and our teachers are furious, our
175
parents are furious, and our kids are furious. And we don’t have lockers. So the
teachers want class sets and the students want the class sets back. But the problem
is that the district isn’t buying any more textbooks. So what used to be class sets,
surplus materials, are now going to other schools that need books. So they’re not
our books, they’re district books. So what do we do to kind of offset this
problem? That’s why we started investing in more technology and with the tech
department at the district they are actually funding for me a pilot program were
doing with a group of AP students. There are 57 kids in one AP Lit course. They
[district] have purchased Nooks and uploaded all the books and plays that the kids
need and the cost is so much cheaper than buying all those books. So when we go
through the year and we evaluate how this works then we can decide “should we
expand it to another class?”… So we’re trying to think differently and more long
term about using our money more wisely. (Principal B, personal communication,
October 27, 2011)
Principal B’s explanation of an example where she believed she exercised “creative
thinking” in her leadership supports Sternberg’s (2007) idea of practical intelligence,
which he defines as the “set of skills and dispositions used to solve everyday problems by
applying knowledge gained from experience to purposefully adapt to, shape, and select
environments” (p. 37). In this instance, Principal B demonstrates practical intelligence as
she seeks a solution to the change in the environment where the district is no longer
purchasing textbooks in the ways they used to. To comply with the changes, Principal B
worked with the district to invest in the technological tools that would support the
material needs of her organization with respect to books. At the minimal level, Principal
B exercises a level of creative thinking to meet the instructional needs of both her
teachers and her students.
While Principal B is able to think of immediate solutions to solve external
problems, her level of leader creativity is limited in solving more complex issues like the
issues she is experience with the resistant faculty members. Her lower levels of creative
thinking lead her to adopt more technical and traditional practices to solve immediate and
external problems of practice. Furthermore, it is expected that Principal B would maintain
176
a lower level of leader creativity in that her immunities to change prevent her from
recognizing areas in which she improve and the intersection of her high level of leader
self-efficacy and her mental models only serve to perpetuate the cycle of lower leader
creativity.
Individual Leader Elements: Conclusion
Evidence presented for Principal B demonstrate that the relationship between
Principal B’s mental models, her level of leader self-efficacy, and leader creativity, is an
increasingly complex yet relational one that is further complicated by her own immunity
to change. Furthermore, the intersection of these individual leader elements lead Principal
B to adopt and implement leadership practices that, at the surface, are consistently
demonstrating the mental models she unconsciously possesses.
Leadership Practices
As argued in my Conceptual Framework, the intersection of a principal’s own
mental models, level of leader self-efficacy, and leader creativity were originally thought
to serve as the foundational catalyst in influencing a principal towards a set of leadership
practices. These individual leader elements are further made complex by the mediating
factor of her immunities to change. An examination of the data set revealed that the
leadership practices Principal B implemented were derived from the underlying
constructs and beliefs she possesses. In the case of Elysian Fields High School and its
principal, Principal B, the confluence of all four elements influence the extent to which
Principal B enacts the following two predominant leadership practices: promoting a
culture of inquiry and building and maintaining organizational relationships.
Leadership Practice: Promoting and Fostering a Culture of Inquiry
177
As discussed in Case Study 1, Argyris’ (2001, 2001) work on single-loop learning
and double-loop learning established that internal reflection of practice is needed in order
to foster and facilitate improvement and changing the “governing values and then the
actions” (p. 206). During our final interview, Principal B explicitly espoused that she and
her organization were engaging in:
That cycle of inquiry that we’ve been talking about where we look at school wide
data, we cycle back to what was the instruction that needs to be adjusted and how
do we reassess, um, it gives them a much broader view so they can see they are a
part of the system and that the entire educational system – or the entire school in
our case – needs to more forward and we can talk about how we can help make
that happen. (Principal B, personal communication, December 12, 2011).
Part of Principal B’s motivation behind creating a culture of inquiry involves a desire to
keep her ILT members abreast of what the data is telling them. Much of the reflection, as
described by Principal B, is still focused on external outcomes and the externally driven
practices and strategies that produce the results they are looking at. This was further
evident during a professional development meeting within the English Department:
Teachers break out into grade level groups where they are reviewing data
surrounding student grade reports. Course Leads direct teachers to meet in college
prep courses first before Honors/AP groups meet. Researcher sits near group for
10
th
/11
th
grade. Course Lead sits with group and has them look through the sheets
containing student grades. Asks teachers to state the trends they observe. Teachers
share out but responses are brief at the beginning only directly answering the
question. Some teachers in the group (2) engage in side conversation. One teacher
talks about the exams used. NOTE: there are no guiding questions for taking the
teachers through any actual grade analysis; Course Lead is just letting the
conversation occur naturally, but there is no sharing of strategies or teachers
reflecting on what they may or may not be doing to support student success.
Much of the rationale include phrases like: “they don’t do their homework”, “this
kid never shows to class.” Conversation now turns to discussion over course
materials, novels to read, college applications, and single-case issues with various
students. Conversation returns to grades about 10 minutes later. Teachers mention
that they notice grades are following a middle of the road pattern. They discuss
how the grades may be a result of the transition from middle to high school,
especially for 9
th
graders (But this is the 10
th
/11
th
grade group… what does that
have to do with the present groups of students they’re looking at?). Little
178
questioning is presented that prompts teachers to reflect on their own practice and
its correlation to student performance.
In this instance where the English department members are working to review student
grades and the practice of looking at data in more detail is something that the school – as
a whole – has been working on according to Principal B (personal communication,
October 27, 2011). While the department members looking at the data, their level of
reflection is still superficial in nature and does not yield evidence of changing the ways in
which they reflect upon the data in an effort to improve their own practice. This, as a
result, leads to a consequential single-loop learning where the department members only
discuss what the students are doing that explain the grades observed versus engaging in
more internal reflection of how their instructional practice relates to the grades and scores
observed. Therefore, their lack of true reflection prohibits them from reaching the level
of inquiry Principal B espoused she wanted her faculty to reach.
The lack of reflection and double-loop learning observed within the professional
development meeting is not surprising to see. Other observational data demonstrated
similar surface-level engagement in reflection at two other faculty meetings. It can be
concluded that Principal B’s surface level implementation of her own inquiry translates
into surface level implementation of inquiry across the organization.
Furthermore, observational data revealed Principal B does not create conditions
for engaging in reflective inquiry, but rather intends to leave such superficial levels of
reflection up to her faculty. This was evident during an ILT planning meeting Principal B
conducted with her administrative team. During the planning, Principal B screened a
video clip of teacher teaching a lesson that the principal planned to use during the
scheduled ILT meeting, which is further illustrated below:
179
Principal starts to watch videotaped lesson of one of her teachers. Admin watches
along with Principal. 2 of the 3 AP’s in the room are working on laptops while
video is playing; the third AP is out of the conference room. They aren’t watching
video; Principal is only one watching video. Principal starts fast forwarding video.
She says she’s trying to find clips to use for the ILT meeting. Principal does not
address the point of the video or what activities she’s thinking of having the ILT
members do with this clip. There is no discussion between the Principal and the
AP’s about the teaching strategies observed in the clip. Principal switches to a
different video clip. AP’s do not appear interested in watching the video as they
continue working on their laptops; one AP takes out a binder and sorts through
documents. I can’t tell if they’re listening though, but they’re not watching it.
Principal says “we need to put this into context.” She offers idea of redoing the
videotaping of the lesson in the same teacher’s classroom but in a different class
period to see if there are differences in the types of strategies the teacher employs
(AP versus non-AP course). In the video, teacher only lectured and engaged in
Socratic Seminar questioning. One of the AP’s asks, “What do we want the
teachers to see?” The other AP responds, “Uh…. Lots of different instructional
strategies?” Principal says that it would be good for teachers to see what or how
other teachers teach and then when they conduct the peer observation later that
day in the ILT meeting they can then do a “comparative observation looking at
how certain instructional practices could be used cross-curricular.” (Principal
Shadow Day, personal communication, November 7, 2011)
In this example, Principal B plans to allow the faculty to construct their idea of what
instructional practices they should be looking for as was demonstrated in her comment to
her assistant principals that the ILT members would identify strategies on their own while
screening the clip Principal B chose. The ILT members would then be asked to conduct a
comparative reflection where they compare the live observation they would do later that
day in the ILT meeting with the video taped lesson presented by Principal B and her
administrative team. The consequential challenge with having the faculty construct their
own definitions or ideas about practice is that if it is not in line with what Principal B
wants, it has the potential to create dissonance between the faculty and the
administration.
Evidence presented from the data collected demonstrates Principal B’s
engagement in surface level inquiry where she and her faculty are examining data and
180
outcomes from an external and superficial perspective. This surface level analysis will
lead Principal B and her members to adopt externally driven solutions and inhibit them
from engaging in true double-loop learning.
Leadership Practice: Building and Maintaining Organizational Relationships
As described in Case Study 1, organizational relationships are important and the
principal must be aware that building and maintaining organizational relationships are
necessary for working to achieve organizational change (Fullan, 2001). Human
interaction, especially within a school, is one that occurs daily and, as a result, calls for
the principal to ensure that she is cultivating and maintaining organizational relationships
in order to work towards achieving her desires goals (Fullan, 2001; Northouse, 2007). In-
group and out-group relationships can form as a result as discussed in the case of Case
Study 1 with Principal A. In the case of Elysian Fields High School, the data set revealed
Principal B’s relationships illustrate in-group and out-group dynamics with the in-group
consisting of her admin team. The course leads could also be considered a part of it, but
are in-group members in a more superficial way in that they are a part of the leadership
team, but are not delegated leadership responsibilities in the ways they are delegated to
her administrative staff. Out-group members within the organization are identified to be
those who are not part of the ILT/Administrative team and those who have demonstrated
resistance with the implementation of the ILT model.
The nature of the in-group and out-group relationships was evident during several
faculty meetings. During the meetings, Principal B usually sat with her administrative
team separate from the faculty and ILT Course Leads. Principal B was frequently
observed engaging in conversations with her administrative team, but little interaction
181
was observed with Principal B conversing her faculty members. Most of the interaction
Principal B had with faculty consisted of her meetings with her Course Leads where the
Course Leads would report back their plans and agendas for their upcoming department
meetings.
During our final interview, I asked Principal B about the expectations she has for
the meetings she conducts with her Course Leads. Principal B shared that the idea behind
these types of meetings between her and her course leads is a means of sharing the
leadership role with her “teacher leaders” (personal communication, December 12, 2011).
She went to say that, in addition to sharing leadership, another goal from these meetings
includes her desire to:
Establish and re-establish trust. So that’s why the [course leads] set the agenda for
our meeting. Normally in the back of my mind I’ll always have points that I want
to bring up with them or questions that I might have, but I want to make sure there
is scheduled time to discuss how the department is doing, what kind of progress is
being made, challenges they are facing, budgetary concerns, what have you,
because it’s – it hasn’t always worked to say “my door is always open” because
people won’t come. But if you set up meeting time that’s regular and the course
leads know they are in charge to bring concerns or questions from the department
to the meeting, that’s really the only way this is going to happen. And also just
kind of establish – the same way you would in the classroom, the ILT is a large
class and you’re doing whole group instruction – this is much more differentiated.
So when we’re talking about one particular course or one particular subject – one
particular PLC and specific needs. Also… I want the meetings to be much more
relaxed and informal so that we’re addressing concerns but we’re also
establishing relationships. (Principal B, personal communication, December 12,
2011)
The example above illustrates Principal B’s desire to create positive relationships with
her Course Leads and working with them to build trust in ensuring the implementation of
the ILT model is successful. Supplemental data illustrating Principal B building and
maintaining organization relationships is evident during observations of two meetings
Principal B conducted with her Course Leads from two difference departments. During
182
these meetings, it was observed that Principal B usually checked in with the course leads
and the progress they are making within their own department. Principal B usually asked
questions about teacher progress, teacher feelings regarding the implementation of the
ILT model, and addressing any questions that the course leads had. The course leads
appeared to act as liaisons between the department members and the administration and
in this manner, the leadership is shared with the course leads and the administration
collaborating and the course leads taking that information back to their departments for
further collaboration within their professional learning communities. However, little
could be determined about the extent to which the Course Leads enacted their roles as
leaders outside of the parameters of meeting with Principal B since the only time I was
able to observe the Course Leads was when they met with the principal. The meetings,
though a good forum for updating Principal B on departments’ progress, appeared to be
more of a “check in” than an opportunity to foster the kinds of relationships Principal B
espoused she wanted to create.
Principal B espoused a desire to establish and re-establish trust (personal
communication, December 12, 2011). Given the implementation of the new leadership
structure, trust is a commodity the principal is working heavily to build within her
faculty. What is interesting to note about Principal B’s attempt at building and
maintaining trust regarding the implementation of ILT is the frequent level of “behind the
door” discussion Principal B engaged in with her administration surrounding teachers’
feelings of a lack of trust and the lack of transfer into strategies and behaviors that would
result in improving the level of trust among the faculty. One attempt that was partly
observed involved Principal B starting the ILT meeting – a full day meeting or what
183
Principal B considered to be “professional development” for both administration and the
Course Leads. At the beginning of this meeting, Principal B afforded members an
opportunity to “vent” (personal communication, November 16, 2011) their frustrations
about the ILT implementation. I was not asked to sit in on this part of the meeting as the
faculty wanted to speak “freely” (personal communication, November 16, 2011).
Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the open forum discussion resulted in an
increase in trust, especially when two weeks later during my final shadow day principal
observation both Principal B and her administrative staff were still discussing issues with
the same teachers who were exhibiting concerns and dislike for the ILT implementation.
Nevertheless, Principal B opening the forum to allow for teachers to voice their concerns
and opinions was her idea of trying to establish trust within her Course Leads and ILT
members.
Leadership Practices: Conclusion
Principal B’s leadership practices as discussed above demonstrate that the
practices she employs are influenced by the underlying constructs and beliefs she
possesses. The extent to which Principal B employs the aforementioned leadership
practices are surface level in nature, which is not surprising considering that one of her
mental models focuses on structural change. Therefore, the behaviors demonstrated
within Principal B’s leadership practices demonstrate the mental models she possesses
unbeknownst to her. Furthermore, the intersection between her mental models, her level
of leader self-efficacy and the mediating factor of her immunities to change lead
Principal B to believe that what she is doing in terms of her leadership practice is
sufficient to promoting organizational change and, therefore, is not cognizant of areas in
184
which she could afford to improve. Though focus on the extent to which these practices
are employed has been placed on Principal B’s internal constraints in her leadership, it is
also important to examine some of the external constraints that prevent Principal B from
achieving her desired level of organizational and leadership performance.
External Constraints
An examination of the data revealed an external constraint that served as an
impediment in Principal B’s ability to engage in reflection about her progress in
implementing the ILT model. The educational consultant, as discussed in a previous
example, and the quality of advice presented to Principal B during a planning meeting,
acts as an external constraint in Principal B’s ability to improve her level of self-
reflection. The goal of the consultant was to assist in the implementation of the ILT
model. However, the advice that was offered to Principal B during the planning meeting
was superficial at best and was not sufficient enough to engage the principal in a
reflective process that would allow her to question the behaviors she implemented that
may or may not be contributing to the increasing feelings of disapproval or distrust for
the way the administrative team is implementing the ILT model. Moreover, when the
consultant did offer some suggestions that Principal B and her administrative team
dismissed, the consultant did not press on the ideas and suggestions that were believed to
potentially help Principal B mitigate some of the issues and problems she was dealing
with.
The idea that Principal B has a consultant to whom she can seek support and
guidance presents a challenge in that if the consultant is unable to bring to light areas in
which Principal B needs to improve within her own practice, one cannot expect Principal
185
B to recognize them on her own. Also, if Principal B is not receptive to the feedback the
consultant offers, then it becomes even more difficult for Principal B to recognize her
areas of weakness and then look for strategies to improve her own practice. Considering
the level of social capital she possesses, it is unlikely that Principal B would come to such
conclusions about improving her practice on her own and any improvements she would
choose to make would be surface level or first-order changes at best. Therefore, if the
consultant is not able to bring such information to Principal B’s attention, it is unlikely
that she will achieve second-order change for both herself and her faculty.
Conclusion: Organizational Outcome
In sum, Principal B’s leadership practices are a byproduct of the intersection of
her levels of high leader self-efficacy and mental models, both of which are mediated by
her immunity to change. The interactions of these elements lead Principal B towards
more traditional pathways in leadership practices while executing a low level of leader
creativity. Though Principal B has enacted structural changes with respect to
implementing the Instructional Leadership Team model, these improvements are
superficial at best and, if Principal B is not cognizant of her own current limitations in her
present level of leadership, the organization will continue in their current level of
performance thereby delaying the progress towards reaching the desired organizational
change or outcome Principal B is seeking.
Cross-Case Inductive Analysis and Conclusions
Cross-Case Inductive Analysis
Upon initially conducting this study, it was assumed that, because Crystal Castle
Academy and Elysian Fields High School, contextually, were two different schools
186
(charter school versus non-charter school) with two very different principals, each
principal would behave different from the another. I also anticipated to see different
organizational outcomes resulting from the two different principal and school contexts.
However, while Crystal Castle Academy and Elysian Fields High School, on the surface,
appear to be quite different from another, both principals enacted leadership practices
within a similar scope and, as a result, both principals and their actions landed them in
similar places with respect to surface level or first-order changes within their respective
organizations. A categorization of the findings across both case studies is illustrated in
Table 2 on page 187.
Table 2 illustrates the differences and similarities between Principal A and
Principal B as was determined from my examination of the data collected during a two-
month period. One interesting finding that emerged from this data presented in Table 2 is
that while Principal A and Principal B possess differing mental models, their high levels
of leader self-efficacy coupled with their immunities to change – especially their inability
to be self-reflective – lead the principals to enact low levels of leader creativity, therefore,
leading them towards traditional and surface-level leadership practices associated with
promoting inquiry and building organizational relationships. The principals’ surface level
enactments of these practices carry the potential to translate into first-order or externally
driven organizational change. In addition, though, contextually, Principal A and B
possess two differing pathways and professional developmental experiences, it is
interesting to find that, in the end, both are ending in similar places within their own
leadership practice.
187
One difference that exists between Principal A and Principal B lies within their
mental models and the behaviors they employ to demonstrate those unconscious
188
assumptions. In the case of Principal A, because her unconscious assumptions center on a
belief of leading instructionally, using data with her teachers, and modeling the behaviors
and practices she expects from her faculty, the behaviors and practices she employed
(reviewing external data with her teachers, modeling the behavior of gathering data, and
offering strategies and guidance to a teacher during a pre-observation lesson)
demonstrated those beliefs and, in turn, lead Principal A towards adopting structural
practices to achieve her goal of having her teachers use data to inform their practice. In
the case of Principal B, because her unconscious assumptions center on a belief that she
need not be responsible for building internal leadership capacity within her teacher
leaders and her belief that changing the organizational structure will lead to
organizational improvement, the behaviors and practices she employed (implementing an
evolved Instructional Leadership Team model, distribution of tasks versus leadership
responsibilities among her Course Leads, building time into the school day for common
collaboration periods within departments) demonstrated her belief that changing the
structure will lead to improving the organization.
Nevertheless, despite the differing mental models for both principals, both still
managed to enact surface level leadership practices that lead to surface level changes
within their organizations. The common thread that exists between these two principals
involves their immunities to change – particularly their inability to be self-reflective.
Though both principals possess an elevated belief in their capacity to lead and do well,
their immunity to be self-reflective inhibits their ability to reflect and question their
actions, beliefs, and results thereby preventing them from recognizing opportunities to
learn from their own professional practice. These internal constraints, however, are not
189
solely responsible for the lack of leader development both principal are obtaining.
Furthermore, their external constraints stemming from their lack of quality supports also
feed their immunity to be self-reflective for if their external supports do not express areas
where both principals can improve upon their practice, one cannot expect either Principal
A or Principal B to become cognizant of those needed improvements out of their own
volition, because their immunities to change prevents them from doing so.
The biggest takeaway in examining both case studies side by side is that when it
comes to understanding leadership for principals, there lies a deep complexity in moving
from a mental model to the demonstrated actions that are consistent with what an
individual espouses they desire to achieve. Furthermore, a principal’s mental models, or
unconscious assumptions and beliefs, are what lead to the constrained leader behaviors
that are a result of the intersection between her mental models, level of leader self-
efficacy, and levels of leader creativity, mediated by her internal and external factors.
Finally, the cross-case analysis also suggests that differing backgrounds and mental
models did not necessarily lead to different outcomes with respect to where both
principal land in their practice.
Conclusions
The findings across both case studies suggest a level of complexity when it comes
to understanding the intersection of a principal’s mental models and level of leader self-
efficacy and how both are mediated by her own immunities to change. Furthermore, the
findings suggest that the intersection between a principal’s mental models, level of leader
self-efficacy and the mediating factor of her immunities to change translate into lower
levels of leader creativity, therefore, leading a principal to adopt traditional leadership
190
approaches with the intention of attempting to foster and achieve organizational change.
However, examination of data sets from both case studies revealed that even though a
principal may possess well-intentioned mental models and high levels of leader self-
efficacy, her ability to foster and achieve real organizational and transformational change
is constrained as a result of mediating factors such as her immunities to change as well as
some external constraints. It is these internal and external constraints that inhibit the
principal from breaking through the performance plateau and adopting practices
associated with second-order change (Hallinger, 2003). In the next, and final, chapter of
this dissertation I offer a discussion of the ideas that have emerged as a result of this
multi-case study as well as address the implications for both principals, the practicing
community, and the research field. I also offer recommendations for further research in
this area of study.
191
Chapter 5:
Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations for Future Research
This study examined the relationship between leadership and organizational
change focusing on the extent to which the intersection of a principal’s mental models,
level of leader self-efficacy, creative thinking, and immunities to change influenced the
leadership practices enacted to foster organizational improvement. A qualitative study
employing a multi-site case study methodology sought to answer the following research
question:
• To what extent does a principal’s own mental models, level of leader self-
efficacy, her immunities to change, and her level of leader creativity influence the
principal’s ability to enact her style of leadership in fostering and achieving
organizational improvement?
To answer this question, data was collected at two high schools and was comprised of
observations, interviews and document collection (Yin, 2008; Merriam, 2009).
Pseudonyms for the school sites, principals and faculty participants were created to
ensure that all participants’ identities were protected. All data collected was transcribed
and entered into an Excel spreadsheet that was used for inductive analysis with attention
focused on the proposed themes outlined within my Conceptual Framework utilized for
this study. A cross-case analysis was also conducted to draw upon the similarities and
differences between the two cases.
This final chapter will converge on the comprehensive lessons learned as a result
of this study. The remaining sections of this chapter summarize the study’s findings,
address the implications for the study’s participants, the educational field, and the
192
research community, as well as offer a discussion emerging from the findings.
Recommendations for further study are also offered to conclude this chapter.
Summary of Findings
The findings from this multi-case study suggest that while a principal possesses
well-intentioned beliefs and assumptions, these are not enough to enable her to enact the
kind of transformational organizational change that she not only wants, but that is also
demanded of her in this increasing era of school accountability. Furthermore, the
findings also suggest the role of the principal is an increasingly complex one when it
comes to understanding how the intersection of a principal’s mental models, her level of
leader self-efficacy, and her own immunities to change lead a principal to enact a level of
leader creativity that influences the level of leadership practices she will employ to
promote organizational change. In the case studies for Crystal Castle Academy
(Principal A) and Elysian Fields High School (Principal B), the data revealed that while
both well-intentioned principals possessed differing mental models and high levels of
leader self-efficacy, the immunity to be self-reflective contributed to an inability to
recognize areas where they could improve the quality of their practice in order to move
from enacting structural organizational change to more transformative organizational
change. This relationship between the principals’ individual leader elements and their
capacity for enacting real organizational change was complicated further by the external
factors that constrained their leadership practice.
Implications for the Principal Participants
The findings for Principal A and Principal B in their respective case studies offer
two implications for principals and their professional practice. First, principals are not
193
afforded quality supports that are likely to enable them to enact practices that lead to
transformative organizational change. Second, principals are not afforded opportunities to
reflect on their assumptions and belief systems that are enabling them to enact structural
or surface level practices thereby limiting their capacity for deeper organizational change.
Research offered by Darling-Hammond, Orphaos, LaPointe, and Weeks (2007) and
Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) discuss a need for improving the quality of
leader supports and offering opportunities for reflection of practice.
Darling-Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, and Weeks (2007) discussed issues in
leader support and development in the advent of No Child Left Behind (2001). The
authors asserted policymakers have focused a great deal on reform efforts surrounding a
external outcomes connected to student learning, recruiting and training new teachers,
credentialing and evaluation processes, and issues pertaining to the development of
curriculum, content standards, testing, and accountability (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2007). However, little attention has been paid to determining and offering quality
supports that enable a principal to be able to fulfill the myriad of responsibilities expected
of them at the elevated level of performance that is now required of them.
Helsing, Howell, Kegan, and Lahey (2008) suggest that a way to support leader
development is to employ a professional development framework that addresses a
principal’s immunities to change. As discussed in Chapter 2 and my Conceptual
Framework, immunities to change refer to “the underlying barriers that prevent an
individual from making progress towards a desired professional goal” (Helsing, Howell,
Kegan, & Lahey, 2008, p. 441). Helsing et al. (2008) argue professional development
programs do not address an individual’s underlying assumptions, beliefs, or mental
194
models. As a result, principals are not afforded an opportunity to challenge their own
assumptions that would give rise to level of cognitive dissonance, or opposing thoughts
and ideas, needed to contemplate on the personal and professional improvements needed
to achieve a desired professional and organizational goal. Consequently, principals are
expected to foster and achieve organizational change through improving instructional
practice and support increased student learning, but do not have the appropriate support
in order to effectively lead in this capacity.
In the cases of Crystal Castle Academy and Elysian Fields High School, both
principals demonstrated a lack of quality external supports that encouraged a level of
focused reflection that Helsing et al. (2008) suggest is needed to confront and overturn
their immunities to change. The observation that both principals share an immunity to
change involving an inability to be self-reflective – a required practice in being able to
identify and mitigate one’s immunities to change – further supports the ideas Helsing et
al. (2008) address with respect to affording principals the time and environment to
examine their assumptions and underlying beliefs and how those belief systems are
contributing to their current level of professional practice. Both principals in this study
would potentially benefit from a professional development framework where they are
able to engage in focused reflection and action-oriented exercises where they can
“experiment with behaviors that run counter to their own assumptions and then consider
whether those assumptions need modification” (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & LAhey,
2008, p. 442). Such focused and continuous reflective processes are what Helsing et al.
(2008) believe will enable the principals in this study to modify their existing mindsets
195
and behaviors, which may allow for a deeper understanding in enacting their complex
leadership roles.
Implications for the Educational Field
Within the larger practicing educational field, the study’s findings offer two
implications for practice. First, assumptions have been and are continually being made
about principals’ capacities for leadership and it is believed that those who are principals
are well-positioned and well-equipped to lead. Second, the educational field asserts a
belief that if the “right people” are placed into positions of leadership then
transformational change will emerge.
As discussed in the previous section, educational reform efforts and educational
policy such as No Child Left Behind (2001) and Race to the Top (2010) do not
specifically outline appropriate support measures for fostering leader development in
instructional improvement. Yet, principals still are expected and responsible for enacting
change in an era of increased school accountability in the face of persisting absence of
the adequate and necessary support that will enable them to effectively lead. The lack of
defining quality supports at the policy level translates into a lack of quality supports
offered at the state and local levels, thereby preventing principals from locating the
appropriate supports necessary to help cultivate their own leadership and enact greater
organizational change (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
The extensive and emerging role the principal must now play in creating the
necessary conditions for improving student learning outcomes has been overlooked
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Furthermore, preparation programs for principals in the
U.S. have traditionally consisted of:
196
A collection of courses regarding general management principles, school laws,
administrative requirements, and procedures, with little emphasis on knowledge
about student learning, effective teaching, professional development, curriculum,
and organizational change… Relatively few programs have had strong clinical
training components that have allowed prospective leaders to learn the many
facets of their complex jobs in close collaboration with highly skilled veteran
leaders. And many professional development programs for principals have been
criticized as fragmented, incoherent, not sustained, lacking in rigor, and not
aligned with state standards for effective administrative practice. (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007, p. 4).
Much of what Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) describe occurs in leader preparation
programs is largely focused on the operational and structural aspects of leadership.
Because leader preparation programs focus little on cultivating the practices associated
with transformative organizational change, principals entering schools post-NCLB are
under-prepared to meet the challenges of organizational improvement through
instructional and transformational leadership (ibid.).
In the cases of Principal A and Principal B, both traveled down two different
roads on their paths towards entering administration and becoming school principals.
Principal A enrolled and completed an administrative credential program focused on
leadership for the charter school setting while Principal B started an administrative
credential program but promptly left after taking the School Leadership Licensure
Assessment (SLLA) and earned her administrative credential via examination. While
neither pathway is considered to be superior to the other, the fact that there are multiple
pathways to becoming a school administrator suggests that there are opportunities for
emerging school leaders to miss out on developmental experiences that would enable
them to increase their own capacity to effectively lead. Furthermore, the credential
programs and exams that are offered to emerging school leaders are still not sufficient in
ensuring proper preparation for principals to be able to meet the demands of such a
197
complex leadership role. The support systems at the district and school levels are not
much more sophisticated that the preparation programs principals are exiting from
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). As a result, it is not surprising that, given the lack of
quality external supports afforded to principals, school leaders are not reaching the level
of professional practice and leadership that we are expecting them to reach. Additionally,
one cannot expect principals to behave differently or engage in practices that counter
what they have been prepared to do, because they are, in fact, behaving in ways that are
consistent with what their preparation programs have taught them.
The professional community needs rethink current levels of leadership
expectations and be realistic in what principals are able to accomplish without the
appropriate levels of support. They must also reflect on the sophisticated levels of
supports that are needed to facilitate the level of professional development for our leaders
to ensure that emerging and current leaders are prepared to meet the demands we expect
of them. A recognition that the supports offered must stem from psychological versus
procedural supports is the first step in conducting further examination and evaluation of
leader preparation programs and professional development for principals to ensure they
are provided with the quality skills and education needed to lead for transformative
change.
Implications for the Research Community
Finally, the study’s findings point to one implication for the research community
that involves an opportunity to explore what is believed to be a new area of inquiry.
While the field of research has focused on various components of leadership and the
relationships between leadership and organizational change, the research community has
198
yet to deeply study the emerging complexities that exist within the interactions between
leadership and faculty and how those interactions lead to the possibility of organizational
change. This is now an area, as evidenced from the case studies presented for this
dissertation, in which the research community can afford to engage in closer examination.
Cohen, Raudenbush, and Lowenberg Ball (2003) assert a majority of research in
education focuses on causal models indicating relationships between variables such as
school resources and student achievement outcomes. The authors propose a new model of
conducting research where the interactions between the variables are examined versus
examining only the outcomes and then determining the variables contributing to those
outcomes (Cohen et al., 2003). What Cohen et al. (2003) suggest presents an opportunity
for the research community to study the causal agents surrounding leadership and
organizational change, as they exist within the triadic interactions involving faculty, the
organizational climate, mediated by other contextual factors that include environmental
supports. While the relationship between leadership and organizational change is one that
has been studied at great length, the complexities of the interactions between the
individual principal as she is directly engaged in the process of organizational change is
one that bears the potential for further study. Such research has further implications for
impacting the ways in which principals are supported in developing their professional
practice.
Discussion
Many more questions emerged as a result of this study. Having had the
opportunity to spend two months conducting interviews, observations and shadowing the
principals as they enacted their leadership practice, I have also begun to ponder the role
199
of sociocultural theory and its place in the professional development and learning
opportunities for both the principal and her faculty as they work to promote and achieve
organizational change.
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this dissertation, reform efforts such as No Child
Left Behind (2001) and Race to the Top (2010) are failing to account for building
leadership capacity in order to implement the desired level of transformative change
demanded of principals and their schools. Yet, the pathways offered to emerging school
leaders preparing to enter administration are superficially driven to provide leaders with
the tools to solve external problems and engage in procedural levels of practice. When it
comes to leadership, assumptions are being made that school leaders automatically
possess the capacity for not just leadership, but the kind of transformative leadership that
results in the school achievement outcomes desired from reform efforts (Darling-
Hammond, Orphanos, LaPointe, & Weeks, 2007; Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey,
2008). The underlying roots of how, why, and where those assumptions were derived
remains an unanswered question, but one that, perhaps, can be contemplated with the
help of examining Vygotskian approaches to understanding learning as it occurs in a
social context.
A learner-centered focus is at the hub of sociocultural learning theory whereby an
examination of the learner within the context of social interactions, community, and
culture leads to an understanding of learning and cognition (Vygotsky, 1978; Lave, 1991;
Hansman, 2001). Vygotsky (1978) argued learning is embedded within social events, and
social interactions, which play a fundamental role in the improvement of learning. Social
context and its role in learning have also gained increasing attention in the discussions
200
surrounding adult learning (Hansman, 2001). From a sociocultural approach, learning
occurs within the “interactions and intersections among people, tools, and contexts within
a learning situation” (Hansman, 2001, p. 43). When designing opportunities for adult
learning, attention must be placed on the developmental needs of the adult learner and the
context in which the learning is situated (ibid).
An argument can be made, from a sociocultural perspective, that the conditions
and social contexts in which developing leaders engage in professional development
programs may offer an explanation into understanding how principals are socialized or
even conditioned into employing the surface-level enactment of leadership practices, as
was observed within the two cases for this study. Therefore, it becomes necessary to
acknowledge that leaders who are enacting structural and operational leadership practices
cannot and must not be faulted for doing so because, consequently, these are the types of
behaviors and practices that they have learned within their own social and educational
contexts. Moreover, what could be examined further includes the interactions between
leaders, their developmental environments, and the content they are instructed to perform
within the scope of their leadership responsibilities that lead to the likelihood of
transformative organizational change.
Conclusion: Recommendations for Further Study
This dissertation served as a pilot study that tested a set of ideas drawn from the
existing literature grounded in organizational learning theory, leadership theory, and
social and psychological constructs demonstrating leader behavior and capacity. While
the study’s findings are constrained by the conditions surrounding time spent in the field
collecting data and the amount of data gathered within that limited time frame, the
201
findings provide a door of opportunity to conduct more longitudinal examinations using
larger data sets in order to study and confirm the integrity of the Conceptual Framework I
proposed for this dissertation study. Furthermore, much of the focus of this study was
placed upon the individual principal operating within the context of the organization.
Future studies would further benefit from exploring the sociocultural context of
leadership as the principal seeks to foster and achieve transformational organizational
improvement. Additional studies in this area of inquiry will help to confirm the ideas
presented here in order to substantiate conclusive or more generalizable findings.
Considering that literature involving the triadic interactions between the principal,
faculty, and organizational climate is limited, the research community can now be
charged with the task of conducting further inquiries in this area and test the set of ideas
examined in this pilot study for the possibility of a grounded theory model. As the culture
and climate of public education increases its focus on multiple levels of accountability
and transformational change, responsibility rests within the research community to shine
a guiding light for practitioners on the ways principals’ leadership and professional
development is cultivated and supported. Doing so will enable principals, and the school
communities in which they lead and serve, to enact the level of change we so desperately
need and want them to enact for the sake of improving the quality of learning for all.
202
References
Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (2008). Leadership
self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 595-608.
Andrew, R. & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school
achievement. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 99-
109.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching and research. Academy of
Management, Learning and Education, 1(2), 206-219.
Argyris, C. (2008). Learning in organizations. In T.G. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Development (pp. 53-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods
and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Arievitch, I.M. & Haenen, J.P.P. (2005). Connecting sociocultural theory and education
practice: Galperin’s approach. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 155-165.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational application of social cognitive theory. Australian
Journal of Management, 13(2), 275-301.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H.
Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 87-89.
Barth, R.S. (2002). Beyond instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
Blase, J. & Blase, J. (1999). Principal’s instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
203
Blase, J. & Blase, J. (2003). The phenomenology of principal mistreatment: Teacher
perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4/5), 367-423.
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662–643.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910.
Branson, C. (2007). Improving leadership by nuturing moral consciousness through
structured self-reflection. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 471-495.
Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K., & Harrison, D.A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chan, K.Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and
leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 481– 498.
Chrispeels, J.H., Burke, P.H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A.J. (2008). Aligning mental models
of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and
Urban Society, 40(6), 730-750.
Coalition of Essential Schools. Home Page. Retrieved from the Internet on Sunday,
August 7, 2011, From http://www.essentialschools.org/.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in no child left
behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668-697.
Colley, A.C. (2002). What can principals do about new teacher attrition? Principal,
81(4), 22-24.
Cohen, D.K., Raudenbush, S.W., & Lowenberg Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction,
and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
Cohen-Vogel, L. (2005). Federal role in teacher quality: “Redefinition” or policy
alignment? Educational Policy, 19(1), 18-43.
204
Conley, S. & Glasman, N.S. (2008). Fear, the school organization, and teacher
evaluation. Educational Policy, 22(1), 63-85.
Core Knowledge. Home Page. Retrieved from the Internet on Sunday, August 7, 2011,
From http://www.coreknowledge.org/.
Crum, K.S. & Sherman, W.H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school
principals’ reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(5), 562-580.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters what leaders can
do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation
and professional development. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237-240.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1/2), 35-47.
Darling-Hammond, L., Orphanos, S., LaPointe, M., & Weeks, S. (2007). Leadership
development in california. (Getting Down to Facts: Effectiveness Studies series).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Education Policy &
Practice and the School Redesign Network.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters?
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
DeRue, D.S. & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of
developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94, 859–875.
DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S.E. (2011). Trait and
behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their
relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.
DiPaola, M. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study
of the conditions and concerns of principals. National Association of Secondary
School Principals, 87(634), 43-65.
DuFour, R. (2002) The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12–
15.
Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute.
205
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 22-
25.
Elmore, R.F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10.
Elmore, R.F. (2005). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R. F. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement (preliminary draft).
Presented at the International Conference International Perspectives on School
Leadership for Systemic Improvement, London, UK (July 6).
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20.
Glover, J., Rainwater, K., Friedman, H., & Jones, G. (2002). Four principles for being
adaptive (Part two). Organizational Development, 20(4), 18-38.
Golding, E., Huff, J., May, H., & Camburn, E. (2007). School context and individual
characteristics: What influences principal practice? Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(3), 332-352.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing
learning centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and
current practices. Vanderbuilt University: The Wallace Foundation.
Goldring, E.B., Spillane, J.P., Huff, J.T., Barnes, C., & Supovitz, J. (2006), “Measuring
the instructional leadership competence of school principals”, paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA, April 8-12.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.C., & Farh, J.L. (2009). Employee learning orientation,
transformational leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role of
employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
Graczewski, C., Knudson, J., & Holtzman, D.J. (2009). Instructional leadership in
practice: What does it look like, and what influence does it have? Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14, 72-96.
Guthrie, J.W. & Schuermann, P.J. (2010). Successful School Leadership. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
206
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329–351.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy
that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221–239.
Hallinger, P. (2010). “Lessons from research on leadership for learning: Yesterday, today
and tomorrow”, paper presented at the Hong Kong Principal’s Conference, Hong
Kong, March 29, 2010.
Hallinger, P. & McCary, C. E. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional
leaders. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 89–107.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (2010a). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative
leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management
Administration and Leadership, 38(6), 654-678.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (2010b). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School
Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2006). The new instructional
leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School
Leadership, 17(2), 159-194.
Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the united states
history, research, and future directions. RAND Corporation.
Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P.D. (2008). Leadership efficacy:
Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 1-25.
Hannah, S.T., & Lester, P.B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading
learning organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 34-48.
Hansman, C.A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 89, 43-51.
Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability
and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.
Hargraves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The persistence of presentism. Teachers College
Record, 111(11), 2505–2534.
207
Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed
leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of
Educational Change, 337-347.
Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly,
26(2), 94-125.
Heck, R. & Marcoulides, G. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school
achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 20-28.
Heck, R.H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership
to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(3), 659 – 689.
Heck, R.H. & Hallinger, P. (2010). Collaborative leadership effects on school
improvement: Integrating unidirectional and reciprocal effects models. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 226-252.
Heckman, P.E., & Montera, V.L. (2009). School reform: The flatworm in a flat world:
From entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teachers College Record,
111(5), 1328–1351.
Helsing, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R., Lahey, L. (2008). Putting the “development” in
professional development: Understanding and overturning educational leaders’
immunities to change. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 437-465.
Hess, F.M. (2004). Treating principals like leaders. American School Board Journal,
191(5), 32-35.
Hess, F. M. & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal
preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109, 244–274.
Hinds, P. & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Why organizations don’t “know what they know”:
Cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. (Researcher
paper No. 1697). Retrieved from Stanford University.
Holden, J. (2008). Culture and learning: Towards a new agenda. Retrieved from:
http://cpexposed.com/documents/CP_DEMOS_CultureLearningPaper_Feb08.pdf.
Horn, E. S. & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and
resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.
208
Jackson, D. (2000). The school improvement journey: perspectives on leadership, School
Leadership & Management, 20(1), 61–78.
Jantzi, D. & Leithwood, K. (1996). Toward an explanation of variation in teacher
perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(4), 512-538.
John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and
development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191–
206.
Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755–768.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of
consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 36–51.
Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A., & Rich, B.L. (2007). Self-efficacy
and work- related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127.
Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S.B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations.
American Psychologist, 63, 96–110.
Kennedy, M.M. (2004). Reform ideals and teachers’ practical intentions. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 12(13), 1–38.
Kim, D.H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan
Management Review, 35(1), 37-50.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership,59(8), 61–
63.
Knapp, M.S., Copland, M.A., Honig, M.I., Plecki, M.L., & Portin, B.S. (2010). Learning-
focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban
systems. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.
209
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The
definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (ed).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc.
Kose, B.W. (2009). The principal’s role in professional development for social justice:
An empirically-based transformative framework. Urban Education, 44, 628-663.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.
Leithwood, K.A. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K.A. (2005). Understanding successful principal leadership: Progress on a
broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 619-629.
Leithwood, K.A. & Montgomery, D.J. (1982). The role of the elementary school
principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-
339.
Leithwood, K.A. & Steinbach, R. (1993). Total quality leadership: Expert thinking plus
transformational practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 7(4): 311–
36.
Leithwood, K.A., Leonard, L. & Sharratt, L. (1998) Conditions fostering organizational
learning in schools, Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 243–276.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational
leadership? In: W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds), A ‘new’ agenda for research in
educational leadership (pp. 12–27). New York: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood, K.A., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The
contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4),
496-528.
Leithwood, K.A., Anderson, S.E., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2010) School leaders’
influences on student learning: The four paths. In T. Bush, L, Bell and D.
Middlewood (Eds.). The principles of educational leadership and management (pp.
13-30). London: SAGE Publishers.
Lemke, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M.
Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-
82). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
210
Lemke, J. (1997). Cognition, context, and learning: A social semiotic perspective. In D.
Kirschner & J.A. Whitson (Eds.). Situated cognition: Social semiotic and
psychological perspectives (pp. 37-55). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Linn, R. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectation. Educational
Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahsltrom, K.L., & Anderson, S.E. (2010). Investigating the
links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. University of
Minnesota: The Wallace Foundation.
Machida, M. & Schaubroeck, J. (2011). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leader
development. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, XX(X), 1-10.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370 –397.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McDonnell, L.M. (2005). No child left behind and the federal role in education:
Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
McGhee, M.W. & Lew, C. (2007). Leadership and writing: How principal’s knowledge,
beliefs, and interventions affect writing instruction in elementary and secondary
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 358-380.
McKim, B. (2007). The road less traveled. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(4), 298-99.
Milner, H.R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
211
Moos, L. & Johansson, O. (2009). The international successful school principalship
project: Success sustained? Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 765-780.
Mumford, T.V., Campion, M.A., & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). The leadership skills
strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 154–166.
Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member
exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and
member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108, 256–266.
Nestor-Baker, N. S. & Hoy, W.K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendents: Its
nature, meaning, and content. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(1), 86–129.
Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
O’Donnell, R.J. & White, G.P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals’
instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. National Association
of Secondary School Principals, 89(645), 56-71.
Payne, C.M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban
school. Harvard Education Press.
Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Printy, S.M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187-226.
Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., & Grundlach, L. (2003). Making sense of
leading schools: A study of the principalship. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing
Public Education.
Quinn, D.M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional
practice and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 447–
468.
Reeves, D.B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better
results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Reitzug, U.C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American
Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 283-307.
212
Reitzug, U.C., West, D.L., & Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing instructional leadership:
The voices of principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635– 674.
Ruff, W.G. (2002). Constructing the role of instructional leader: The mental models of
elementary school principals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=726483951&sid=4&Fmt=2&clientId=5239
&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Ruff, W.G. & Shoho, A.R. (2005). Understanding instructional leadership through the
mental models of three elementary school principals. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 41(3), 554-577.
Rynes, S., Bartunek, J.M., & Daft, R. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge
creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. The Academy of
Management Journal, 44(20), 340-355.
Scharmer, C.O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco:
Berrett Koehler.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schoen, L. & Fusarelli, L.D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor. Educational
Policy, 22(1), 181-203.
Scott, T. & Webber, C.F. (2008). Evidence-based leadership development: The 4L
framework. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 762-776.
Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly quantified teachers: NCLB and teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 58(2), 124-137.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7-23.
Senge, P.M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J., & Flower, B.S. (2004). Presence: An exploration
of profound change in people, organiations, and society. New York, NY: Random
House.
213
Shin, S.J. & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to
creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a
moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709-1721.
Slayton, J. & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: the role of presence,
learning conditions and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face
of public pre-k through 12 education. Advances in Educational Administration,
11, 23-25.
Smylie, M.A., Bennett, A., Konkol, P., and Fendt, C.R. (2005). What do we know about
developing school leaders? A new look at existing research and next steps for new
study. In W.A. Fireston and C. Riehl (Eds.). A new agenda for research in
educational leadership (pp. 138-155). New York: Teachers College Press.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2005). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 23-27.
Spillane, J.P., Camburn, E.M., & Pareja, A.S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to
the school principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103-125.
Spillane, J.P. & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management
from a distributed perspective: An exploration of some study operations and
measures. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 253-281.
Stein, M.K. & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 423-448.
Stevenson, H. (2006). Moving towards, into and through principalship: Developing a
framework for researching the career trajectories of school leaders. Journal of
Educational Administration, 44(4), 408-420.
Sternberg, R.J. (2007). A systems model of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 34-
42.
Sternberg, R.J. (2008). Applying psychological theories to educational practice.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 150-165.
Stinson, L., Pearson, D., & Lucas, B. (2006). Developing a learning culture: Twelve tips
for individuals, teams, and organizations. Medical Teacher, 28(4), 309-12.
Stoll, L. & Timperley, J. (2009). Creative leadership: A challenge of our times. School
leadership and management, 29(1), 65-78.
214
St. Germain, L. & Quinn, D.M. (2005). Investigation of tacit knowledge in principal
leadership. The Educational Forum, 70(1), 75-90.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence
teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.
Tillman, L.C. (2005). Mentoring new teachers: Implications for leadership practice in an
urban school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 609-629.
Timperley, H.S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420.
Timperley, H.S. (2006). Learning challenges involved in developing leading for learning.
Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 34(4), 546-563.
Thomson, P. (2011). Creative leadership: A new category or more of the same? Journal
of Educational Administration and History, 43(3), 249-272.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:
Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The no child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program: Executive summary.
Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the
elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A.G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62, 17–24.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, T. (2007). Leading for change: Five ‘habits’ of mind’ that count. Education
Week, 26(45), 29–32.
Wahlstrom, K.L. & Louis, K.S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership:
The roles of Professional Community, Trust, Efficacy, and Shared Responsibility.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
215
Walberg, H.J. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook on restructuring and substantial school
improvement. Center on Innovation.
Wang, P. & Zhu, W. (2011). Mediating role of creative identity in the influence of
transformational leadership on creativity: Is there a multi-level effect? Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 25-39.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Wood, A.L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators’ roles in novice
teacher induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39-62.
Wu, J.B., Tsui, A.S., & Kinicki, A.J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 90–106.
Yin, R.K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principal’s beliefs and actions influence new teacher
experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(101), 101-137.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist,
62(1), 6-16.
Zaccaro, S.J., Kemp, C. & Bader, P. (2004). Leadership traits and attributes. In
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T. & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.). The Nature of Leadership,
London: SAGE Publications.
216
Appendix A
ACHIEVING INFORMED CONSENT
The researcher will review the Informed Consent Form with the participant to
ensure that a lucid understanding exists involving the purpose the study, the
study’s design, how participant privacy will be protected, and the participant’s
rights in this study. Each of the following items below will be disclosed to the
participant.
a. The purpose of this study is to examine and explain the ways in which a
principal and the school organization’s self-efficacy, mental models, and
creative thinking influence practices that lead to the possibility of
organizational change.
b. This study will consist of two in-depth interviews with the principal,
observations of the principal during faculty meetings, and collecting
various documents selected by the principal. Additionally, shadowing the
principal during the course of workdays on a weekly basis and
interviewing faculty participants at the principal’s school will also be
included in this study. Interviews will be recorded on digital audio and
transcribed for analysis.
c. The privacy of all participants will be protected at all times. Pseudonyms
will be selected for the school, school district and for all participants
involved in this study. All audio recordings and transcripts will be
maintained for a maximum of one year following the publication of any
and all data collected during this study. Audio and transcripts will be
maintained in a password-protected computer file until destroyed.
d. Interview questions asked and observations conducted during this study
will be related to the professional roles of each of the participants. No
harm or injury is anticipated to result from any of the data collection
procedures during this study.
e. Participants may decline consent to participate at any time preceding this
study’s publication of findings. Revoking consent can apply to one item, a
group of items or comprehensive revoking of consent in the study as a
whole. As an example: if a participant discloses information during an
interview and has second thoughts about what was said during the
interview, the participant may request to not have that information used in
the study. The researcher will then comply with the participant’s request.
If, during an observation, an unexpected event occurs and the participant
does not wish for that event to be included in the reporting of the study’s
findings, the researcher will not include it.
217
Prior to commencing data collection, the researcher will secure any and all signatures of
the participant(s) on the Informed Consent Form. Signatures obtained will acknowledge
that the participant(s) have/has been informed and has granted permission to participate
in this study.
218
Appendix B
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: INTRODUCTORY INTERVIEW
The researcher will thank the Principal for the opportunity to sit down and discuss the
influences surrounding the Principal’s leadership practice. Briefly discuss the study’s
objective surrounding examining factors that influence leadership practice in supporting
instructional improvement. Ensure that permission is granted to record the interview.
Questions:
A. Biographic Information:
1. Could you tell me a little bit about your background in education and how you
became affiliated with this school district?
2. Please describe your educational experiences including university experience.
3. How long have you been the principal of Fake Name High School?
a. Before your tenure as principal, in what capacity did you serve the
school or district?
b. Why did you become a principal?
4. Tell me a little about your professional aspirations in the next five years. What
are your aspirations in the next 10 years?
B. Espoused Views in Instructional Leadership (Mental Models)
1. What does it mean to you to be a leader of a school?
2. How has your definition of leadership changed? In what ways has it stayed the
same?
3. Can you give me an example of how you have been able to enact your vision
of leadership?
4. How do you work with the faculty to address issues related to teaching and
learning at your school?
5. Do you see yourself as a source of support for teachers in relation to
improving their practice? If so, how does that role get enacted?
C. Leader Self-Efficacy
1. What helps you be successful in enacting your definition in leadership?
2. To what extent do you feel you are enable to enact your definition of
leadership?
3. Who do you look to as a means of support in helping you develop your
capacity to lead?
D. Leader Creativity
1. When experienced with an issue or problem, what are some things you do to
solve it?
219
2. In your opinion, what does it mean to be creative in leadership?
3. Tell me about how you work with the leadership team.
4. If I were observing a faculty meeting where the conversation was focused on
improving instruction, what might I expect to see with respect to the type of
dialogue between yourself and the faculty?
E. Promoting a Culture of Inquiry:
1. In your opinion, what does it mean to engage in a process of inquiry?
2. Can you describe your expectations of faculty to engage in inquiry or
reflective practice?
3. How do you convey those expectations of reflection?
4. How often do you feel the organization should reflect on their practice?
5. Can you describe the types of conversations you might have with your faculty
members where reflection exercises take place? What does that look like?
F. Building Organizational Relationships:
1. How important is relationship building for you and your faculty?
2. Can you tell me about what you do to build and maintain organizational
relationships with the faculty at your school?
3. Are there some faculty members you speak to more than others? If so, can you
tell me a little about the types of conversations you have with them?
Thank the principal for her time.
220
Appendix C
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
The following outlines the approach for conducting observations at the selected school
sites:
1. Observations will be conducted at scheduled faculty meetings.
2. The researcher (me) will take down narrative notes in shorthand form during the
observation.
3. A key will be developed prior to the observation highlight key terms or behaviors
the researcher is looking for with respect to conversation surrounding inquiry and
instructional improvement.
4. Observation notes will be coded according to the key.
221
Appendix D
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR FACULTY PARTICIPANTS
The researcher will explain the purpose of the study and will inform the participants of
their rights as voluntary participants. The researcher will also ensure that the participants
understand these rights prior to signing the informed consent form. This will be done
before asking any questions.
The researcher will also ask permission to audiotape the interview prior to commencing.
Questions:
1. Briefly describe your involvement at this school site and the length of time you
have been a member of the faculty here.
2. It is my understanding that last year the faculty experienced a great deal of change
with the leadership. How did the faculty work to solve problems of practice
during these changes?
3. What do you believe are the strengths of the faculty at this school?
4. To what extent do you find and take advantage of opportunities to lead at this
school? Can you give me an example of a time where you “stepped up” in a
leadership capacity?
5. In your opinion, how is teaching and learning supported at this school?
6. To your knowledge, what are the expectations at this school surrounding
improvement? How are these expectations communicated?
7. In your opinion, what has your principal done in these past 12 weeks that you
believe is impacting your professional practice the most?
8. How do you engage and advance your professional development?
222
Appendix E
TIMELINE FOR STUDY
Completion of the Qualifying Exam and successful completion of IRB will be
done prior to entering the field and collecting data. The timeline for data collection and
analysis is presented below:
Event Date Research Methods
Complete and Pass Qualifying Exam August 25, 2011
Complete IRB Process September 2011
Establish contact with a school for the case
study, coordinate with principal the dates
for observations and interviews
September 2011
Attend faculty meeting to seek faculty
participants for study
Late September
2011
Observation
Conduct In-depth interview #1 with
principal
Conduct In-depth interview #1 with faculty
participants
Beginning October
2011
Interview
Document Collection
Attend scheduled faculty meetings as
scheduled
Observation
Document collection
Conduct Focused Interviews with Principal
after faculty meetings
Interview
Observation
Conduct informal observations shadowing
principal during workday
Observation
Document collection
Conduct interview #2 with faculty
participants
Conduct interview #2 with principal
October –
Beginning
December 2011
Interview
Write Chapters 4 – 5 Mid December to
Mid January 2012
Dissertation Defense March 2012
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This dissertation served as a pilot study that tested a set of ideas drawn from the existing literature grounded in organizational learning theory, leadership theory, sociocultural theory, and the social and psychological constructs demonstrating leader behavior and capacity. The study examined the intersection within four individual components of leadership and how that intersection lead to demonstrated leadership behaviors and practices that influenced the possibility of enacting organizational change. To answer the following research question: to what extent does a principal’s own mental models, level of leader self-efficacy, her immunities to change, and her level of leader creativity influence the principal to enact her style of leadership in fostering and achieving organizational improvement, a multi-case study method employing both a single-case and a cross-case inductive analysis was used to examine the interactions and intersections of these leader elements and leader behaviors as they occurred within the organizational context. Interviews, observations, and documents collected at two separate high schools served as the primary methods for data collection. The findings suggest that the role of the principal is an increasingly complex one when it comes to understanding how the intersection of a principal’s mental models, levels of leader self-efficacy and her own immunities to change lead a principal to enact a level of leader creativity that influences the level of leadership practices she will employ to promote transformational organizational change. Implications for the field include improving opportunities for professional development and reflection for principals as well as a need to rethink the expectations placed on principals and what they are able to accomplish without the appropriate levels of developmental support.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Evaluating emergency nurse leader capacity to reduce first-year employee turnover
PDF
Improving professional learning for teachers
PDF
Keeping principals at the top of the class: an innovation study of principal leadership, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of leadership development
PDF
Navigating a way out of program improvement: a case study analysis
PDF
Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate
PDF
A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools
PDF
Women of color in higher education leadership: opportunities to improve representation
PDF
Barriers to practice: primary care patient experience and quality health outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration
PDF
Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions
PDF
Organizational alignment in charter school settings: investigation of a three-tier model for linking leadership, culture, and change toward instructional improvement
PDF
An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness
PDF
Implementing organizational change in a medical school
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors
PDF
Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development
PDF
Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions
PDF
The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition
PDF
Ambient anxiety within leadership teams and its impact on organizational efficiency in mental health organizations
PDF
The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment
PDF
Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice
Asset Metadata
Creator
Martinez-Kellar, Frances Jacqueline
(author)
Core Title
A tale of two principals: the complexity of fostering and achieving organizational improvement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
05/06/2012
Defense Date
03/22/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Educational Leadership,leader development,mental models,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational learning,sociocultural context
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Slayton, Julie M. (
committee chair
), Carbone, Paula M. (
committee member
), Rueda, Robert (
committee member
)
Creator Email
fjmartin@usc.edu,francesmartinez@me.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-32660
Unique identifier
UC11289352
Identifier
usctheses-c3-32660 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MartinezKe-786.pdf
Dmrecord
32660
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Martinez-Kellar, Frances Jacqueline
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
leader development
mental models
organizational learning
sociocultural context