University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals

(USC Thesis Other)

Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CORRELATES O f. JOB SATISFACTION AMONG
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
By
Deanna Boyajian Brady
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P artial Fulfillment of the
Requirements fo r the Degree
DOCTOR OF .EDUCATION
May 2001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3027695
_ _ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3027695
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFO RNIA
School o f Education
Los Angeles, C alifornia 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
D eanna B o y a jia n B r a d y __________________
under the direction o f h fi t: Dissertation Committee, and
approved by a ll members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School
o f Education in partialfulfillm ent o f the requirementsfor
the degree o f
Doctor of Education
B al e
Bean
DissertatU imittee
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
Writing a doctoral dissertation is a gratifying yet arduous process, full of
gratification, anxiety, and culmination. Without the constant encouragement and
support from my wonderful husband Scott, my daughter Lauren and son Garrett,
this process would not have been fulfilled. I treasure their support and their love.
I thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar, whose advice and encouragement went
beyond what one could expect from a chair. To Dr. Eva Long, for her kindness
and scholarly excellence. To Dr. Baker, I am grateful for his support and
assistance with this endeavor.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, family, friends and mentors,
Casandra Carroll and Dr. June Tait, who have always provide support when I
needed it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables/Charts v
Abstract vi
Chapter Page
1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 6
Delimitations 6
Limitations 7
Importance of the Study 7
Definition of Key Terms 8
Outline of the Remainder of the Study 9
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10
Job Performance 10
Job Satisfaction and Performance 11
Educational Setting 17
School Effectiveness 21
Role of the Principal 23
School Effectiveness and the Role of the Principal 24
Effective School Leaders 29
3. METHODOLOGY 32
Introduction 32
Sample Population 33
Instrumentation 35
Data Collection 39
Data Analysis 40
4. RESULTS and DISCUSSION 41
Introduction 41
Descriptive Analysis 42
Statistical Analysis 49
Statistical Analysis Discussion 56
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATIONS 63
Summary 63
Recommendations 67
Recommendations for Future Research 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
APPENDIX 80
Survey 81
Letter to Sample Population 82
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tables/Charts
Chart 1: California Geographic Area p. 34
Table 1: Gender, age, years as a principal, years in present position,
type of school district, and average daily attendance (ADA) p. 42
Table 2: Perceived School Effectiveness p. 45
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics: Satisfaction, Stress and
Performance mean p. 47
Table 4: Intent to Leave Position in Near Future (1-3 years) p. 48
Table 5a: Mean and Std. Deviation for Age p. 49
Table 5b: Oneway ANOVA: Age p. 49
Table 5c: Mean and Std. Deviation for Gender p. 50
Table 5d: Oneway ANOVA: Gender p. 50
Table 5e: Mean and Std. Deviation for Position p. 50
Table 5f: Oneway ANOVA: Position p. 51
Table 5g: Mean and Std. Deviation for Student Enrollment (ADA) p. 51
Table 5h: Oneway ANOVA: Student Enrollment p. 51
Table 6a: Oneway ANOVA: Length of Years as a Principal p. 52
Table 6b: Mean and Std. Deviation for Length of Years as a Principal p. 52
Table 7a: Oneway ANOVA: Years in Present Position p. 53
Table 7b: Mean and Std. Deviation for Years in Present Position p. 53
Table 8: Pearson Correlations: Satisfaction p. 54
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9a:
Table 9b:
Table 10:
Group Statistics: Intent to Leave p. 55
t-test for Equality of Means: Intent to Leave p. 55
Pearson chi-square: Demographic Variables p. 56
VI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
This study investigated California school principal’s self-perceptions of their
school’s organizational effectiveness, job performance, and their level of
satisfaction and stress, as it relates to the job itself. One hundred, sixty-two
California school principals responded to the survey. This study also investigated
the relationship between seven school and principal characteristics and the
principal’s intention to leave their present position in the next 1-3 years, with job
satisfaction. Significant relationships between job satisfaction, school
effectiveness, stress and perceived performance were found. Two demographic
factors, length of years as a principal and years in current position related to
principal’s perceived job performance. As years in the position increased, so did
the level of one’s perceived performance. Results of this study showed no
relationship between job satisfaction, level of school’s effectiveness, stress and
perceived job performance with intention to leave in the near future. Overall, the
majority of the California school principals in this study regarded their schools as
effective, reported high levels of perceived job performance and are satisfied with
their positions as principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter I
Overview o f the Study
Introduction.
The environment of'the school principal has changed radically over the
past twenty years. The contemporary principal grapples 'with conflict, confronts
unrelenting stress, and must juggle a myriad o f external forces and expectations
(Drake & Roe, 1986).
The school principal is the educational leader and spokesperson for the
school. He or she is entrusted to manage and implement district policy, focusing
on a variety of tasks which include curriculum and instruction, finances,
personnel, student discipline, facilities, community relations, planning and goal
setting, and administrating supplies and equipment (Drake and Roe, 1986). It is
the principal who articulates the expected vision, and is the critical factor to
school effectiveness (Gunn and-Hoidaway, 1987; Fullan, 1993; Ryan and
Cooper, 1995; ERS, 199:8).
Nationally, there is palpable concern regarding the numbers and quality of
the pool of candidates seeking administrative positions (Timgley, 1996; Olsen,
2000). This shortage is a matter of concern for school districts like Capistrano
Unified in California, one of the fastest growing districts in tie state, who fear the
future of the principalship is in jeopardy (Lovely, 1999). Cindy Miner knows that
i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
firsthand. The superintendent o f the 17,000-student Sodus Central School
D istrict in upstate New York is currently doubling as a high school principal
(Olson, 2000).
The recruitment pool o f potential administrators is diminishing (Olson,
2000; Checkiey, 2000; Ferraodtno & Tirozzi, 2000). The top-ranked barriers
cited by administrators (ERS, 1998) at all three levels were salary and
compensation as not sufficient as compared to the job responsibilities (85%).
This was followed by “job too stressful (32%), and “Too much time required for
the job” (27%). ED CAL also reported in 1999, that principals were in short
supply, especially secondary school principals and administrators.
Not only are the educational demands Increasing, but the very nature of
school administration Is changing. Principals must do more than their
counterparts did 10-25 years ago, thus making the position less desirable. “In
the old days, you were OK and considered pretty successful If you were a good
manager and kept on top of all the little details/’ observed Babcock (2000), the
current president o f the national Association of Elementary School Principals
(NAESP). South Dakota school superintendent Furze (2000) agrees, “ Twenty
years ago, if you did a successful job of managing the system and keeping it
running smoothly and financially, sound, you were thought of as being successful
as an administrator” (p. 14).
Consequently, the search Is constant fo r qualified candidates. From
across the nation, school district superintendents prowl for strong principals. The
contemporary principal wrestles with considerably more adm inistrative tasks than
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
previously associated with operating a school. Principals also face higher
accountability and greater demands for providing quality educational programs.
In order to benefit their school to the greatest degree, administrators in
leadership positions must have a cogent definition of their role and also have a
clear understanding of how they can best function within that role.
Given the challenges of the Job: long hours, tough decisions to be made,
and heavy workload, such a position, by nature, results in a certain amount of
stress. Gmelch’s (1994) findings indicate that emotional exhaustion was the
central construct among 189 elementary and 278 secondary school principals
surveyed, which was most responsive to variables of job intensity (time, stress,
and conflict) and positively associated with job satisfaction and coping effectively.
Adams (1999) reports an alarming 48 percent of those who had earned
the California Preliminary Administrative service credential over the past five
years, indicated that their decision not to seek jobs as school administrators was
directly related to a greater satisfaction with their current roles (prim arily
classroom teachers and coordinators). They cited long hours, a contentious
political environment, stress, lade of support and inadequate compensation
relative to the responsibilities as reasons for feeing reluctant to seek
administrative positions.
According to Davis (1977), job satisfaction seems to be related to
absenteeism and turnover, and low job satisfaction appears to be one of the
surest signs o f deteriorating conditions in an organization. Even though early
studies (Vroonrt, 1984; faffaidano & Muchinsky, 1985; and Brief, 1998) indicated a
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
- correlation between satisfaction and performance was not very encouraging, if is
possible that a correlation may be found in this study because of perceived
performance measures.
The J o b of the school principal is one o f the most arduous undertakings in
America, yet crucial in implementing change and orchestrating positive-outcomes
for today’ s youth. ' “Principals today are tackling tough curriculum standards,
educating an increasingly diverse population, shouldering responsibilities that
once belonged at home and or in the community and then-feeing possible
termination if their schools don’t show instant results,” (Ferrandion & Terrozi,
2000). it is hardly surprising fewer candidates are willing to assume tie role of
principal. In order to remedy this problem, fee preparation for, and the job-
related environment of fee principal position must 'Change considerably in order
to make this position more palatable to candidates, and more tenable for those
already leading our schools.
Statement o f the Problem
The problem is the unknown relationship of personal job satisfaction, the
unknown effect of stress on California school principals, and their perceptions of
how educational stakeholders view their performance as fee school' principal.
Due to difficult and challenging times, the position of school administrator
appears to be less appealing to aspiring educators (Gmeich, 1994; Adams,
1999). The importance o f identifying correlates o f job satisfaction among
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C alifornia school principals becomes more critical as the number of candidates
fo r vacant position decreases.
The need to find good principals who can be visionary leaders, effective
instructional leaders and efficient managers is increasing as the ranks of current
adm inistrators decline tro u g h retirement and career ladder shifts. Additionally,
the pool of potential administrators is on the decline as teachers and other
educators find the challenge of adm inistration too great and the benefits to few
{Heller, eta!., 1993; Adams, 1999, Dietrich, 2000). As the Job expands in
complexity, school superintendents are dubious as to the source of the next
generation of building-level administrators (Olson, 2000).
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose o f this study is to determine what correlates influence
California school principals’ job satisfaction and determine which variables are
related to job satisfaction. W ith more emphasis on accountability and
achievement and toe changing role of the position, many school administrators
are spending more time on the job. Gruneberg (1996) states that most people
spend a large part o f their day at work, therefore, understanding the facets
related to job satisfaction is important to improving the well being of individual in
an important aspect of their every day lives.
Environmental variables that w ill be studied are the school’s organization
effectiveness and the role of the principal. Several demographic variables that
relate to toe role of the school principal w ill also be looked at. Demographic
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
variables indude age, gander, student enrollment, principal’s years of experience
as well as the principal's intent to leave the position in fie next three years.
Research Questions
The major questions posed by fie study will be answered in terms of the
findings to the following questions:
1. What demographic factors (gender, age, length o f years as a principal, years
in current position and student enrollment) add to or detract from the
California school principals’ job satisfaction and perceived performance?
2. is there a correlation between the school principals’ level of job satisfaction
and (a) school’s level of effectiveness; (b) job stress; and (c) perceived level
of job performance?
3. is there a correlation between the principals’ intent to leave and (a) job
satisfaction; (b) school’s level of effectiveness; (c) job stress;' and (c)
perceived job performance?
Delimitations
The following are possible delim itations to this study:
1. This study was delim ited to California public school principals of elementary,
union, and unified districts actively employed during the 2000-2001 school
year.
2. This study was delim ited to seven specific factors of school effectiveness, as
they are included in the Baker and Matakovich’s School Status Survey.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. This study was delimited to demographic factors of school enrollment, years
as a principal, age, and gender.
4. The primary interest of this study encompassed only three variables: school
effectiveness, job satisfaction, and perceived job performance.
5. Performance is operationalized as a perception. More objective measures of
performance {e.g.: test scores) were not included.
Lim itations
The limitations o f this study were as follows:
1. The information collected in fie surveys was based upon the'self-perceptions
of the. principals that answered fie surveys and may not be representative of
principals who did not answerthe survey.
2. Since the instrument designed by the author was expected to take ten
minutes, it is possible that some o f the variables may be measured w ifi too
few questions.
Im portance o f the Study
Job satisfaction has been used extensively as a research fool to identify
factors related to job recruitment, retention and productivity. Educational
Research has prim arily focused on the quality o f teaching and how the workplace
factors and school structures affect teaching, work and teacher effectiveness.
Minimal research on job satisfaction, recruitment, and retention has been
devoted to the school adm inistrator, it is for this purpose that the identification of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
variables related to Job satisfaction among school principals is important to
school districts looking for, and retaining quality leaders.
D efinitions of Key Terms
The following terms have precise meanings as related to this study:
Dem ographic: The statistical study of human population, especially
with reference to size and density, distribution, and
vital statistics.
Job Performance The proficiency with which people ’ perform activities
that are form ally recognized as part of their jobs.
Job S a tisfa ction : The 'fulfillm ent or gratification' o f one’s employment
position.
School District4Elementaiy: Provides elementary educational opportunities for
grades kindergarten through six/eight
School D is tric t O nion: Provides educational opportunities lim ited to grades
six/seven through twelve.
School D istrict- Unified: An institution for the instruction o f children grades
Kindergarten through grade twelve.
School P rincipal: The school leader. A critical force in determining
school climate, student and teacher attitudes and
instructional practices.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stress: Any event or situation that demands more o f an
individual’s physiological or psychological resources
than usual; or an individual’s response to such
situations.
Outline of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the study is organized into four chapters, references,
and'appendixes.
Chapter II reviews the related literature to job satisfaction and
performance, school effectiveness and the role of the principal, and what
California is doing to remedy the shortage of school principals.
Chapter 1 1 1 outlines the procedures followed in selecting the instrument,
and evaluation of the instrument, and a description of the method used to
analyze the data.
Chapter IV reports fie analysis and findings of the survey of California
school principals.
Chapter V presents a summary of the study, selected finding, conclusions,
and recommendations.
This study concludes with a lis t of references, and appendixes, which
includes the survey, used to collect data for the study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2
Review o f Related Literature
Job Satisfaction
Thirty years ago, the study o f job satisfaction was a relatively recent
phenomenon (Brief, 1998) . In 1969, Locke estimated the number of studies to
have exceeded four 'thousand. Since then, thousands of studies on job
satisfaction and the nature of work have been published. Arguably, the study of
job satisfaction may have begun with Elton Mayo’s'famous Hawthorne.study,
conducted in thel920’s, at the W estern Electric Company. Prior to this, Etfon
and others had only looked at the physical factors effecting productivity in
individuals. The Hawthorne study implied that satisfied workers increased
productivity (Brief, 1998).
According to Hoppock (1935 in Rinehart & Short, 1993) job satisfaction is
essentially any-combination o f psychological, physiological, and environment
circumstances fia t cause a person to say, S am satisfied with my job. Job
satisfaction has high correlation to levels o f intrinsic empowerment such as
organizational commitment and career outcomes.
Lawler (1973) feels that job satisfaction refers to individual’s affective
relations to their work role and is a function of the perceived relationship between
what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it is offering. Muchinsky
(1987) agrees with Lawler and defined job satisfaction as an emotional, affective
1 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
response. Affect referring to feelings of like or dislike. “Job satisfaction is the
extent to which a person derives pleasure from a job” (p. 398). These pleasures
are not limited to salary, but can indude such things the way-employees are
treated and valued by management, ahd the degree to which the company-takes
their input into consideration (Robbins, 1996).
Job satisfaction remains the most coiwnon topic studied relative to work
(Hopkins, 1983). “It has been treated as both independent and dependent
variables. As an independent variable, job satisfaction is seen as the cause of
other phenomena such as productivity and nmotivation. As the dependent
variable, job satisfaction is seen as being caused .by other conditions such as the
nature of the job and individual characteristics” (p. 18).
Job Satisfaction and Perform ance
Probably no other topic has generated more attention Ilia n the relationship
between satisfaction and performance. The reason seems .self-evident the
collective goal of an advanced society is to have employees happy with their jobs
as well as productive, in two separate reviews of the literature, Muchinsky
(1987) and. Brief'(1998)found evidence indicating that individual job satisfaction
generally is not significantly related to individual task performance. This
accepted view is a product'of several reviews o f fie satisfaction-performance
relationship, beginning with one by BrayfieJd and Crockett (1955), followed by
Vroom (1984) and laffaidano & Muchinsky, (1985) in which if was concluded that
the two variables were related minimally at best.
n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Vroom (1964, in Ei-Safy, 1985) determined that different factors cause
satisfaction and job performance. His view o f job satisfaction rain be closely
affected by the amount of rewards people derive from their jobs, while toe level of
performance can be closely affected by the attainment o f rewards. “Individuals
are satisfied with their jobs to the extent toeir jobs provide them with what they
desire, and they perform effectively so long as effective performance leads to the
attainment o f what they desire” (p. 108-109) .
iafiafdamo & Muebimsky’s (1985) meta-analysis of the relationship between
satisfaction and performance included an extensive summary of studies and
focused around satisfaction measurements and performance criterion. Strikingly,
the authors discovered tie same mean correlation as Vroom had 20 years prior
(e.g. .14).
Brief (1998) found that several explanations-have been offered for the
insignificant satisfaction-performance relationship. These included:
1. Measurement problems (i.e. supervisory ratings of task performance are
error laden).
2. Lack of true variability in the criterion variable (i.e.: workers are- not free to
- vary their behavior because of the restricted nature of organizational
control mechanisms.
3. Failure to match general measures o f job satisfaction with a
correspondingly aggregated measure of a large set of behaviors.
4. Rewards (intrinsic/extrinsic).
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fisher (1980 in Muchinsky, 1985) also failed to find consistent 'correlations
between satisfaction and performance. She pointed out that low satisfaction-
perfornmance correlation often emerged because researchers tried to relate a
general attitude (overall satisfaction) with a specific behavior (performance of
some task) . Fisher contends that researchers should use attitude measures that
are as specific as the performance measures. “W ithout such a fit, the two
variables w ill probably never correlate highly1 ’ (p. 431).
Muchinsky (1987) further reported controversy over the conundrum
whether satisfaction caused performance or performance caused satisfaction.
The-first view led to the belief that the way to have productive workers is to first
make them happy. “If paformance-causes-satisfocficm is correct, managers
should base rewards on past performance in the belief that this w ill reinforce
desired performance” (p. 429). However, Muchinsky believes the opposite view
is held today, and people derive pleasure from their work after discovering job
competency. His conclusion performance leads to satisfaction.
DisposUfoml Factors
Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris and Brymer (1999) examined the relationship
between job satisfaction and performance by investigating interactions with value'
attainment and affective disposition. Two hundred-seventy hotel managers
throughout the United States responded by completing self-reports after regularly
scheduled staff meetings. Information was gathered pertaining to performance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(specific measures of task activities), positive and negative affect (such as
distress, jittery, enthusiastic and nervous), value attainment (sense of
accomplishment, self-esteem inner harmony-and freedom from inner conflict),
and job satisfaction. Findings indicated that the strongest positive relationship
between job satisfaction and performance occurred when value attainment (e.g.
sense of accomplishment) was high and positive affect (e.g. enthusiasm) was
high and when value attainment -was high and negative affect was high (e.g.
distress). The combined effects of high value attainment and high dispositional
affects appeared to enhance the satisfection-performanoe relationship.
Judge, Locke, .Durham and’Kluger (1998) also studied dispositional effects
on job satisfaction in order to find a relationship between'job satisfaction and
performance. TTieir hypotheses focused on factors within the individual, removed
from the attributes, of the job, affect the degree of satisfaction experienced on the
job. In a previous study, Judge, Locke and Durham (1997) proposed the concept
of “core evaluations,” which refer to fundamental, subconscious conclusions
individuals reach about themselves, other people, and the world. According to
Judge, examples of'these premises are “ I am weak,” “Other people m il hurt me, “
and “The world is a dangerous place,” versus “i ran handle lie ’s exigencies,”
“Others bring me happiness,” and “L ie is an adventure” (p. 18). Judge proposed
that people who consider themselves to be unworthy or fundamentally
incompetent m il react quite differently, for example, to increased job
responsibility than those mho consider themselves to be good and competent.
External core evaluations differed from core evaluation variables in that they
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were the appraisals individuals made of their environment (e.g. most people are
good). Core evaluation variables of the self included:
1. Self-esteem'(appraisal people make of themselves) was measured using
items such as “ I fee that I am a person of worth1 5 , and “ At times 1 think that
S am no good at a lf.
2. Self-efficacy (one’s estimates of one’s capabilities to ..mobilize the
motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise
general control over one’s life) was''measured on an eight-item scale to
indicate their level of agreement with statements like," 1 am strong enough
to overcome life’s struggles.”
3 . Locus o f control (degree to which individuals believe that they control
events In their lives or believe that the environment or fate controls events)
was measured by .asking individuals to indicate the ir agreement with
statements regarding the extent to which they have control over their lives.
4, Neuroiidsm (negative role of self-esteem: insecure and tim id) was
measured fa y tie frequency with which they experienced feelings such as
irritability and worry .
Three different groups provided the data: 183 physicians, 158 college
graduates from the 'school of business at the University of Maryland, and seventy
Israeli students in the social 'science discipline. The authors concluded fia t self-
perception affects the enjoyment of employment and life. Those that consider
themselves worthy and able to cope with life ’s exigencies bring a “positive frame"
to the events and situations they encounter, whereas, people who do not see
themselves as worthy and able, bring a “negative frame" to the same situations.
1 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although early studies of jots satisfaction with performance assumed the
debatable premise that satisfaction affects work performance, Lucus, Babakus
and Ingram (1990) examined the moderating -effect.of Job performance in the
relationship between Job satisfaction and turnover. They found that despite the
quantity of research focused on Job turnover (Mobley, 1977; Martin & Hunt, 1980)
which linked job turnover to m ultiple variables including increased pay,
opportunity for promotion, job dissatisfaction, attitude, and their intentions of a
person to move or stay, fewer works have examined the role of job performance.
Their research included data from 213 store managers in three phases within an
eighteen-month time period. During this time, a total of 44 managers left the
company (19 involuntarily, 22 voluntarily, and 3 retired). The findings showed
that high performers, who tend to have greater ease o f movement, were more
likely to depart when the desirability of movement (job dissatisfaction) was high.
Average'performing managers were found to be the most “turnover-sensitive” for
satisfaction with the job itself, while top performers exhibited a significant
negative relationship between pay satisfaction and turnover.
The job satisfaction-performance literature tends to indicate that high job
satisfaction is related to increased morale, decreased absenteeism and turnover,
and improved employee relations (Samos, 1988; Davis in Johnson & Holdaway,
1991; Mobley, 1977; Martin & Hunt, 1980; Lucus, Babakus & Ingram, 1990).
Various organizational characteristics (such as size and location), as w ell as
personal attributes (such as sex and age), were also recognized as possible
influences on job satisfaction.
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EDUCATIONAL SETTING
Researchers frequently include Job satisfaction as one of the dimensions
of effective organizational performance. W hile some researchers continue to
pursue investigations as if increased satisfaction leads to improved'performance,
others deny the presumption of causality, and an interactive relationship also
seems to be defensible. Lawler and Porter (1978) asserted the presence o f a
low but consistent relationship between J o b satisfaction and effectiveness, but
admitted that such a connection is highly complex. They declared intrinsic
rewards (things that can only be enjoyed while at work) to a lesser extent, and
extrinsic rewards (things that people can take with them when they leave) as
intervening variables*.
Few studies'have examined the satisfaction^erformance relations in
education administration. However, research by Gunn and HoSdaway (1988)
established direct relationships between senior high school principal’s overall job
satisfaction and school effectiveness, as well as Hoidaway-and Johnson (1991)
who surveyed elementary school principals. Each of the principals surveyed
envisioned themselves particularly successful in four areas: (a) behaving in an
exemplary manner, (b) communicating effectively with teachers, parents and
staff, (c) making timely, appropriate and acceptable decisions, and (d)
establishing a suitable work atmosphere. Hofdaway and Johnson also found that
principals scored relatively low, in effectiveness when it came to interacting
outside the school, and responding to external expectations.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O stroff (1992) reported a significant correlation between performance
measures, and satisfaction and attitude measures from 352 secondary principals.
Results from previous research consistently showed little relationship, however,
O stroffs research focused on a different queslon-w befier the overall level of
satisfaction, the attitudes of employees, within organizations are related to
organization.performance. “Organizations with members who are highly
satisfied, committed, and adjusted and not highly stressed should have higher
levels o f organizational performance than organizations with members who are
less satisfied, committed, and more highly stressed” (p. 966).
The changing rote o f the prtocipafsfiip in the last ten years has had. an
extreme impact on school principals and their w ort. In a statewide study,
conducted by W illiam s and Fortin (1996), eighty-nine percent of the 840
Washington school principals surveyed felt increased levels of frustration and
dissatisfaction with their jobs. Sixty-four percent also fe lt less enthusiastic about
their work compared to five years before. The authors noted that these attitudes
did not reflect resistance to change or a perception that principals wished to
return to the good-old days, but welcomed the changes brought on by state and
local reforms. The decline in morale and enthusiasm stemmed from their inability
to carry out both their management and leadership functions effectively and
efficiently, and their preference to provide leadership. Many reflected that they
did not become principals to be managers. W hile fluey recognized that managing
the building is a necessity, they receive the greatest stastifaction out of their role
as instructional leaders. An EdSource survey (1997) also revealed that
. 1 8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C alifornia principals found themselves largely frustrated, daim ing the demands of
the job make it difficult for them to give instructional issues the attention they
deserve.
In an earlier study, Richardson (1992) found that seventy-five percent of
the 457 elementary and high school Chicago principals surveyed were
overwhelmed by the adm inistrative demands of their job. Forty percent said they
planned to leave their positions within five years, and 75 percent expected to quit
in 10 years or less. “Moral is down because of an incredible increase in work
with no corresponding equity in salary," claims Bemdt, the president of the
Chicago Principals’ Association. In addition, he said, “There are a whole bunch
o f new tasks being given to principals and yet they get no more help”. Status
recognition and task demands was aiso cited by Friesen (1984) as .contributing
factors of job satisfaction, in his study involving 410 principals in Alberta,
Canada.
S till another source of frustration is the seeming Jack of appreciation
principals feel fo r the contributions they make in the school (Lastiway, 2000;
Richardson, 1992; Williams and Fortin, 1996).
Positive attitudes towards the profession were associated with positive
outcomes o f work, as reported by Glen and M ite r (1092). After 200 elementary
and secondary principals in nine Georgia school districts completed the Carey
W ork Role inventory, they found that incongruent rote expectations were strongly
related to the degree o f job satisfaction. Findings indicated that they identified
strongly with the job definition o f instructional leader more than with that o f school
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
manager, but they differed in what they thought the work-rofe expectations
should be.
Delgado (2000) found that dispositional factors of self-esteem were the
best predicators of job satisfaction among 85 high school principals in Southern
California, Organizational effectiveness also acted as a factor in predicting job
satisfaction. Applying this to Judge’s (1998) research, organizational
effectiveness can be seen as a mediating factor between self-esteem and job
satisfaction, Increasing fie predictive value of self-esteem.
Even though many view the printcpaisfttp as difficult and demanding,
identifying problems such as insufficient compensation as compared to
responsibilities, tie excess of long hoars required for the job, stress, and the
authority given to do the job is many times not in balance with accountability for
the job done (Ferrandino, 2000, Gruneberg, 1979; Guy, 1992; Gross arid Furell,
1987), many school principals report that their job is rewarding and fulfilling
(Gross and Furell, 1987).
In a 1991 study of job satisfaction o f elementary school principals in
Alberta, Canada, Johnson and Holdaway (1991) asked the respondents to rate
their overall job satisfaction and satisfaction on an array o f job facets, using a
scale ranging to m 1 “highly dissatisfied” to 8 “highly satisfied” . M S but two
principals rated themselves as satisfied with toe job. Other job fa re ! findings with
highest mean satisfaction scores, on toe six-point scale, were the principal's
working relationships with teachers and students. Most other facets relating to
teachers and students also had mean scores o f 5.0 or higher. Many saw their
20
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
personal involvement, recognition and accomplishments as most satisfying. Low
scores were identified with effects of the J o b on the principal's personal life and
hours of work.
School E ffectiveness
Much o f the impetus for effective school research dates back thirty-five
years ago, when the Coleman Report was first published in 1968. W ritten daring
a particularly tumultuous time, with radical changes underfoot such as the
Vietnam W ar, the C ivil Rights movement, efe, Coleman’s report stated fia t
“ schools can and w ill continue to be only as effective as the larger society o f
which they are a part. Schools are a m irror image of society, and if schools are
to become better then society most get better as w ell” (Estabrook, 1992).
Sergiovanni (2000) broadly defines school effectiveness as “achieving
higher levels of pedagogical thoughtfulness, developing relationships
characterized by caring and civility, and recording increases in the quality of
student performance* ■ (p. 24).
Several studies have analyzed many of fie characteristics, which- make up
the effective school formula. William Bennett, former Secretary of Education
embraced a iis t o f factors, such as, strong adm inistrative leadership, high
expectations for students, emphasis on basic skills, and orderly environment,
frequent and systematic evaluation o f students, and increased time on task
(GoSler, 1992).
21
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Houlihan'<1988) reported three key ingredients to establishing effective
schools: (a) self-concept , • commonly referred to as school pride; (b) attitude,
fostering positive relationships: and .(c) performance and school climate.
Table 1
Effective School Research
YEAR AUTHOR VARIABLES
1979 Ron Edmonds Assertive principal leadership, high
expectations for students, emphasis on
basic skills, orderly-work-oriented
environment, ongoing monitoring of student
achievement, satisfied teachers and
parental support.
1983 Purkey and Smith Strong instructional leadership, high teacher
morale, effective staff development, planned
and purposeful curriculum, clear goals, order
and discipline, and a sense of community.
1987 Lawrence Stedjnan Shared governance, academically rich
programs, student responsibility, supportive
school environment, assessment guides
instruction, and parent participation.
1992 Coyle and Witcher Strong leadership role, effective teachers
and instructional strategies, culture that
emphasizes achievement, high expectations
for students, clear goals and mission, and
positive relations with parents.
In a review of toe literature listed in Table 1, (Zigarelii ,1996; Fredericks
and Brown, 1993) a general consistency and pattern of six ‘effective’ variables
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were found: (a) employment of qualify teachers, (b) teacher participation and
satisfaction, (c) principal involvement and leadership, (d) a cultural of academic
achievement, (e) orderly environment, and (f) high parental involvement
Successful schools also have commitment at the district level. The role of the
central office perceived to best supports an effective school is fia t of facilitator,
leaving important decisions affecting individual schools to the principals (Libler,
1992; Coyle & Witcher in Zigarelii, 1996).
Years of effective school research support the premise that a number of
variables can directly influence the academic achievement of students. Duelo
the non-comparability of schools, the variables will be different for each school.
However, a review of various effective school research (ERS, 1985; Ogden and
Germwnario, 1994; Oison, 2006; Towers, 1992) found that among the many
elements common to effective schools is one of strong leadership.
The Role o f the Principal
The exact duties of a principal defy a simple list. Research in recent years
has turned up a few surprises often clashing with a number of descriptions of the
job. However, one thing is definite: The princtpafsfiip has changed drastically
over the years, and principals do not resemble their predecessors. (Drake and
Roe, 1986; Blackman and Fenwick, 2000; iEL, 2000; Checfdey, 2000, Olsen,
2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Development o f the Principaiship
The origins of the principaiship offer insight into the rote evolution. In the
19th century, when public schools established their presence in America,
principals were actually “principal-teachers” or “lead teachers”, working out of the
classroom part-time Most of the administration was governed’ by the school
boards, until schools expanded . H ie responsibility then shifted from the School
boards to principals, whose teaching duties were all but phased out
(Goldman, 1968; McCmjdy, 1983). There was not an earnest attempt to
emphasize the principaiship as a paramount position in education until the
1920’s.
Roles and Responsibilities
The priocipaS’s primary task is to provide educational leadership in order to
improve teaming (Drake and Roe, 1985; Adams, 1999; CSLA, 2001). Even
though the pnnapaS’s Job has changed drastically over the years, becoming more
complex and demanding, principals themselves say it can be handled effectively
(McCrudy, 1983; Nomura, 1999; Doud and Keller, 1998).
According to fie data reported in the 1998 study conducted by the
National Association of Elementary School Principals {Doud and Keller, 1998)
and Blackman and Firrwick’s study (2000), the typical school principal is a 50-
year-old white male who has been a principal for 11 years, and plans to retire at
57. The average workday is 10 hours and the yearly earnings for a school
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
smaller than 500 students was noted-as $80,285. The typical principal spends
most of his time in three areas: contacting and supervising staff, interacting with
students, and disciplining staff and students.
In analyzing tie role of the principal, Drake and Roe (1986) divided the ■
task into two-broad categories: the administrative-managerial emphasis.and the
educational leadership emphasis. The administrative-managerial emphasis
includes such duties as: maintaining adequate school records, preparing reports,
budget development and control, personnel administration, student discipline,
scheduling, and overseeing supplies, equipment and facilities. The educational
and instructional emphasis includes: working with students and staff in
establishing clear-cut goals for the school, helping to instill a positive school
climate, knowledgeable about community -services and resources that may
reinforce and -extend the student’s academic program, evaluating staff,
encouraging professional development, and stimulating staff to maximum
performance in instruction and classroom management
Although most administrators acknowledge a required focus on
instructional leadership, they also emphasize that this is only one aspect of a
very multifaceted position, “'Being an instructional leader is something we all
want to do, but we’re also the plant manager and the.social -service director,*5
said Peter Sack, the principal of Swampscott (Mass.) High School (Olson, 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School Effectiveness and the Role of the Principal
■ I t is hardly novel that good schools require competent and strong leaders.
In the 1980’s Ron Edmonds noted that effective schools tended to have effective
principals. And in the 1980’s, Madeline Hunter traveled around the country
urging principals to be strong Instructional leaders’ who could coach fie ir
teachers on more effective practices (Olson, 2000; Bliss, 1991). Other
researchers also conclude that the principal is critical to the effectiveness of the
school (Houlihan, 1988; Taylor, 1986: McGrudy, 1983; Pigford, 1995; Lewis,
1995; Hallinger, 1996; IEL, 2000; Findley & Findley, 1998; Lezotte & Jacoby,
1990; ERS, 1998; Crew, 2001; Sagor, 2001).
Given this assumption that principals are key figures in their schools, the
next step is to identify the effective actions of successful principals. Principals
alone do not possess magic, Faustian powers to create good schools, but they
are the ^critical agents” who can act as a catalyst for accomplishment
(McCurdy, 1983).
Effective principals seem to be active in creating a school climate that is
purposeful and focused on learning. Successful principals are educationally
savvy, innovative and Interested in using and applying research to improve the
school They are skilled at gaining teachers’ confidence and dearly
communicate to the faculty a vision of desired school accomplishments, taking
decisive steps to bring about a more effective learning environment. As Michael
Fifilart recognizes in his book, Change Forces, effective administrators are
designers of change. They mentor, coach and help employees to Seam during
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
periods of exploration and self-discovery. (Gunn & Holdaway, 1986; Fuilan, 1993;
Ryan & Cooper, 1995; ERS, 1998; Olson, 2000).
One of the most important ways in which principal’s influence schools is
through their relationship with the staff. Research shows that the administrative
behavior of principals directly affects teacher and student morale (Whaley, 1994,
Vezzuto,. 2000). Masiow’ s hierarchy of needs is often mentioned in an effort to
draw conclusions about tie variety of ways individuals find personal satisfaction
in' their fives. ■ Certain basic needs must be met before other needs can be
satisfied. In additions to satisfying personal needs, Job satisfaction in the role of
the principal depends, in part on recognizing and dealing with the needs of
others. Aware of this, effective principals embrace continuous improvement by
establishing effective work relationships with the staff (McCurdy, 1983; Ellis,
1995; Hart, Taylor, 1986; 'Chance, 1996; Findley and Findley, 1992).
Offering rewards, resources, and personal interaction with teachers was
also found to be characteristics of effective principals (McCrudy, 1983; Bolman
and Deal, 1995). in their book, Leading with Soui, Bolman and Deal outline the
importance of looking toward the spirit and soul for effective leadership, “hope,
hear and faith, rooted in soul and spirit, are necessary for today’s managers to
become tomorrow’s leaders” (p. 12).
Schmoker (1999) feels that one key to effective leadership is being able to
celebrate, recognize, reinforce and reward those around you. “Administration at
every level can be more effective if they use concrete strategies to celebrate and
recognize goal-oriented effort and achievement” (p. 112). In 1994, the NASSP
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Assessment and Development Center also found that when teachers believe
their principals place high priority on rewards for job performance, they are more
satisfied with their job (Whaley, 1994).
In a review of the literature by Houlihan (1988) and MeCrudy (1983),
several types of common behaviors were found in the majority of those studies.
These types of behavior do not guarantee automatic success, but do provide at
least a glimpse of what research considers being an effective principal. They are
as follow®:
1. Demonstration a commitment to academic goals by having a vision of long
term goals related to achievement.
2. Creating a climate of high expectations for all students, as well as respect
3. Function as an instructional leader as well as a managerial leader.
4. Being a dynamic and energetic leader.
5. Consulting effectively with others and being visible.
8. Creating order and discipline where the structure of order is firm, fair and
consistent.
7. Fostering good will; acknowledge the time, talent, and treasures of the staff
8. Using time wisely to benefit the participants of the school.
9. Evaluating results with frequency and feedback.
Without a doubt, some principals outperform their counterparts. According to
Pankake and Burnett (1990), levels of effectiveness, efficiency, and excellence
operate as interrelated factors within the school’s social system. The truly
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effective elementary principal facets both efficiency and effectiveness into
identifying, prioritizing, and measuring a schools accomplishments.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERS
The need for stability and interest in job satisfaction and performance has
also been a concern in the field of education (Barchrach & Mitchell, 1983;
Renefiler, 1992; Kelly, 1997, Sagor, 2000). For instance, the need to find
administrators that can be visionary leaders, productive managers, and effective
instructional leaders is becoming greater, due to the increasing shallow pool of
qualified leaders that has grown in recent years (Richard, 1999; Kelly 1997;
Cuban, 1998; Tingfey, 1996; Kowalski, 1995; Matt, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2000).
In the past decade, the push to raise academic standards and
achievement has placed extraordinary demands on principals. Salaries paid to
principals do not necessarily equal the time and energy spent on the Job, S ack of
adequate support, the constant threat of legal actions, board politics, and many
tasks that fall under the principal’s job description are deterring people from
entering the profession. Increased school violence, increasing ethnic and
linguistic diversity of the student population and school communities, widespread
premises that there are proven practices to universal excellence, and the press
for privatization are additional factors cited (Fenwick & Blackman, 2000; Sagor,
2000; Alvarez, 2000; Richardson '’999; Olson, 2001; Tirozzi, 2001).
Over the next T O years, 2.2 million new teachers will be needed, more
students from diverse backgrounds will be added to the nation’s school system,
29
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and additional administrative positions will be created as the systems grow
(Tirozzi, 2001). S n a report presented by the institute for Educational Leadership
(2000), the United States is not prepared to meet the rising demand for principals
who will have to provide a level of leadership for student learning greater than
ever before.
Currently, few credentialed individuals are adequately prepared for the
role of the school leader. And equally troubling, those few educators who are
qualified have the desire to be principals (Kennedy, 2000; Lumsden, 1992;
Hopkins, 2000; Gmelch, 1994). A review of the literature indicates that the
problem is just as much quality as it is quantity (NAESP, 1998),
After interviewing principals at the Principal’s Leadership Summit in
Washington, D.C., Kennedy (2000) identified five reasons why relatively few
people are seeking to become principals: (a) the changing demands of the job;
including increased accountability, responsibility for raining students to high
standards without adequate support, legal and special education issues, etc.; (b)
salary; (c) time; (d) lack of parent and community support and negativity of the
media and the public toward public schools; and (e) lack of respect.
Diugosh (1994) collected data from 812 Nebraska administrators to
determine what conditions or circumstances encouraged school administrators to
move. He found that school administrators moved for a variety of reasons, but
primarily for professional advancement and higher pay. Additional data yielded
insight about the reality of school politics as an influence in administrative
movement and about personal considerations for moving (e.g.; geographic
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
preference, stress, working conditions or climate, school board relations, and
family considerations). Almost 7% of the people who completed the survey
included a note or letter about a stressful working condition or some type of
crises that had inhibited their effectiveness. Comments ranged from poor board
relations or community relations, to burnout, stress or mental or physical health
reasons. The most alarming finding from the study was the number of
administrators who listed retirement as their five-year career goal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 1 1 1
Methodology
Introduction
Attracting and retaining quality school administrators is critical to the
success and effectiveness of our public schools. Without strong leaders at the
helm, larger efforts to improve student achievement will likely falter. As noted in
chapter two, to attract quality leaders, we must identify and address variables
that influence decisions educators make about entering, choosing to stay, or
leave the profession. Identification of these factors can lead to possible
recommendations that would be useful in training programs and retention of
persons in these positions.
This study attempts to identify school principals’ overall satisfaction with
the profession and to find out if there is a difference in job satisfaction among
administrators that is related to the environmental context in which they work,
such as the organizational effectiveness, and the perceived perception of their
performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Five research questions addressed this purpose:
1. What is the level of job satisfaction, job stress and perceived job
performance of California school principals?
2. What percentage of California principals intend to leave their position
In the near future {1-3 years)?
3. What demographic factors {gender, age, length of years as a principal,
student enrollment, and years in current position) add to or detract
from the California school principals’ job satisfaction, and perceived
performance?
4. Is there a correlation between the principals’ level of job satisfaction
and (a) the school’s level of effectiveness, (b) job stress, (c) and the
principals’ perceived level of job performance?
5. is there a correlation between the principals’ intent to leave and (a) job
satisfaction, (b) school’s level of effectiveness, (c) job stress, and (d)
perceived job performance?
The research methods used for this study were quantitative in nature.
Surveys provided data for an analysis of the principal and his/her perceptions in
areas related job satisfaction and stress, performance, and the school’s
organization.
Sample Population
The study focused on California Public School Principals who were
randomly selected from the California Public School Administrators’ Business
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Directory, 1999-2000. The directory is coded in 4 geographic areas of California:
Northeast, Northwest, Southeast and Southwest.
The subject pool consisted of two hundred-fifty (250) California school
principals, randomly selected from eighty-four California elementary, union and
unified school districts across the state of California. Figure 1 was developed to
show the geographic areas of the subject pool. Ninety (90) surveys were mailed
to elementary school principals, and fifty-eight (58) were returned. Eighty (80)
surveys were mailed to middle school principals, and forty-six (46) were returned.
Eighty (80) surveys were also mailed to high school principals across the state of
California, and fifty-eight (58) were returned. A total of one hundred, sixty-two
(162) principals returned the survey and were identified as the sample
population. '
Chart 1
California Geographic Area Chart
Geographic Area Number Sampled
Northwest 8 Counties
Northeast 12 Counties
Southwest 8 Counties
Southeast 10 Counties
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instrumentation
To collect data for analysis, a three-part survey (Appendix A) was
developed that included questions or statements related to several variables.
The questions were designed to learn more about job satisfaction and the school
principaiship. Since job satisfaction has been related to job retention and
productivity, the questions were designed for principals to evaluate their
perceptions in areas related to the school 'organization.
The first part of the survey requested data regarding the principal and
school demographics. Gender, age, years of experience and type of position held
by the principal were asked to determine if there was a correlation between these
variables and job satisfaction. Principals were also asked about the size of their
school, and their intention to leave their present position in the next three years.
Part 1 1 of the survey contained a five-point like rf measurement scale that
included statements of attitudes, feelings and opinions about work-related
matters. Principals were asked to mark the responses that best described their
feelings about each of the statements, starting with “strongly disagree (coded 1),
disagree (coded 2), not sure (coded 3), agree (coded 4), and strongly agree
(coded 5 }” The Likert Scale (pioneered by Rensis Likerf in 1932), uses a series
of items using an agree/disagree rating scale to determine which items have the
highest correlation with the construct that the items are intended to measure.
Part II of the survey also required responses to both positive and negative
statements in order to minimize the potential for a response set (Gall et.al.,
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1996). Examples of this strategy are “/ gain great satisfaction from the
contributions that / make as a principal” and “/ don’t think my work is valued.”
The third and final part of the survey asked the participants to respond to
performance questions as to how they perceive stakeholders in the field of
education would rate their effectiveness as a principal. The Superintendent,
teachers and parents were listed as stakeholders. Using a five-point Lskert scale,
principals were asked to mark their effectiveness as a principal, starting with
“excellent (coded E), good (coded G% average (coded A), poor (coded P) or
inadequate (coded I).” Responses were recoded for SPSS on a 1-5 scale
respectfully, with S o w numbers indicating a high amount of effectiveness.
School Effectiveness
The effective school correlates- vision, leadership and culture; curricular
paths; powerful teaching and learning; assessment and accountability; support
for student personal and academic growth; and educational challenges were
used as control functions. The survey items were based on the instrument
developed by Baker and Matakovich (1999) and was used to measure
perceptions of the ‘overall effectiveness of the principals’ school. The scale
consisted of 7 statements such as, “The entire school community actively
supports the school in achieving its vision and goals, “ and “ Students receive
instruction which is based in current research and exemplary practice”. A Likert
response format was used (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, and
strongly agree) to which points of 1,2,3,4 or 5 were assigned, respectively.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The items in the School Status Survey: Experimental Form 997 were
an outgrowth of a doctoral dissertation by Matakovich (1999) in which the original
72-item questionnaire, aligned with the State of California’s contemporary
educational views of six substantive areas of school quality, was administrated to
teachers and support staff in two 9-12th grade high schools to effect school
reforms and educational improvements. The survey was intended to measure
school principal’s perceptions of the criterion categories of the California
Distinguished Schools Scoring Rubric Criterion and the Western Association of
Secondary Schools and Colleges standards. Statements from the School Status
Survey were used in this study to determine if a relationship exists between the
school’s organization and Job satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction
Survey statements related to job satisfaction in this study were
constructed by this researcher, Deanna Brady, to assess principals’ attitudes and
intrinsic motivation involving the satisfaction of the position. Job satisfaction
refers to individuals’ affective relations to their work role and is a function of the
perceived relationship between what one wants from one’ job and what one
perceives it is offering (Davis & Wilson, 2000). An instrument was constructed
by the researcher, Deanna Brady, to measure general job satisfaction and levels
of stress that might determine the probability of choosing to leave or remaining in
the profession. Michael and Crowder (1999) who conducted studies on overali
job satisfaction and stress influenced the original item pool. The instrument
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consisted of four items presented in a Likert scale format in which principals
selected a number “1=-strongtydisagree”to “ 5=strongly agree” and include
statements such as, 7 gain great satisfaction from the contributions that f make
as a principal.” school’s level of effectiveness. Using item total correlation, the
scale was trimmed to three items, reporting a final coefficient, alpha reliability of
.66.
Stress
Job stress is an important factor in intrinsic motivation. Four questions
were developed around the second construct: job stress. Job stress portrays the
degree to which a principal can cope with conflict situations, as in trying to meet
the expectations of stakeholders or in failing to meet one’s own expectations of a
job well done. Stress created by conflict situations is linked to low self-efficacy,
which leads to low professional self-esteem (Davis & Wilson, 2000).
The instrument consisted of four items present in a five-point Likert scale
in which principals selected a number from “ 1 =strongiy disagree, ” to “5-strongiy
agree.” An example of a stress related statement is,” / become anxious, nervous
or upset when stakeholders disagree with my decisions. ” Using item total
correlation, the scale was trimmed to two items, reporting a final coefficient,
alpha reliability of .49.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Performance
Principals surveyed responded to five performance questions. Three
questions were related to how others (i.e.: the superintendent, teachers, and
parents) would rate their overall effectiveness as a principal. A fourth question
asked principals how they would rate themselves. A graded response format
was used and coded 1-5 with high numbers indicating excellence (i.e., E =
excellent, G = good, A = average, P = poor and I = inadequate). The last item
(understanding the political dynamics) was not included as part of the overall
performance scale, but will be discussed later in the next section on “one-item
scales”. The coefficient alpha reliability of the four item perceived performance
assessment is reported as .72.
Data Collection
An invitation to participate in the study (Appendix B), along with a one-
page survey was mailed to 250 California school principals. Principals were
asked to respond to the questions and statements on the survey and return the
survey in the self-addressed, stamped envelope that was provided.
A general explanation about the study along with directions for completing
the survey was provided. Assurances were made that all surveyed information
would be confidential and would not be identifiable to any particular subject in the
sample population as well as an advanced “thank you” for their time and
participation. .
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Surveys were mailed out the week of November 20, 2000. Principals
wishing to participate used the self-addressed, stamped envelope to mail the
completed questionnaire to the researcher during the month of December 2000.
Alter receiving one hundred, sixty-two (162) completed surveys, the data was
then converted to SPSS format for analysis.
Data Analysis
Bivariate statistical analysis (r.e.; t-test, oneway ANOVA, and correlation)
was used to examine the covariations between selected pairs of variables. For
example, correlation was used to test the relationship of satisfaction and
perceived performance. The findings and analysis are presented in the next
chapter of this paper. -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter IV
Results and Discussion
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine what correlates potentially
influence California school principal’s job satisfaction. The survey instrument
used was designed to assess principal’s self-perceptions of their schools’
organizational effectiveness, job performance, and their level of satisfaction and
stress, as it relates to the job itself. Questions were also included that asked for
school and principal characteristics, and the principals’ intention to leave their
present position in the next 1 -3 years.
This chapter describes the research findings of the study, focusing on the
survey responses which provided data yielding a demographic description of the
sample population and their responses to school effectiveness, job satisfaction,
job stress and perceived job performance, followed by a statistical analysis of the
data related to the research questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Descriptive Analysis
Sample Population
The sample population consists of one hundred, sixty-two (162) California
school principals representing 58 elementary schools, 46 middle schools, and 58
high schools. The demographic responses from the sample are reflected in the
data collected and presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Gender, age, years as a principal, years in present position, type of school
district, and average daily attendance (ADA).
Male
Female
Gender
84
78
162"
51.9%
48.1 %
100 %
Age
27-33 ■ 1 .6 %
34-40 14 8.6%
41-47 30 18.5 %
48 + 117 72.2 %
162 100%
Length- of Years as a Principal
2 or less 33 20.4 %
3-7 48 29.6 %
8-11 30 18.5%
12-15 28 17.3%
16 + 23 14.2 %
162 100 %
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Years in Present Position
2 or less
3-7
8-11
12-15
16 +
as
60
13
13
8
162
42%
37%
- a %•
8%
5%
100 %
District
Elementary 41 25.3 %
Union 28 17.3%
Unified 93 57.4 %
162 100%
ADA
/ 125-667 54 33.3 %
671-1100 59 36.4 %
1147-4500 49 30.3 %
162 100%
Principal’s gender was distributed fairly evenly across the two categories.
The majority of the participants in this study were male (52%), and 48 percent
were female. Age groupings for the sample indicate 27.8 percent of the
principals are under the age of 48, with the majority of principals age 48 and over
(72.2%). Since the typical school principal is a 50-year-old male (Blackman and
Finwick, 2000), these two . samplings are representative of national findings.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thirty-three of the participants were fairly new in their role as a principal,
having only served two years or less. Twenty-eight had 12-15 years of
experience as a school leader, and twenty-three of the participants had sixteen
or more years of experience. The largest sampling of principals, 48, was located
in the 4-7 year category.
The findings from the data show the majority of principals surveyed have
been in their current position seven years or less (77%), then drastically dropping
to 8 percent for 8-11 years, and 8 percent for 12-15 years. The smallest sample
of principals, 4.9 percent (n=8), have been at the same school for 18 or more
years. These findings are representative of what is happening at Anaheim City,
where principals are put on a rotation schedule, moving to a new school site
every 5-7 years.
Data describing the type of school district for which the principal works
included 41 elementary school districts, 28 union high school districts, and 93
unified (K-12) school districts. One hundred and eight principals have schools
with an average daily attendance between 871-4500 students. Fifty-four
principals have schools with 667 students or less.
School Effectiveness
Effective school leaders have a strong and clear commitment to
academic achievement as evidenced by rigorous academic work, teachers’
personal concern for student success, when the curriculum is focused, and
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assessment is authentic and linked to standards of achievement (Sergiovanni,
2000).
School characteristic measures were taken from Baker and Matokovich
(1998) School Status Survey: Experimental Form 997, The effective school
characteristics included seven items dealing with (a) the school’s vision and
. goals; (h) leadership and culture; (c) curriculum; (d) powerful teaching and
learning; and (e) accountability and assessment. A 5-point scale ranging from
strongly disagree (1), to strongly agree (5), was used. The reliability analysis for
the six-item composite indicates a mean scale score of 4.00 with an alpha
reliability coefficient of .73. Table 2 gives a descriptive analysis for school
effectiveness.
Table 2
Perceived School Effectiveness
N Mean Std.
Deviation
i.The entire school community actively supports the
school in achieving its vision and goals
182 3.8333 .9666
2.Teachers make decisions about all aspects of the
school’s operations including the teaching and
learning process
162 3.8333 .9668
3. Students receive instruction which is based on
current research and exemplary practice
162 3.9506 .7706
4. Students are expected to be responsible and
productive and to hold high expectations for
themselves
162 4.3765 ,7478
5.A wide range of procedures for assessing student
learning outcomes is clearly described and
accompanied by well-defined performance standards
162 3.7901 1.0362
7. A high-level, core curriculum is provided to all
students
162 4.2222 .7881
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Level o f Job Satisfaction and! S tress
In California, the school leader juggles a myriad of responsibilities. The
principal must set high academic standards, yet may have teachers 'w ith '
inadequate preparation. The principal must build good school-community
relations, yet must deal with parents who have different beliefs. The principal
must satisfy state mandates and district regulations, even if they disagree with
the policy makers. This discrepancy makes the jo b of the school principal highly
complex.
Given these challenges, the principals in this study reported their feelings
and opinions about their level of satisfaction and stress in relation to work related
matters. A Likert scale was used and respondents reported on a scale of one to
five, with 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3~ not sure, 4= agree, 5 being the
most positive and strongly agreeing. The majority of principals, 90.8 percent,
indicate they are very often or always satisfied with their role as a principal and
the contributions they make at work. Eighty-eight percent (88%) indicated they
are optimistic and enthusiastic about their work as a principal, and 67.8%
indicate they do not worry about how they are performing as a principal. The
mean satisfaction score for this scale is 4.17 (Table 3), with an alpha reliability
coefficient of .67.
The same 5-point Likert scale was used to measure the level of stress
experienced by those surveyed, in relationship to the job. The findings report
twenty-seven principals (16.6%) become anxious, nervous or upset when a
stakeholder disagrees with their decision-making, but 70.4 percent of those
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
surveyed do not. A higher percentage of principals (27.1%), experience a lack
of concentration and appetite, and lose sleep worrying about things that happen
at work, while 66 percent do not. The mean stress score for this scale is 3.69
(Table 3) and has an alpha reliability coefficient of .50.
In 1998, more than 400 California school principals responded to an
EdSource survey about their level of satisfaction. Even though many were
struggling to keep up with the demands of the Job, their findings were similar to
the findings in this study. The majority of principals accept the stresses of the job
and remain enthusiastic about their work.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics: Satisfaction, Stress and Performance Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation
Satisfaction 162 4.1728 .6973
Stress 162 3.6914 .9574
Performance 162 1.6559 .4621
Level of Performance
Principals were asked to assess their administrative performance by
responding to a four-item scale. Principals were asked to rate their effectiveness
as a principal, as well as how others would rate them-superintendent, teachers,
and parents. A large majority of principals gave themselves an “excellent” rating
from the superintendent (53.1%), followed by parents (44.4%), then teachers
(43.2%). In rating themselves, only 44 principals (27.2%) gave themselves an
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
excellent rating. The majority (64.2%) rated themselves as “good”, The
cumulative mean was 1.66 (Table 3), with an alpha reliability coefficient of .72.
The average rating of 1.65 falls midway between “excellent” and “good”.
intent to Leave
Regarding plans to leave their present position within the next 1-3 years,
37 percent stated their intention to leave, and 63 percent answered ‘W (Table
4). These findings are similar to findings in Chicago, where Richardson (1992)
found 40 percent of 457 elementary and secondary principals surveyed planned
to leave their positions within 5 years or less.
Table 4
Intent to Leave Position in Near Future (1-3 years)
Frequency Percent
Yes 60 37%
No 102 63%
P olitical Dynamics: One Item Scale
Overall, principals perceived themselves as haying an “excellent” (56.2%)
or “good” (35.2%) understanding of the political dynamics required of the job.
Thirteen of the 162 principals rated themselves as having an “average”
understanding, and one principal had a “poor” rating.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Statistical Analysis
There was no significant relationship between the demographic factors
(gender, age, position, or student enrollment) with satisfaction and perceived job
performance (Table 5 a-h). The relationship between length of years as a
principal (Table 8a) were significant for performance (P =.008), but not significant
for satisfaction (P =.119). The length of years in the principals present position
(Table 7a) was also found to be significant for performance (P = .028), but not for
satisfaction (P =.092).
Table 5a
Heart and Std. Deviation for .Age
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
SATISFY 1.00 40 or under 15 4.0222 .7179 .1854
Satisfaction
2.00 41-47 30 4.2667 .6027 .1100
3.00 48 & over 117 4.1881 .7187 6.644E-Q2
Total 162 4.1728 .6973 5.478E-02
PERFORM 1.00 40 or under 15 1.8167 .4768 .1231
Performance
. 2.00 41-47 30 1.7417 .4890 8.928E-02
3.00 48 & over 117 1.6132 .4495 4.15SE-02
Total 162 1.6559 .4621 3.63DE-Q2
Table 5b
Oneway ANO¥A: Age
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
SATISFY Between Groups
Satisfaction score
.607 2 .304 .6 2 1 .539
PERFORM Between Groups
Performance score
.821. 2 .411 1.946 .146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5c
Mean and Std. Deviation for Gender
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
SATISFY 100 Male
Satisfaction score
84 4.2103 .7166 7.818E-02
2.00 Female 78 4.1325 .6781 7.678E-02
Total 162 4.1728 .6973 5.478E-02
PERFORM
Performance
score
1.00 Mate 84 1:6518 .4162 4.541 £-02
2.00 Female 78 1.6603 .5096 5.770E-G2
Total 162 16559 .4621 3.630E-02
Table 5d
Oneway AMOVA: Gender
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Stg.
SATISFY Between Groups .245
Satisfaction score
1 .245 .502 .479
PERFORM Between Groups .003
Performance score
1 .003 .014 .§08
T a b le 5e
Mean and Sid, Deviation for Position
N Mean Std. Std. Error
Deviation
SATISFY 1.00 Elementary 58 4.1264 .6603 8.670E-02
Satisfaction score school
2.00 Middle .school 46 4.1957 .6308 9.301 E-02
3.00 High school 58 4.2011 .7872 .1034
Total 1 -6 2 4.1728 .6973 5.478E-02
PERFORM 1.00 Elementary 58 1.7155 .5032 6.607E-02
Performance scoreschool
2.-00 Middle school 46 1.5707 .4071 8.0G2E-O2
3.00 High school 58 16638 .4578 6.011 E-02
Total 162 16559 .4621 3.630E-02
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5f
Oneway AMOVA: Position
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
. . SATISFY Between Groups
Satisfaction score
.195 2 .098 .199 .820
PERFORM Between Groups
Performance score
544.
2 .272 1.278 .281
Table 5a
Mean and Std. Deviation for Student Enrollment (ADA)
N Mean Std. Std. Error
Deviation
SATISFY 1.00 125IG687 54 4.1914 .6932 9.433E-02
Satisfaction score
2.00 871 to 1100 59 4.0847 .7313 9.521 E-02
3.00 1147 or over 49 4.2585 .6606 9.437E-02
Total 162 4.1728 .8973 5.478E-02
PERFORM 1.00 125 to 687 54 1.6991 .5217 7.099E-G2
Performance
score
2.00 871 to 1100 59 1.6314 .4289 5.584E-02
3.00 1147 or over . 49 1.8378 .4382 8.231E-02
Total 162 1,6559 .4621 3.830E-02
Table 5h
Oneway ANOVA: Student Enrollment
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
SATISFY Between Groups .838 2 .418 .858 .426
Satisfaction score
PERFORM Between Groups .152 2 .076 .354 .703
Performance score
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8a
Oneway ANOVA: Length- of Years as a Principal
' Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
. SATISFY Between Groups 3.551 4 ,888 1.865 .119
Sdt'sfaction score
Within Groups 74.720 157 .476'
Total 78,272 161-
PERFORM Between Groups 2.850 4 .712 3.548 .008*
Performance score
Within Groups 31.527 157 .201
Table 6 b
Mean and Std. Deviation for Length of Years as a Principal
SATISFY
Satisfaction score
PERFORM
Performance score
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
1.00 2 yrs or less 33 3.9394 .7658 .1333
2.00 4-7 years 48 4.1181 .7733 .1116
3.00 8-11 years 30 4.3667 .5764 .1052
4.00 12-15 years 28 4.2976 .5393 .1018
5.00 16+ years 23 4.2174 .6861 .1431
Total 162 4.1728 .8973 5.478E-02
1.00 2 y rs or less 33 1.8788 .4380 ■7.625E-Q2
2.00 4-7 years 48 1.6667 .5009 7.230E-02
3.00 8-11 years 30 1.5583 .4288 7.831 E-02
4.00 12-15 years 28 1.6429 .4163 7.867E-G2
5.00 16+ years 23 1.4565 .4035 8.413E-02
Total 162 1.6559 .4621 3.630E-02
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7a
Oneway ANOVA: Years in Present Position
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
SATISFY Between Groups 2.310 2 1.155 2.418 .092
Satisfaction score
Within Groups 75.961 15S .478
Total 78.272 161
PERFORM Between Groups 1.512 2 .756 3.658 .028
Performance score
Within Groups 32.865 159 .207
Total 34.377 161
Table 7b
Mean and Std. Deviation for Years in Present Position
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. trro r
SATISFY 1.00 2 yrs or 68 4.0931. .7593 9.2G8E-02
Satisfaction less
score
2.00 4-7 years 60 4.1333 .6700 8.650E-Q2
3.00 8+ years 34 4.4020 .57.31 9.82SE-02
Total 162 4.1728 .6973 5.478E-G2
PERFORM 1.00. 2 yrs or 68 1.7206 .5028 6.098E-02
Performance less
score
2.00 4-7 years 60 1.6875 .4284 5.531 E-02
3.00 8 + years 34 1.4706 .3930 6.739E-02
Total 162 1.6559 .4621 3.630E-02
A Pearson Correlation was used to examine the relationships between
satisfaction and performance, school effectiveness and stress (Table 8).
Notable correlations were observed between satisfaction and performance
(r = -.449), satisfaction and effectiveness (r =.340), and satisfaction and stress
(r =.408).
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8
Pearson Correlations: Satisfaction
SATISFY' PERFORM EFFECT STRESS
Satisfaction Performance Effectiveness score Stress score
score score
SATISFY Pearson 1.000 -.449** .340** .408**
Satisfaction Correlation
score
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 162 162 162 162
PERFORM Pearson -.449** 1.000 -.312 -.229
Performance Correlation
score
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003
N 162 162 162 162
EFFECT Pearson .340** -.312 \ 1.000 .116
Effectiveness Correlation
score
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .141
N 162 162 162 162
STRESS Stress Pearson .408** -.229 .116 1.000
score Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .141
N 162 162 162 162
** Correlation Is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
T-Tests for equality of means were used to determine if a difference
between scores would indicate a correlation between the principals’ intent to
leave their position within the next 1-3 years with job satisfaction, school
effectiveness, perceived performance, and stress (Table 9a-b). A correlation for
the relationship between intent to leave the job and satisfaction ( t -.942) was not
demonstrated. Correlations between intent to leave and the school’s level of
effectiveness (t = -.765), perceived performance (t = -.651), and stress (t= -.166)
showed no difference between those who indicated their intent to leave with
those who indicated they had no intention of leaving in the next 1-3 years.
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9a
Group Statistics: Intent to Leave
LEAVE N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean•
EFFECT
Effectiveness score
1.00 Yes 60 3.9556 .5665 .0731
2.00 No 102 4.0278 .5887 .0583
SATISFY
Satisfaction score
1.00 Yes 60 4.1056 .6624 .0855
2.00 N O 102 4.2124 .7172 .0710
PERFORM
Performance score
1.00 Yes 60 1.6250 .4883 . .0605
2.00 No 102 1.6740 .4598 ' .0455
STRESS
Stress score
1.00 Yes 60 3.6750 .9152 .1181
2.00 No 102 3.7010 .9857 .0976
Table 9b
t-test for Equality of Means: Intent to Leave
T Df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
EFFECT
Effectiveness Score
Equal
variances
assumed
-.765 160 .446 -.0722
SATISY
Satisfaction
Score
Equal
variances
assumed
-.942 160 .348 -.1069
PERFORM
Performance score
Equal
variances
assumed
-.651 160 .516 -.0490
STRESS
Stress Score
Equal
variances
assumed
-.166 160 .868 -.0260
Results from the chi-square analysis showed no significant relationship
between intent to leave and the demographic variables: age, gender, length of
service, years of service, type of position and ADA (Table 10).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10
Pearson Chi-Square: Demographic Variables
Variable Value . df Asymp. Significance
(2-sided)
Gender 1.604* 1 .205
Age .249* 2 .883
Length of Service 6.939* 4 .139
Years of Service 2.108* 2 .349
Position 2.969* 2 .227
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) .739* 2 .691
* 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5
Statistical Analysis Discussion
This study investigated the relationship between job satisfaction, stress,
perceived performance and the school’s level of effectiveness. Demographic
factors were also included. Three research questions relating the quantitative
descriptions are as follows:
1. What demographic factors (gender, age, length of years as a principal,
years in current position, student enrollment) add to or detract from the
California school principal’s job satisfaction and perceived performance
success?
2. Is there a correlation between the principals’ level of job satisfaction and
(a) school’s level of effectiveness, (b) job stress, and (c) perceived level of
job performance?
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Is there a correlation between the principals’ intent to leave and (a) job
satisfaction, (b) school’s level of effectiveness, (c) job stress, and (d)
perceived job performance?
Demographic Factors
Primary findings with the demographic variables found gender, age,
student enrollment, and one’s position as principal at the elementary, middle or
secondary level were not determinant factors of one’s job satisfaction. However,
a link was found between performance and two dependent variables- length of
years as a principal and years in current position.
Numerous researchers and reviewers have referred to effective principals
as instrumental in school success (Fullan, 1993; Ryan and Cooper, 1995; Crew,
2001; Sagor, 2001). As the administrative leader of the school, the principal’s
duties include curriculum development through committee leadership, assisting in
the fiscal management of the school, serving as a liaison between parent groups
and other community organizations, evaluating personnel, overseeing school
programs, managing schedule and maintaining inventory records. To
accomplish all this, new principals need support and coaching while gaining
experience (Lovely, 1999).
A Tukey Post Hoc test indicates a significant difference at the .05 level
between principals who have 2 years of less experience against principals who
have 8-11 years experience (.037), and those with 16+ years of experience
(.005). Those groups with more experience indicated higher performance
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scores, adding to the California school principal’s perceived performance of
success.
A oneway ANOVA test for years in current position and performance
(.028) also indicated a significant difference at the .05 level. Satisfaction results
were borderline (.092) but not enough to indicate significance. A Tukey Post
Hoc Test found a significant difference between pairs, 2 yrs or less in current
position, with those having 8+ years in their current position, indicating those
principal groups with less experience detract from the California school
principal’s perceived performance of success.
Principal Characteristics
A oneway ANOVA test was used to determine if a significant difference
between age and gender with satisfaction and performance. The results
indicated no significance difference with age and satisfaction (F=.621) or with
age and performance (F =1.946). The gender findings are consistent with
Johnson’s (1994) findings, which found gender alone, not to be a determinant
factor of one’s job satisfaction or performance.
School Context
School characteristics, such as size and level, can affect the particular
role that principals enact (Hallinger and Heck, 1996). Hallinger and Heck’s
findings are not consistent with the findings from this study, even though schools
with 2,000 students have different organization concerns than schools with 500
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students. They are, however, consistent with Guy (1992) findings, which found
Principals of larger schools (ADA = 1147 +) reporting a slightly greater
satisfaction than those at smaller schools with school enrollments of less than
1,100.
Principals in this study also indicate that there is no significant difference
in the school level at which a principal serves- elementary, middle or secondary
and job satisfaction and job performance, even though elementary and
secondary schools may have different needs and characteristic problems that
require different styles of leadership.
Level of Job Satisfaction
Job performance is seen by Van de Ven and Ferry (in Nhundu, 1992,
p.337) as a value judgment that reflects the criteria used to judge how well
people or organizations achieve their operating objectives. Using the Pearson
correlation test, results indicate a significant negative relationship at the .01 level
between satisfaction with perceived job performance (-.449). This negative value
reflects the item scaling. As ratings of performance goes up, as measured by a
lower score, the level of satisfaction increases. Also, a comparison of scale
means and standard deviations demonstrated that males scored higher on the
satisfaction and perceived performance scales then their female counterparts.
Results indicate a significantly positive relationship at the .01 level
between satisfaction and school effectiveness (.340). Consistent with Delgado
(2000), school effectiveness acts as a factor in predicting job satisfaction.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Applying this to Judge’s (1998) research, organizational effectiveness can be
seen as a mediating factor between the role of the principal and job satisfaction.
A significant relationship between job satisfaction and stress (.408) was
also found. Stress created by the internal or external environment upsets a
person’s balance and leads to less intrinsic empowerment, including their job
satisfaction and stress (Davis and Wilson, 2000).
Intent to Leave
Even though no significant relationship was found between intent to leave
and the six demographic variables, chi square analysis reveal 35 males and 25
females intend to leave their current position within the next 1-3 years. Middle
school principals (45.7%) indicate their intent to leave their position sooner than
their elementary school (29.3%) or high school colleagues (37.9%). Principals
with ADA of 671 to 1100 were likely to leave in the next 1-3 years over principals
with lower ADA of 125-667, or prinicpals with higher ADA of 1147 and over.
Results also reveal a majority of principals age 48 and over (n=73), are happy
with their present position, responding with a ‘no’ answer compared to forty-four
principals of the same age who intend to leave in the next 1-3 years. However, 6
out of 15 principals age 40 and under, and one-third in the 41-47 age range
intend to leave their position in the next 1-3 years.
This analysis for length of service and intent to leave reveal 23 of the 81
principals who have served for 7 years or less as a principal intend to leave their
principalship within the next 1-3 years. It is widely recognized that administrators
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
need intensive support during their early years of service. It has also become
apparent that through recent changes with the role of the principal, support and
coaching are also needed to ensure success and retain principals (Tirozzi and
Ferrandino, 2000).
T-test’s were used to see if correlations exist between the principal’s intent
to leave and (a) job satisfaction; (b) school’s level of effectiveness; (c) job stress;
and (d) perceived job performance. Results for this study showed no correlation
between scores for ail four variables with intention to leave in the near furture.
These findings were not consistent with Price (1994) who reported a majority of
administrators, who intended to leave, were less satisfied with the aspects of the
job. These results suggest that these administrators may be searching for more
rewarding positions, or positions that provide greater satisfaction and
opportunities.
Reynolds and Reynolds (1993) found the position of the principal, by
nature, exerts a certain amount of stress and tension on any individual occupying
it. Hard decisions must be made, and long hours with a heavy workload are
standard. Results in this study indicate that a majority of principals intend to stay
in their current position. These findings are consistent with research (Reynolds
and Reynolds, 1983) despite the added demands and stressors of the job.
However, 37 percent, of this group of practicing administrators, report that they
are considering leaving their current position. This is up 10 percent from 1999,
where 26 percent of principals surveyed from the counties of Los Angeles,
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ventura and Santa Barbara, California indicated their intention to leave
administration. Salary, hours, inadequate support, and demands of the job were
cited as reasons (Adams, 1999).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter V
Summary and Recommendations
Summary
Principals operate under the intense microscope of public attention,
endure long hours, are responsible for the performance of students in their
school, manage disparate staff, stay current on the latest technology
advancements and modifications of curriculum, and respond to a myriad of
demands, many of which are not related to teaching or learning. With scarce
formal training or support, school principals assume the burden of performing
more tasks and while juggling more roles than the principal role often years ago.
Clearly, recruitment and retention of principals, and genuine concern for
the fast evolving role of principals has moved to the top of the education agenda,
assuming a spot next to the shortage of qualified teachers. Superintendents
have reported an alarming decrease in the number of quality principal candidates
needed to replace persons leaving the position due to retirements, promotions, or
dissatisfaction with the position (Olson, 2000).
Over the past 30 years, a number of studies and research on job
satisfaction have been conducted to ascertain if there is a correlation with job
turnover, retention and performance. The intent of this study was to determine if
there is a relationship between the work situation (school effectiveness,
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perceived job performance and job characteristics) of the principal and job
satisfaction.
Selected Findings
The conceptual assumption in this study is if correlates are found to be
significant, then the findings could be useful in making the job more manageable,
as well as assisting in the training selection and retention of principals. Major
findings of this study relating the variables to principal job satisfaction are as
follows:
1. As a group, the majority of principals are satisfied with their jobs, report
high levels of perceived job performance, and regard their schools as
effective.
2. A majority of California school principals do not become anxious or
nervous when stakeholders disagree with their decisions, or lose sleep
worrying about things that happen at work.
3. Thirty-seven percent of principals intend to leave their position in the near
future (1-3 years).
4. Demographic factors such as: gender, age, position or student enrollment,
were not factors in predicting job satisfaction and stress, or perceived job
performance among California school principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Length of years as a principal and years in current position were two
factors having a significant impact on determining perceived job
performance. As years in the position increased, so did the level of one’s
perceived job performance.
6. Analysis of data revealed a positive relationship with job satisfaction,
school effectiveness and stress, indicating these dependent variables are
mediating factors on one’s job satisfaction. A negative relationship
between job satisfaction and performance was also found. As ratings for
performance went up, measured by a lower score, the level of satisfaction
on the job increased.
7. A significant relationship between the school’s level of effectiveness and
the principal’s perceived performance was also found.
8. Results of this study showed no difference between scores for the
variables job satisfaction, level of school’s effectiveness, stress, and
perceived job performance with those that indicated their intention to leave
or with those who did not intend to leave in the near future.
Conclusions
On the basis of statistical analysis of data collected from the participating
California school principals, the following four conclusions emerged.
As principals gain more experience, their level of perceived performance
increases. In effect, the passing time increases job competency. Becoming a
competent administrator is a developmental process. The longer a principal is
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on the job, the better he/she is able to perform. Not unlike the process of
becoming a teacher, it’s those first few years that are difficult, filled with
disillusionment as well as excitement. Like the new teacher, new principals are
not fully prepared to assume their duties without significant support. As the
newness wears and routines, procedures, and relationships are establish, a
principal’s confidence in their performance on the job increases.
Job stress, level of school’s effectiveness and perceived job performance
are three correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals.
However, the correlational design does not support a conclusion about causality;
that is I cannot conclude that the level of school effectiveness, stress or
perceived job performance are detriments of a principal’s satisfaction of the job,
and vice versa. It does however confirm what earlier studies have concluded,
that the controversy over the conundrum whether satisfaction causes
performance or performance causes satisfaction continues.
Job stress, level of school’s effectiveness, perceived job performance, and
one’s satisfaction with the job cannot be used to predict one’s intention to leave
the principalship in the near future. Even though many principals struggle to
keep up with the demands of the job, the majority of principals seem to accept
the stressors of the job and remain enthusiastic about their work. Like many
other studies, the results from this study cannot fully address the causality issue
about principals who intend to stay or leave. One limitation may be due to the
design of the intent to leave question, which left no explanation for a principal’s
choice to stay or leave. Nevertheless, if researchers are to understand principals
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
intent to leave or stay, future attention may need to be given to other possible
factors such as (a) job security, (b) retirement, (c) the school’s Academic
Performance Index (API) level, (d) comfort level of the position (e) support/or
lack of support from the faculty, parents and district personnel, (f) feelings of
isolation and (g) the desire to move to a higher level position of management.
This study also contains encouraging news about California school
principals. At a time of widespread consternation about the supply and survival
of effective school principals, the majority of California school principals surveyed
consider their schools effective, and are satisfied with their role and function as a
principal. However, as evidenced by the 42 percent turnover in the principalship
during the last ten years (Doud and Keller, 1998) and the results of this study that
found 37 percent of principals surveyed intend to leave their position in the near
future, there is a need to develop a pool of well-qualified candidates to fill
positions as they arise, design programs that will attract individuals to enter the
fie ld of administration, and retain those already in the position by assisting them
in the early years of their principalship. Ultimately, the change from job
dissatisfaction to job satisfaction may occur naturally with simple, personal
perseverance.
Recommendations
By contributing to the body of knowledge about correlates of job
satisfaction and the role of the principal, research such as the present can inform
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the design and development of preparation programs and assist with the
retention of those already in the position.
Training Programs
Today’s principals are encouraged to be facilitative leaders by building
teams, creating networks and “ governing from the center” (Lashway, 1996).
Students aspiring to be principals could benefit from preservice programs that
stress strategic leadership, focusing on improving instruction. About 10 percent
of school principals are systematic problem solvers (Fullan, 1991). Principals, to
be effective, must understand the realities of what it takes to not only manage a
school, but to lead schools toward improving results.
In order to provide insight and acumen about management, adequate
administrative training programs are crucial. However, many policy leaders
believe that at least some of the causes of the leadership problems stem from
graduate training programs in educational administration which do little to
increase the effectiveness of school administrators (Haller et al, 1996; Ankeney,
et al., 1995; NAESP, 1998; Olson, 2000). Thus, school districts, state-wide
principals associations, and universities involved in the preparation of school
administrators need to work collaboratively to develop programs that will attract
good candidates and provide them with adequate training (Doud and Keller;
1998; Adams, 1999).
Typically, pre-service to induction programs (Guthrie and Reed, 1986)
cover concepts and understandings of school and district policies, rules, and
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
procedures (i.e.: American education, finances, legal issues, and curricular and
instructional policies) and managerial and leadership skills (i.e.: behavior,
budgeting, human resources). In finding balance and satisfaction with the
school principal position, Maguire (2000) believes graduate schools need to build
resiliency components into their principal preparation programs and add
mentoring components (Maguire, 2000; Daresh, 1992) which provide practical
experience needed to better prepare principals for the demands of the job.
District Involvement
Districts also need to get involved. School districts need to develop
systems that foster the leadership development of talented teachers and offer
programs for aspiring principals (Doud and Keller; 1998; Adams, 1999;
Education World, 2000). As a result, some school districts are cultivating their
farms and “ growing their own” administrators. They recruit young, promising
teachers and encourage them to seek advanced degrees in administration. They
offer mentoring programs, like the one in Montgomery, Alabama, where courses
are open to aspiring teachers as well as principals and assistant principals in the
district (Education Week, 2000).
In California, school districts like Ontario-Montclair, Fresno Unified (Ferris,
1999) and Capistrano Unified (Adams, 1999; Lovely, 1999) have established
leadership academies for aspiring administrators. The programs are designed to
provide participants with specific administrative skills, exposure to District
operations, and guided experiences in administration. Two districts in Los
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Angeles county- the Glendale Unified School District and the Santa
Monica/Malibu School District (Adams, 1999)-and the Anaheim City School
District in Orange County are also training and “ growing” their own
administrators through established partnerships with California State University’s
department of Educational Leadership and Administration. These partnerships
bring the university’s administrator preparation program into the school districts in
cohorts of 20-35 educators over the course of two years.
Improving Conditions
A large problem many school principals face is what Sue Maguire (2000)
calls the “Lone ranger” conditions of the job. Principals are often on their own in
their schools, with few opportunities to communicate and commiserate with fellow
principal about job issues. That is one of the reasons why Maguire was
dissatisfied with the position and left her principalship to purse another career
path.
Tucker (in Olson, 2000) believes the principal’s job description is in
transition. In order to make this job doable, Tucker believes in training people for
the princpalship who can actually change the job itself. Suggestions given by
principals on how to improve the condition of the position include: (a) having a
co-principal or multiple leaders, including teacher leaders; (b) setting realistic
staff-to-administrator ratios; (c) maximizing the school size; (d) improving school
facilities, (e) streamlining bureaucracy; and (f) adding support staff (Education
World, 2000; EdSource, 1999).
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Professional development
With a large body of research surrounding school effectiveness and
school improvement efforts dependent upon leadership, it is widely recognized
that administrators need intensive support due to the increasing demands and
complexity of the principalship. The California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing acknowledged this through the establishment of the Second Tier
requirement. Other organizations, such as The Association of California School
Administrators (ACSA) sponsors professional development activities that help
participants grow and enhance their career possibilities. These include
workshops and seminars throughout the state, which include topics such as:
school finance and strategic thinking, planning and management.
Funded by the California State legislature and the department of
education, the California School Leadership Academy (CSLA) helps facilities a
vision for instructional leadership. Practicing administrators in leadership
positions strengthen their instructional leadership skills and focus their actions on
the issues and strategies critical to increasing the achievement of all students in
California.
Mentoring can be a powerful tool in professional development programs.
District mentor programs can serve as career guides to beginning administrators
(Daresh and Playko, 1992; Tirozzi and Ferrandino, 2000) and prevent death of
optimism for principals (Galllegos, 1999). They also affirm one’s professional
competence and improve job satisfaction, as Daresh and Plyako (1993) found in
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their research at the Danforth Foundation Program for the Preparation of School
Principals.
Recommendations fo r Future Research
A variety of questions were raised by the study that may warrant further study:
1. Would performance evaluations from the superintendent, teachers, parents
and students themselves have an impact on one’s job satisfaction?
2. With 10,000 schools in California, and nearly half of them under performing
schools, would the school’s API score- a key assessment factor for student
success- influence feelings of job satisfaction?
3. If the role and function of the principalship has significantly changed over the
last decade, is it time to redesign or restructure the position?
4. Are there specific reasons principals choose to stay or leave the profession?
Explore and expand the other reasons why principals intend to leave the
principalship in the near future.
5. Explore the link between job performance, satisfaction and the demographic
variables -length of service and years as a principal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J. (1999, Sept/Oct.). Good principals, good schools. Thrust for
Educational Leadership. 8-10.
Alvarez, D. (2000, Nov. 1). Burdensome job. Editorial Projects in
Education. v20, 5.
Ankeney, Streshly and Skidmore (1995, May/June). Supervision and
support. Thrust for Educational Leadership. v24 (7) 35-37.
Azzara, J. (2000). The heart of school leadership. Educational
Leadership, v 58, 62-64.
Bachrach, S. & Mitchell, S. (1983). The sources of dissatisfaction in
educational administration: A role-specific analysis. Educational
Administration Quarterly, v 19, 101-128.
Brief, A. (1998). Attitudes in and Around Organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA.SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bernardin & Beatty (1984). Performance Appraisals: Assessing Human
Behavior at Work. Belmont, CA: Kent Publishing.
Blackman, M. and Fenwick, L. (2000, March 29). The Principalship.
Education Week. 19.
Bliss, J. (1991) Strategic and Holistic Images of Effective Schools.
Rethinking Effective School Research and Practice. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 43.
Borman & Motowidlo, (1993) in Brief, A (1998). Attitudes in and Around
Organizations. SAGE Publications, 42.
Chance, E. (1996). A middle schools approach to developing effective
school/work culture. NASSP Bulletin. 80, 43-49.
Crew, R. (2001). Improving our craft through leadership
standards. California School Leadership Academy Principal’s
Conference. Orange County, CA. (January, 5).
Daresh, J. and Playko, M. (1992). Meeting the needs of beginning
administrators. NASSP Bulletin, v 76. 81-83.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Davis, K. (1977). Human Behavior at Work: Organizational Behavior.
New York, NY.
Davis, J. and Wilson, S. (2000). Principals’ Efforts to Empower
Teachers: Effects on Teacher Motivation and Jobs Satisfaction and
Stress. The Clearing House, v 73.
Delgado, L. (2000). Correlates of Job Satisfaction Among High School
Principals. A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Rossier
School of Education, University of Southern California.
Dietrich, B. (2000). Principals Wanted: Apply Just About Anywhere.
Education Week. January 12, (16).
Dlugosh, L. (1994). Why Administrators Move: Factors Contributing to the
Turnover of School Administrators in Nebraska. Document found in
ERIC. No. ED375505.
Doud and Keller (1998). The K-8 Principal. Principal. Vol 78 (1) p.5-12
Drake and Roe (1986). The Principalship. New York, New York:
Macmillan Publishing.
EdSource Publication (1999). Voices from the Field. Thrust for
Educational Leadership. Sept/Oct., 34-38.
Educational Research Service (1998). Is there a Shortage of Qualified
Candidates for Openings in the Principalship? For the National
Association of Elementary School Principals and National
Association of Secondary School Principals. Washington, D.C.
Ellis, S. (1995). Principals as Staff Developers. Journal of Staff
Development. v16 (3) 65-67.
Fansher and Buxton (1984). A Job Satisfaction Profile of the female
Secondary School Principal in the United Sates. NASSP Bulletin.
V.68 (468) 32-30.
Findley, D. and Findley, B. (1992). Effective School: The Role of the
Principal. Contemporary Education. Vol.63 (2) 102-104.
Fisher, C.D. (1980) in Muchinsky (1987). Psychology Applied to Work.
Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press, p. 431.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fitzgerald (2000). Plans Under Way for Training New School District
Leaders. Leadership News Online. American Association of
School Administrators @ www.aasa.org.
Freedman, J. (1982). Introductory Psychology. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley
Friesen, D. (1984). Factors Contributing to the Job Satisfaction of School
Principals. Alberta Journal of Educational Research. v30, 157-70.
Fullan, M. and Stiegelbauer. 91991). The New Meaning of Educational
Change. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press
Gall, Borg and Gall (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction. New
York, NY: Longman Publishing.
Gallegos, K. (1999). Mentors can prevent death of optimism for new
principals. Thrust for Educational Leadership. Sept/October (27).
Gmelch, W. (1994). The Impact of Personal, professional, and
Organizational Characteristics on Administrator Burnout. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. Document found in ERIC. ED373451.
Goeller, (1992). Here, Effective is Spelled... Extraordinary. Contemporary
Education, v 63 (2) 153-56.
Goldman, S. (1966). The School Principal. New York: Center for Applied
Research in Education.
Gross and Furell (1987). The Changing Role of the Elementary Principal.
Document found in ERIC. ED301926.
Gruneberg, M. (1979). Understanding Job Satisfaction. New York, NY:
John Wiley and Sons.
Guy, K . (1992). Study of the high school principalship: Relationships of
selected job contextual factors with principals’ job satisfaction,
security, authority and challenges. Dissertation Abstract found
online from FirsfSearch@oclc.org.
Haller, Brent & McNamara (1997). Does graduate training in education
administration improve America’s schools? Phi Delta Kappan.
v.79, 222-227.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
HalSinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the Prinicpal’s Role in
School Effectiveness: A review of Research, 1980-1995.
Educational Administration Quarterly. 32 (1) 5-44.
Hart, A. (1993). The Social and Organizational Influence of Principals.
Peabody Journal of Education, v 68 (2), 37-57.
Heller, Clay and Perkins (1993). The Relationship Between Teacher Job
Satisfaction and Principal Leadership Style. Journal of School
Leadership. v3, 74-86.
Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymr, (1999). Job Satisfaction
and Performance: The Moderating Effects of Value Attainment and
Affective Disposition. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 296-313.
Hopkins, G. (2000). From the Principal Files: The Principal Shortage-Why
Doesn’t Anybody Want the Job?, Education World Online @
www.edacaiiQPworid-com
Houlihan, G.T. (1988). School Effectiveness: The Key Ingredients of
School with Heart. Springield, IL: Charles Thomas Publisher.
Hoy, Tarter and Kottkamp (1991). Open Schools/Healthv Schools. New
Park, CA: Corwin Press
Idaffaldo, M. & Muchinsky, P. (1985). Job Satisfaction and Job
Performance: A Meta Analysis. Psychology Bulletin, v 97,
251-273.
Ilgen, D. & Pulakos, E. (1999). The Changing Nature of Performance.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 23-102.
Johnson, E. (1994). The Effects of Educational Level and Personnel
Status on Job satisfaction or Men and Women. Dissertation
Abstract found online from FirstSearch@oclc.orQ.
Johnson, N. and Holdaway, E. (1991). Perceptions of Effectiveness and
the Satisfaction of Principals in Elementary Schools. Journal of
Educational Administration. v29, 51-70.
Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C., & Kluger, A. (1998). Dispositional
Effects on Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Core Evaluations.
Journal of Applied Psychology. v83, 17-34.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kelly, D. (1997, April). Turnover at the Top. The American School Board
Journal. 46-47.
Kennedy, C. (2000). Summary of Responses to NAESP/NASSP/NMSA
Survey Questions. Principals’ Leadership Summit. July 24-26.
U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C.
Lezotte and Jacoby (1990). The School Improvement Process Based o
Effective Schools Research. Document found in ERIC. NO.
ED360680.
Libler (1992). Effective Schools: The Role of the Central Office.
Contemporary Education. Vol.63, (2), 121-124.
Lucus, G., Babakus, E. & Ingram, T. (1990). An Empirical Test of the Job
Satisfaction-Turnover Relationship: Assessing the Role of Job
Performance for Retail Managers. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, v 18, (199-208).
Maguire, S. (2000). Principals are Lone Rangers. Education World.
Found online @ www.educatiooworid.CQm
McCurdy, J. (1983). The Role of the Principal. American Association of
School Administrators. Sacramento, CA: AASA .
Muchinsky, P. (1987). Psychology Applied to Work. Chicago, Illinois: The
Dorsey Press.
NAESP (1998). Is there a shortage of Qualified candidates for openings in
the principalship: An exploratory study. Found online at
WW W .H88S13.org
NCS Pearson (2000). Response Scales: How Many Parts and What
Labels? Pearson Educational Company online @ www.acspearson.com
Natt (2000). Superintendents See Shortage of Applicants for Top Spots
as a Serious Crisis. Leadership News Online, American Association
of School Administrators @ T O w .a a s a .o rg .
Nhundu, T. (1992, December). Job Performance, Role Clarity, and
Satisfaction Among teacher Interns in the Edmonton public School
System. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research. v38, 335-
354.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Nomura, K. (1999). The lessons I’ve Learned about What Works, Thrust
for Edcuational Leadership. Sept/Oct. (18)
Ogden and Germinario (1994). The Nation’s Best Schools: Blueprint for
Excellence. Vol. 1 & 2. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing (8-
32).
Olson, L. (2000). New Demands, New Pressures alter Administrators’
Roles. Education Week. v19 (19) January, 19th .
Ostroff, C. (1992). The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and
Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology. v77, 963-974.
Pankake and Burnett (1990). The Effective Elementary School Principal.
Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications.
Renchler, R. (1992). Urban Superintendent Turnover: The Need for
Stability. Document found in ERIC. ED346546.
Richard (1999, November 3rd ). Pay Soars for School Chiefs in Big
Districts. Education Week Online @ ww.edweek.ora.
Richardson, J. (Dec. 9, 1992). Chicago Principals Finding Reform
• Demands Overwhelming. Education Week Online @
www.edweek.org.
Richardson, L. (June 23, 1999). Principal: A Tough Job, Fewer Takers.
Los Angeles Times.
Rinehart & Short (1993). Job Satisfaction and Empowerment among
Teacher Leaders. Document found in ERIC. ED362940.
Ryan and Cooper (1995). Those Who Can. Teach. Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Robbins, S.P. (1996). Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Sagor, R. (2001). The Use of Data as A Motivator for Students
and Teachers. California School Leadership Academy Principal’s
Conference. Orange County, CA. (January 5).
Sergiovanni, T. (2000). The Lifeworld of Leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, Inc.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Smith, F. (1977). Work Attitudes as Predictors of Attendance on a
Specific Day. Journal of Applied Psychology, v 62,16-19.
Taylor, B. (1986). How and Why Successful Elementary Principals
Address Strategic Issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Document found in ERIC. No. ED278124.
Tingley, S. (1996). Pooling Our Resources. Education Week. U.S.
Department of Education @ http://nces.ed.gov/
Tirozzi, G. (2000). School Reform’s Missing Imperative, Education Week
Online @ www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory
Tirozzi & Ferrandino (2000). The Shortage of Prinicpals Continues.
Education Week. Oct. 18.
Vezzuto, L (2001). Principals Have the Power. California School
Leadership Academy. Principal’s Conference. Orange County, CA
(January 5).
Whaley, K. (1994) Leadership and Teacher Job Satisfaction. NASSP
Bulletin, v 78 (October) 46-50.
Williams and Portin (1996). Challenges of School Leadership: The
Changing Role of the Principal. Olympia, WA: Association of
Washington School Principals.
Yee & Cuban (1996). When is Tenure Long Enough? Educational
Administration Quarterly, v 32, 615-641.
Zigarelli, M. (1996). An Empirical Test of Conclusions from Effective
Schools Research. The Journal of Educational Research, v 90 (2)
Nov/Dec. 103-10.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C O R R ELA TE S OF JOB S A TISFA C TIO N AM O NG SC H O O L PRINCIPALS
Copy
PAR T' !.- Ih 'm ogruphic O ucutaus
1. Gender: _ Male Female
2. Age 26 years or \ou ree t 22-23 32-36 3 1-37 4.y and over
3. Years as a principal: 2 years nr less _ _ 4-7 _ S-! I 12- !> _ '6 - >
4 Years in present posiiion: 7 >ears or leas _ 4-7 8-1 ! 12-15 16 4
5 l ype o f position: I lemeniary Principal M iddle school High school
(>. Do you intend to leave your present position in (Ik near future (1-3 years)'.’ Yes No
7. Which o f the Following best dcsciibcs youi school district? Elementary Union Unified
X. What is S he current student enrollment o f your school? ^____
P A R T I I: This p a rt contains statements o f attitudes, feelings, and opinion about work-related matters. There are Jive
possible responses to each statement: I : S trongly Disagree, 2 -D isagree, 3 ■ ■ Not Sure. -I Agree. 5 - S trongly Agree.
F o r each statement circle the O N E response that best describes yo u r attitudes, feelings, o r opinions
1. The entire school community actively supports the school in achieving its vision and goals...
2. Teachers make decisions about all aspects o f the school’ s operations including the teaching
and learning process..............................................................................................................................
3. Students receive instruction which is based in current research and exemplary practice..........
4. Students are expected to be responsible and productive and to hold high expectations for
themselves................................................................................................................................................
5. A wide range o f procedures for assessing student learning outcomes is clearly
described and accompanied by well-defined performance standards............................................
6. A variety o f evaluation reporting procedures are used to provide the school community with
information supporting the continuous improvement o f the school’s programs........................
7. A high-level, core curriculum is provided to all students................................................................
8. 1 gain great satisfaction from the contributions that I make as a principal..................................
9. I become anxious, nervous and upset when stakeholders disagree with my decisions..............
10. I am enthusiastic and optimistic about my work........................................................................
11. I worry about how I am doing as a principal and I don’t think my work is valued...............
12. I am satisfied with my working conditions: salary and benefit package..................
13. I have a lack of concentration, appetite and I lose sleep worrying about things that happen at work
14. I am inadequately compensated for my work and time......................................................................
PART III. Please respond to the follow ing performance questions as to how you feel others would rate your
effectiveness as a principal: Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Inadequate
1. How would the superintendent rate you? E G A P
2. How would the teachers rate you? ........................................................................................ E G A P
3. How would the parents rate you?......................................................................................................... E G A P
4. How would you rate yourself?.............................................. E G A P
5. How would you rate yourself in understanding the political dynamics required of the job?.... E G A P
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
12 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
8 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University o f Southern Calfemia
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR WON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Correlates o f Job S a tisfa ctio n Am ong C a lifo rn io S chool P rin cip a ls
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. Dennis Hocevar,
faculty advisor and Deanna B. Brady, doctoral student, from the Rossier School of
Education at the University o f Southern California. The results o f this study w ill
contribute to the completion o f a doctoral dissertation. You have been selected as a
participant in the study because o f your position as a California school principal.
C om pletion and re tu rn o f tike questionnaire w ill constitute consent to p a rticip a te
in the research pro je ct.
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are trying to team
more about job satisfaction and the school principalship. Job satisfaction has been
related to job retention and productivity. This study is designed to assess if a
correlation exists between job satisfaction and principals’ perceptions in areas related
to the school organization. Results o f the study could assist in identifying strategies
and intervention programs in the areas o f recruitment and professional development
o f school principals. Further, results could assist in determining if there are school
environments that correlate with job satisfaction
Should you decide to participate as a member o f the sample population o f this study,
please do the following:
1. Please respond to .al questions in the one-page survey.
2. The time required to take the survey is approximately 5-8 minutes.
3. Please submit your responses by mail; return the survey in the self-addressed
stamped envelope.
4. Thank you in advance for your time and participation.
No reasonable risks, discomforts, or inconveniences are anticipated in the filing o f the
survey instrument A ll individual surveyed information is confidential and is not
identifiable to any particular subject in the sample population.
The inferential statistical analysis o f the data w ii provide potential benefit to subjects
participating in the study by identifying practices and strategies that can enhance job
satisfaction. Research lias affirmed, that job satisfaction is closely related with job
retention and productiviy. Because'the role o f the school principal Is one o f the most
challenging in education today, identification o f job satisfaction variables wouM be
extremely useful in determining strategies that may assist with recruitment practices,
induction, and the on-going professional development o f persons in this profession.
No payment w ill be awarded for participation in this survey.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study that can be identified
with you w ill remain .confidential and will Ik disclosed only with your permission or
as required by law. In the event that results o f this research are published or
discussed in conferences or public forum, no infcimation. w ilt be included that would
reveal any particular indivMuafs identity. Data generated from the survey instrument
will be treated statistically, analyzed, and presented in a maimer that does not reflect
or identify any specific individual in the sample population.
Data compiled for the survey Instrument in this research will be maintained solely in
the personal possession of the researcher, Deanna B. Brady, USC doctoral student
and responses to .survey questionnaires shall be destroyed following analyses of the
data and the doctoral defense.
VUL Participation and W ithdrawal of Subjects in the Sample Population
Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. If you volunteer to participate in this
study and wish to discontinue your involvement, no penalty shat! result You are not
waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because o f your participation in this
research study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject,
contact: U niversity P a rk IMS, O ffice o f the Vice P rovost fo r Research, Bovard
Administration Building, Room 300, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019, (213) 740-6709
or upirb@usc.edu. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to
answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you front this
research study if circumstances arise which waixant doing so.
Should you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact the principal investigator: D r. Derm is Hocevar, University o f Southern
C a lifo rn ia , W PH 600, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019, Telephone: (213) 740-2368 or
the secondary investigator: Deanna B. Brady, Telephone: (714) 517-8784 or (714)
993-2671.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among school superintendents

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among high school principals

PDF

Characteristics of juvenile court/correction teachers and job satisfaction

PDF

Effects of the STAR testing program on teachers and the curriculum

PDF

Cognitive coaching training for master teachers and its effects on student teachers' ability to reflect on practice

PDF

High school teachers' and administrators' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

A causal, dispositional model of common personal characteristics associated with teacher job satisfaction

PDF

An analysis of perceptions and implementation of California's teacher evaluation process in a K--5 public school and its impact on teacher practice

PDF

Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

An elementary school's perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher evaluation to enhance teacher practice

PDF

California teacher evaluation and improved teacher practice

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of longitudinal tracking of student achievement to assess school quality

PDF

Current teachers' compensation systems and their perceived effects on motivation

PDF

Are executives overconfident?

PDF

Class size reduction: A case study

PDF

Evaluation of CLAD training in northern California

PDF

Closing the leadership gap

PDF

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

PDF

Guidelines for creating computer-mediated instructional materials: An electronic performance support system model

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Brady, Deanna Boyajian (author)

Core Title Correlates of job satisfaction among California school principals

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, industrial

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Baker, Robert (committee member), Long, Eva (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-99358

Unique identifier UC11338205

Identifier 3027695.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-99358 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3027695.pdf

Dmrecord 99358

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Brady, Deanna Boyajian

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA