University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Traits, skills, and competencies contributing to superintendent longevity

(USC Thesis Other)

Traits, skills, and competencies contributing to superintendent longevity

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TRAITS, SKILLS, AND COMPETENCIES CONTRIBUTING TO
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY

by

Phillip Chen

___________________________________________________________________________

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

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Tables 5
Dedication 6
Acknowledgments 7
Abstract 8

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study………………………………………………… 11
Background of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Importance of the Study
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
Definition of Key Terms
Organization of the Study

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………...... 26
Introduction
Presentation of Competency Domains
Justification of their Use
Review of the Literature
Conclusions

3

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………… 50
Introduction: Study Purpose and Research Questions
Method of Study
Sampling, Study Design, and Population
Instrumentation
Data Collection (quantitative and qualitative)
Data Analysis (quantitative and qualitative)
Conclusion

Chapter 4: Research Findings………………………………………………………. 67
Introduction
Description of Survey Participants
Survey Results in Tables
Data Analysis: Ratios
Of Skill Importance/Preparedness
Of Skill Importance/Length in Tenure
Separability of skills leading to tenure and skills leading to student achievement
Distribution of Important Skills in the Five Competency Domains
Interview and Observation Results
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Research Question 4
4

Summary of Findings
Conclusion

Chapter 5:
Summary: Results, Implications, Recommendations for Future Research……….. 106
Introduction
Statement of Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Methodology
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Summary of Findings by Research Question
Additional Observations and Practical Applications
Applications in Policy and Practice
Future Research
Limitations
Remedies
Conclusion

5

Index of Tables

Participant Characteristics
Table 1: Gender 68
Table 2: Age 69
Table 3: Marital Status 70
Table 4: Ethnicity 71
Table 5: Education Level 72
Table 6: Superintendent Positions Held 73
Table 7: Age of First Superintendent Position 73
Table 8: Years in Current Superintendent Position 74
District Characteristics
Table 9: Rural, Urban, Suburban 74
Table 10: Student Population 75
Survey Findings
Table 11: Importance (areas of performance) 77
Table 12: Importance (traits and skills) 78
Table 13: Preparedness 79
Table 14: Skill/Importance (Ratios) 80
Table 15: Alternate Skill/Importance (Ratios) 81
Table 16: Trait-skill Importance for Longevity Only 82
Table 17: Interpretation of 16 (Ratios) 83
Table 18: Comparative Importance of Competency Domains 85

6

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my Mother and Brother, - who by their example
challenged me to be better than I thought I could be, to work longer and harder that I thought I
was capable of, and to never stop short of achieving my dreams. Those lessons were not always
pleasant and there have been moments when I might have given up. However, with your love
and example I had an opportunity to achieve the goals I have in life. I am here not because of the
road that lies before me but rather of the road that is behind me. During this journey you both
have been there supporting me to hear my laughter and to wipe away my tears. No words can
express my gratitude to you but I will spend the rest of my life showing my love to you through
my actions.

7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the people who have encouraged,
challenged, and supported me throughout the doctoral program. I am particularly grateful to Dr.
Pedro Garcia, who served as my chair and mentor during the past two years. A big ‘thank you’
to Dr. Rudy Castruita, my co-chair, and Dr. David Chen, the third member of the committee that
served to guide me through this process. The scholarly wisdom and practical expertise
represented on the committee served to fuel my professional curiosity and push me to a level of
work beyond what I thought possible. Thank you for your support, guidance, and love.

8

ABSTRACT
The uncontroversial aim of the American educational establishment is to enhance
students’ academic success. Achieving this aim requires the identification and analysis of the
various factors whereby the aim of student success is—or is not—effected. One such factor is the
district superintendent. Recent research suggests a link between student success and the length of
superintendent tenure. This qualitative study seeks to isolate and analyze traits, skills, and
domains of competency of superintendents in California school districts which are positively
correlated with superintendent longevity.
Four research questions guide this study—a question of identification, of acquisition, of
evaluation, and of separation. The question of identification is: “What are the traits and skills
which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of superintendents?” The question of acquisition:
“How do superintendents acquire them?” The question of evaluation: “How do superintendents
evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these longevity-producing skills?”, and the question of
separation: “How do superintendents view the relationship between success at enhancing student
achievement and success at attaining longevity?” The latter question—the question of
separation—seeks to address the issue of endogeneity raised by Grissom (2011). Student
achievement can increase due to many factors other than superintendent tenure. So this study
sought to separate out which traits and skills superintendents believe can lead to longevity of
tenure whether or not there is student achievement.
The approach taken to data collection here is “mixed”. It includes three parts: an 80-
question survey, a set of interviews, and a set of observations of ‘exemplary’ California
superintendents. Interview results are thematized and divided in terms of the NSPRA’s five
9

domains of competency. Six ‘exemplary’ superintendents were interviewed in depth. And three
of these were observed at work in selected settings. The survey is composed of questions which
asked survey-takers to rank skills, traits, preparedness, etc., on a comparative Likert-like scale.
The interviews were arranged around 14 related questions which provided content for the survey
itself, and, along with the observations, provided context for the analysis of survey data.
Survey data appears in the form of tables in which survey takers carried out evaluations
of the importance of certain traits. Traits and skills were ranked as Unimportant, Of Little
Importance, Important, Very Important. This table provided the baseline measure for a series of
informative ratios which address the relation between research questions. For instance, in the
survey questions addressing the research question of acquisition, the same skills identified as
important were then ranked in terms of how prepared the superintendent felt in regard to them in
his or her first posting—in terms of Unprepared, Underprepared, Prepared, and Well-Prepared.
This set-up permits a cross-table analysis in terms of ratios which reveal problematic
areas in superintendent preparation, as well as the perceived separability of traits and skills
which lead to longevity whether or not student achievement is improved. A high level of
importance of a skill, coupled with a low level of preparedness, yielded a problematic
Importance/Preparedness ratio. Likewise, the table asking whether or not a trait or skill led to
longevity whether or not there was student achievement could generate ratios about which
important traits may result in longevity unrelated to student achievement. Moreover, all traits and
skills in these tables were coded under the NSPRA’s five domains of competency, revealing
more general data about which areas are in comparative neglect. One result: the
Importance/Preparedness ratios revealed a pervasive lack of readiness of incoming
10

superintendents to handle elements of the job in the ‘Resource Management’ domain. Finally,
when combined with the interviewees comments about which traits and skills took longest to
attain, this study clarifies the paradox at the heart of superintendent tenure: that there is often a
poor match between the time it takes a superintendent to gain the skills needed to maintain tenure
in California school districts, and the below-average time they are given to develop these traits
and skills.

11

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
Our Nation is at risk… [T]he educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising
tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. If an unfriendly foreign power
had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might
well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have
even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover,
we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect,
been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
-“A Nation at Risk” (1983)

The cold war language in the above critique of American public education may be
outdated. But the related “national sense of frustration,” and broad negative judgment upon the
educational establishment which the report expresses is not. The practical problem to which this
Reagan-era report drew so much attention—the problem of flagging student achievement—is the
motivation for the following study.

This well-publicized and overwhelmingly negative account of educational outcomes
naturally led to the question of accountability. The emphasis on accountability led in turn to
12

efforts to collect, assess, and evaluate those in charge of educating, on both a national and state
level. Generally, this enhanced accountability began with assessing those closest to students:
namely, teachers. The Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) includes
important provisions for teacher assessment and accountability. The Obama administration’s
2009 ‘Race to the Top’ (RTT) likewise attempts to address the crisis of student performance by
assessing teachers. Though national in scope, RTT uses a state-level competitive grant
application model; but the program itself stresses assessments, recruitment and retention of
effective teachers, as well as identifying low-performing schools. Similarly discouraging state-
level self-assessments subsequently came to public prominence. The 1994 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), for instance, gave California a special cause for concern, and
was the catalyst for The Public School Accountability Act, which the California legislature adopted in
1999.
Having begun with an emphasis on teachers, this push for accountability and related
assessment spread outward, from teachers to principles, from principles to school boards, and
from boards to superintendents. The research followed a similar trajectory.

One result of this history is a now-substantial research considering the influence on—or,
more cautiously, the correlation between—superintendent activity and student academic
achievement. In an examination of school board efficacy, Land (2002) cites a slew of literature
supporting the claim that a necessary condition for effective board governance is a good working
relationship between the school board and the superintendent. (Anderson, 1992; Carol, et al.,
1986; Goodman et al., 1997; Goodman and Zimmerman, 2000; IASB, 1996; Thomas 2001)
13

In 2005, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty went beyond showing that there was a link and
attempted to show just what the link is. They identified 21 specific responsibilities of ‘school
leaders’ with direct and indirect influence upon academic outcomes. There are disagreements
over which traits may be required in school leaders (Collins, 1999), as well as how those
superintendents who have these traits acquire them (Gerber, 2001). But the agreement which
grounds all such studies is at least this: that there are such traits; that these traits may contribute
to and/or account for a district’s academic improvement; and that investigating these traits
comprises a subset of useful and important research.

ARGUMENT FOR THIS STUDY
The present study builds on this background, but its content is unique. It is unique
because of what it is not designed to do. What it is designed to identify isn’t the relation between
student achievement and superintendent longevity. Other research has already demonstrated this.
Rather, it seeks to identify the traits, skills, and domains of competency which lead to
superintendent longevity. The importance of segregating research measuring longevity itself
versus the traits associated with longevity will be explained in subsequent sections.
In addition to the foregoing general argument for doing this study, there is an argument
for doing this study using data taken from California school districts. This study’s use of data
exclusively from California does not weaken but strengthens its results. There are two reasons
supporting this.
First, data suggest California’s problem with superintendent longevity is particularly
acute. For instance: the 2006 national average length in tenure for superintendents was 3.6 years.
In California it was 2.3 years. Grissom (2011) notes a study which considered 100 California
14

school districts. In ninety percent of these districts, 43 percent of superintendents left in fewer
than three years—substantially less than the national average for that year. Data also suggest a
heavy presence in California of factors which make superintendent longevity less likely. Many
California districts studied are districts whose diverse and dynamic demographics leads to non-
homogenous boards, and therefore increased probability of intra-board conflicts. The problem of
board conflicts is important because superintendents often cite poor relations with, and within,
the board when they fill out exit surveys upon leaving positions. The second reason California is
a good place to do this study is that the state’s fiscal difficulties are well-known. This is
important because fiscal shortfalls are also ‘stress factors’ which result in limited resources for
district superintendents to implement policy. In such conditions even talented and ambitious
superintendents may be less able to follow through with costly adjustments in practice—for
example, acquiring learning materials more in line with new goals.
These two problems might seem to recommend the study draw from more hospitable
districts. However, the working hypothesis of this study is that the negative ‘extrinsic’ factors
which are present in California districts make it more likely that it is a trait or skill of the
superintendent, rather than some positive external factor, which accounts for superintendent
longevity. In short: the heightened presence of factors which tend to make lengthy
superintendent tenure less probable function to help make conclusions about the effects of
superintendent activity more probable. If there are fewer positive extrinsic features of the district
are in play other than the superintendent traits and skills, the more likely the tenure was achieved
because of these traits and skills, without the ‘help’ of extrinsic factors. Basically, the conditions
in California are hard, and this means that successful superintendents are more probably
successful because of their own traits rather than lots of resources.
15

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The general practical problem with which this study deals is that described in the opening
citation from ‘A Nation at Risk:’ How can the United States deal with worsening education?
This study focuses on a small part of this larger question. The special epistemic problem
presented here is: How can we best isolate and understand those features of superintendent
practice which lead to directly to superintendent longevity?
The studies of Grissom and others speak in terms of superintendent contribution to
student success. Still more focused studies consider the link between superintendent effect upon
the academic success of students with length of superintendent tenure. Utilizing quantitative
methodologies, Waters and Marzano (2006), Metcalfe (2008), and Myers (2011) connect
superintendent efficacy with longevity. Another quantitative study found both a link between the
‘quality’ of a superintendent and student success, and between academic success and length of
superintendent tenure. (Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning (McREL)) Land also notes
that high superintendent turnover is a common correlate of ineffective boards. The results of
these studies accord well with the obvious: that the very possibility of a superintendent having an
influence at the level of student achievement presupposes time—time for policy formation,
implementation, assessment, evaluation, and adjustment. Without such time, it is difficult to
accurately measure superintendent performance. As put by Murphy (2009)

In order for a superintendent’s reforms to have a chance to succeed, he or she must be in office for a
reasonable period of time. It is not possible to see the results of many reforms implemented during the
16

average tenure of a superintendent…. Frequent changes in elected or appointed school board membership
can be detrimental to maintaining a clear focus on the needs of students and staff, and [thus] may derail
progress.

Despite this, most superintendents presently work on the basis of short-term contracts. In 2006,
for instance, 70% of superintendent contracts were for three years and 20% were for two. (Gerta,
2006)
This research shows superintendent longevity is at least an indirect factor in enhancing
student success, and therefore studying the factors directly enhancing superintendent longevity is
important. And these two links—the link between students’ academic success and effective
superintendents, and the link between effective superintendents and superintendent longevity—
recommend a separate study of the factors leading to longevity itself. Thus the attempt to
consistently acknowledge and maintain the distinction between qualities of superintendents who
are ‘successful’ and also succeed in obtaining a lengthy tenure, and the qualities of
superintendents who are successful at obtaining a lengthy tenure, contributes a unique aim to this
study. In its usual use, ‘superintendent success’ means academic achievement of students, but
makes no specific claims about the duration of their employment. In the second case the notion
of ‘success’ simply denotes achieving lengthy tenure, nothing more. In the first case, the
‘success’ being measured is tied to student performance; in the second, it is not.
Of course, it is highly likely that these two in fact contribute to each other. But the
methodological advantage gained by this distinction is clear: studying the factors making for
lengthy tenure without reference to student academic improvement better enables other
subsequent studies to isolate the effect of longer superintendent tenure alone upon student
17

success. Once this study separately considers the traits and skills of superintendents who succeed
at achieving longer-than-average tenure, the contribution of longevity alone to student success
can be better understood. This study, then, begins with Grissom and Andersen’s challenge that
“…future studies should employ strategies to account for the potential endogeneity that may
arise if superintendent turnover and district performance each predict one another.” (Grissom and
Andersen, 2011) Granted this isolation will not and cannot be laboratory-strict; and, as the
survey results will show, the superintendents often don’t keep them apart even when asked. But
this study is cognizant of the difference, which bears on study design, data collection and
analysis, and interpretation of results.
In sum: the general problem of determining what traits and skills contribute to
superintendent longevity is addressed by this study; and an attempt to mitigate the pervasive
problem of endogeneity guides the way this problem of longevity is addressed.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The primary purpose of this study is to identify, isolate, and understand those qualities of
superintendents with the strongest correlation to above-average length of tenure. Also introduced
was the method by which this identification and isolation would proceed, so as to deal with the
problem of endogeneity. What immediately follow are the project’s research questions and
hypotheses. The research questions are followed by the central theoretical frame the study will
employ in its collection and categorization of the qualitative data it gathers.

18

Research Questions
The central question this study seeks to answer is: what traits and competencies long-
serving superintendents have which are most tightly linked to longer tenures.

Q1: What are the traits and skills which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of
superintendents?
Q2 How do superintendents acquire them?
Q3. How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of these longevity-producing skills?
Q4: How do superintendents view the relationship between success at enhancing student
achievement and success at attaining longevity?

USE OF THEORY
Theory appears in this study in two forms of use.
Primary use of theory appears in the form of the National School Public Relations
Association (NSPRA)’s five ‘competencies’. These competencies, central to this project,
emerged from a series of studies with practitioners and academics:
(a) organizational strategies
(b) resource management
(c) communication
(d) collaboration
(e) school district advocacy.
19

The second chapter elaborates the content of each category. Key here is the role of each
of these categories in (i) defining to the qualitative object being measured (superintendent ‘traits
and competencies’) (ii) guiding the construction of survey instruments, as well as (iii)
constituting a helpful taxonomy with which to categorize responses. Results also yield data that
cross these categories, in the form of data on proportions of emphasis of each particular
competence-category.
Secondary use of theory appears in the analysis of results, in the form of Bolman and
Deal’s four frames. The four frames include the (i) Structural frame. This frame is centered on
rules, policies, and particular goals, along with the environment, natural, social, technological, in
which those particular goals are pursued. (ii) The political frame is characterized, not by
cooperation, so much as competitiveness, contests, conflict, power and inter- and intra-
organizational politics. (iii) The human resource frame is centered on needs, feelings, and
personal relationships. (iv) The symbolic frame focuses upon culture, ceremonies, ritual, and
representation. (Bolman and Deal, 1991)
The dominant framework for this study will always be the NSPRA’s ‘five competencies’.
But the expression of the NSPRA competencies by superintendents might be given a more fine-
grained analysis in terms of different zones of application. For instance, the specific competency
of ‘communication’ which the NSPRA rubric provides—a competency covering effective
listening, speaking, and writing, and the articulation of shared mission and vision of the
institution—might be unevenly exercised across contexts by a particular superintendent. For
instance, a particular respondent may appear to thrive in the competency of communication when
communicating in ‘structural’ and ‘symbolic’ contexts, but be less effective in the Bolman and
20

Deal frame of ‘human resources’. In this way this secondary theoretical construct will help
provide more conceptual precision, helping the researcher to identify uneven distributions of a
particular competency.

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
The section ‘Background to the Problem’ noted a trajectory of research focus with regard
to education-related accountability. That trajectory went from the teacher (closest to the students)
and spread outward, eventually reaching the superintendent, and finally zeroing in on a
connection between superintendent longevity and student success. There is a gradual thinning of
the literature along this same trajectory. There is a recent literature on superintendent efficacy;
but it has not answered all the important questions. The lack of consensus on just what
constitutes this efficacy, the rough-grained nature of much of the analyses of it, the vague nature
of the claimed correlations, and the fact that many of the most helpful sources on the topic are
as-yet-unpublished dissertations, should make clear the importance and practical value of the
present study. The very challenge posed in constructing this study has been the thinness of
studies directly relevant—studies isolating the most relevant factors; and this study’s attempt to
do this can be seen as an attempt to fill a comparative ‘gap’ in the literature.(e.g. Stern, 1999)
On the practical side, the study’s findings will be of value to the school boards, selection
teams, and individuals aspiring to become superintendents. The body of knowledge added
through this study will provide a theoretical framework that delineates the skills and
21

competencies of superintendents likely to maintain tenure. This will provide clarity both for
search committees or school boards, which will help them identify characteristics that are most
likely to prevent premature turnover. The study will also help school boards, superintendents,
and those who aspire to become superintendents understand that the acquisition of these traits
and skills will be valuable to cultivate, perhaps through education and possible training
regimens.

ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, DELIMITATIONS
Key assumptions active in the study’s application of this methodology include the
assumption that exemplary superintendents (superintendents with three or more years can be
identified in sufficient numbers; it is also assumed that all participants surveyed or interviewed
respond truthfully and are able to identify and articulate the aforementioned skills they possess,
as well as perceive sources of resistance to their activities with some measure of accuracy.
As to limitations: these also will re-arise in chapter three in the context of explaining
survey design. These are worries about confounds internal to the study, resulting from factors not
controlled, and finer distinctions which the study does not and/or cannot take into account. These
emerge in survey instrument design; for instance, there are problems endemic to self-reported
reasons for action—a problem which the study tries to alleviate by taking observations into
account. But the primary limitations associated with the study include the unavoidable
constraints of time and space. Time and distance constraints only allowed for one day on site
with exemplary superintendents, a brief period of observations in select environments, and one
month for superintendents to complete and return the survey instrument. These constraints
22

placed limits on the study’s scope. A considerable amount of time is needed to collect and
analyze the data needed to determine the prevalence of specific skills and competencies of
exemplary superintendents. The study was limited to a few primary research questions in an
effort to encourage participant response and conduct sufficiently-in-depth inquiry and analysis;
but this concern with encouraging participant response limited the thoroughness of the
questioning. There is also the possibility that the constructs used exclude some area of
competency relevant to determining which traits and skills lead to superintendent longevity.

The matter of delimitations will re-arise in chapter 3. The delimitations shared by any
study of this sort include the geographical and temporal uniqueness of the sample, which might
prevent generalizing from the results obtained. In this case there is the possibility that the sample
is too small and insufficiently diverse.
The previous explanation of the peculiar epistemic value of selecting California as the
sole data source addressed the question of the study’s generalizability. Specifically, it addresses
how a state which, in so many respects is non-representative with regard to superintendent
longevity, is precisely for this reason able to provide data which is not less, but more
generalizable. The claim there was a kind of practical application of the structure of an a fortiori
argument. Such an argument takes on the most difficult and expansive form of a question; should
it succeed, it is properly seen as generalizable to easier cases. Likewise, studying the traits and
skills of exemplary California superintendents under extraordinary pressures will be
generalizable to easier districts, and so generalizable to ‘ordinary’ places without such pressures.

23

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
Chapter three descriptions of how some particular ‘traits’ and ‘competencies’ are to be
measured will result in greater clarity for these ‘minor’ terms. But there are several operational
definitions which are of particular importance and worth listing here.

‘Agent of Change’ is a district superintendent who is self-described as substantially altering
policy and/or its implementation, and is able to support this description with particular instances
and/or is so described in the local press.

‘Exemplar Superintendent’ is a district superintendent with above-average length of tenure at
their current institution and who served as an ‘agent of change’. These were the criteria for
selecting the superintendents who were the subjects of an in-depth interview.

‘Extrinsic factor’ is any factor not including superintendent traits, skills, and competencies, as
described above.

‘Intrinsic factor’ refers to superintendent traits and skills, categorized under the NSPRA
competencies.

24

‘NSPRA’ stands for ‘The National School Public Relations Association’

‘Student Achievement’ refers to an increase in student understanding and academic ability, as
measured by the API (Academic Performance Index)

‘Trait’, when used by this study, is a stable dispositional feature of a superintendent; a ‘trait’, as
opposed to a ‘skill’ is a quality of personality and temperament, rather than of performance

‘Skill’ is a capacity to reliably and intentionally effect particular outcomes; a ‘skill’, as opposed
to a ‘trait’, is a performance capacity, rather than a quality of personality or temperament.

These distinctions are taken as elements of the study’s background theory and built into
its study design.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The study is organized into five chapters.
The first chapter is an introduction of the problem and provides background information
associated with high turnover rates for school district superintendents, particularly those in
California. It also introduces key concepts, details theoretical frameworks employed, and briefly
25

considers terms necessary to initiate the project, as well as limitations and delimitations of the
study. The second chapter is a review of empirical findings related to the changing role of
superintendents, the requisite skills and behaviors, the impact of school board relationships,
leadership and governance strategies, and preparation programs, as these findings appear in the
literature. An outline of the research methodologies that were employed during the study are
discussed in detail in Chapter Three. The study primarily employs a qualitative approach. The
qualitative component of the study included the open-ended questions from the survey
instrument, and observations and in-depth interviews with superintendents at California school
districts. The chapter includes sample selection criteria, survey instruments, and the means for
data collection and the tools used for data analysis. The fourth chapter includes the findings and
discusses interpretations of the findings. The fifth and final chapter summarizes the findings and
their implications for school district stakeholders, as well issues recommendations for policy and
future research.

26

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION
As detailed in the previous chapter, this qualitative study seeks to isolate and analyze
traits and skills of superintendents in California school districts which are positively correlated
with superintendent longevity.
The ‘isolation’ here (of the relation between longevity and these qualities of
superintendents) is important, and is vital to the uniqueness of this study. As chapter one
demonstrated, recent research suggests a link between student success and the length of
superintendent tenure. But there is little-to-no literature isolating the traits and skills which lead
to ‘effectiveness’ where ‘effectiveness’ has no normative import over-and-above the attainment
of an above-average length of tenure. But such a failure to isolate leads to difficulties in
determining the contribution to student achievement of longevity itself. As per Grissom and
Andersen (2011) “…[F]uture studies should employ strategies to account for the potential
endogeneity that may arise if superintendent turnover and district performance each predict one
another.” This study hopes to avoid this danger.
The results of this study are also meant to fill a gap in the literature. So an aim of this
literature review will be to show there is a gap. Tracing the contours of this gap, which the
present study wishes to fill, will help justify the why the study is designed as it is. In this way the
review will help justify the ‘shape’ of the present study.
27

The chapter will proceed as follows. First, the five competency domains identified by the
National School Public Relations Association (2001) will be re-presented. Second, their use in
sketching out the panorama of superintendent traits and skills will be justified. Next, a review
and evaluation of relevant literature is carried out using the five competency domains as its
central organizing principle. A conclusion follows, summing up the relevance of the review for
considering superintendent longevity with respect to the research questions introduced in the first
chapter.

FIVE COMPETENCY DOMAINS

According to the NSPRA (2001), five competency domains emerged from a series of
studies with practitioners and academics, namely: organizational strategies, resource
management, communication, collaboration, and school district advocacy. A brief description of
each follows, with the discussion in the literature review adding further detail.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES
Central to this competency domain is the combining of organizational structure with
organizational open-ness. Combining these two aims constitute the ‘strategies’ of the title. A
superintendent who excels in this domain exhibit a general ability to develop and implement
informed and practical strategies, while maintaining an organizational open-ness which permits
the strategy to be adapted to changing conditions Such a superintendent will acquire implement
policy based on the information at hand, as well as strategies for short-term information
28

acquisition and assessment feedback mechanisms. An example of this dual ability—both to
design and implement strategies and to nonetheless allow for the adaptation/alteration of the
strategy—would be a superintendent who exhibits an attunement to approaching economic
austerities and developing demographic shifts; another would be a superintendent concerned to
create outlets for suggestions/innovations. DuFour (2000), who commends a systems perspective
analysis, treats this domain as akin to management strategies that emphasize global assessment
and considerations as part of the decision making and strategic planning processes. In
establishing an organizing structure, and also allowing for structured re-organization in response
to fiscal reversals and political and demographic changes, the superintendent maintains the
health of the institution while sustaining the school district’s mission: promoting student success.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The literature suggests this competency has three primary aspects: resource allotment,
resource maintenance, and resource acquisition. The first maximizes current resources; the
second maintains the resources one has; the third is the ability to tap new/future ones. All are
necessary to sustain institutional resources thereby protecting the long-term health of the
institution. (Dufour 2000) This again involves information-management about the allocation of
resources as well as reliable metrics of their efficacy; to manage resources effectively, one must
have effective means of determining the results of their management at any given time.
It is important to note that ‘resources’ here need not be taken narrowly—as merely
financial. For instance, human assets require performance management, and training and
development programs are necessary to ensure/enhance these resources; information streams, not
29

merely physical facilities, require steady maintenance; and social, not merely financial, capital
can be gained, spent, squandered, or lost.
Of particular import to the California sample selected for this study: there is an emerging
consensus that the aspect of resource acquisition is becoming more important. In rapidly
changing environments, resource management takes place amidst state-wide uncertainties about
how many resources one will have. The superintendent adept in this domain insures against such
losses by seeking and cultivating alternative funding sources which offer a budgetary ‘buffer’ for
the district facing such pressures.

COMMUNICATION
Communication is a two-way street. Hence this domain is equal parts articulation and
active listening; it includes both the ability of the superintendent to articulate aims and
expectations while enabling others to articulate theirs. The superintendent with this double-trait
has at once the power to clearly hold forth, and the ability to create the space for others to do so.
This is the use of effective listening, speaking, and writing skills, in in order to clearly articulate
the shared expectations, mission, and overall vision of the institution. Creating clarity around
policies, strategies, and priorities with internal and external stakeholders—all while making clear
the shared mission and vision of the district—is the guiding aim. Vital, too, is how this is done.
The superintendent adept in this domain promotes open and honest dialogue throughout the
school district and community about resources, expectations, and priorities; succinctly,
inclusively, and frequently convey information to all stakeholders; and project confidence, and
respond tactfully. The Communication competency seems corresponds with traditional
30

expectations of the communication skills of leaders of large organizations but with increased
recognition of the import of small-scale interpersonal dialogues with board members, outside
funders, local political figures, and concerned constituents.

COLLABORATIVE
Related to the communicative domain is the collaborative. Superintendents operating in
this domain skillfully maintain mutually beneficial, responsive, and cooperative relationships.
They manage conflict and change in a way that is respectful of, and reliant on, these
relationships; they work diplomatically with board members, legislators, accrediting agencies,
business leaders, and the public at large. Though clearly superintendent-board collaboration is
crucial where length of superintendent tenure is a concern (Fusarrelli 2005, Land 2002) the
domain of collaboration is much broader. The superintendent with collaborative traits builds and
leverages networks and partnerships, works diplomatically with board members, legislators,
accrediting agencies, and business leaders, and understands how personal relationships are key to
managing conflict and effecting change. The Collaboration competency can therefore be
summarized as the skills needed to facilitate teamwork and cooperation in decision making and
problem solving through the cultivation and maintenance of cooperative relationships.

SCHOOL DISTRICT ADVOCACY
The School District Advocacy competency is the superintendent’s ability to advocate on
behalf of the institution and its missions and goals. The superintendent skilled in this domain
31

appeals to and influences the surrounding community; he/she appeals to private sources for
funds, interacts with relevant public figures and markets the accomplishments of the district to
constituents. Advocacy occurs at various levels. The superintendent-as-advocate must represent
the school district locally, in the education community, at various levels of government, and in
international settings. Skilled advocacy is not merely that the superintendent engages in
advocacy which defines his/her skill at advocating, but how. Superintendents must demonstrate a
passion for and enthusiastic commitment to institutional objectives and education in general.
Finally: in environments plagued by fiscal instability, this competency takes on increasing
significance, since superintendents must lobby state legislators and other public officials for
resources, as well as develop private donor sources.
The review of the extant literature focusing on the traits and skills needed by
superintendents will be discussed in terms of these five competencies. Evaluations of the studies
reviewed will be based upon the applicability of each to the study of longevity proposed.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE USE OF COMPETENCY DOMAINS

The basic aim in this chapter is to identify traits and skills correlated with above-average
length of superintendent tenure. This aim is the final source of justification for both the
organization of the review of the literature, as well as for the choice of literature reviewed
With regard to the selection of content, the aim is to get a better sense of the contours of
the gap the present study fills. The first justification, then, is pointing out that this gap both
appears, and is acknowledged in, the literature.
32

As to the ‘contours’ of the gap: the literature has tended to spread ‘outward’ from the
primary point of assessment (student achievement), which means there is more on teacher
efficacy than on the efficacy of school principals, and more on principals than on
superintendents; and more on superintendent traits and skills contributing to student achievement
than to superintendent longevity. The result is that the more specific subject of superintendent
turnover has not had a well-developed research base (Stern 1999, Natkin et al., 2002, Grissom
2010). This gap is not only evident in the literature; it is also often explicitly mentioned by it.
Grissom (2010), after approvingly citing Natkin’s claim about thin research in the area of
superintendent turnover, makes a related complaint about the non-generalize-able nature of
longevity-related research; the problem is so pervasive he declares himself forced to consider
superintendent tenure using more available data on turnover amongst city managers. There is
also a consensus that the job of supervisor has undergone substantial changes in the past 30 years
(Plotts, 2011)—a fact which limits the applicability of past work to present editions of the job
bearing the same name.
These factors offer a basic justification for the works selected, because they justify the
prevalence of recent work in this review. The reviews and summaries of the literature which
follow are primarily from the past two decades, with an emphasis on scholarly works published
between 2001 and 2010. There is also a tendency in later studies to highlight personal
characteristics—in particular, leadership traits and skills— of school leaders; this accords well
with the focus here (in interviews) upon superintendents who operate as ‘agents of change’.

33

As to a justification for the use of these constructs to organize and understand this review,
the justification is threefold: these competencies are proven to be useable by previously helpful
literature, adaptable for conceptual and practical purposes, and are essential areas of excellence,
according to superintendents themselves.

First, the choice of NSPRA’s five competencies as this study’s theoretical structure is
‘justified’ by the fact that they are already in use, and so have proven use-able. The National
School Public Relations Association competencies embody current thinking and provide a
common construct for continual updates. Since being published, the National School Public
Relations Association competencies have served as an instructive tool for scholars, boards of
trustees, and practitioners. Two noteworthy scholarly pieces which represent the most current
publications on superintendent competencies– Paccopella, A. (2011); Paccopella and Plotts, T.
(2011) – use these same domains as the theoretical framework out of which their findings
emerge, and in terms of which their findings are expressed.
Second, these competencies are not only in use; they are adaptable. For beyond validating
the use of the competencies, all three just-mentioned researchers make suggestions for additions
or improvements to the list of competency domains.
Paccopella, A. (2011), for instance, uses the competencies as the framework for an
investigation of what superintendents wished they had known prior to beginning their term.
(Paccopella, A. 2011); in Paccopella’s work, the competency domains classify sets of traits and
skills many of which require many years and deliberate effort to acquire. In addition, this work
reveals that superintendents’ wished that they had further developed their ability to fundraise,
oversee construction projects, and manage bond initiatives—thereby showing the fruitfulness of
34

the competencies in dividing up skills of superintendents in terms of their mode of acquisition.
Additionally, the superintendent’s reported that they wished they had learned the importance of
verifying employee happiness and loyalty, and that they knew how and when to dismiss
disgruntled or underperforming employees (Paccopella)—again, all expressed by
superintendents, and all regrets safely within the parameters of the competencies. The
competencies are thus ‘adaptable’ in that they can help direct those hiring superintendents in
districts which need these skills for which most superintendents see themselves as under-
prepared, and can direct future training efforts to ‘shore up’ these areas.
In the matter of adaptability, there is also an inter-cultural angle—an angle crucial to
states like California, whose larger districts straddle different ethnicities, and so which may
require some altered account of the traits most effective in each domain. Using the competencies
as a theoretical framework, Plotts, T. (2011) presented a multidimensional model for
superintendent leadership. Plotts’ model listed culture, race, gender, collaboration, and cognition
as factors that affect the acquisition of leadership competencies, but emphasized organizational
cultural competency acquired through lifelong learning as vital for a successful superintendency,
thereby adding considerable detail—particularly to the organizational and communication
domains, with other domains exhibiting similar cultural adaptability. Moreover these ‘cultures’,
to which the importance of specific traits internal to the domains may be relative, needn’t be
ethnic; Forner, Bierlein-Palmer, and Reeves, (2012) for instance, found a more frankly
authoritarian culture operating effectively in rural districts, while failing in more urban environs.
Third, the five competencies are not merely use-able, and adaptable, they are essential
according to superintendents themselves. That is: another reason to accept the importance of
these competencies for describing the crucial domains of skills and traits needed by
35

superintendents is that superintendents themselves insist on their importance. (Paccopella A.
2011) examined how superintendents from California and New York viewed and rated the
competencies. Paccopella reported that the superintendents ranked each competency as
‘extremely important’ or ‘very important’. Of course, the adjustments made by researchers
deploying them do trouble the idea that the competencies are comprehensive. However, whether
or not they are sufficient to include in their scope all traits and skills, experienced superintendents
suppose them to be necessary, and so valuable in a taxonomy of important skills and traits.

Atop these three justifications there are also justifications of a more contrastive sort. That
is: these constructs seem preferable to others in use. For example: R.J. Clark’s alternative
framework for the analysis of leadership is relevant, but less specific than the NSPRA
competency domains; those on offer from the National School Public Relations Association are
more desirable because they were developed specifically for the field of education. Other
alternatives may be too broad or complex do any analytic and/or practical good; an example of
this kind of less-desire-able alternative can be found in Waters, Marzano, McNulty 2005, who
list an unwieldy 21 responsibilities of school leaders and 66 traits which enable them to carry
them out. By contrast, the chosen competency domains split the difference between too general
and too specific, and so are best suited to the application to the present study, justifying their
central place. Finally, though Bolman and Deal’s four frames are helpful, they do not operate as
well as competency domains in keeping clear the distinction between different traits and skills of
superintendents, and the different environment-frames (e.g. ‘symbolic’, ‘political’, and ‘human
resource’ frame) in which a single form of competency (e.g. communication) may be expressed.
36

All this should be sufficient to give the competency domains the benefit of the doubt with
regard to its service-ability as theoretical structure for this study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The previous two sections presented the five competency domains of the NSPRA, and
offered multiple justifications for their use in this study. This justification involved some review
of relevant literature. The remaining majority of the review which follows handles, in order:
literature dealing with the motivating assumption of this study and one of its key distinctions;
literature addressing the second research question about acquisition of skills and traits; and
research on leaderly traits and skills in all five competency domains.

The first research to review is that which substantiates the existence of a link between
leadership longevity and student achievement; this link was the reason for designing a study to
focus upon traits and skills leading to longevity, and constitutes its key motivating assumption.
Present studies do support the assumption. One of the most cited studies supporting the
correctness of this assumption is the 2006 meta-analysis by Waters and Marzano. Their study
concludes there is a statistically significant positive correlation between superintendent tenure
and student achievement. Waters and Marzano set out to link ‘traits of school leaders’ to this
positive effect, and did so. One “bonus” (i.e. unintended) finding of the Waters-Marzano study
was a positive correlation between school-leader-longevity and student achievement. With this
link made, researchers like Grissom and Andersen consider factors which lead a district to
37

change superintendents. In their in their “Why Superintendents Turn Over” (2011), they attempt
to isolate predictive factors for superintendent departure. One initial claim they make is that
‘dissatisfaction theory’ (which supposes that dissatisfaction, either of the superintendent, the
board, or both, is the main reason for departures) oversimplifies; and they posit, as an alternative,
a ‘two-perspective’ ‘labor-market model’ whereby the costs and benefits of leaving are
considered on both the superintendent and board/district side.
The impact of these two articles upon this study is substantial; both draw attention to
gaps for further study to fill. In the case of Grissom and Andersen, the importance of their study
lies in its attempt to distinguish types of turnover; the importance of keeping these factors
conducive to manager departure reappears in this study as the distinction between ‘intrinsic’ and
‘extrinsic’ factors which influence length of superintendent tenure; this distinction is important in
order to isolate ‘intrinsic’ traits and skills of superintendents which lead to longevity despite
and/or apart from other ‘extrinsic’ factors. However, due to the paucity of research with respect
to superintendents, Grissom and Andersen employ statistics from the tenure of city managers; the
applicability to superintendents is, at the very least, unclear. With respect to Waters and Marzano
(2006), the positive link they draw between longevity and student achievement is crucial; but
their formulation of it does nothing to guard against the endogeneity which this study seeks to
acknowledge and avoid wherever it can. In short: both of these studies are important; but they
either do not limit their scope to superintendents, or they fail to handle endogeneity—i.e. fail to
distinguish traits which lead to longevity (and so, perhaps, to student achievement), from factors
which lead to student achievement (and so, perhaps, to longevity).

38

TRAIT AND SKILL ACQUISITION
This study also relies at times on the constructs ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ to classify traits
and skills—though often survey respondents and interviewees did not hold to it in any consistent
way. The literature on trait and skill acquisition, however, still has importance in this context. It
has importance because it permits one to consider the way and degree to which the
superintendent is capable of developing, and/or being trained to develop, the traits and skills
needed for tenure longevity.
Prior to the 2005 publication of the competencies, several scholars made
recommendations about the requisite competencies for superintendents. Already noted is the
Waters-Marzano study of competencies of ‘school leaders’ which yielded 21 ‘responsibilities’
and 66 practices enabling a leader to successfully execute them. Less has been said, however,
about the means by which a ‘school leader’ came to have these desirable traits and skills in the
first place. But, though most of the literature does not consider superintendents only, many
researchers do consider this question of trait and skill acquisition.
One such study involved 525 school leaders (conducted by McFarlin et al. 1999). These
researchers sought to discover the preparatory factors that contributed to the development of
exemplary school leaders. Ten factors were identified as being important: (a) earned doctorate
degree, (b) specific study of school district leadership, (c) personal research agenda, (d)
preparation as a change agent, (e) status as a school district insider, (f) mentor-protégé
relationship, (g) peer networks, (h) leadership development activities, (i) previous career
positions, and (j) knowledge of technology. These ten preparatory factors, then, should serve as
the foundation for launching a successful superintendency. McFarlin grants that the literature
39

does not reach consensus on the list of factors; because of regional differences and the complex
skills required for a successful superintendent, there is no definitively preferred leadership style
or a single set of experiences that lead to the inevitable development of the requisite
competencies (McNair et al., 2011; Eddy & Boggs, 2010). Yet McFarlin et. al., raise the
important point, not merely of which traits are important for ‘successful’ superintendencies, but
when and how these traits and skills are acquired.
Plotts (2011) picks up on this point about skill and trait acquisition, noting that
leadership competencies are acquired both before and on the job—i.e. both through doctoral
education programs, mentoring, job experiences with progressively challenging assignments and
responsibilities, and formal professional development. This often results in superintendents
looking back at what they were not prepared for, wishing the skills and traits acquired on the job
had been acquired in an earlier and easier manner. For example: in Peckham et al.’s (2007)
study, superintendents reported that they wished they knew how to deal with difficult and
unhappy people, and that they wished they’d had, and wanted to have, more professional
development in the areas of mediation, conflict management, and conflict resolution. Another
study suggests there is an entire domain of competency which seems very much reliant upon on
the job training: namely, Resource Management—or, more accurately in fiscally troubled states:
resource acquisition. Given the recent reality of diminishing and unstable revenue streams, the
ability to fundraise is growing in importance for school district superintendents who must
develop new fiscal leadership skills. In fact, the role of the superintendent has changed with
regards to fundraising. Clark notes that budgetary problems will continue to plague school
districts, so aspiring superintendents should seek additional budgetary experiences and take
courses in finance. The superintendent’s commitment to donor development and fundraising are
40

paramount for the long-term health of the institution (Clark, R.J.). Yet this suddenly crucial skill
is generally acquired on the job. Similarly, in Black’s et al.’s (2007) study, nearly half of the
superintendent surveyed reported that they wished they had more experiences related to resource
management and additional training related to fundraising. Black et al. also found
superintendents wanting to increase their capabilities for advocacy with local legislators. In
short, school district superintendents reported that they were the least prepared in the areas of
fundraising and advocacy—and this suggests a domain with a ‘learning curve’ which is, for new
superintendents, hard to prepare for, and particularly high.
Some of the literature on acquisition requires a related focus on performance feedback.
Bird, J.J. (2010) believes networking is important because the school district world is small, so
prospective superintendents should seek mentors who can help them develop networking skills,
and provide a measure of accountability. In this connection, Berryhill, K.S. (2009) considers how
superintendents themselves direct the acquisition of these skills. Berryhill examines how three
superintendents used reflective framing of their experiences to engage in active self-
development. Engaging in systematic reflection and individual cognitive orientation are critical
for the development of leadership awareness of their competence, and so critical for the
acquisition and development of the relevant skills. Roberts, Hanna, and Womack (2012) likewise
examined how superintendents experienced and, more importantly, exercised self-reflection in
their leadership roles; they conclude that superintendents must spend time expanding self-
awareness through introspection and reflective inquiry if they are to be effective leaders. Of
surprise to no one: their findings also indicate that superintendents have hectic schedules that
interfere with their ability to engage in personal reflections. Consequently, an important personal
characteristic of a superintendent is the ability to actively set aside personal time for reflecting,
41

and self-care, which are necessary to promote growth in leadership roles (Roberts, Hanna, and
Womack Stoeckel & Davies; Floyd et al., 2012). The amount of time varies with researchers.
Some seem to suppose it can be a part of a superintendent’s daily routine. At the opposite
extreme, Berlau (2012) cites Ambach’s recommendation that school district leaders take six
months to a year to specifically train in leadership practices. (Ambach 2006).
In sum: The literature on acquisition and methods for acquiring traits again bear upon the
connection between superintendent longevity and those traits and skills possessed—or at least,
possess-able—by superintendents; and this, too, helps to identify the ‘intrinsic’ factors from the
‘extrinsic’. But often this ‘acquisition’ literature is not specific to superintendent traits and skills;
nor does it seek out, in any direct way, those traits which lead to superintendent longevity only.

TRAITS AND SKILLS IN PARTICULAR DOMAINS

Much of the literature falls under the heading of one of the competency domains.
Receiving disproportionate emphasis is the domain of organizational capacity. Discussion of
traits and skills in this domain will be discussed in terms of the ‘tension’ mentioned earlier: the
tension between the capacity to establish a stable organizational structure, and the capacity to
enable the organizational structure to adapt and change in an organized way. Such a dual ability
seems to be required for a superintendent to be effective in establishing a stable mode of
operation, as well as effective in adapting one’s strategies amidst crisis.
First, an understanding of the institution’s mission and individual campus culture is
critical if superintendents are to be successful. Raisor (2011) notes that compatibility between the
42

philosophy of the superintendent and the culture and attitudes of the hiring institution is
essential. Superintendents must be able to interpret institutional missions, create a climate and
culture that encourages people to work, and establish governance systems for smooth operations
(Raisor, 2011). That said, this emphasis on organizational compatibility with the culture of those
doing the hiring is not considered incompatible with the importance of contextualizing one’s
organizational techniques to the culture one is hired to organize.
Some literature focuses less on traits and skills useful for establishing an organizational
routine, and more on traits and skills needed when routine organizational practice is rocked by
crisis. Crow, G.M., Lopez, G.R., Murtadha, K., and Scribner, S.M.P. (2011) investigated how 12
leaders managed change in order to prevent change from becoming a crisis in the first place.
Crow, G.M., Lopez, G.R., Murtadha, K., and Scribner, S.M.P. (2011) presented a linear process
which included fact gathering, notifying the school board members about possible negative
impacts on the school district or personnel, notification of the school district’s administrative
team about challenges, and seeking suggestions from the administrative team in regard to how to
resolve major challenges. Control of information was central, as well as the constant
responsiveness to peer advice, and initiating regular meetings with the administrative team
(Crow, G.M., Lopez, G.R., Murtadha, K., and Scribner, S.M.P. (2011). Here the focus is on the
sequence and structure of information flow, with the aim of maintaining both collaborative
consistency and mission integrity. Finally, the superintendent needs to implement a plan of
action to confront major challenges, and follow the plan as outlined without making changes to
the plan unless there are significant changes in the circumstances.
Some studies study, not crisis in organizational domain, but change generally. One study
which considers change, and also uses a version of the distinction here—between maintaining
43

organizational integrity and organized adaptability—is a 2011 study. The study (Bredeson, P.V.,
Klar, H.W., and Johansson, O. 2011) was designed to explain the organizational change process.
It considered six superintendents’ methods for overcoming challenges. The researchers identified
two broad change process categories and 12 different change process steps. The authors claim
that the two overarching categories in play are general organizational activity and specific
leadership behavior. The organizational activity category included human resources, strategic
planning, budgeting, and decision-making; the leadership behavior category included instilling
urgency, coalition building,
Though the details of these descriptions of traits within the organizational domain vary,
by combining these two portraits of leadership in both stasis and crisis, a projected profile of
effective superintendents emerges. Effective superintendents are, above all, reliable; yet, insofar
as they are agents of change they are also, reliably, risk takers. They are said to be more
thoughtful than spontaneous; yet they are also more flexible than rigid (Berryhill, K.S. 2009).
Superintendents must possess strength—which suggests stability—as does ‘control’; yet they
must also exhibit agility, and the ability to improvise Berryhill, K.S. (2009). Superintendents
must demonstrate role flexibility, sound judgment, and personal adaptability (Pierce & Pedersen,
1997).Given that school districts exist in unstable environments, change management and
institutional flexibility are imperative for organizational survival (Bird, J.J. and Wang, C. 2013).
In short, the ‘exemplary’ superintendent who excels in the domain of organizational
strategy should be skilled at navigating the important tension between organizational
stability/consistency and adaptability. Though this generalization is perhaps overbroad, the
healthy tension seems to be between the steady maintenance of essential goals, coupled with a
44

willingness to adapt to conditions to accomplish their implementation. Organizational principles
are adhered to, while including ‘room’ for their substance and application to be altered.

The Communicative Domain is also prevalent in the literature. The discussion will here
be divided via two distinctions. The first distinction is between initial and everyday
communication skills—both of which are strongly relevant to longevity. The second distinction
is between expressed and embodied communication.
Some literature in this domain focuses on ‘initial’ communications vital to longevity.
Plotts (2011) addresses initial communications vital to longevity, reporting on the
importance to organizational stability of an initial agreement about why the superintendent is
being brought in. Sometimes superintendents are hired because they are viewed as instructional
leaders, meant to extend and improve present structures; at other times, superintendents are
brought in to ‘shake things’ up—i.e. are brought in as agents of change. Glass (2001) indicates
the prevalence of a very basic, tenure-shortening miscommunication between incoming
superintendents and those they hire. 60% of incoming superintendents claimed they were hired—
not for continuity/compatibility, but to bring about change; but the percentages for the relevant
boards did not match this superintendent self-assessment. D.L. Wilson claims that effective
school district superintendents who exceed average length of tenure (defined as having served
for five or more years) report that during the selection process, the school board members were
very specific about what they wanted in a superintendent and that the board members were
committed to helping the superintendents succeed. Similar recommendations for clarity run the
other way. Spark, (2012), recommends superintendents conduct early assessment of the abilities,
45

skills, and attitudes of faculty and staff, and then clearly articulate, through statements and
actions, expectations and consequences for unacceptable behavior.
Kersten (2012) combines considerations of understanding, adaptability, and cultural
sensitivity, noting that superintendents must be culturally savvy, know when to enter debates,
and be able to clearly articulate visions that are congruent with the school district’s objectives.
Accordingly, failing to understand the culture of the organization is one of the biggest mistakes
of communication that superintendents can make (Kersten). Failure to understand school culture
has unsurprisingly been linked to communication-centered leadership crises.
Also emerging as important in this domain are the board’s expectations about the ability
of the superintendent to articulate institutional aims and aspirations. This skill or ability to
‘articulate’ seems to come in both expressed and embodied forms. School board members always
noted more explicit communicative functions. They felt that superintendents needed to be
articulate and able to communicate well in writing and oral forums, as well as being good
listeners. (Black S., 2007). Also drawing interest, however, is what Plotts calls ‘embodied’
communication. Plotts connects this directly to longevity, claiming that superintendents can
increase longevity by actively advancing and demonstrating an embodiment of the institution’s
mission. Bird and Wang seem to offer similar suggestions, finding that school district
superintendents are able to effectively ‘infect’ the school cadre under their direction with their
attitudes; for example, if the superintendent is optimistic, that attitude will rub off on staff,
students, teachers, and personnel. Bird and Wang also make similar points about something very
like ‘embodied’ communication, by showing that the way superintendents frame organizational
challenges and opportunities is important in managing change efforts. Bird, J.J. and Wang, C,
focus their consideration of communicative domain on the express and embodied communication
46

of change; they identify four primary venues for communicating change, namely walking,
talking, writing, and symbolizing the frame. Walking the frame referred to superintendents taking
the message to the schools versus waiting for staff to come to them. Talking the frame included
casual conversations and formal speeches. Writing the frame referenced tools such as emails,
web postings, memos, and meeting notes to disseminate events or personnel. While less tangible,
symbolizing the frame, involved the use of symbols as a lens through which the superintendent
can frame change initiatives. Plotts, perhaps, would agree but go further—would say that the
superintendent embodies or is the symbol. In a second study involving 8 superintendents, Bird,
J.J. (2010) identifies how the superintendents communicated with the school’s constituents and
used frames to help personnel make sense of ongoing change initiatives. Bird’s findings revealed
three framing mechanisms: visionary (focus on future possibilities), step-by-step (focus on
immediate requirements for goal attainment), and connective framing (focus on collaborative
learning and dialog). Of significance was that these framings are not mutually exclusive, but
rather, are best deployed in a kind of complementary sequence—though with respect to
where/how to begin, superintendents must first make be aware of the existing school culture and
the prevailing attitudes of personnel, and incorporate incoming information in deciding which
framing mechanism to employ (Bird, J.J.).

Often the literature involving the communicative domain seems equally at home in the
domain of Advocacy. Black (2007), for instance, seems to be expanding on Plott’s notion of
embodied communication when discussing the attitudes necessary for the effectively advocate-
superintendent to have. Superintendents must be ‘passionate’ about education in order to serve as
effective champions for their district.
47

The domain of advocacy often centers less upon skills than upon traits—less upon an
ability to perform a task than upon the disposition or attitude with which advocacy tasks are
performed. These traits are often described in terms which tend toward the ethical. In Black’s
survey of board members, the surveyed insisted superintendents must be honest and of good
moral character; they must demonstrate integrity; they must be dependable following through on
commitments. They also must ‘inspire trust’. In describing appropriate and effective leadership,
Geller cites the Golden Rule: Treat those who work for you as you would like to be treated. Plum
speaks in similar ways. Superintendents must have the ability to set ego aside, promote a culture
where power is shared, and pay attention to the physical well-being and emotional health of
themselves and their colleagues. (Plumb, et.al, 2011) Emotional maturity and its effect upon
collaborative relationships, emerge as an important theme in Plumb et al.’s work. Plumb et al.
contends that emotions are entangled with leading and must be embraced, so presidents must be
emotionally sound; this ‘soundness’ appears as a sort of professional-personal empathy, required
so they can maintain the ability not merely to look at but see from multiple perspectives.
This talk of ethics and empathy lends itself to the domain of the collaborative—though,
while this domain requires the presence of positive intra-personal traits like those just mentioned,
it is usually discussed in terms of interpersonal skills. Front-and-center in these discussions is the
collaborative relationship most germane to superintendent longevity: superintendent-board
relations (Land 2002). Black (2007) acknowledges the importance of the superintendent-school
board member relationship, offering a multi-dimensional model for ethical decision-making
designed to help superintendents and school board members maneuver through difficult
situations together. Black details just how superintendents and school board members need to
collaborate to clarify ethical dilemmas; gather facts; and seek answers to important questions
48

regarding feelings, political concerns, and code of ethics. Organization, in both its static and
adaptive forms, is collaborative. Superintendents and school board members needed to work
together to create both everyday protocols and alternative courses of action, evaluate alternatives,
and implement a course of action (Black, 2007). Other forms of collaboration are ‘downstream’
(e.g. superintendent to school principle) and ‘upstream’ (e.g. superintendent to local state
representatives). Though there are other centers of collaboration, the superintendent-board
relation is perhaps the most discussed relation relevant to the present study of longevity. But,
while the descriptions of this collaborative environment are detailed, they do not seek to inquire,
as this study does, into the possibility of traits and skills which enhance longevity whether or not
they seem to enhance student achievement.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has been a review of the literature most relevant to addressing the primary
research question
Q1. What are the traits and skills which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of
superintendents?
…a secondary question…
Q2. How do superintendents acquire them?
…and to show the following two questions are not being sufficiently addressed:
Q3. How do superintendents themselves evaluate the effectiveness of these longevity-producing
skills?
49

Q4. How do superintendents view the relationship between success at enhancing student
achievement and success at attaining longevity?

The foregoing review has sought to justify its choice of constructs for handling these
questions. It has also attempted to situate this study of traits and skills contributing to
superintendent longevity within recent and relevant literature. The primary result was to elicit
from the literature a consensus gap—i.e. a common absence—into which the present study can
be located. This gap explains the present study’s central focus on the relation between skills and
traits contributing to superintendent longevity; and it explains the attempt to elucidate those
skills and traits which may contribute to longevity without direct reference to student
achievement. This material in this review, and conclusions reached in light of it, will also help to
justify the survey instruments deployed in the following chapter.

50

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION: REVIEW OF STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of this study is to identify, isolate, and understand the traits and skills which
lead to superintendent longevity. The uniqueness of this study rests upon its attempt to isolate
longevity-producing from student-achievement-producing traits and skills. The reason for this
isolation is to better examine the contribution of superintendent longevity by itself to student
achievement. The central research question this study seeks to answer is: What traits and skills
do superintendents have which most facilitate superintendent longevity?
A comprehensive answer to this primary research question led to three others.
How do superintendents acquire these longevity-enhancing skills and traits?
How do superintendents themselves rate the relative effectiveness of these traits and
skills in producing longevity?
How do superintendents view the relationship between success at attaining longevity and
success at enhancing student achievement?

The chapter proceeds as follows.
First, the selection of a “mixed” method is identified. Second, the sample and population
sampled are considered—including sampling techniques, criteria for selection, and the selection
of the population studied. Third, the survey instruments and the conceptual and practical reasons
51

for choosing these instruments are discussed. Fourth, data collection procedures and methods for
data analysis are detailed, along with possible shortcomings of these collection procedures.
Finally, strategies for analyzing the data gathered will be identified, and potential problems with
the methods of analysis highlighted.

METHOD OF STUDY

The methods used in this study are “mixed” in two senses.
First, the overall study has deployed a mixed’ methodology. Though most data is
qualitative, some quantitative methods are used, particularly in order to better characterize the
surveyed population.
Second, within the qualitative method employed, a variety of qualitative methods were
used: surveys, interviews, and observations. The account of the study design which follows
explains more precisely how the “mixed” method was applied, and the research advantages of
doing so.

SAMPLING, STUDY DESIGN, POPULATION AND PROTOCOLS

This section will discuss sampling types, the different sub-samples from which data were
collected, the criteria for their selection, and the population from which all samples were drawn.

52

SAMPLING
The sampling type used in this study is a mixture of ‘intensity sampling’ and random
sampling. Patton (2001) and Pascopella (2011) describe intensity sampling as the informed
selection of a small number of paradigmatic cases to provide in depth information and
knowledge of a phenomenon of interest. Interviewees were specified to meet the criterion of
‘exemplary superintendents’ as described above. And three of these exemplary superintendents
were also observed engaged in various tasks, wherein their traits and skills could be evidenced,
rather than relayed by themselves through the survey or to the interviewer. As to “random
sampling”: relevant potential survey participants were chosen from amongst the population being
studied. Within that population, and setting respondent-bias worries aside for later discussion,
random sampling ensured that each member of the select population had an equal chance of
being a subject of study.
Explicating the study design will further explain the nature of, and justification for, this
mix of sampling method types.

STUDY DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTATION
The primary design guide in the construction of this study was the idea of ‘triangulation.’
‘Triangulation’ refers to a general study design model wherein multiple methods and
perspectives are utilized to limit the inherent biases/weaknesses of a single method or
53

perspective when used on its own. Triangulation is a common strategy for cross-checking and
confirming qualitative data, and for enabling informed collection and analysis of quantitative
data. Triangulation was used for both of these purposes in this study.
With regard to how triangulation was used here: the qualitative part of the study was
broken into three “sides” of the triangle—i.e. three different methods of data-gathering, yielding
three different data-types, which then permitted comparison with one another. Again, the
advantage of this is that different methods of seeking data related to superintendent longevity
could give insight as to the accuracy and validity of each method taken separately. Below is a
brief description of the instrumentation suited to the three qualitative methods and their strategic
use. The summary is followed by a more detailed account of the participants in each of the data-
gathering methods.

Data collection utilized the following instrumentation:

In-Depth Interviews
The first method used was the interview. These took the form of ‘semi-structured
interviews” as outlined by Merriman (2009). Six exemplary superintendents were interviewed at
length. The superintendent interviews served three purposes: generating recommendations about
how to formulate the survey; generating recommendations about how to go about collecting the
data, so as to maximize survey population response; and generating in-depth background
information for the analysis of the data collected. By placing these first, the interviews acted as a
baseline for, and test of, the survey design which was already underway.
54

The interviews were conducted at the superintendent’s place of work. The average length
of the interviews was 41 minutes. Each interview began with an un-recorded attempt to establish
a rapport with the interviewee, as well as sketch out their background and original motivations
for pursuing a career as superintendents. Next the interviewees were explicitly made aware of the
intent to record, the sole and appropriate uses to which their data would be put, their right to end
the interview or request recording cease at any time, and an assurance of anonymity in the text of
the dissertation itself. Consent was then requested and received as per USC protocols and
Bogdan and Biklen (2007).
After these protocols and preliminaries, the following 12 prompts were then employed in
each, in varying order to avoid a uniform ‘priming’ problem. The prompts were:

P1: “You have been working in this district for an above-average __ years. What are the
factors most responsible for keeping you here?”
P2: “What particular challenges has this district presented in maintaining length of tenure?”
P3: “For which part of the job did you feel most/least prepared?”
P4: “What work relationships have been most indispensable to you as superintendent in
maintaining this position?”
P5: “Do you feel that ‘agent of change’ is an appropriate description of you?”
P6: “Describe, in sequence, your process of implementing change—through its design,
expression, and implementation.”
P6: “Describe key traits of personality, either developed or ‘innate’, which you believe most
indispensable to attaining length of tenure.”
P7: “Describe key skills which you believe indispensable to attaining length of tenure.”
55

P8: “Which of the skills just mentioned must be acquired on the job? What other ways have
you acquired and maintained skills not acquired on the job?”
P9: “What preparation and development advice would you give aspiring superintendents for
success in achieving a lengthy tenure?”
At this point in the interview, the five competency domains were explicitly introduced.
They were not introduced earlier in order to see if superintendents are in fact utilizing
them without being prompted or ‘primed’ to do so in advance. Interviewees are then
asked the following three closing questions:

P10: “Supposing these five domains: Which is the domain in which you felt most/least
prepared?”
P11: “Supposing these five domains: Which is the domain in which you believe most of your
time ought to be spent? Which is the domain in which most of your time is actually
spent?”
P12: “Given these domains, is there any trait or skill you would add to your earlier list of traits
for future superintendents to develop/obtain?”

After all these prompts have been checked off by the interviewer, a final invitation is
issued for the interviewee to add either a topic or domain of competency which appears to them
to have been overlooked, and to address directly how closely they see the relation between traits
and skills that lead to length of tenure, and the traits and skills which lead to student success.

56

P13: “Are the five domains discussed sufficient? Or do they leave out some area of
competence important for achieving length of tenure.”
P14: “Given the traits and skills you have mentioned, (cf. P6) do you believe that all the traits
and skills that lead to student success lead to length of tenure? Do you believe that all
traits and skills that lead to length of tenure also lead to student success?”

In the course of the interview, the constructs introduced in chapter one were used by the
interviewer when appropriate to clarify and extend interviewee answers. For instance, in all cases
the second prompt led to follow-up questions meant to get clear on whether the challenges felt to
be most significant were ‘extrinsic’ (e.g. demographic, fiscal, political) or ‘intrinsic’ (i.e. related
to the superintendent’s own traits and skills).

Observations
The second instrumentation deployed was study-design-driven observations, or
‘shadowing.’ Three superintendents were followed for part of their workday as they carried out
various tasks. The site selection for observations was also a case of ‘purposeful sampling’.
Guiding my selection were literature-based insights about key relationships which tend to favor
longevity: the superintendent’s relation with district principals, with the school board, and with
the broader public whose district he or she serves. For this reason I observed a meeting with all
district principals, a public board meeting, and a speech to the public.
As in the case of interview data, all data derived from observations were handled in
accord with USC’s research policies. Consent forms were given to and signed by each
participant; and a copy of the signed form was given to each participant. Anonymity ensured
57

confidentiality of descriptions of people and events observed. All observations were carried out
with full knowledge of the observed, in accord with California law. Researcher notes on the
observations were kept with data from the interviews in a secure location.

Mass Survey
The third method deployed took the form of a survey. The survey consisted of 15
questions designed to better identify the survey-taker, key characteristics of their history,
training, job experience, as well as the general nature of the districts they serve. This was
followed by an 80-item questionnaire which asked for assessments of various traits and skills on
a four point Likert-like scale. The first 40 presented respondents with the following four options:

Unimportant Of Little Importance Important Very Important

Once this set was answered, a sub-set of these was selected and the likelihood it could
contribute to longevity without necessarily leading to student achievement was rated. The
question “Might the Following Abilities Contribute to Longevity of Tenure Whether or not
Student Achievement Was Improved?” was followed by the following four options:

Very Unlikely Unlikely Likely Very Likely

The final set of questions was centered upon the issue of skill acquisition. The tactic was
to ask after the respondent’s initial sense of preparedness. Twenty questions asking after the
58

sense of preparedness superintendents had in their first superintendent position. They presented
several of the same job requirements in previous questions followed by these options:

Unprepared Underprepared Prepared Well-Prepared

Once the survey results were tabulated ten non-respondents were re-contacted, and three
initial non-respondents took the survey. This additional second contact, suggested by Creswell
(2009) and others, was designed to detect significant responder bias. No statistically significant
bias between initial respondents and initial non-respondents was found.

Also in use throughout was conceptual instrumentation: specifically, the NSPRA’s five
competency domains, organizational strategies, resource management, communication,
collaboration, and school district advocacy. These five competency domains, verified as being a
useful general framework for investigations about superintendents (DuFour, 2000), were here
applied to the particular issue of superintendent longevity. This conceptual instrumentation was
used in three ways: to provide structure to both the interviews and surveys, to aid in the
interpretation of the resulting data, and to connect the data to the literature reviewed. The
previous chapter connected these competencies to the extant relevant literature. But the
competencies also played a role in, first structuring the initial interviews. Later data analysis
suggested the relative importance of these competency domains to superintendents, derived from
survey answers about the importance of particular traits and skills within them.
The use of these interview, observation, and survey instruments and related protocols was
largely determined by the kind of information sought, and the logistical limits on the way this
59

data could be economically and ethically collected. Having identified, and sampled from, a
population who have objectively attained longevity in difficult environs (California), there was
little recourse for data-gathering to answer the research questions other than subjective report.
The research questions regarding skill acquisition and development, for instance, is largely a
question of personal history; the matter of the perceived relative effectiveness of these skills and
traits, or about regrets about skills not attained before prior to their current jobs had to be
answered by each particular superintendent; and the question of how superintendents view the
longevity/student achievement relation are, again, difficult to ascertain in any other way than by
a survey, interview, or a survey informed by interview, as in this study.
The practical necessity of the use of these instruments does not and should not remove
basic concerns about the reliability of these instruments. The problems of self-reporting and
response-bias persist. Related limits of the study’s findings will be addressed. However, the
triangulated study design, while not removing these problems, was specifically designed to
provide a rough measure of the degree of distortion brought on by the most relevant biases. The
observations were designed to at least identify sharp differences between the interviewees’
account of their abilities and seeing these in action; and this check on self-reported abilities,
acted as a form of verification of at least some of the self-reported skills. Generalized, this check
upon the self-reporting of the interviewees could then suggest how accurate the self-reporting of
the more-numerous survey-takers might be, in the same way the check on initial non-respondents
acted as a check on respondent bias.

60

PARTICIPANT DATA

While there were three different data-gathering methods deployed, there were two
populations from which the data was collected. This is because some of the sample undergoing
the interviews were also those observed. There was also the survey group.
Targeted participant group for the survey was 100 current California superintendents. The
reason for the selection of 100 California school district superintendents for was that this
percentage (roughly 9%) of the whole population of California superintendents, coupled with
projected response rates, was sufficient to ensure the significance of the results. Moreover, this
sample had to be limited in size for logistical reasons.
The superintendents involved in the interviews and observations were part of the small
‘intensity’ sample. They were selected for this phase of the study due to their being especially
clear and verifiable cases of exemplar superintendents, as defined earlier. They were selected as
especially clear cases of “agents of change” for two reasons: first, they superintend districts
under particular fiscal and demographic duress. As noted earlier, this duress constitutes ‘extrinsic
factors’ which are detrimental to longevity. Selecting superintendents attaining above-average
tenure-length in the verified presence of these negative extrinsic factors helped to further
distinguish those superintendents whose tenure is less likely to be a result of positive
externalities, and so most likely attributable to ‘intrinsic’ properties—i.e. their personal traits and
skills. As noted earlier, the heightened presence in California of factors which tend to make
lengthy superintendent tenure less probable function to help make conclusions about the effects
of superintendent activity more probable.
61

But this feature the interviewed and observed exemplary superintendents shared with the
superintendents surveyed. The second and unique feature that makes these six superintendents
especially clear cases is that the superintendent interviewees must have enacted at least one
‘substantial’ change initiative related to “resource management”, “curriculum and instruction”,
or both, within the past four years. That such a status was deserved was confirmed by
background research carried out prior to the selection of the interviewees.

Interviewee Profiles
What follows is a brief biographical profile of each superintendent interviewed. The first
three interviewees were also observed. Each of the following is an ‘exemplar superintendent’ (a
superintendent with above-average tenure in their current district, and who served as an agent of
change). All interviewees were male. Four identified as white, two as Latino. All six are married.
Their ages ranged slightly higher than the average for the surveyed superintendents, ranging
from 50 to 61 years of age. In the profile and interview results, each of the six has been assigned
a pseudonym. The acronym ‘S1’ for ‘Superintendent 1’ will be used from here forward.

Superintendent 1 (S1)
 Currently the superintendent of an urban district with over 3,200 students
 Member, Association of California School Administrators
 Member of the Latino Association for Superintendents and Administrators
 Vice Chair, of a state-wide Commission on Children and Families
62

 Regional Representative, School Personnel Association in a previous district
 16 years of experience in the field of education
Superintendent for: 6 years
Current Position held: 6 years

Superintendent 2 (S2)
 Currently, the superintendent of a district with over 4,000 students
 25 years of experience in the field of education
 National APPLE Exemplary Program Awards
 Association of California School Administrators
 State Department of Education, Texas Region
 Chairperson, ACSA Statewide Superintendent’s Symposium
Superintendent for: 14 years
Current Position Held: 9 years

Superintendent 3 (S3)
 Deputy Superintendent of a district with over 18,000 students
 19 years’ experience in education
 Broad Prize for Urban Education Finalist
 Education Trust West recognition
63

 Led School Board appointed Budget Reduction Committee
 Norco Chamber of Commerce
 President, Mountain View League
Superintendent for: 9 years
Current Position Held: 5 years

Superintendent 4 (S4)
 Superintendent of a Southern California school district of 27,000 students
 California Department of Education Principal’s Award (2005)
 Doctorate of Education, USC (2003)
 Award-winning coach, teacher, and principal in neighboring district
Superintendent (including Deputy Superintendent) for 7 years
Current Position Held: 4 years

Superintendent 5 (S5)
 Superintendent of a Southern California school district of 14,400 students
 26 years in education
 Fellow, Broad Foundation’s Superintendents’ Academy (2009)
 12 years as principal, 4 as a teacher
 EdD in Educational Leadership (2008), UCLA
 8 years as practicing attorney
Superintendent (including assistant superintendent) for: 10 years
64

Current position held: just over three years

Superintendent 6 (S6)
 Currently superintendent of a district with over 24,000 students
 25 years working in public education
 Principal and assistant principal at 3 different high schools
 Two Assistant Superintendent positions, the first in human resources, the second in
educational services.
 Doctorate in Education from USC (in educational leadership).
 Awards for developing and implementing applied economics courses
Superintendent for: 6 years
Current position held: three years

DATA ANALYSIS

The study gathered both quantitative and qualitative data. All the quantitative data
regarded description of the sample population. The results are displayed in the tables under
“Description of Participants” in chapter four. The quantitative data gathered were tallied; the
range was noted and the mean determined where appropriate. The qualitative data, by far the
bulk of data gathered, derived from all three methods just described. This section describes the
analysis of this data, as well as the analysis applied to the relation between them, and potential
problems with the methods of analysis chosen.
65

QUALITATIVE
Work by Creswell (2007, 2009), Lichtman (2006), and Patton (1999, 2001) guided the
organizing and analysis of qualitative data. The progression was: interview, transcription of
recorded portion merged with notes of non-recorded portion, common terminology and phrasing
sought, common themes extracted from this common phrasing, and results compiled under
research questions and appropriate competency domains. The key for analysis were the raw
interviews, accompanied by reflective notes made during and immediately post-interview, which
were then broken into identifiable phrases and thematized in a way that corresponded to a
specific research question. Some answers were germane to more than one question. And there
was some ambiguity about which responses fell under which competency-domains. Having done
so there emerged a definite disproportion of discussion in specific domains. And this
disproportion, once checked against the survey results, suggests that the focus in interviews was
not greatly affected by the interview (as opposed to survey) questions.
Data attained through the observations were primarily analyzed in terms of their function
as a check upon the subjective reporting of the interviewees. Of importance here were the
observations—not merely of the superintendent being observed—but the demeanor and apparent
expectations and habits of those with whom the superintendent interacted.
Survey responses were placed in tables as per the Likert-like scale described above. Each
trait was then totaled in terms of absolute and comparative importance. And each trait tabulated
was coded for a particular competency domain, so as to ascertain not merely particular trait/skill
importance, but the domain in which most importance was placed. Other tables asked after levels
of preparedness, and levels importance for achieving tenure in the absence of enhanced student
66

achievement, to satisfy research question 4. These tables enabled the use of analysis in the form
of ratios. For instance, a raw score for a trait of importance could be displayed against its ranking
in terms of the preparedness the respondent felt in this skill when taking up their first position.
An ‘Importance/Preparedness’ ratio could then be devised for each trait, and practical
conclusions drawn. Analysis proceeded in this ratio-centric fashion. Chapter four will clarify and
apply this method in detail in its display and interpretation of study findings.

CONCLUSION

The central question this study seeks to answer is: What traits and skills do exemplary
superintendents have which most facilitate superintendent longevity? This chapter reviewed the
way in which this question is addressed in this study by its design and methodology.
Descriptions of, and justifications for, the mixed-methods approach, the sampling techniques,
and criteria for selecting participants, were given. The survey instruments for data collection and
the conceptual and strategic framework for choosing these instruments were also discussed.
Protocols for the collection, analysis, and expression of data were explained, and the research
advantages of these procedures were considered.

67

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of the study is to investigate the factors leading to longevity in
tenure for school district superintendents. This chapter will do two things. First, it will
summarize the data collected from the survey of school district superintendents and the
observations and in-depth interviews of ‘exemplary’ school district superintendents. Second, it
will arrange and report the findings from qualitative analysis of this data as it bears upon the
central research question “What are the traits and skills that facilitate longevity in tenure for
school district superintendents?” and each of the three related research questions, which are
How do superintendents acquire them?
How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of these longevity-producing skills?
How do superintendents view the relationship between success at enhancing student
achievement and success at attaining longevity?

CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND THEIR DISTRICTS

This first section of the data analysis will describe survey respondents and provide
graphic representations of key demographic features: age, gender, marital status, and ethnicity. It
will also provide information about their initial experience as superintendents and key features of
68

the districts the respondents represent. It will also describe the in-depth interview participants
and observations in greater detail.

Survey Participant Characteristics
A request to complete the superintendent longevity survey was sent to 100 California
school district superintendents. 6 either filled in only the four preliminary questions or explicitly
declined to participate, and 56 did not respond at all, resulting in a 38% remainder referred to as
‘respondents’ from hereon. Despite this response rate, the results were roughly in line with
California-wide data in districts with the same features. These initial tables tabulated raw totals
and proportions of respondents bearing particular features, qualities, and employment histories.
Of 38 respondents, nine, or 23.7%, of the total participants were female, whereas 25
participants, or 76.3%, were male. (Table 1)

Respondents were asked to declare their approximate age. Age of respondents ranged
from 45 to 64, which suggests the comparative older age of superintendents as opposed to other
in-district positions (such as school principals). The most common age-range of respondents was
between ages 51-60. This range accounted for 26 of 38, or 68.4% of respondents. (Table 2)
23.7%
76.3%
Gender of Respondents
Female
69

Respondents were also asked about marital status. The relevance of this factor was
suggested in the interviews. One interviewee (S2) argued for the importance of this factor in how
“transient” the superintendent was likely to be, as well as how personally invested the
superintendent was in the district. Considering the survey results showed that the majority of
respondents were ‘inside hires’—i.e. hired away from other capacities within the hiring district—
this correlate with personal, and so professional, stability was added, with the results below.
(Table 3)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
35 <
36- 40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66+
Age of Respondents.
70

The survey also elicited self-ascriptions of ethnicity from respondents. With respect to
Ethnic groupings, the largest majority was “non-Hispanic white” (62.2%)—a potentially
surprising majority given the ethnicity of many Southern California School Districts. The next
largest grouping was “Asian” at 18.9% of the total. The third and fourth groupings were
“Hispanic or Latino” followed by “Black or African American”, at 10.8% and 8.1%,
respectively. No other ethnicities were represented by respondents. (Table 4)

71%
5%
21%
0% 0%
Marital Status
Married
Single (never married)
Single (divorced/separated)
Single (widowed)
Other
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Black or
African-
American
Native
Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander
Other
Ethncity of Respondent
71

With an eye to the research question regarding the acquisition of traits and skills, the
survey also asked after the education levels of the respondents. When asked about their highest
degree earned, 0% reported having a BA or BS only. The vast majority (76.4%) had, in addition
to a BA or BS, a Master’s Degree or an Ed. D. while the remaining 23.7% had a Ph.D as their
highest degree. (Table 5) What initially surprised here was that, while the vast majority had
either an Ed.D., or an Ed.D and a Ph.D, the 13.2% reporting only a Masters did not report
themselves as also “working towards a doctorate,” as the very high number of Ed.D’s and Ph.D’s
suggest would be the case. A subsequent follow up with two respondents later suggested this
anomaly was a function of the question design.

Another set of descriptive characteristics critical for this study was the set having to do
with work history.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
BA or BS
Master’s Degree
Ed. D.
Ph. D
Working toward a doctorate
0.0%
13.2%
63.2%
23.7%
0.0%
Educational Level
72

Though the distribution of work experience as superintendent exhibited a remarkably
broad spread (and so an unwieldy table and substantially misleading median and mean) the vast
majority of respondents (76%) had been working as a superintendent for between two and seven
years, with a mode of five-and-a-half years. The discouraging average tenure numbers are
brought to the fore by the fact that this overall time as superintendent is most often divided
between tenures at different districts, as shown by the number of superintendencies held by
respondents. (Table 6).

Also germane to longevity is the age at which respondents attained their first
superintendence. (Table 7) Notable here is the complete absence of respondents under age 41, as
well as the abrupt tailing-off of respondents receiving their first superintendency after 55.

0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
1 2 3 4 5 5+
13.2%
42.1%
32%
10.5%
0.0% 0.0%
How many Superintendencies have you held, including your current
superintendence?
73

Finally, also relevant to discerning the perspective and present state of respondents is
(Table 8), which details the current tenure respondents enjoy. Noteworthy here is the disparity in
these numbers and the mean of the interviewees selected as ‘exemplars.’ The mean for years in
current position for survey respondents fell between 2 and 3, while the interviewees’ mean was
just under 7.

DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS

Since the literature reviewed, as well as the interviews, suggested the ‘fit’ between the
traits and skills of the superintendent and the qualities of the district is an important component
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
35< 36 – 40 41 – 45 46 – 50 51 – 55 56 – 60 61+
0.0%
0.0%
15.8%
44.7%
34.2%
5.3%
0.0%
At what age did you obtain your first School District Superintendency?
0
10
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2
9
15
6
3 2
0 1
Years in Current position
Years in Current position
74

in superintendent longevity, two other data points were determined. First, respondents were told
to identify their districts as ‘rural,’ ‘urban,’ or ‘suburban,’ with the following results (Table 9)

Second, though the type of district is correlated with the number of students served (e.g.
‘urban’ districts are reliably significantly larger than ‘rural’ districts), the size of respondents’
district were separately determined. (Table 10)

Student Population Number of School Districts
1000 - 2500 8
2500 - 5,000 11
5,000 - 10,000 8
10,000 - 17,000 9
17000 and above 2

5.3%
55.3%
39.5%
Please identify your current college district by type.
Rural
Urban
Suburban
75

The details of respondents is included here in part due to the reviewed article by Former,
M., Bierlein-Palmer, L., & Reeves, P. (2012), which suggested that the results here obtained may not
apply as readily to rural—and so likely smaller—districts. This caveat will re-emerge in chapter five
as a possible limitation of the study. However, already noted is how this very feature is designed to
isolate superintendent trait and skill contribution to longevity, since the more stresses arising in these
urban and larger California districts—districts correlated with a diminished likelihood of tenure
length— increase the probability that the longevity obtaining in such districts is not due to helpful
extrinsic factors.

FINDINGS

Data gathered from survey respondents appears in the following series of survey-result
tables, interview content, and observations.
Survey findings appear first in a series of Tables. These tables will be accompanied by
preliminary analysis, further showing what the particular tables were designed to demonstrate.
Later analysis will consider further implications. The tables here will be placed in order, while
the analysis arrangement will combine all three of the ‘triangular’ research design, under the
organizational rubric provided by the research questions and the five competency domains.

SURVEY FINDINGS
The first two tables (Tables 11 and 12 just below) ask for feedback by respondents on the
importance of various areas or items of performance (Table 11) and particular skills that would
76

help them carry out these performances successfully. (Table 12)

The affirmation here of Land (2002) and other’s observation about the vital nature of
superintendent-board relation is unsurprising, as is the overall drift of the answers towards the
communicative and collaborative—the drift already active in the reviewed literature. But some
of the results above are interesting not only themselves but as guides about how responses may
be understood. For instance, several redundancies were included in the survey. Important for
reading these tables is how the generality of a trait’s characterization may affect the likelihood it
will be marked ‘important’. For instance, there might seem an apparent tension evoked by
responses to an ability or skill characterized generally (Item C in Table 11, ‘Ability to
Fundraise’, and item C in Table 12, “Grow and Maintain Resources”) and what in California
would seem to be an element of this ability (“Oversight of bond initiatives”).
Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Important Very Important
Response
Count
0 1 6 31 38
0 0 10 28 38
0 1 28 9 38
0 2 29 6 38
0 14 22 2 38
0 0 29 9 38
0 0 16 22 38
0 4 29 5 38
0 1 31 6 38
3 18 15 2 38
0 2 28 8 38
0 4 29 5 38
0 6 23 9 38
0 0 32 6 38
0 1 31 6 38
0 0 22 16 38
0 0 30 8 38
38
0
Q. Total years spent in Education
I. Ability to assess campus Norms
Please indicate the level of importance of the following factors for your current superintendency and longevity in tenure.
Answer Options
K. Leadership development Activities
C. Ability to fundraise
skipped question
answered question
B. Professional Networks
O. Personal Systematic Reflections
G. Relationship with board of Trustees
P. Understanding group Dynamics
H. Earned Doctorate
E. Oversight of bond Initiatives
J. Personal research agenda
A. Mentor-protégée Relationships
N. Peer Networks
F. Ability to assess employee Loyalty
L. Knowledge of Technology
D. Oversight of construction Projects
M. Preparation as a change Agent
77

The content of these two tables were then conjoined and redeployed to consider the
relation between the activities deemed important, the traits needed to accomplish those actions,
and the preparedness of superintendents for carrying out these tasks. The aim here was to take up
research question 2 (acquisition) and compare it to the preparation of superintendents.
Subsequent analysis will say more about the use of this data. (Table 13)
Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Important Very Important
Response
Count
0 0 4 34 38
0 0 8 30 38
0 0 22 16 38
0 0 10 28 38
0 0 22 16 38
0 0 30 8 38
0 0 29 9 38
0 0 9 29 38
0 0 22 16 38
0 0 3 35 38
0 1 27 9 38
0 0 6 32 38
0 4 32 2 38
0 0 5 33 38
0 0 8 30 38
0 0 3 35 38
0 1 14 23 38
38
0
Q. Manage personal stress
I. Project confidence
Please indicate the relative importance of your ability to:
Answer Options
K. Build and leverage networks
C. Maintain and grow fiscal Resources
skipped question
answered question
B. Articulate the school District’s mission
O. Set high organizational Standards
G. Advocate on behalf of School district
P. Consistently Implement a Strategy
H. Convey ideas and information
E. Manage personnel conflict
J. Embrace diverse cultures
A. Distribute and Delegate Tasks Appropriately
N. Promote equity in access
F. Manage change initiatives
L. Work effectively with Stakeholders
D. Ensure organizational Accountability
M. Manage collective bargaining Issues
78

This leads to a general observation about reading the results which will re-arise, as well
as a more specific set of tables to be derived from those above.
First the general observation: Were the superintendents unprepared to carry out tasks
deemed crucial to their work, this implies that on-the-job learning is occurring. And since
acquiring the traits that permits proper performance takes time, the relation between skill
importance and time of acquisition is directly related to longevity. The suspicion raised by these
tables is that the issue of California’s longevity problem may at least in part be a kind of negative
feedback loop: the superintendent’s profession is both one which requires on-the-job training
(and so time to learn/become trained), and one in which the time to get this training is limited.
As to more specific data: one ratio here that is helpful is that between importance and
preparation. A maximally positive relation is that in which the preparedness level matches or
exceeds the items listed as “Very Important.” From these tables one can generate helpful data
expressed as a ratio. Some examples (Table 14):

Unprepared Under-prepared Prepared Well-Prepared
Response
Count
0 3 21 14 38
0 0 22 16 38
4 19 15 0 38
0 8 22 8 38
2 13 19 4 38
0 9 24 5 38
2 18 14 4 38
0 0 22 16 38
0 0 20 18 38
0 8 14 16 38
3 8 24 3 38
0 6 16 16 38
6 12 18 2 38
0 2 28 8 38
0 9 20 9 38
0 6 24 8 38
0 7 19 12 38
38
0
P. Consistently Implement a Strategy
Q. Manage personal stress
answered question
skipped question
J. Embrace diverse cultures
K. Build and leverage networks
L. Work effectively with Stakeholders
M. Manage collective bargaining Issues
N. Promote equity in access
O. Set Organizational Standards
D. Ensure organizational Accountability
E. Fundraising
F. Manage change initiatives
G. Advocate on behalf of School district
H. Convey ideas and information
I. Project Confidence
On First Becoming Superintendent, Indicate How Prepared you felt to:
Answer Options
A. Distribute and Delegate Tasks Appropriately
B. Articulate the school District’s mission
C. Maintain and grow fiscal Resources
79

Skill Importance/Preparedness Ratio

A. Distribute/delegate tasks 34/14
B. Articulate District Mission 30/16
C. Maintain/Grow Fiscal Resources 16/0
D. Organizational Accountability 28/8
………
Each of these ratios represents a disparity. Whether this disparity is to be read as
problematic and/or ‘actionable’ depends upon a stipulated ‘red line’ which the disparity,
fractionally expressed, would cross. Were this criterion crossed, and if the skill in question is of
interest for a hiring board and/or a focal point for superintendent training regimens, then that
steps must be taken is made more clear, and not only made clear but calibrated by degree. For
instance, an easily visible result in the abbreviated chart above is that lines ‘C’ and ‘D’ pick out
problematic ratios of importance to preparedness and indicate attention needs to be paid if a new
superintendent’s earliest years are not to be in part spent gaining the ability to do the job, and if
longer-than-average longevity is to be likely.

Of course, some may desire data involving combined-score ratios. For instance, given the
4-point layout above, each side of the ratio can also be a simple conjunction, where the scores
from adding together (i) the responses under two Table 12 categories ‘Very Important’ and
‘Important’ and adding together (ii) the responses under the two Table 13 categories ‘Prepared’
and ‘Well-prepared.’ This data shows the persistence of the most worrisome mismatch between
preparation and skill importance (Table 15)
80

Skill (Very Important & Important)/(Prepared & Well-Prepared)

A. Distribute/Delegate Tasks 38/35
B. Articulating District Mission 38/38
C. Maintain/Grow Fiscal Resources 38/15
D. Organizational Accountability 38/30
…………
In scanning this table, line C again stands out as in particular need of attention.

As already noted, there was a consistent attempt to avoid ‘priming’ in both survey and
interview. This was important to avoid creating the results sought by over-directed questioning.
Yet this meant—particularly in the survey portion—that getting acting superintendents to
recognize the distinction between traits and skills most likely to lead to longevity even without
enhanced student achievement and traits and skills leading to student achievement was difficult.
As the last portion of the survey, the respondents’ perspective on the difference between traits
and skills leading to longevity without reference to student achievement was asked about
directly. The final table (Table 16) shows some slight but suggestive disparities in their
judgments about which traits may lead to which result.
81

The open-ended nature of the interviews led to more helpful distinctions between the two
contributions (to Student Performance and to Longevity) at issue in Table 16 and the
endogeneity issue which it attempts to address. However, it is important to note that a similar set
of ratios might be derived by running a comparison between Table 15 and Table 11 or 12. For
instance, if, as previously, we select respondent ratings from specific columns and apply them
across each line, we get a differential between superintendent’s views of the relative importance
of a skill or trait (from Table 12), and their view of the likelihood that such a trait could
contribute to longevity without reference to increased student achievement (from Table 16). The
Table of these ratios follows.
Note: it is important that the raw scores are not overly relevant. Rather, the value lies in
the relation seen by respondents between the importance of a trait and its potential for
contributing to tenure length. Again: the raw scores tell little. It is the ratios which tell a part of
the story.

Not Possible
Possible but
Unlikely
Likely Very Likely
Response
Count
5 14 10 9 38
5 21 2 0 38
3 19 11 0 38
18 8 22 0 38
0 3 24 11 38
0 9 24 5 38
2 14 18 4 38
0 0 10 28 38
8 23 7 0 38
0 2 7 29 38
3 8 24 3 38
0 6 16 16 38
0 4 32 2 38
0 2 28 8 38
0 9 20 9 38
0 6 24 8 38
0 7 19 12 38
38
0
P. Consistently Implement a Strategy
Q. Manage personal stress
answered question
skipped question
J. Embrace diverse cultures
K. Build and leverage networks
L. Work effectively with Stakeholders
M. Manage collective bargaining Issues
N. Promote equity in access
O. Set Organizational Standards
D. Ensure organizational Accountability
E. Manage personnel conflict
F. Manage change initiatives
G. Advocate on behalf of School district
H. Convey ideas and information
I. Project Confidence
Might the Following Abilities Contribute to Longevity of Tenure Whether or not Student Achievement is Improved?
Answer Options
A. Distribute and Delegate Tasks Appropriately
B. Articulate the school District’s mission
C. Maintain and grow fiscal Resources
82

Ratio of Skill Importance to Likelihood of Direct Tenure Enhancement (Table 17)

Importance / Tenure-Enhancing
Skill “Very Important” / (“Likely” & “Very Likely”)
A. Distribute/Delegate Tasks 34/19
B. Articulate District Mission 30/2
C. Maintain/Grow Fiscal Resources 16/11
D. Ensure Organizational Accountability 28/22
E. Manage Personnel Conflict 16/35
F. Manage Change Initiatives 8/29
G. Advocate for District 9/22
H. Convey Ideas and Information 29/38
I. Project Confidence 17/7
J. Embrace Diverse Cultures 35/36
K. Build and Leverage Networks 9/27
L. Work with Stakeholders 32/32
M. Manage Collective Bargaining Issues 2/34
N. Promote Equity in Access 33/36
O. Set High Organizational Standards 30/29
P. Consistently Implement Strategies 35/32
Q. Manage Personal Stress 23/31

83

For an example of how to read these results: from considering items A and B, we gather
that, while distributing and delegating tasks is very important to respondents, the likelihood it
will contribute to longevity directly is not considered comparable to the likelihood that the skill
of articulating district mission will contribute to longevity without regard to student
achievement. Lines A and B tell us the skill of task delegation is more important, all things
considered (where ‘important’ includes ‘important to student achievement’) and also more likely
to contribute to longevity when student achievement is excluded. Meanwhile not only is
articulating district mission (line B) marginally less important; it is seen as massively less likely
to gain one tenure length directly—where ‘directly’ means ‘apart from student achievement.’
The charting here certainly produces anomalies—for instance, the remarkable claim
emerges from the respondents that, while managing collective bargaining issues is ‘Important’
(though certainly not “Very Important”) it is also one of the top four skills likely to improve
one’s length of tenure without regard for student achievement. Moreover, as noted in earlier
ratios, one produces different numbers if one alters the columns chosen. But again, it is not the
raw but the comparative totals that are most instructive in discerning superintendent views. Most
importantly: Table 15 is designed to get the respondent to ‘give their best guess’ at these ratios.
And this may be seen as, not less but more directly answering the third research question, which
asks after the superintendents’ view of the relative value of these traits. Yet utilizing these ratios,
too, may clarify just what the respondent’s comparative views of these traits and their separate
contribution to longevity and student achievement really are.
This final table emphasizes something important about this study’s results: what is left
from the surveys is not merely the data tables, but the informative ratios from which many more
and disparate data-sets can be extracted and explored. This, then, is how the data is derived for
84

not merely directly addressing the data relevant to each research question, but for going into
more and more depth for each question as well.
One last table of results with regard to longevity was created in order to look at some of
the data gained in terms of the five competency-domains prevalent in the literature. To display
this data, a further two-step analysis of survey data was carried out. First, each lettered line of the
survey listing traits and skills (table 12) was assigned to one or more of the five competency
domains. Second, the raw scores for Table 12’s maximal measure of importance (“Very
Important”) were totaled for all skills falling within the domain. For instance, under the NSPRA
competency domains “Organizational Strategies,” “Communication,” and “Collaboration” the
following were grouped (Table 18):

Competency Domain Line Items (Table 12) “Very Important” Totals
Organizational Strategies D, O, F, P 101
Communication B, H, I, J 110
Collaboration E, K, L, M 94

Though this measure is strongly sensitive to an uneven distribution of traits and skills in
the survey, and though the numbers are substantially altered by conjoining the first two measures
of importance (“Important” and “Very Important”) rather than using the single measure used
here (“Very Important”), this tabulation provides at least another rough guide to superintendent
opinion on traits and skills as they bear on the importance of the domains of competency. One
confirming point in favor of, not merely of the method, but these particular substantive numbers
derived, is that they roughly match the concentrations of importance as judged by the amount of
85

literature for that domain. The concentration of focus upon the three domains above—the
organizational, communicative, and collaborative—also appears in the following account of the
interview and observation data.

INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS

The findings from both the three observations and six interviews follow. Because the
same three exemplary superintendents served as both interviewees and observed parties, the
results from both the interviews and observations will appear together under the research
question headings. In referencing quotes and referring to observations, the following will use
psuedonyms to refer to ‘S1’, ‘S2’, and ‘S3,’ etc., the six interviewees profiled above. The
pseudonyms are in alphabetical order (S1 is ‘Abel’, S2 is ‘Bob’, S3 is ‘Chris’, and so on).
S1: Abel
S2: Bob
S3: Chris
S4: Dave
S5: Eric
S6: Frank
‘RQ’ stands for ‘Research Question.’ When cross-referencing lines in the survey, the
letter and title of the survey line will be used.
86

RQ1: What are the traits and skills which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of
superintendents?

Theme 1: The traits and skills most important are various forms of communication.
There was remarkable unanimity on what classification ‘the answer’ would be, with
respect to the general area containing the most important traits and skills. As the copious
references in the literature predicted, there were many nods to communicating with the board.
This, Eric claims, is “the factor most responsible” for his current above-average tenure. “The
ability to communicate with all stakeholders is key...that is indispensable to attaining length of
tenure…” (Abel) But the stress upon communication was far broader. Each interviewee agreed
with the centrality of this domain of competency, though they emphasized different contexts,
kinds, and aspects of effective communication.
First, this general agreement often made the trait-skill distinction hard to track. They
variously spoke of skills of communication, or traits spoken of in ways that emphasized their
communicative impact. “I would think communication would be what is most important”, Bob
says. He goes on, making the trait-skill distinction: “There are personality traits, but skills are
things like communication.” Abel elaborates on the social nature of communication, and, with
Frank, broadens the definition to include not merely speaking, but the way one comes across to
the other as an organizer and leader: “I’m a pretty good listener”, Frank says, which he describes
as “being able to restate people’s goals…in terms of actionable steps.” Abel concurs, but values
this listening not merely for its organizational importance, or his ability to extract actionable
items from another’s communications. “I think being a good listener is important or as important
87

as being a good communicator…[for] communicating is a two-way street….” To communicate,
you need to do more than articulate, he claims, since to articulate might be consistent with
talking clearly, but at the same time communicating you only care about what you want to say or
do. But just as crucial to this ‘two-way street’ is to express your acknowledgment of the other
person and their concerns, whether or not you ultimately allow them to decide policy. This
includes persons who take a confrontational stance to you. In such cases, the successful
superintendent must have “empathy or a sense of awareness [even] for whoever is most in your
face.” (Bob). And here Bob’s commentary moves from this skill to a personal trait it seems to
express: “Whenever you frame it as ‘it is them or me’, you get a sense of self-preservation”
which leads the superintendent to act out of self-defense—out of “ego”. But this, he says, is a
disaster, since when you interact out of a sense of self-preservation you “become rigid, and
[that…rigidity] causes barriers with other people”—barriers which influences length of tenure as
a superintendent. One must instead “have a level of empathy for what people are saying, [but]
not letting it get to you.” This communicative empathy, then, has to be balanced—cannot involve
excessive ego, nor excessive vulnerability either. Dave speaks of the importance of “being
willing to have people not like you.” Bob calls this ego-less empathy “good ego strength”,
coupled with “flexibility in dealing with other’s reactions and over-reactions.”
It is important to note that all three observations showed this trait in spades. The
interactions in the three crucial relationships—relations to principals, to the board, and to the
public—were constant exercises in acknowledgment. Most remarkable in this regard was the
observation of the board meeting which took place before the public. The issue was
controversial: the district’s decision not to change the policy that the flag needn’t be pledged
every day. The citizen-proponents who spoke to the board did not, in the end, carry the day and
88

alter policy. But the body language and feedback from the board and superintendent were
uniformly excellent. No checking of watches, no drifting off, and the words of the speaker were
repeated with care in each response. This I think indicated no coincidence, but a careful,
conscious policy of acknowledgment. It was politeness, but this politeness was clearly also a
policy, consciously practiced. Even the phrasing of the resolution not to change the policy was
phrased to build this acknowledgment of the opposition into it. The board “resolves to consider”
the pleas to change the policy, and to require the pledge every day, but would allow present
policy to stand “in the interim.” And the importance of not only acknowledging, but
communicating this acknowledgment to the people acknowledged, was also clearly a plan.
Eric and Dave add two further insights about the relation between ‘personality’ or traits,
and communicative skills. First, Eric notes that communication is not simply saying or doing
something; it is, rather, repeatedly saying or doing it. In short: effective communication requires
consistency. This consistency must be “not [merely] with the board…but with everyone. With
communication comes consistency.” And this constancy ranges across both words and actions.
Needing to be consistent means you repeat what you mean to say, as well as “a need to follow
through.” This is because the consistency itself communicates—not only clarifies what you say
but itself says something—i.e. is itself an emphasis/announcement of the importance of the
message. The second interesting trait Dave adds as having crucial instrumental value for
communication is equity. It is, Dave claims, vital that “everyone communicate on an equal basis.
Because when one board member feels slighted there [arise] internal issues.” And the same, he
claims, goes for principals and various local political figures. Consistency and equity appear to
these exemplars as traits which have an indispensable value in the context of the skill of
communication.
89

The theme of communication will re-appear in various ways in the other themes. But all
interviewed superintendents put it out front as the most important area of success. And all spoke
of traits and skills in terms of how they contributed towards communicative success, and two
explicitly related it to length of tenure. Chris boiled down to communication his entire career as
superintendent: “I talk to people. That’s what I do,” though ‘talking’ here is clearly used with
great variety.

Theme 2: Be a planner. Also, be an improviser.
In the previous remarks about communication, the issue of ‘rigidity’ came up repeatedly.
But, as the theme above suggests, there is an air of paradox about having a system, and the
ability to tailor or alter the system to suit circumstances. It seems odd to endorse both the
importance of sticking to one’s goals and being sensitive to the needs of bending them, or
pursuing them in a very different way. But five of the six said something along these lines. Here
the common-ness of sudden challenges in California districts—particularly fiscal surprises—
comes to the fore, turning this adaptability into an especially high value.
Chris, for instance, notes both the importance of a consistent system, and also how
contextually aware one must be in devising it to suit the situation or district one is in. One may
have a wonderful system. But “there has to be an initial fit” between the district and the system
you wish to use upon it. So the first act of ‘imposing’ a system is to make sure it will work in the
district in which you would implement it.
90

Bob makes a different but practically related point: that after one or two years, you
should have, in large part, not merely fit your system to the district; but, by picking your people,
fit the district to your system. That this is important was especially observable to me in
retrospect. For one of my observations I observed Bob meeting with all district principals. The
amity and cordiality, the brevity of meeting which indicated not everything had to be said, the
active engagement, and the willingness of the principals to insist on clarifications but without
arguments breaking out—I realized that I was observing Bob’s effective ‘selecting out’ of those
personnel who did not fit his vision. It was a pre-emptive “Managing Personnel Conflict.” So the
imposition runs both ways. And his feeling is that, after two years, if the superintendent hasn’t
vetted the district’s key players for fit with his and the board’s vision, then this is actually the
superintendent’s fault, and the lack of tenure is well-deserved.
In discussing a less-successful anonymous colleague, however, Bob also provided his
estimation of another potential problem, and in doing so he did two interesting things. First,
began to speak of the relation between the rigidity of the system of a superintendent, and the
rigidity of the person imposing it. Second, he brought up the crucial relation between the
superintendent and the board. “Your job is to articulate goals and make them happen.” What is
inconsistent with this communicative ability is a “’this is how I do things’ mentality”, which if
you take this position with your board “does not lead to long tenures!” His advice with respect to
the Collaborative domain was perhaps his most direct. Frank went even further on this theme,
suggesting that, whoever’s idea are eventually implemented, humility ought be communicated
not only before and during, but also after the fact. Whatever happened, and whether or not they
initiated it, he recommends, take the blame and “give praise to the board!” This communicates
91

that it is “not you…out there” doing things alone. Rather, such humility pushes the mode or
‘how’ of communication towards the collaborative ‘we.’
It is interesting that this phrase ‘this is how I do things” came up twice explicitly (Abel
mentioned it also) in the interviews. Both implicitly made a distinction between an insistence on
the goals of the district and insistence on the mode or style of their implementation. And four
spoke of a kind of re-assuring stability with respect to the former, and an almost limit-less
flexibility with respect to the latter. So this ends-means distinction seems to do important work
for these successful superintendents, whether or not they put it quite that way. Worth noting here
is some thematic overlap to be seen in survey lines ‘O’ (Organizational Strategies) and ‘P’
(Consistently Implement a Strategy) in Tables 11 and 12, and their relation to ‘F’ (Managing
Change).
To return to Bob’s first move—to link the flexibility of a superintendent’s program with
personal flexibility of the superintendent and his or her staff: Bob, a former district psychologist,
tended to delve deeper into the motives of others, and considered most thoroughly not merely the
actions of others, but the ways of thinking that are most conducive to communication. Abel and
Chris did speak of the representative function of superintendents to the public; and in the
observation of the board meeting before the public Chris clearly understood it; but he did not
speak of it in the same terms as the more introspective Bob. Bob often spoke, more than the
others, of a kind of meta-communication of modeling. “Keeping a sense of humor and sense of
balance around your staff, who have never experienced this level of anxiety and intensity…I
think that’s an invaluable trait [you] have to model.” You must, he says, convey—not merely a
92

goal—but “an optimism”; and this would be conveyed not by any particular act, but by the way
you do everything. (cf. Survey line ‘I’: Projecting Confidence).
There was also a clear connection here between this and the capacity to be a change
agent. For this looseness he seemed to offer as a kind psychological remedy to ‘rigidity’ or
‘freezing up’ in a moment requiring one adapt to rapidly changing conditions, and often ‘unfair’
demands. His body language while conveying this during the interview was especially
intriguing; he shifted his shoulders lightly, like a boxer facing an opponent; the idea was clear:
one could communicate, transfer, or transmit not merely a plan but a mood of looseness that,
counteracting fear, could operate as a kind of courage—a courage which was important, since
there is, he claimed, a fear of change that the superintendent must help those around him
overcome. The natural fear of change, Bob claimed, is not the change itself. Change can seem
good to all. The board agrees. The principals agree. The public agrees. The resistance comes
from “a worry about whether one will be up to handling it”—and this produces a fear which the
superintendent’s communicated ‘looseness’ and courage has to defeat. It makes space for the
change to take place. The following is worth quoting in full. “The superintendents who can
achieve multiple years when two is the average length of tenure is two years…has the ability to
enact systemic change in a way they can communicate to stake-holders without having to seem
threatening…[and so] without the people wanting to shut the change process off” due to “worries
about whether or not they will be able to adapt and perform.”
This emphasis on communicating mood helps connect Bob’s claim that communication is
the skill most important, while saying the number one personality trait is “good ego strength”
93

which appears as “an unshakeable sense of humor”. Bob believes his success hinges on this
ability to communicate a mood conducive to adaptability. And he has a system for doing so.
This dual ability—organizational consistency coupled with the apparent paradox of
planned adaptability— does not, however, always tell one what to do in extraordinary situations
which are both unprecedented and require rapid response. Eric, when pressed on specific,
unexpected, and challenging changes, did not speak of fiscal problems but of a student’s on-
campus suicide. “We had a kid jump off the third floor at lunch…[and] had to deal with the
trauma…We hospitalized about 120 kids.” Though this is an extreme example, Eric felt this was
an instance of how adaptability must be broad enough to handle events exceeding all reasonable
expectation.

RQ2: “How did the superintendent acquire these skills and traits?”
All grant that, as Abel put it, “the superintendency has its own set of skills.” So the
question arises: how do you know what to do, and how to do it, before you actually do it? Where
did these successful superintendents get this ‘special set of skills’? Such questions are primed to
put practical spins on the results of the Importance/Preparation ratios discussed earlier. For they
suggest that there is often a mismatch between the traits a superintendent are expected to have
and the time they are given to acquire them.
To make this clearer: one theoretical device used to guide both observations and
analyzing interview data was the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA)’s
‘competencies’—more accurately seen as areas of competence. These competency-areas are: (a)
94

organizational strategies (b) resource management (c) communication (d) collaboration, (e)
school district advocacy. These were utilized to help ‘map’ which skills are acquired on the job,
and so map how long they take to acquire.
Just as was the case with the survey data with regard to preparedness levels (Table 12),
there emerged amongst interviewees a set of fairly consistent comments on what area of the
superintendents felt least ready for: area ‘b’: Resource Management, and its relation to finance-
related school district advocacy. Abel, in particular, believed that good superintendents need
education backgrounds; this is crucial for understanding the district “from the ground up”; but
this leaves them wanting in comparison with those more business-backgrounded, CFO-like
candidates, who, though alienated from much of the district and staff they would lead, are quite
good at handling the financial twists and turns that are normal for a state in a state like
California. All six superintendents did not have this business background— though one had
“somewhat relevant” legal experience (Eric), and Frank felt he had benefited in this regard from
teaching several applied economics courses. Nevertheless all wished they had had more business
experience than they had when they began. On this, Eric spoke for all: the area “for which I was
least prepared for and most concerned about is…the financial. I came up through curriculum and
student instruction. But as a superintendent one of the quickest ways to get in trouble is the
financial”— particularly in “the economic chaos of the state [of California].” Some had more
specific concerns in this same area. Frank, who at least had some academic background in
economics, finds himself currently frustrated and “woefully” underprepared for issues involving
land management, which falls under the same competency domain. This general consensus about
what superintendents are least ready to handle when starting out not only aligns with the
95

literature cited; it also aligns with the ratios discussed, in which survey line ‘C’ was noted for the
consistently appalling Importance/Preparedness disparity it revealed.
However, this theme which emerged in the matter of acquiring traits and skills in part
returns to the theme of adaptability. For some skills are simply something acquired nowhere but
‘on the job’. On this all are unanimous. And this is simply a part of the adjusting process.
Here the result of my third observation is of interest and importance. I visited Abel when
he was giving a Chamber speech primarily regarding budget concerns. Abel was welcoming. He
spoke warmly over the problems of cuts and expenditures, though a few audience members
spoke quietly amongst themselves at various points during his talk. And he connected a new
expenditure approved by himself and the board on student technologies (ipads and web books) to
the overall aim of student achievement. But there was, at the end of the talk, a good bit of
skepticism about the wisdom of taking funds from elsewhere for this technology. I bring this up
because it suggests there may be a connection between the area (resource allotment) in which the
superintendents profess to be least prepared, and my observation of a slightly diminished power
to communicate to a public audience their reasoning and priorities regarding resources. Perhaps
one communicates most poorly in areas in which one’s confidence levels and acquired skills are
least developed or still developing.
Some modes of skill acquisition occur before and after tenure. Chris, in particular,
praised specific mentors, whom he both spoke with and ‘shadowed’, in official and unofficial
capacities. Eric concurred, while Dave credited “ongoing” informal interaction with other
superintendents as being a source of savvy/advice. Given even my limited experience making
observations I could see just how crucial a mentoring relationship could be early on, particularly
96

for picking up those intangible qualities or ways of communicating which are hard to make
explicit, and can only be gained by a kind of participation and mimicry.
With respect to skills acquired on the job, there is also the ‘meta-skill’ of putting all one’s
skills to use appropriately. As Bob puts it: “The only way you can learn…[some things] is to
actually do the job. All the other experiences, things you have done, allow you to…get the job.
[But] Once you are there, there’s still a substantial learning curve. [One says] “My gosh! How do
I blend all this stuff together?”
In these discussions, the use of the trait-skill distinction appears most difficult to
maintain, as do the domains of competence. Sometimes definite lines are drawn. Bob speaks of
the ability to maintain the constant “awareness of who they are representing” as “an innate skill
that you either have or you don’t.” Language like this suggests that some important things are
not learn-able. Abel speaks of “being calm and consistent” as “both traits…just your
personality…” as “of the highest importance.” But he seems to disagree somewhat with Bob that
‘forgetting’ (in Bob’s case, forgetting one’s primary tasks of representing) is innate. For he
thinks this can be improved by art, recommending superintendents who seek a decent tenure
make a practice of “reminding themselves…not to be over-reactionary”, and so provide
themselves stability by a ritual of reminders which he himself practices. Overall, though, there is
no consistent line these superintendents helped clarify regarding the relation and acquire-ability
of skills and traits.
That said, all saw at least some acquisition of key traits (and usually, this was linked with
‘personality’) as prior to their tenure. For Dave “the one…indispensable trait” which “you can’t
get on the job is patience.” For Eric, his experience as the head football coach at a competitive
97

high school gives him the will to “make unpopular decisions” and “be willing to have people not
like you.” And for Chris the ability “acquired [beforehand]…[was] the trait of just being
consistent and having a high level of integrity and knowing that something that doesn’t seem
quite right usually isn’t.” Nor are these pre-acquired traits marginal to the superintendent’s task.
As Chris sees it, his “knowing” has “always been a trait and a skill I have had prior to the
position I am currently in,” and is important to have, not as a mere help in making decisions, but
rather, as “the basis of your decision-making process.”
Finally, it is important that most of the interviewees are painfully aware of the paradox
between the time it takes to acquire certain skills, and the brief window they are often given to
not only gain the relevant skills, but put them to effective use. Collaboration requires “staff
development…which” not only can but “should continue for years.” And Dave estimates
implementing one “large-scale change” through all levels of administration can take a year or
more. He also notes as “underestimated” the time it takes to become culturally and politically
“acclimatized” to one’s district. He speculates that this added burden recommends a hiring board
first look within the district for candidates, if it wants these candidates to be able to handle
changes within the district, and not have to take the additional time to adjust to the district itself
as a new environment/change.

Q3: “How do superintendents themselves evaluate these tenure-producing traits and
skills?”
Since the results above make clear the focus of the traits and skills most of value: those
centering on the competency domain of communication (and collaboration, if these can be
98

separated), what is interesting is how they evaluated the ability of these traits to produce tenure
directly (Q4).
Already noted was the care not to ‘prime’ survey respondents to find a distinction which
was given in the survey. But the final table (Table 15) does enable ratios to be derived from
comparing respondents’ rates of skill importance in general to its importance to tenure longevity
alone. One finding from the interviews is that priming is not the only problem. Even when
reminded of the distinction between traits and skills leading to longevity, and therefore, because
of longevity, leading to student achievement; and, second, traits and skills which lead to student
achievement, and therefore, because of student achievement, lead to longevity—this distinction
is not one which the exemplary superintendents placed much weight upon. And this is
understandable. All six were not explicitly reluctant to acknowledge the distinction. But all were
certainly not good about keeping it in mind. That said, several half-comments may be extracted
that speak to the distinction this study seeks to make. Chris at one point speaks of the ‘culture of
collaboration” whereby interpersonal loyalties bind a district together in tough times. It is not
hard to see how this loyalty could both not be directly related to any evidence of student
achievement, as well as even result in the maintenance of tenure in the face of a drop in student
achievement, with the staff and district personnel and board willing to explain the drop not in
terms of superintendent deficiency but in terms of external factors. So some interpretive slack
may be available for superintendents who see eye-to-eye with the board, with principals, and can
represent themselves to the broader public as doing the best they can under trying circumstances.
This reluctance to speak this way occasionally broke down. Chris, for instance, certainly felt that
building networks and projecting confidence could certainly make boards “more reluctant” to
fire even an underperforming new hire. Abel, in different terms, seemed to agree.
99

One interviewee, Frank, found it relaxing not to think in terms of tenure length at all.
Several comments by him suggested he saw himself, more than other interviewees, as an
important but intrinsically temporary figure, brought in to solve specific problems. “The district
belongs to the board. Ultimately, you are a hired gun. I think loyalty [requires] you do the best
job you can while you are where you are.” Whether this is a mental strategy Frank employs to
remove the motive for longer tenure from his own thinking, to ‘brace himself’ for the constant
upheavals always ready to threaten his tenure—or both—is unclear. But this kind of comment
does suggest a deeper reason why the distinction between success and success at longer tenures
is not on the minds of some—perhaps many—superintendents. And this might partially explain
why, in interviews where the distinction is directly broached, it still is not kept sharp.
So causality and endogeneity issues, coupled with the reluctance to divorce these two
measures of success (student and tenure length), led to little additional insights beyond that
which was built into the study design from the start from the interviewees. On this particular
matter—and specifically the fourth research question— the survey yielded more direct and/or
less-ambiguous results.

FINDINGS: INITIAL SUMMARY

Having set out to determine the answer to the question “What are the traits and skills
which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of superintendents?” the findings above provide
both a substantive set of answers as well as a method by which to derive further such data.
100

Though a full summary of findings will appear in chapter five, the following contains the key
points with regard to each research question.

Q1: What are the traits and skills which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of
superintendents?

All subsequent questions were designed to inform this one. As to the overall question
(Q1) regarding which traits and skills lead to superintendent longevity, the key results, the details
of which appear in both Table 12 and interviews, suggest a strong weighting in the competence
domains of organization and communication. The interviews expand on this focus, by suggesting
the sense in which communication plays a role in the other ‘separate’ domains. Of the
interviewees, all three superintendents put communication out front as the most important area of
success, all spoke of traits and skills in terms of how they contributed towards communicative
success, and two explicitly related it to length of tenure, as noted in Table This also suggests the
emphasis in the literature is not entirely disjoined from the sense of relative importance held by
acting superintendents—though there are clear endogeneity issues here as well.
Table 16, discussed below, is also germane, in that it suggests there is a distinction to
make, and that it does not track the domain-importance just-described. For instance, two of the
most disparate proportions between ‘important’ and ‘likely to enhance tenure even without
increased student achievement’ had to do, not with communication, but with collaboration. For
instances of this departure between domains of competence and levels of importance for tenure-
length: Table 15 shows that the key communicative skill of ‘Articulating District Policy’ (line
‘B’) is 30/2—i.e. is vastly important but not at all likely to enhance tenure on its own.
101

Conversely, consider Table 15, lines ‘E’ and ‘M’—“Managing Personnel Conflict” and
“Managing Collective Bargaining Issues” respectively. Both fall outside the dominant domains
(communication and organization), and show a lack of perceived importance coupled with a
notable tendency to enhance tenure whether or not an enhancement of student achievement
occurs, by 16/35 and 2/34.

Chapter five’s summary, in ‘limitations’, will consider the evidential relation between the
raw data from these tables and Table 16’s direct answers from respondents.

Q2. How do superintendents acquire them?

The interviewees drew a clear line between skills gained prior to superintendency, and
those learned ‘on the job.’ The mode of questioning in both interview and survey was designed
to determine which were which. There was the question of whether the superintendent in
question felt prepared on taking up their first superintendency, and what level of comparative
importance was given to the areas in which respondents felt least prepared. (Tables 14 and 15).
The most appalling importance/preparedness ratios confirmed a point in the literature in chapter
two: that the fiscal and political challenges were most daunting and were abilities obtained ‘on
the job’ which were initially in shortest supply (cf. line ‘C’ in Table 12). These skills were not
considered maximally important; but they were the skills which exhibited maximal disparity in
the ratio of importance/preparedness. The interviewees located this problem in the domain of
“Resource Management”, as well as made its genesis more explicit, seeing a tension between the
102

backgrounds in education typical of superintendents and the kind of CFO-like, business-minded
background required to handle some of the new responsibilities emerging from cash-strapped
and budget-conscious California districts. This recommends one of three things: either an
alteration of the pool from which superintendents in such districts are drawn, an alteration in the
preparedness programs available for potential and new superintendents, or a split in duties which
would yield a CEO/CFO-like division of labor as appears in corporate organizations.
The key point here was how the tables could be used to explain an absence of longevity
by highlighting the question of the relation between (i) the importance of a trait or skill, (ii) how
a trait or skill is acquired, and (iii) the time it takes to acquire it. It suggests an issue for longevity
is whether or not a superintendent is lacking in the areas which take the most time to develop,
thereby making length of tenure less likely in environments where these resource-handling skills
have outsized importance compared to national norms.

Q3. How do superintendents themselves evaluate the effectiveness of these longevity-
producing skills?

The tables (11 and 12) detailed particular trait and skill evaluations. A result already
noted is the comparative importance of traits in terms of domains, with organizational and
communicative containing the traits whose importance to longevity were highest-rated. The
individual ranking of the skills and traits, coupled with the coding of these into domains, permits
a comparison of relative importance for competence domains. The result as to domain
importance does not mean that the most important domains contained the most important traits.
103

That is, the results do not show that superintendents suppose there are more traits which are
important to longevity in the dominant domains; it is, rather, that the total importance to be found
within that domain is higher—due, as the Tables suggest, to the presence of traits and skills of
very high importance. For an example of the difference: in table 11, mentoring relationships (line
‘A’) was the highest “Very Important”-rated general area of skill; yet it appears in the domain
‘collaboration’ which was the third-highest-rated domain of competence. In short, and without
simply repeating the Tables, the dominance of particular domains emerged from these results, as
well as the importance of particular skills within them.

Q4. How do superintendents view the relationship between success at enhancing student
achievement and success at attaining longevity?

Table 16 directly asks superintendents to make the distinction between traits and skills
leading to longevity by itself, even in the case where these traits might not produce student
achievement. In the case of interviewees, there was a reluctance to consistently recognize this
distinction. In the survey, but the data already discussed under the first research question
suggests there is an important distinction being made by superintendents. And this perception
and its effects are empirically important results. Detailed comments on the views of
superintendents—in particular, respondents—appear under the findings summarized under the
first research question.

104

CONCLUSION

This fourth chapter presented the findings from collected data. It summarized the
‘triangulated’ data collected from the survey of school district superintendents, observations and
in-depth interviews of ‘exemplary’ school district superintendents, with the ‘mixed’ method
helping to boost the validity of the findings. Also considered was how this data could be
arranged to address research questions, and the comparative significance of the five domains of
competency. Conclusions were drawn with regard to which traits and skills were most likely to
enhance superintendent performance and longevity, which traits were least likely to be acquired
prior to the first superintendency, and which traits might be able to enhance superintendent
longevity without necessarily enhancing long term student achievement. A means of extracting
information-rich ratios from the Tables was devised, modeled, and applied, and inter-mixed with
data from in-depth interviews.
These results will be summarized in the following fifth and final chapter, along with
further implications drawn from them and recommendations for related future research.

105

CHAPTER 5
Summary: Results, Implications, and Recommendations for Future Research

INTRODUCTION

This final chapter will summarize the key elements in the previous four chapters. From
chapter one: a restatement of the study’s problem, purpose, and research questions. The nature
and extent of chapter two’s ‘gap’ in the literature will be recalled, and the means by which it
helps to justify the methodology and study design. This method and study design which appeared
in chapter 3 be sketched, followed by a summation of the recent exposition and analysis of the
findings from the previous chapter. Added to this will be recommendations both practical and
academic—i.e. recommendations for both future tenure-enhancing policies and future tenure-
related research.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The need to enhance student achievement is the ultimate aim and motivation for this
study. The problem also appears as a gap in the literature. The study begins by taking up the
evidence already in the literature that superintendents can contribute to student achievement, as
well as extant attempts to show just how superintendents make this contribution. Grissom (2011),
Land (2002) and others show that one way a superintendent contributes to student achievement is
106

through achieving length of tenure. Waters and Marzano (2006), Metcalfe (2008), and Myers
(2011) likewise connect superintendent efficacy with longevity. Second, Waters and Marzano
and others write of traits and skills of school leaders. These two elements in the literature—the
relation between length of tenure and student achievement, and traits and skills that lead to
length of tenure—lead naturally to the question guiding this study: what traits and skills lead to
achieving above-average length of superintendent tenure?
The practical and motivating problem is thus student achievement. The guiding question
is how superintendents contribute to it. The literature links superintendent longevity to student
achievement. So the question becomes what traits and skills of superintendents lead to it, with
the epistemic problem of endogeneity—i.e. the problem that longevity might lead to achievement
and that student achievement might lead to longevity—always in mind.
There is also a local cast to the problem, as data suggest California’s problem with
superintendent longevity is particularly acute. For instance: the 2006 national average length in
tenure for superintendents was 3.6 years. In California it was 2.3 years. Grissom (2011) notes a
study which considered 100 California school districts. So while the practical problem is always
a problem, the problem of superintendent longevity and how to extend it is locally acute.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The primary purpose of this study is to identify and, insofar as possible, isolate those
qualities of superintendents with the strongest correlation to above-average length of tenure. This
107

informs the initial setup of the problem, the literature surveyed, the theoretical frames informing
data-collection and analysis, and the choice of research questions which are as follows:

Q1: What are the traits and skills which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of
superintendents?
Q2 How do superintendents acquire them?
Q3. How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of these longevity-producing skills?
Q4 How do superintendents view the relationship between success at enhancing student
achievement and success at attaining longevity?

As noted, the central question this study seeks to answer is: what traits and competencies
long-serving superintendents have which are most tightly linked to longer tenures (Q1). The
other three questions (Q2-Q4) are designed to help generate an informed answer to this primary
question.

METHODOLOGY

The study deployed a mixed’ methodology in that, while most data is qualitative, some
quantitative methods were used in order to better characterize the surveyed population.
Moreover, the ratios, which expressed the study’s most telling, accessible, and actionable data,
are expressed in quantitative form. Second, within the qualitative method employed, three
108

qualitative methods were used: surveys, interviews, and observations. This had the benefits of
‘triangulation’ whereby the three different methods each acted as a ‘check’ upon the others.

SAMPLING
The sampling type used in this study is a mixture of ‘intensity sampling’ and random
sampling, varying across the three methods. Patton (2001) and Pascopella (2011). Six
‘exemplary superintendents’ were interviewed. And three of these exemplary superintendents
were also observed engaged in various tasks, wherein their traits and skills could be evidenced,
rather than relayed by themselves through the survey or to the interviewer. As to “random
sampling”: relevant potential survey participants were chosen from amongst the population of
Southern California superintendents being studied. Within that population random sampling
ensured that each member of the select population had an equal chance of being a subject of
study.

DATA COLLECTION

The first method used was the interview (cf. guiding questions on p. 54-56) of six
‘exemplary’ superintendents (cf. profiles of each interviewee pp. 61-63). These took the form of
‘semi-structured interviews” as outlined by Merriman (2009). The superintendent interviews
served three purposes: generating recommendations about how to formulate the survey;
generating recommendations about how to go about collecting the data, so as to maximize survey
109

population response; and generating in-depth background information for the analysis of the data
collected. By placing these first, the interviews, recorded with permission, and conducted at the
interviewees’ place of work, acted as a baseline for, and test of, the survey design which was
already underway.
The second method was observations, or ‘shadowing.’ Three superintendents were
followed for part of their workday as they carried out various tasks. The site selection for
observations was guided by literature-based insights about key relationships which tend to favor
longevity: the superintendent’s relation with district principals, with the school board, and with
the broader public whose district he or she serves. So observations took place at a meeting with
all district principals, a public board meeting, and a speech to the public.
The third method was a mass survey. The survey first asked questions identifying key
features of the respondent. This was followed by lengthy substantive questionnaire which asked
for assessments of various traits and skills on a four point Likert-like scale. There was also a
Creswell-commended call-back to non-respondents in order to detect statistically significant
responder bias. This significant non-responder bias was not found.

DATA ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data gathered, guided by Creswell (2007, 2009), Lichtman (2006), and
Patton (1999, 2001), proceeded in the following order: interview, transcription of recorded
portion merged with notes of non-recorded portion, common terminology and phrasing sought,
common competency-domain-centered themes extracted from this common phrasing, and results
110

compiled under research questions and appropriate competency domains. Data attained through
the observations were primarily analyzed in terms of their function as a check upon the
subjective reporting of the interviewees. As noted earlier, any ‘cheating good’ was sought for by
observing not merely the superintendent, but the expectations, expressions, and actions of those
with whom the superintendent interacted. The ‘norms’ instituted and encouraged by the
superintendent were suggested by this broad-scale observation, despite the limited number of
subjects and occasions observed. Finally, survey responses were placed in tables as per the
Likert-like scale described in the following:
Traits and skills were ranked as:

Unimportant Of Little Importance Important Very Important

The same traits were then ranked in terms of how prepared the superintendent felt in
regard to them in his or her first posting:

Unprepared Underprepared Prepared Well-Prepared

And the question “Might the Following Abilities Contribute to Longevity of Tenure
Whether or not Student Achievement Was Improved?” was followed by:

Very Unlikely Unlikely Likely Very Likely

111

The raw scores for each trait permitted comparisons within the standards and questions of
each table—e.g. comparative importance, comparative preparedness. Moreover, each trait
tabulated was coded for a particular competency domain, so as to ascertain not merely particular
trait/skill importance, but the domain in which most importance was placed. Other tables asked
after levels of preparedness, and levels importance for achieving tenure in the absence of
enhanced student achievement. These tables enabled the use of analysis in the form of inter-table
ratios. For instance, a raw score from the table for ranking a trait’s importance could be
displayed against its ranking in terms of the table measuring preparedness. An
‘Importance/Preparedness’ ratio was then be devised for each trait, and practical conclusions
drawn. The same was done with ‘Importance/Enhancing tenure even without enhancing student
achievement’ and so on. Analysis proceeded in this ratio-centric fashion. Chapter four applied
this method in detail in its display and interpretation of study findings, and suggested how further
implementation could yield further results.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY RESEARCH QUESTION

The following summary proceeds in order of research questions 1-4.

What are the traits and skills which most facilitate longevity in the tenure of
superintendents?

112

As noted, this question is that to which the following three are in service. In terms of key
traits, the data gathered shows a dominance of traits and skills fitting under the competence
domains of organization and communication. Especially central was communication, broadly
understood. “The ability to communicate with all stakeholders is key...that is indispensable to
attaining length of tenure…” (Abel). All interviewees made similar claims. Traits and skills
enhancing or expressing this capacity were among the most highly rated, as well as enjoying
domain-high totals overall. This ‘communication’ crucially included the ability to open space for
others to speak—a point confirmed in observations.
Organizational traits and skills showed up second-best in the survey, and were constantly
brought up in interviews as essential. This domain brought out a theme—the tension between
organizational rigor and flexibility. And this also clarified something about how successful
superintendents’ personal traits related to their organizational attitude—i.e. the flexibility of a
superintendent’s program was explicitly connected with personal flexibility of the
superintendent.
The interviews also made clear how difficult it could be to get superintendents to draw
stark lines between those traits and skills leading to length of tenure directly, and those which led
to it indirectly, via enhancing student achievement. The interviews suggest several different
motivations for this. Yet the back-up data for the perceived importance of this separation
appeared in Table 16, discussed below, under the last research question.

113

How do superintendents acquire these skills?

Given the issue of longevity is an issue of time, the focus for this question centered upon
the ‘when’ of acquisition of a trait or skill, as well as the perceived length of time it took to attain
it. Most interviewees drew a clear line between skills gained prior to superintendency, and those
learned ‘on the job.’ These answers aligned well with, and helped explain, the raw answers of the
survey. However, in order to ensure ‘actionable’ data, mere preparedness levels alone were
taken and compared to importance levels, yielding the inter-table ratios used in chapter four and
described above. A key finding was that the fiscal and political challenges so prevalent in
primarily large and urban Southern California districts were also abilities obtained ‘on the job;’
so a key skill needed in keeping tenure in such districts was precisely the one most likely to be
initially absent. The survey-derived ratios revealed in this case a maximal disparity in the ratio of
importance/preparedness. And the interviewees offered both a parallel complaint, as well as the
beginnings of a prescription, to be discussed immediately below. As noted, the key for this
question was the inter-table ratios. They enabled explaining the absence of longevity in terms of
the time taken to gain key skills. In short: the importance of a trait or skill; how a trait or skill is
acquired was asked about in interviews; and the survey revealed the relation between when a
skill was developed and how long it took to develop it. This suggests California superintendents
are lacking in the areas which take the most time to develop, thereby making length of tenure
less likely. And this length of tenure is all the less likely in California—an environment where
the value of skills from the domain of resource-acquisition and allotment are at a premium.

114

How do superintendents themselves evaluate the effectiveness of these longevity-producing
skills?

This question was directly answered by the data gathered in the tables, as well as the
ratios produced by inter-table rankings. As can be seen from tables 11 and 12, individual ranking
of the skills and traits were directly compared. And then coding traits and skills into domains of
competence permitted conclusions about how superintendents rated all five NSPRA competency-
domains.

How do superintendents view the relationship between success at enhancing student
achievement and success at attaining longevity?

Again, one of the challenges of the study was to prise apart a trait/skill’s contribution to
the goal of student achievement, and its potential to contribute directly to longevity, whether or
not enhanced student output was every achieved. In order to ‘cross-check’ what could be
extracted from survey, observations, and interviews on this question—i.e. what the
superintendents, by their answers, might ‘unintentionally’ give away, Table 16 directly asks
superintendents for their perception of this distinction with regard to each trait. Interviewees’
inconsistency in keeping to the distinction was just noted. But the table designed to answer the
perception question made clear that two of the most disparate proportions between ‘important’
and ‘likely to enhance tenure even without increased student achievement’ had to do with
collaboration. The key communicative skill of ‘Articulating District Policy’ (line ‘B’) is 30/2—
i.e. is ‘very important’ (30) but not ‘very likely’ to enhance tenure on its own (2). And as chapter
115

four displayed, Table 15, lines ‘E’ and ‘M’—“Managing Personnel Conflict” and “Managing
Collective Bargaining Issues” show a lack of perceived importance coupled with a remarkably
high perceived tendency to enhance tenure whether or not an enhancement of student
achievement occurs. These extremes (16/35 and 2/34) show the clearest cases of traits and skills
perceived to either enhance student achievement directly, or lengthen tenure because they
lengthen student achievement, versus traits and skills which lengthen tenure ‘on their own.’

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This study presents a set of substantive answers to research questions. It also offers
possibilities for further applications in regard to future policy—i.e. ‘practical’ applications.
Clearly the most ‘actionable’ observations made in the course of this study arise with
respect to the insights the data yield on the relation between two key factors: the importance of
trait/skill to length of tenure, and when/how long it takes to acquire it. This recalls Murphy’s
(2009) observation, highlighted in chapter 2, that it takes time to implement even the most
perfect of strategies.
In order for a superintendent’s reforms to have a chance to succeed, he or she must be in office for a
reasonable period of time. It is not possible to see the results of many reforms implemented during the
average tenure of a superintendent….
If this is true of implementing strategies, it would appear doubly true for acquiring skills.
The problem here goes beyond implementing and acclimatizing in its effects, but creates a
116

negative feedback loop with respect to superintendent longevity—particularly in California
districts. In those districts, the importance of the slowest-to-be-acquired skills in the Resource
Management domain is highest. Yet Table 13 (p.79) showed deeply negative preparedness
rankings in precisely these areas. So the importance of a skill is immediate, and its acquisition is
a long-term, on-the-job proposition. This suggests the ‘mysteries’ of shortened tenure in these
areas can be examined in terms of these ratio-expressed disparities. In the districts in the study,
this particular problem appears to have played a significant role.
If this diagnostic is correct, at least three more longevity-enhancing applications now
suggest themselves.
First, there is the possibility of a regimen of preparation for new superintendents that may
prove to be cheaper than losses created by current turnover—cheaper in terms of both fiscal
resources and district stability (and so, indirectly, student achievement). Second, with fairly
precise and specific measures of board-measured importance of traits, hiring boards can gauge
better what kind of candidate with what kind of background is likely to suit their districts and its
most immediate needs sooner, thereby making it more likely that the hire will be a success. The
third point, which also came up in the interviews, puts these two points about preparation and
hiring together. There may be a tension—a tension particularly intense in districts with certain
features— between the backgrounds in education typical of superintendents and the kind of
CFO-like, business-based background required to handle some of the new responsibilities
emerging from cash-strapped, over-extended, and budget-conscious California districts. The
need to resolve this tension then recommends one of three things: an alteration of the pool from
which superintendents in such districts are drawn; an alteration in the preparedness programs
117

available for potential and new superintendents; or perhaps a difference in the distribution of
superintendent duties—specifically, a split in duties which would yield a CEO/CFO-like division
of labor as appears in corporate and municipal organizations.

LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

The design of this study sought to make a limitation of the study an asset. By limiting
respondent and interviewee selection to superintendents in California (and, survey respondent
data shows, primarily urban and suburban) districts, the selection of an environment hostile to
lengthy tenure would help control for positive externalities not under superintendent influence,
which could then make it appear tenure-length was a result of skills and traits had by the
superintendent. However, it is far from clear that the same traits and skills ranked ‘very
important’ in these districts will carry similar importance in others—particularly rural—districts,
which do not share many of these features. So the first issue is one of scope of results. It seems
likely that the kind of study done, including ratio-based analyses, can operate perfectly well in
other contexts. But it is important to flag the possibility of massively different substantive
results.
Moreover, it may prove that the least acquire-able traits as shown in these findings—
those in the competence-domain of Resource Management—are those least in need in other
districts. Pacopella (2011), for instance, showed the possibility of a broader set of prepared-ness-
related regrets. What this means is that the just-noted policy applications may appear as bad
118

counsel, should district difference not be taken into account. Not only will data gathered from
these other districts produce different ratios. The matter of which ratios are alarming and require
action will depend on the different features of different districts—size, demographics, and so on.
In such cases, it may be that a similar sub-par tenure-length problem is to be explained in some
other way, or that there is far less of a tenure-length problem requiring such trait-skill based
analyses. Something similar might be noted in districts with sharp ethnic differences than those
examined here. Plotts (2011), for instance model listed culture, race, gender, collaboration, and
cognition as factors that affect the acquisition of leadership competencies. So the time it takes to
acquire traits might be different depending on the relation of ethnicity and culture which
characterizes the district and its new superintendent hire. A more homogenous district may not
have the issues that arise in a more diverse environment, and so will not see this as a problem, or,
if it is flagged as a problem, may not rate it as highly as others for immediate policy-altering
action.
In addition there are also the standard problems with respondent biases. Though a follow-
up was done to check in with initial non-respondents, and no significant variations were found in
these belated responses, the sample of initial non-respondents in this study was quite limited. An
accurate accounting of disparities between respondents and non-respondents would require a
broader sample of both.
Though logistics would be formidable, these particular limits seem to have fairly direct
remedies. One more persistent trouble, however, is the difficulty of trying to get respondents to
make complex causal distinctions necessary to fully extract traits and skills which contribute to
longevity, without further regard for student achievement. The distinction constantly under threat
119

in interviews and survey responses was the distinction between (i) a trait/skill that contributes to
longevity because it contributes to student achievement and (ii) a trait/skill that contributes only
to longevity or a trait/skill which contributes to student achievement only because it contributes
to longevity. There are of course further complexities. But this distinction is a necessary
condition for a full analysis of the contribution to longevity of these traits, without losing the
distinction needed for confident claims in this regard—claims which Table 16, in keeping with
research question 4, asked directly. In short: while the data gathered here, along with the
comparative analysis of it, goes some way towards handling the endogeneity problem raised by
Grissom, and though it provides the superintendents’ own take on the problem, more concise
surveying would need to take place for firmer results regarding this separation, and greater level
of practical confidence in the results.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

With respect to its importance to future research, the study offers both a data-set, but,
more importantly perhaps, an unusual way of arranging and analyzing data. The analysis of the
raw scores in terms of both individual traits/skills, as well as coding them to generate
conclusions about the comparative importance of competency domains, permits far more
conclusions than those so far drawn. But the unorthodox use of ratios is an easy way to generate
accessible comparative data, which can be tailored to suit any number of different research
questions. By adding traits or skills to the tables above, or adding entire tables, more of these
120

informative ratios can be generated. So: one very broad application for future research is the
possibility of extending the method of analysis offered above in this way.
Second, the results gathered here faced logistical challenges which researchers with more
resources can overcome. To ‘smooth’ the statistical volatility of these skill rankings, a larger
respondent-base is required, so as to see whether the results regarding these traits and skills—
specifically, their relative import and acquire-ability— will hold in a larger sample.
Third, this study recommends a survey which is not only larger, but splits respondents
into those who meet the ‘exemplar’ requirement (superintendent with above-average tenure
length and having been an ‘agent of change’ as defined in chapter 1), and those who do not. As it
stands, the current study does not do this.
Fourth, this study recommends that, in conjunction with the added split between
exemplar and non-exemplar superintendents, the same survey respondents be revisited in a
period of time—perhaps five years—to see whether or not their opinions on these matters had
changed.
Fifth, a breakdown as to gender of respondents would be of value. There are already
extant studies, for instance, which purport to show that women tend to emphasize ‘care’ over
‘justice’, and ‘interpersonal accommodation’ over organizational consistency. This, it would
seem, could be tested by coding traits for these different emphases, and seeing whether the
‘importance’ measure rose in accord with these hypotheses about gender-difference. In addition,
the six interviewees were all male. This also could be remedied in a further study of this kind.

121

CONCLUSION

The ultimate motivating aim of this study has been to provide data which might tell
researchers and educators how best to enhance students’ academic success. Achieving this aim
required the identification and analysis of the various factors whereby the aim of student success
is, or is not, effected. One such factor suggested itself: the literature-supported link between
student success and the length of superintendent tenure. This study has sought to isolate as much
as possible, then analyze in unique ways, the traits, skills, and domains of competency important
to understanding superintendent longevity in California school districts, as well as to explain its
present absence. It is hoped that these findings, along with the potential applications of this study
and the extension of its methods, will bring some clarity to this difficult question, and thereby
contribute to improvements, however small, in California education.

122

REFERENCES

Bird, J. J. (2010). Building budgets and trust through the alchemy of superintendent leadership.
Management in Education, 24(2), 46-50. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
(08920206).

Byrd, J.K., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent turnover:
Lessons from the field. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of
Educational Administration.

Clark, R. J. (2001). The superintendent as a temp. The School Administrator, 58(4), 40-41.
Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=10890

Council of Urban Boards of Education (2002). Superintendent Tenure. Alexandria, VA: National
School Board Association’s Council of Urban Boards of Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 460 201)

Creswell J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five
Approaches. Sage Publications Inc.

DuFour, R. P. (2000). The superintendent as staff developer. The School Administrator,49, 45.
Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14546
123

Former, M., Bierlein-Palmer, L., & Reeves, P. (2012) Leadership practices of effective rural
superintendents: Connections to Waters and Marzano’s leadership correlates” Journal of
Research in Rural Education, 27(8).

Fusarelli, L. D. (2005). Future research directions and policy implications for superintendent-school
board relations. In G. J. Petersen & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.) The politics of leadership:
Superintendents and school boards in changing times (pp. 181–195). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.

Giaquinto, A. C. (2010). Longevity in the superintendency: A case study of New Jersey district
factor group cd superintendents (doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, 2010).
Retrieved from http://domapp01.shu.edu/depts/uc/apps/libraryrepository.nsf/
resourceid/C6330B60FEFD819F852578480058B190/$File/

Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations: The
case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
20(3), 601-627.

Grissom, J.A., Andersen, Stephanie (2011). Why superintendents turn over.
Unpublished draft.

124

Land, Deborah. (2002) Local school boards under review: Their Role and effectiveness in
relation to students' academic achievement Review of Educational Research, Vol. 72,
No. 2 (Summer, 2002), pp. 229-278.

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in Education; A users guide. Sage Publications
2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA. 92320.

McCurdy, J. (1992). Building better board-administrator relations. (D. L. Hymes, Ed.)
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

McFarlin, C., Crittenden, B., & Ebbers, L. (1999) Background factors common among
outstanding community college presidents. Community College Review, 27(3), 19-32.

Murphy, Kristen, (2009) Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: A
case study of superintendent actions. Dissertation. ProQuest document ID 304997494

Natkin, G. L., Cooper, B. S., Alborano, J. A., Padilla, A. & Ghosh, S. K. (2003). Predicting and
modeling superintendent turnover. Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 328-346.
(10526846).

Pascopella, A. (2011). Superintendent staying power. District Administration, 47(4), 31-40.

125

Patton, MQ. (1999). "Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis." HSR:
Health Services Research. 34 (5) Part II. pp. 1189-1208.

Plotts, T. (2011). A Multiple Regression Analysis of Factors Concerning Superintendent
Longevity and Continuity Relative to Student Achievement (doctoral dissertation, Seton
Hall University). Retrieved from
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1482&context=dissertations

Waters, Tim; Marzano, Robert. (2007) The primacy of superintendent leadership The School
Administrator.

Waters, Tim; Marzano, Robert. (2006) School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student schievement. Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning (McREL). Working paper.

********

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The uncontroversial aim of the American educational establishment is to enhance students’ academic success. Achieving this aim requires the identification and analysis of the various factors whereby the aim of student success is—or is not—effected. One such factor is the district superintendent. Recent research suggests a link between student success and the length of superintendent tenure. This qualitative study seeks to isolate and analyze traits, skills, and competencies of superintendents in California school districts which are positively correlated with superintendent longevity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

The evolution of superintendents as instructional leaders: past, present, and future

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Chen, Phillip David (author)

Core Title Traits, skills, and competencies contributing to superintendent longevity

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 06/26/2014

Defense Date 04/02/2014

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

Tag competencies,Education,K-12,longevity,OAI-PMH Harvest,school district,skills,superintendent,traits

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Chen, David (committee member)

Creator Email chenp@usc.edu,phillipchen78@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-424985

Unique identifier UC11286665

Identifier etd-ChenPhilli-2584.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-424985 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChenPhilli-2584.pdf

Dmrecord 424985

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Chen, Phillip David

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