Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period
(USC Thesis Other)
Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
SUPERINTENDENTS’ ENTRY PERIODS: STRATEGIES AND BEHAVIORS THAT
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS USE TO BUILD STRONG
RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST WITH THEIR SCHOOL
BOARDS DURING THEIR ENTRY PERIOD
by
Sean J. Howland
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2012
Copyright 2012 Sean J. Howland
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my daughter Poppy and my two sons, Henry (born
Spring Semester 2010) and Oliver (Fall Semester 2011). They are my motivation, and
they remind me what is truly important. I love them all dearly.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to first acknowledge my wife, Catherine Howland. I thank her for her
patience and hard work. Because of her, I strive to be the best person that I can possibly
be, and I would never have been able to complete this doctorate program without her
support. This is our dissertation. Thank you to the rest of my family, especially my
parents, Candyce Voisey and Paul Voisey, and my in-laws, Sue and Philip Henderson.
They are wonderful parents and even better grandparents.
Thank you to all of my friends and colleagues. Working and spending time with
them has been an amazing experience. I especially want to thank those who selflessly
went the extra mile for me. John Lane supported me throughout my entire career and
through the application process, Tuan Duong was a great friend and allowed me to have
sixth-period prep. Brandon Frink covered my classes and was always a voice of reason.
Jennifer Morita provided advice and edited my proposal. Thank you to my new friends:
Erin Vines, Darrell Forthe, Carndenas Shakelford, and Lincoln Johnson. I am grateful to
them for their advice, all of the rides to and from the airport, splitting hotel rooms,
dinners, and laughter. Thank you to my oldest friends, especially Eric Held, for all of the
rides, space on the couch, good times, and the use of his surname (also thanks to Wojtek
Mlynarksi for the use of his surname).
Thank you to the University of Southern California and my professors. I espe-
cially want to thank Dr. Kristan Venegas for all of her insights as well as her kindness
when Henry was born. Thank you to Dr. Gabriela Mafi; I learned a great deal from her
and strive to be the instructional leader that she models. Finally, I would like to thank Dr.
iv
Pedro Garcia. I believe everyone should take a class from him. He is caring, wise, and
above all, inspirational. I hope that we stay in touch and he sees me become the
educational leader that he has inspired me to be.
Thank you to my committee chair, Dr. Michael Escalante. His resolve to see us all
through this process, his ability to motivate, his insights, and his advice are deeply
appreciated. Thank you to the rest of my committee, Dr. Alex Rojas and Dr. Fred
Freking, for their support and for the enriching feedback. Thank you to my editor, Phyllis
Parmet; the manuscript looks beautiful. Thank you to the participants of this dissertation,
including participants from my own district; their candid responses were enlightening.
Thank you to my research team: Alfonso Jimenez, Rene Valdes, Jenneatte Garcia, Leann
Huang, Adriana Guerrero-Pestonji, CK Green, Morgan Smith, and Kenneth Foersch. No
matter how difficult this process was, I knew that as a team we could accomplish our
collective end goals. I thank Adriana for rides to and from the airport. I cannot thank CK,
Morgan, and Kenny enough for all of their help, dinners, rides, Skype sessions, and
overall awesomeness; they are true gentlemen and scholars, and I hope to call them
friends for the rest of my life.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables viii
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction of the Problem 1
Background of the Problem 2
History of the Superintendency 2
Leadership Theory 3
The Development of Superintendents 3
Superintendent/School Board Relations 4
Communication 4
Trust 5
Entry Plan 5
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 7
Importance of the Study 7
Limitations of the Study 7
Delimitations of the Study 8
Assumptions 8
Definition of Terms 8
Accountability 8
Academic Performance Index (API) 9
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) 9
Communication 9
Entry Period 9
Entry Plan 9
External/Internal Hire 9
School Board 9
Superintendent 9
Trust 10
Organization of the Dissertation 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review 11
Historical Roles of the Superintendent 12
Leadership Theory and Supporting Frameworks 14
The Development of a Superintendent 20
vi
Superintendent/School Board Relations 21
Communication 22
Trust 26
Entry Plans 29
Conclusion 30
Chapter 3: Methodology of the Study 31
Research Questions 32
Sample and Population 32
Instrumentation 34
Interview/Data Collection Procedures 36
Data Analysis 37
Triangulation 37
Data Analysis Plan 37
Ethical Considerations 38
Chapter Summary 38
Chapter 4: Results 39
Participants 40
Results for Research Question 1 46
Address Board Priorities 46
Entry Plans 50
Frequent Communication 51
Summary of Results for Research Question 1 53
Results for Research Question 2 54
Individual Communication 56
Weekly Communication 58
Understanding the Board’s Level of Trust 60
Summary of Results for Research Question 2 65
Results for Research Question 3 66
High-Quality Training 67
Communication Skills 68
Valuable Experiences 69
Summary of Results for Research Question 3 72
Chapter Summary 72
Chapter 5: Findings, Implications, and Recommendations 74
Summary of Findings 75
Findings for Research Question 1 76
Findings for Research Question 2 77
Findings for Research Question 3 79
Implications for Practice 80
Recommendations for Research 81
Concluding Remarks 82
vii
References 83
Appendices
Appendix A: Research Framework 87
Appendix B: Initial Survey Development Chart 88
Appendix C: Final Questionnaires 94
Appendix D: Question Alignment Chart 100
Appendix E: Topic by Time Triangulation 101
Appendix F: Interview Guides 102
Appendix G: Research Question by Data Source Triangulation 106
Appendix H: Other Triangulation Methods 107
Appendix I: Methods Used by the Superintendents to Communicate With Boards 108
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Data for Participating Superintendents 41
Table 2: Average Daily Attendance of Districts of Participating Superintendents 42
Table 3: Largest Ethnic Group per District 42
Table 4: Number of Districts per Participating County 43
Table 5: Responses to Survey Question 5: Superintendent and Board Prioritized
the Same Challenges 47
Table 6: Responses to Survey Question 8 by Superintendents and Board
Members Regarding Superintendent’s Leadership Efforts or Focus
During the Entry Period, by Bolman and Deal Frames 49
Table 7: Responses to Survey Questions 1a and 1b by Superintendents and
Board Members Regarding the Superintendent’s Entry Plan, the
Board’s Awareness of the Plan, and the Superintendent’s Report
of the Plan to the Board 51
Table 8: Responses to Survey Question 13 by Superintendents and Board
Members Regarding Activities Used by the Superintendent During
the Entry Period to Promote Trust on the Part of the School Board 52
Table 9: Responses to Survey Question 14 by Superintendents and Board
Members Regarding Activities Used by the Superintendent During
the Entry Period to Build a Strong Relationship With the School Board 57
Table 10: How Often Were Superintendents’ Entry Plans Reviewed With
the Board? 61
Table 11: Responses to Survey Questions 15 and 16 by Superintendents and Board
Members Regarding the Board’s Level of Trust in the Superintendent
at the Beginning and End of the Superintendent’s Entry Period 61
Table 12: Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question 9
Rating the Overall Relationship Between the Superintendent and Board
at the End of the First 90-100 Days in Office 63
Table 13: Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question
17 Regarding the Board’s Feedback to the Superintendent 64
ix
Table 14: Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question
10a Regarding the Adequacy of the Formal/Informal Training That the
Superintendent Received to Prepare for the Superintendency 67
Table 15: Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question
12 Regarding Whether the Superintendent Had Received Training in
Effective Communication With Board Members 69
Table 16: Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question
18 Regarding Factors That Led to the Superintendent Being Hired 70
Table 17: Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question
19 Regarding Factors That Led to the Superintendent’s Success During
the Entry Period 71
Table I1: Methods Used by the Superintendents to Communicate With Boards 109
x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to identify strategies/behaviors that successful super-
intendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their
entry periods. The following research questions will guide the study:
1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists aspiring superintendents
for entry into the superintendency?
The research team used a qualitative approach for data collection and analysis.
Data were gathered by surveys, and in-depth interviews of participating superintendents
and their designated school board members.
Upon review of the gathered data, nine themes emerged. First, the successful
superintendents addressed the priorities of the school board. Second, most of these suc-
cessful superintendents created entry plans that outlined their goals for what they would
accomplish in the first 90 to 100 days. Third, the superintendents communicated fre-
quently with key people, such as the board president. Fourth, the superintendents com-
municated individually with key stakeholders. Fifth, the superintendents made sure to
communicate weekly with the board. Sixth, the superintendents understood the various
board members’ level of trust in the superintendent. Seventh, the superintendents had
undergone high-quality training. Eighth, the superintendents had excellent communica-
tion skills. Ninth, the superintendents valued their previous experiences.
xi
Findings from this study identified two important implications for practice:
(a) communication and (b) a plan of entry that helps the superintendent to address the
priorities of the board and serves as a tool for evaluation.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction of the Problem
Today’s administrators must be both leaders and managers (Drucker, 2001;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). As organizations continue to grow and develop,
they become more complex (Hoyle, Björk, Collier, & Glass, 2005). Leaders need a vari-
ety of tools at their disposal to navigate these multifaceted conditions (Hoyle et al., 2005;
Laboratory for Student Success [LSS], 2002; Leithwood, 2005). Leaders must communi-
cate effectively with all stakeholders and hold the trust of the organization to sustain a
leadership career in this ever-changing environment (Covey, 2006; Hurley, 2006).
The above description specifically relates to the superintendent of today’s school
districts. The superintendent is expected to fulfill many roles that help to create a high-
functioning and successful district (Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski, McCord, Peterson,
Young, & Ellerson, 2011). Districts are now under increased scrutiny from the state and
federal governments because of accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB; Kowalski et al., 2011). With higher public examination of readily
available school district data, today’s superintendent must be both the instructional leader
and the manager of operations for the district (Hoyle et al., 2005; Kowalski, 2005;
Kowalski et al., 2011). The superintendent must communicate the needs of the district to
both the school board that oversees the superintendent and the staff and stakeholders who
look to the superintendent for guidance (Harris, 2009; Leithwood, 2005; Townsend et al.,
2007). Open communication fosters trust among all stakeholders, and that trust can be
2
measured through students’ successes (Harris, 2009; Leithwood, 2005; Marzano &
Waters, 2009; Townsend et al., 2007).
Background of the Problem
History of the Superintendency
The role of the superintendent has changed over the years. These changes have
increased the demands on the superintendent. Early in the history of the position, super-
intendents were expected to be teacher-scholars. In this role, the superintendent was
expected to guide teacher practice and set the tone for what students were expected to
learn. As districts began to grow, superintendents were given the additional role of
business leader (Callahan, 1966; Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2011). As business
leaders, superintendents helped to manage the daily operations of the organization (Hoyle
et al., 2005). At the end of the Industrial Revolution, when the economy began to slow,
superintendents added statesman to their list of roles (Björk & Gurley, 2005; Kowalski,
2005; Kowalski et al., 2011). Superintendents were called on to fight for scarce resources
to help their organizations to survive (Björk & Gurley, 2005). Next, society needed
superintendents to act as applied social scientists as well as to manage districts and
resources (Björk & Gurley, 2005; Callahan, 1966; Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al.,
2011). Superintendents had to structure their districts to be able to respond to the diverse
needs of the communities that they served. Most recently, superintendents have added the
role of communicator (Björk & Gurley; Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2011). Super-
intendents must now meet the needs of their stakeholders and communicate with school
boards, district employees, students, and communities.
3
Leadership Theory
As the role of superintendent grows increasingly complex, the need for a strong
leadership theory base remains constant. Superintendents are the public face of their
districts, and they must act accordingly. Two frameworks to that can be used to view the
effectiveness of superintendent leadership are Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model
(2008) and Collins’s good-to-great model (2005a, 2005b).
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) model focuses on the organizational skills of a leader.
As the name suggests, the model consists of four frames. The structural frame focuses on
the systems within the organization. Relationships of the individuals within the organiza-
tion are central to the human resources frame. The political frame helps leaders to con-
ceptualize power battles over resources. The fundamental feature of the symbolic frame is
the meaning or the “brand” of the organization. Superintendents must have the faculties
for implementing all of Bolman and Deal’s model aptitudes because each is necessary for
leading successful organizations.
Successful organizations do not occur by accident; they are developed by deter-
mined leaders (Collins, 2005a). Collins’s framework describes what it takes to create a
great organization. Collins’s model is based on four stages: (a) disciplined people, (b)
disciplined thought, (c) disciplined action, and (d) building greatness to last. When these
stages are enacted, the organization goes from good to great.
The Development of Superintendents
Today, prospective superintendents have a variety of options for achieving their
career goal. At one time, the only route was to start at the bottom as a teacher and work
up to the top position. Now, there are more options. The traditional track is still available,
with teachers taking administrative foundation classes and earning credentials, master’s
4
degrees, and doctorates. There are also alternative routes, including nonprofit and for-
profit academies. Generally, these options are for leaders of large organizations, typically
in the business sector or the military.
Superintendent/School Board Relations
Regardless of the chosen path, a superintendent must maintain a positive working
relationship with the school board to preserve his or her position. Once hired, the super-
intendent must make a positive first impression with the board (Townsend et al., 2007). A
superintendent must understand the desires of each board member and deliver on those
expectations. Thus, it is important to become acquainted with the school board members
and establish communication protocols (Callan & Levinson, 2011; Townsend et al.,
2007). These protocols can foster a positive and trusting relationship with school board
members, making it easier for the superintendent to garner support for his or her recom-
mendations and boost the overall performance of the district (Townsend et al., 2007).
Communication
Communication between superintendent and school board functions in two ways:
formal or informal. Informal communication occurs through person-to-person interac-
tions such as meetings, telephone calls, emails, texts, and tweets. Formal communications
occur when the superintendent wants to communicate with all members of the school
board. Typically, these communications are formal emails, weekly update letters, board
packets, and other formal writings. Successful superintendents navigate between these
communications clearly and effectively (Callan & Levinson, 2011).
5
Trust
Trust is the result of a clear and positive working relationship between a superin-
tendent and the school board (Harris, 2009) and therefore should be of the priorities of
the superintendent (Townsend et al., 2011). Covey (2006) contended that trust speeds an
organization’s effectiveness to produce desired outcomes. Hurley (2006) described how
one develops and manages trust. These are critical calculations that a superintendent
should keep mind when trying to develop and maintain trust with the board. By carefully
nurturing a trusting relationship, a superintendent can maintain a positive rapport with the
board (Eller & Carlson, 2009).
Entry Plan
Many superintendents use entry plans as formal documents to communicate
district vision and goals (Eller & Carlson, 2009; Johnston et al., 2009). Most of these
plans are presented during the entry period to address the goals of the first 90 to 100 days
(Bradt, Check, & Pedraza, 2009; Neff & Citrin, 2005; Watkins, 2003). Watkins (2003)
offered 10 recommendations to be addressed in an entry plan: “promote yourself, accel-
erate your learning, match strategy to situation, secure early wins, negotiate success,
achieve alignment, build your team, create coalitions, keep your balance, and expedite
everyone” (pp. 12-14). In creating a document for the school board and the public to see,
a superintendent can showcase his or her success and create transparency of purpose,
leading to trust in his or her leadership (Covey, 2006; Eller & Carlson, 2009; Harris,
2009; Watkins, 2003).
Statement of the Problem
The contemporary superintendent must do more than ever (Kowalski, 2005;
Kowalski et al., 2011; LSS, 2002). Today’s superintendent must fulfill five major roles:
6
teacher-scholar, business leader, statesman, social scientist, and communicator
(Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2011). Superintendents are more accountable than ever
to fulfill their roles to ensure that no child is left behind (Kowalski et al., 2011).
The school board is directly responsible for ensuring that the superintendent ful-
fills the role as chief executive of the district and meets the requirements stated in NCLB
(Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010; Smoley, 1999; Townsend et
al., 2007). District leaders and school boards can positively affect student achievement
when they work together to set policy that focuses on improving student outcomes
(Harris, 2009; Kowalski et al., 2011; Leithwood, 2005). A superintendent’s entry period
offers the best opportunity for the two factions to create an effective working relationship
(Eller & Carlson, 2009; Townsend et al., 2007)
Unfortunately, the bulk of research in educational leadership has focused on the
school site principal, leaving a need for empirical research that studies upper-level district
leadership (Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; LSS, 2002; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). Prospec-
tive and current superintendents have access to many resources that offer advice for
working successfully with school boards (e.g., Corwin Press and the American Associa-
tion of School Administrators websites), but there are few empirical studies on what suc-
cessful superintendents actually do during their entry periods to create these relationships.
More qualitative research is needed to understand what is required for a superintendent to
build an efficacious relationship in today’s multifaceted, high-accountability educational
environment.
7
Purpose of the Study
This study identifies strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use
to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period.
The study extrapolates working practices that create and maintain effective superinten-
dent/school board relationships. Three research questions guided the study:
1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists aspiring superintendents
for entry into the superintendency?
Importance of the Study
Given today’s tumultuous education environment, superintendents must be
prepared to address all issues facing districts and their boards. This study looks at what is
required to overcome all obstacles to positive superintendent/school board relationships
and thus will add to the empirical knowledge base of educational leadership. The study
can prepare new superintendents for their jobs. It can outline the skills that prospective
superintendents must hone to guide their school boards effectively. This study offers
empirical support to publications that advise new and experienced superintendents to
meet the challenges of 21st-century educational leadership.
Limitations of the Study
1. The study is limited to the input provided by voluntary participants.
2. The depth of interviews was limited due to time constraints.
3. The participants’ experiences as superintendents and educators varied consider-
ably.
8
Delimitations of the Study
1. The study was delimited to the number of participants surveyed and inter-
viewed.
2. Participation was restricted to superintendents in California school districts
with an average daily attendance (ADA) of at least 2,000 students.
3. Participation was delimited to superintendents with a minimum of 3 years
experience as a superintendent.
4. Participation was delimited to superintendents who were external hires to their
current positions.
5. Participation was delimited to superintendents of any district currently at or
over an Academic Performance Index (API) of 800 with any growth over a 3-year period,
or any district currently under an API of 800 but with demonstrated growth of at least 30
points over a 3-year period.
Assumptions
1. The research team carried out the study collaboratively and ethically.
2. Responding participants answered honestly and candidly, based on their expe-
rience.
3. Data collection provided useful, pertinent information regarding the critical
aspects of the first 90 to 100 days of the superintendency.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of the study, the following terms are defined:
Accountability
Being held responsible for actions and/or results, especially those of student out-
comes.
9
Academic Performance Index (API)
A score given to a school or district by the California Department of Education
based on student achievement on state standardized assessments.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
Average daily attendance of students.
Communication
Any written or oral dialog between people.
Entry Period
The first 90 to 100 days on the job for the new superintendent.
Entry Plan
A plan that outlines strategies and goals that a new superintendent would follow
during the entry period in an effort to create a successful tenure. A formal entry plan is a
written document that is shared with the school board and/or other school district stake-
holders. An informal entry plan is a personal plan that may or may not be documented
and shared with others; hence, there cannot be public accountability for the plan.
External/Internal Hire
External hires come from outside of the school district; internal hires are hired
from within the school district.
School Board
Local elected officials charged with the oversight of the school district and
superintendent of that district; sometimes called trustees.
Superintendent
The top leadership position in a California public school district, similar to that of
a chief executive officer (CEO) in the private sector.
10
Trust
The feeling that one will do no harm to another.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 gives an overview of the study. The chapter provides an introduction,
the background of the study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the
importance of the study, the limitations, the delimitations, the assumptions, and defini-
tions of terms. Chapter 2 reviews available literature on the topic of the superintendency,
with focus on superintendent/school board relations. The topics detailed include (a) the
historical roles of the superintendent, (b) leadership and supporting frameworks, (c) the
development of a superintendent, (d) superintendent-school board relations, (e) com-
munication, (f) trust, and (g) entry plans. Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the
study: (a) research design, (b) the research questions, (c) the sample and population, (d)
the instrumentation, (e) the interview/data collection procedures, (f) data analysis, and (g)
ethical considerations. Chapter 4 reports the results of the study. Chapter 5 presents anal-
ysis and discussion of the results of data analysis, including conclusions and recommen-
dations.
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Since 1865, the role of the superintendent has undergone many metamorphoses in
response to the ever-increasing demands of the position (Callahan, 1966). Today, the
superintendent’s role requires more than ever before (Kowalski et al., 2011). A superin-
tendent must navigate multiple challenges to meet the demands of contemporary
accountability requirements (Kowalski et al., 201l; Leithwood, 2005; LSS, 2002). When
these factors overwhelm either the superintendent or the board, they negatively impact
the relationship and can lead to ineffective board decisions and possible dismissal of the
superintendent (Eller & Carlson, 2009; Kowalski et al., 2011; Smoley, 1999; Townsend
et al., 2007).
Over the years, the superintendent has had many roles. Five of those roles are dis-
cussed in the following sections: teacher-scholar, business manager, statesman, applied
social scientist, and communicator (Callahan, 1966; Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al.,
2011). Today’s superintendent must accept all of these roles to navigate the current edu-
cation system and keep a working relationship with the school board (Eller & Carlson,
2009). To analyze the leadership effectiveness of a superintendent, two key frameworks
guide this discussion: (a) Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames from their book Re-
forming Organizations, and (b) Collins’s (2005a, 2005b) good-to-great framework. The
ensuing section describes how superintendents are prepared to meet these roles and what
support is offered once they are hired. Next is a discussion of superintendent/school
board relationships, with an emphasis on two keys for creating a working relationship
with a school board: communication and trust. Scott’s (2004) fierce conversations
12
framework, Covey’s (2006) speed of trust frameworks, and Hurley’s (2006) decision to
trust guide this analysis. Finally, this review supports the creation of an entry plan that
outlines what a superintendent intends to accomplish in the first 90 to 100 days of a new
superintendency, as detailed by Watkins (2003) in his book The First 90 Days.
Historical Roles of the Superintendent
One of the first roles of the superintendent documented by education historians is
that of teacher-scholar (Callahan, 1966). This was a prominent role from 1865 until 1910
(Kowalski et al., 2011). The primary function of the superintendent was to lead and
supervise teachers, while ensuring a common course of study. When new knowledge
arose, it was expected that the superintendent would modify the course of study to reflect
the new knowledge base. During this period, the superintendent was ranked above teach-
ers and principals, but in practice was a subordinate of the school board. Many school
boards feared giving the superintendent more responsibilities, such as budgeting and
human resources. In urban areas, superintendents were given more latitude and oppor-
tunity for career growth. It was not uncommon for superintendents to become state
superintendents, professors, or college presidents.
Between 1910 and approximately 1940, the superintendent’s primary role was
that of a business leader. The Industrial Revolution had a lasting impact on education.
During this time, the school boards, especially those in urban areas, were intent on bor-
rowing from business practices and applying them to education. Some school boards
began to value managerial skills over educational prowess. Universities, such as Teachers
College, Columbia University, began to offer courses in education administration.
13
Throughout this era, superintendents were expected to be strong goal-oriented leaders
(Callahan, 1966).
By 1930 the Industrial Revolution had given way to the Great Depression, and the
public began to withdraw support for using business models to organize publically sup-
ported institutions (Kowalski et al., 2011). Classic organizational theory was criticized,
and leadership by democratic values took its place. The role of statesman for the super-
intendent had great democratic appeal and remained in favor until the 1950s (Björk &
Gurley, 2005). Thus, like a politician, the superintendent needed to fight for scarce
resources by enlisting the public’s support for schools.
By the 1950s, democratic leadership began to be viewed as impractical, and the
popular role for the superintendent was that of applied social scientist in conjunction with
this growing field of study. Superintendents were expected to respond to the needs of the
community and to solve problems of democracy and multiculturalism, using scientific
reasoning. Universities began to focus on theory and reduced clinical experiences in their
superintendent preparation programs (Callahan, 1966).
Superintendents also began to change communication methods. Schools are
notorious islands of existence. Even within a campus, many teachers operate in isolation
behind closed doors. Prior to the 1980s, superintendents used this closed communication
style to communicate, using positional power to give top-down instructions to subordi-
nates. During this time, communication was unidirectional and detached. By the 1980s
and 1990s, the education community began to contest this communication pattern. Schol-
ars found that such communication had negative consequences (Guzley, 1992; Trombetta
& Rogers, 1988), such as low employee morale and low institutional effectiveness. Since
14
2001, successful superintendents have embraced the role of effective communicator
(Kowalski, 2005). Collaboration became the key (Björk & Lindle, 2001) to effective and
reform-minded organizations. A successful superintendent must manage various leader-
ship roles with increased effectiveness; to do so requires deep understanding of organiza-
tional leadership theory and what is required to create and lead a great organization
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Collins, 2005a, 2005b; Drucker, 2001; Hoyle et al., 2005).
Leadership Theory and Supporting Frameworks
Bolman and Deal (2008) defined a frame as “a coherent set of ideas forming a
prism or lens that enables you to see and understand more clearly what goes on from day
to day” (p. 43). Frames help one to understand the social architecture and consequences
of such structures. Bolman and Deal (2008) offered researchers and leaders a framework
for evaluating organizations in their landmark book, first written in 1984, Reforming
Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. They discussed four frames, or lenses,
for examining organizations from different perspectives. These frames help both the
leader and the researcher. Leaders gain the tools needed to improve decision making,
leadership, and ability to analyze the organization; researchers use the frames to analyze a
leader’s style and strategies.
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) framework includes four frames: the structural frame,
the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. The structural
frame looks at an institution through the lens of the organization as a factory. In the
human resource frame, organizations are considered extended families. Organizations are
seen as arenas, contests, or jungles in the political frame. The symbolic frame views
organizations as carnivals, tribes, or theaters.
15
The structural frame defines what an organization can and cannot achieve
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). Leaders use this or similar frames to define goals, objectives,
and the vision of the organization. If sufficiently in place, synchronization between
workers and other stakeholders can occur through defined responsibilities. Organizations
that address the structure of the institution can reach desired outcomes while allowing for
personal differences. To clarify, organizations are structured to achieve goals; if those
goals are in place, there is increased efficacy and productivity. In the same vein, with
appropriate alignment and parameters, diversity should flourish. Difficulties and deficits
can be overcome through careful examination and restructuring if there are structures to
address the institution’s current needs. Superintendents can use this frame to address each
of the five roles discussed by Callahan (1966) and Kowalski et al. (2011). For example,
in the role of teacher-scholar, superintendents provide a structure for staff professional
development. This frame is taken directly from the business world, and it allows super-
intendents to fulfill their roles as statesmen by showing how their organizations are set up
to meet their defined goals and where their institutions need support for improvement.
The structural frame helps the superintendent to communicate through dissemination of
the organization’s visions, objectives, and goals.
The human resource frame is built around the concept that organizations are
created to serve human needs (Bolman & Deal, 2008). They have reciprocal relationships
that hold to the concept that institutions and people need each other to function properly
(Hoyle et al., 2005; Kowalski, 2005). If the alignment of people and the organization is
not in place, one will take away from the other and ruin the system (Bolman & Deal,
2008). The opposite is also true. When systems are set up correctly, the organization and
16
its people work together to create high job satisfaction. Therefore, the institution meets its
stated goals, especially in the area of instructional leadership (Hoyle et al., 2005; Peterson
& Barnett, 2005).
For the superintendent to thrive, the people within the organization must be
allowed to succeed (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Hoyle et al., 2005). It is imperative that the
superintendent understand his or her role as applied social scientist and avoid giving
direction in a top-down manner that takes away stakeholders’ decision-making abilities
(Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2005; Hoyle et al., 2005). Furthermore, most districts are made up
of various labor unions that will not allow administrators the luxury of such unilateral
actions without stirring controversy that would further undermine administrative
decision-making powers (Callan & Levinson, 2011). Instead, superintendents must
nurture employees and facilitate individual productivity through interpersonal
relationships and open communication (Harris, 2009).
Organizations are made up of interrelated individuals, shareholders, and stake-
holders (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Harris, 2009). In society and politics, there are unlimited
differences among those who are involved, and all have various interests that they want
addressed (Björk & Gurley, 2005; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Callan & Levinson, 2011; Eller
& Carlson, 2009; Harris, 2009; Townsend et al., 2007). The diversity of interests centers
around values, beliefs, knowledge, and situational perspectives (Björk & Gurley, 2005;
Bolman & Deal, 2008; Hoyle et al., 2005). Furthermore, leaders have to decide who
receives scarce resources. The political frame helps leaders to make these decisions and
recognize that there will always be conflict between constituents’ various perspectives
and the scarcity of resources (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Thus, power is the most important
17
resource (Drucker, 2001). Interested parties must negotiate and compromise in a timely
manner to receive these resources by being in the right place at the right time, or by
having the need at the right time (Callan & Levinson, 2011).
Resources continue to be scarce for many of today’s superintendents, making the
role of statesman difficult (Björk & Gurley, 2005). Cuts are a mainstay, and many groups
fight to stay off the chopping block (Björk & Gurley, 2005; Drucker, 2001). A superin-
tendent must use the political frame to access resources for the district, secure the ap-
proval by the school board, and maintain the support of the community (Eller & Carlson,
2009). The political frame demonstrates a need for the superintendent to build coalitions
and provide outlets for all stakeholders to overcome conflicts and disagreements (Harris,
2009).
All organizations have a culture. The symbolic frame gives the leader, or re-
searcher, a way to understand the symbols and meaning behind an organization and its
activities (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Organizations can use symbols to represent the reason
for their existence or how they reach their goals. Symbols help to define an organization
and eliminate ambiguity. They are the expression of what it means to be part of the
organization.
For superintendents, the symbolic frame relates to the need for a vision and
charisma to garner support (Harris, 2009). The framework can help a leader to understand
and show understanding of the organization (Kowalski & Keedy, 2005). It offers a lens
for a superintendent to view the roles of statesman, social scientist, and communicator
(Björk & Gurley, 2005; Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2005; Kowalski & Keedy, 2005). A leader
must understand his or her community and why the organization is important to inspire
18
employees through ceremonies and rituals (Bolman & Deal, 2008). These symbolic situ-
ations can also be used to secure scarce resources (Harris, 2009).
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) framework helps researchers to analyze the inner
workings of an organization, but it does not address quality or how to improve the
organization. Collins and his research team provided a framework for measuring
greatness by looking at “great” companies and comparing them to their “good”
counterparts. Through careful analysis, trends emerged. Great companies excelled in
three key areas revolving around discipline: disciplined people, disciplined thought, and
disciplined action (Collins, 2005a). With these disciplines in place, great companies
achieved breakthroughs that resulted in higher long-term profits than both the good com-
panies and the New York Stock Exchange.
Superintendents do not have a profit-driven motive. Nor can they ensure that they
have disciplined people throughout the organization. They do not have the ability to
simply restructure, or eliminate, those who do not fit the current direction of the
company. In response to these issues, the Good to Great team (Collins, 2005a) created a
supplemental monograph to the original framework for social sectors (Collins, 2005b).
This piece can be applied to analyze the greatness of superintendents and their organiza-
tions.
Greatness can occur in both the private and public sectors (Collins, 2005a,
2005b). Great organizations perform exceptionally well and make a difference over the
long term (Collins, 2005a). In social sector organizations, such as school districts, the key
is to assess how well the institution is meeting its mission (Collins, 2005b; Harris, 2009).
School districts must identify available resources and remain accountable for outputs in
19
relation to their goals (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Drucker, 2001). Leaders in these organiza-
tions show disciplined thoughts and actions through the ability to develop and organize
thoughtful people (Collins, 2005b). In the social sector, positional power will not suffice
to build these types of coalitions. Superintendents must use their other roles, especially
those of social scientist and communicator (Björk & Gurley, 2005; Kowalski, 2005).
According to Collins’s framework for the social sector, a leader can use the
“hedgehog concept” to motivate colleagues in disciplined action, thus leading the organi-
zation to greatness (Collins 2005a, 2005b). The hedgehog concept overlaps three ideals.
Ideal one is to define what the organization is passionate about. Great leaders understand
what their organizations stand for. As in Bolman and Deal’s (2008) symbolic and struc-
tural frames, a leader should know the organization’s mission, objectives, core values,
and purposes. Ideal two is to define what the organization can be best at. This takes an
understanding of the people in the institution and its stakeholders. Leaders should recog-
nize how the system can best meet the needs of the community that it serves. Like the
human resource frame, this ideal relates to the role of superintendent as social scientist,
requiring knowledge of how the institution contributes to the betterment of all stakehold-
ers and how it can contribute to the community that it serves. Ideal three is to understand
the resource engine. This ideal encompasses what drives the organization toward success.
A leader must understand the man hours, the costs, and the appeal or the brand of the
organization to access these resources (Collins 2005a, 2005b).
In synthesizing this information, the superintendent must manage and lead the
organization by using a large variety of skills. The superintendent can gain this leadership
20
knowledge in a variety of ways. The key is to have that knowledge base before entering
the superintendency.
The Development of a Superintendent
Today, one can take any of many roads to become a superintendent. Traditionally,
superintendents started off in the classroom and then became vice-principals, principals,
assistant superintendents, and superintendents (Callan & Levinson, 2010). Somewhere
between middle and upper management, many of these former classroom instructors
partake in university coursework to become a superintendent (Cooper, Fusarelli, Jackson,
& Poster, 2002; Orr, 2007; Teitel, 2006). The quality of these programs and their rele-
vance to the actual position of superintendent are suspect (Cooper et al., 2010; Orr, 2007)
and require further research. However, a survey by Kowalski et al. (2011) showed that
78% of 12,600 superintendents were satisfied with their preparation; 85% had completed
pre-superintendent university programs and 45% held doctoral degrees.
Alternatively, for-profit companies and nonprofit foundations, such as the Gates
and Broad foundations, offer training and support for both prospective and sitting super-
intendents (Teitel, 2005). These programs serve a select group but choose a wide range of
candidates from both the public and private sectors (Orr, 2007). State agencies and pro-
fessional associations offer sitting superintendents options for improving practice. The
American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and state associations generate
some of the largest networking and support opportunities for superintendents (Cooper et
al., 2010; Orr, 2007; Teitel, 2005).
Regardless of the path, there are skills that superintendents must have. Today’s
superintendent must be a communicator and an instructional leader (Kowalski et al.,
21
2011; Moore, Dexter, Berube, & Beck, 2005). Superintendents need a network to discuss
the unpredictable aspects of their positions, raise questions that do not have ready
answers, and find solace with other leaders who work in a sometimes isolated position
(Moore et al., 2005; Orr, 2007; Teitel, 2005) while maintaining a positive relationship
with their board.
Superintendent/School Board Relations
Prospective superintendents must make positive first impressions. Successful
superintendents complete a thorough investigation of the prospective district, including
the school board (Townsend et al., 2007). During the interview process, the prospective
superintendent should ask questions to ensure a connection with the board. A proper fit
between the school board and the superintendent will allow everyone involved to focus
on their primary goals and objectives, which should be centered on students and student
learning (Harris, 2009; Townsend et al., 2007).
A new superintendent should become acquainted with all school board members
(Callan & Levinson, 201l; Harris, 2009; Townsend et al., 2007). During this time of
increasing familiarity, the superintendent must learn the goals and objectives of each of
the school board members and establish communication protocols. It is important to meet
individually with school board members to further these understandings. If a superinten-
dent’s communication style differs from that of the board, the superintendent should
adapt to maintain clear lines of communication (Townsend et al., 2007). Trust between
the school board and superintendent will grow when communications are clear and rela-
tionships are established (Callan & Levinson, 201l; Harris, 2009; Townsend et al., 2007).
22
Although superintendents may be exceptionally busy people, they should set aside
a significant portion of time to establish and maintain positive working relationships with
their school boards (Townsend et al., 2007). The school board both supervises the super-
intendent and sets policy for the school district. If a superintendent wants to accomplish
any reform or maintain success, he or she must make sure that the board is involved
(Callan & Levinson, 201l; Harris, 2009; Townsend et al., 2007). One strategy is open
communication (Callan & Levinson, 2011).
Communication
Leaders, specifically superintendents, must be expert communicators (Bolman &
Deal, 2008). Unfortunately, most superintendents work their way up through the educa-
tion system and have little formal training in communication (Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski
et al., 2011). This section provides a discussion of current communication practices that
can help successful leaders to engage their constituents.
Effective communication is an asset for administrators. Administrators who feel
that communicating with subordinates and the public is a waste of time are mistaken.
Grenny (2006) argued that communication helps administrators to influence the systems
in which they work. Administrators may also find that the less they communicate, the
more critical the information that they miss (Grenny, 2006; Townsend et al., 2007).
Communicative relationships can be structured around protocols that ensure that
important details are transmitted between parties. For the superintendent, communication
protocols can lead to satisfactory communication between the factions (Callan & Levin-
son; Townsend et al., 2007).
23
Grenny (2006) offered five crucial conversations that can improve working rela-
tionships and lead to higher productivity. The first conversation should address concerns
with workers’ competence. Employers should address areas for improvement with
employees when issues arise. This avoids further harm from allowing negative behaviors
to continue. The second conversation should be a discussion of questions around admin-
istrative decisions. A manager’s decision can reduce work productivity, particularly when
workers do nothing to correct a wrong decision or allow their work to be negatively in-
fluenced by misinformation. The third conversation deals with mistrust of administration.
Grenny related this issue to research that found that 97% of doctors mistrusted their ad-
ministrations yet did nothing to remedy the situation. The fourth conversation addresses
staffing issues. Grenny’s research found that up to 80% of doctors had reservations about
the staffing at their current place of employment. Similarly, many districts have been
forced to reduce staffing in an era of high accountability and increased pressure to
improve student test scores. Such actions are counterintuitive, but conversations around
these issues are not yielding change. The fifth conversation that should take place
concerns conversation protocols and process problems. Organizations should have a
system of communication that allows all stakeholders to contribute to improvement of the
system.
Conversations are difficult in diverse organizations. Scott (2004) offered seven
principles for overcoming communication difficulties. Principle 1 is to master the
courage to interrogate reality. This principle calls for an honest assessment of the current
reality and for all involved to define their perspectives on the situation. From this point,
participants can identify gaps in understanding and reach a common perspective.
24
Principle 2 involves coming out from behind one’s self into the conversation and making
it real. Authenticity is the key. Authentic conversation requires the speaker to understand
what has been holding him or her back from participating honestly in communication
with colleagues, and then make it happen. Scott suggested starting with zeroing in on
one’s own barriers to open communication. Principle 3 is to be in the moment and
nowhere else. People recognize when they are conversing with someone who is not lis-
tening and is giving only cursory remarks. Instead of offering advice, the effective
communicator will ask clarifying, probing questions to truly understand what the other
person is trying to communicate. Principle 4 requires having “tough” conversations and
addressing issues as they come up. Principle 5 is to listen to one’s instincts, to the internal
voice that may be picking up on subtle aspects of the conversation to recognize what is
truly being said. Principle 6 is to take responsibility for one’s emotional wake. This refers
to any adverse reaction to negative or even positive words said under extreme emotion.
Principle 7 is to let silence do the heavy lifting. The extent of emotion in the conversation
will guide the length of silence and reflection. The greater the emotion, the more time
should be allotted for silent reflection.
Communication can also be used to show appreciation. Egli (2010) recommended
that the superintendent communicate appreciation to the school board through small extra
efforts. Keeping a positive relationship with the school board is critical to accomplishing
district goals (Townsend et al., 2007). One option is to create a “wall of fame” in the
district office. Posting board members’ pictures offers two main advantages: It shows that
the school board is an important part of the district, and it publicly recognizes board
members to those who work in or visit the office. Creating business cards for board
25
members offers another opportunity to connect with the members and gives them a con-
venient way to connect with constituents. Awards, either serious or funny, offer the
superintendent a chance to acknowledge board members’ positive contributions or to
simply recognize them publicly, which most people enjoy.
Another aspect of superintendent/board communications is what to do when there
is a new board member. One approach is to view the board as a team. New members need
to be up to speed for the team to be effective (Harris, 2009). Adamson (2010) offered
advice for orienting new board members beyond the guided tour of the district. It is
important to keep in mind that the transition from citizen to school board member can be
overwhelming. The orientation should reduce information overload and be well planned.
Two goals of this orientation should be to communicate processes for working with the
board of education, the superintendent, and the public and to build a working relationship
between board member and superintendent. The superintendent should lead the discus-
sion, providing basic information about the district, including the district’s values,
mission, and objectives. After discussion of the district, a quality orientation should
address board protocols and practices, emphasizing rules of decorum and working with
the public. Next, the superintendent should consider discussing goals for the district and
how the evaluation process works. The superintendent will develop a working relation-
ship with new board members through this process. It is hoped that relationship will be
positive; if that is not the case, “faking” good humor is not the best answer. Professional-
ism is critical at all times (Adamson, 2010; Scott, 2004).
Communication is an important part of building strong relationships between
superintendents and stakeholders. Sometimes, the communication will be open and
26
friendly; at other times, the superintendent will be challenged to overcome barriers to
open communication. Superintendents need a toolbox of communication skills that allow
for open and honest interactions. When communication is clear, superintendents can
focus on achieving their goals.
Trust
Regardless of the communication approach, the superintendent must build trust.
Watenpaugh (2007), in his entry plan as superintendent of San Rafael City, mentioned
building public trust through open communication. The superintendent must have stake-
holders’ trust to build relationships with them. Covey (2006) argued that the greater the
trust, the more quickly an organization can achieve its goals. Trust between the superin-
tendent and the school board is important in any district, regardless of size, because the
school board hires and fires the superintendent. This is especially important for urban
superintendents, who generally have short tenures.
Definitions of trust are abundant. Trust can be defined as a secure reliance on an-
other in times of need (Hurley, 2006). Gustafsson (2005) related trust to feelings that one
will do no harm to another. She also defined it as an attitude around decisions to partici-
pate in activities based on assessed risk. Covey (2006) defined trust as “confidence” (p.
5). Burke, Sims, Lazzara, and Salas (2007) highlighted three common perspectives on
trust: trust as a trait, trust as a process, and trust as an emerging state. Trust as a trait
refers to an innate, internal desire to trust or distrust. The process of gaining trust has to
do with relationship building through given attitudes and behaviors that either add to or
detract from a trusting relationship. The emergent state of trust is either an input or an
27
output of a trust context and the behaviors related to that context, which may be related to
the mind, the efforts, or the causes of trust.
Developing trust is more than being honest. Covey (2006) described trust as five
waves: self-trust, relationship trust, and stakeholder trust related to organizational,
market, and societal trust. Self-trust has to do with building credibility, which affects the
decision to trust (Hurley, 2006). There are four cores to credibility: integrity, intent,
capabilities, and results. Integrity has to do not only with honesty but also with the im-
pression one leaves. Intent is a combination of motive, agenda, and behaviors. To
increase trust, these three pieces should be performed with consideration for others
(Covey, 2006). Capabilities refer to traits that allow leaders to make an impact on their
organizations. Successful results increase a leader’s credibility and demonstrate reliabil-
ity and steadfastness.
With self-trust in place, the second wave can occur. Relationship trust has to do
with the interactions with others. These interactions can lead to improved trust through 13
behaviors: (a) talk straight, (b) demonstrate respect, (c) create transparency, (d) right
wrongs, (e) show loyalty, (f) deliver results, (g) get better, (h) confront reality, (i) clarify
expectations, (j) practice accountability, (k), listen first, (l) keep commitments, and (m)
extend trust (Covey, 2006, pp. xxi-xxii). Making these behaviors a consistent part of
one’s life increases trust. Leaders should use these behaviors in moderation. Taking them
to an extreme weakens the other behaviors. If any of these behaviors is lacking, one can
“act” them into one’s life through compelling objectives to behave in this manner. For
example, if someone rarely listens before talking, one should simply act like the person is
listening. The challenge goes beyond the task of pretending to listen; it requires a
28
conscious effort to try to listen first. One’s behavior can change through thoughtfully
committing to stop pretending to listen and actually listening (Covey, 2006).
Once the tools for creating trust are in place, one can move to maintaining trust.
Hurley (2006) suggested 10 factors that managers and leaders can use to maintain an
environment of trust: (a) risk tolerance, (b) level of adjustment, (c) relative power,
(d) security, (e) number of similarities, (f) alignment of interests, (g) benevolent concern,
(h) capability, (i) predictability and integrity, and (j) level of communication (Hurley,
2006, p. 62). For these factors to work, leaders should allow subordinates to want to trust
in such an environment (Hurley, 2006). These factors must be maintained for trust to be
sustained (Covey, 2006; Eller & Carlson, 2009). If risk tolerance is an issue, the leader
should discuss the options and risks associated with the given project, coaching those
who are struggling with their level of adjustment and recognizing their successes
(Drucker, 2001; Harris, 2009; Hoyle et al., 2005). A leader should offer choices when
relative power is an issue (Hoyle et al., 2005). For those struggling with security, the
leader should look for ways to reduce risk. The leader should use the word we as much as
possible to rebuild connections during times when similarities are lacking (Scott, 2004).
The leader should be clear whose interests are being served if interest alignment is
becoming an issue. The leader should show true concern when subordinates are feeling
neglected (Hurley, 2006). When capability is a concern, the leader should showcase his
or her abilities. Committing to less than expected and delivering more than expected are
keys to keeping predictability. If levels of communication are a concern, the leader
should increase communication to meet current needs.
29
Entry Plans
A superintendent needs a transition or entry plan to develop communication and
trust with the school board. Entry plans lay out what a superintendent plans to accom-
plish. Watkins (2003) made 10 suggestions for starting an entry period: “(a) Promote
Yourself, (b) Accelerate Your Learning, (c) Match Strategy to Situation, (d) Secure Early
Wins, (e) Negotiate Success, (f) Achieve Alignment, (g) Build Your Team, (h) Create
Coalitions. (i) Keep Your Balance, and (j) Expedite Everyone” (Watkins, 2003, pp. 12-
14). Leaders must recognize that the same skills that allowed for promotion may or may
not be effective in the new position. One should understand what one does well and what
one will need to learn to improve job performance. Watkins (2003) suggests that, when
entering a position, it is important to know what needs to be done to improve the new
organization and to match that need with the proper solution. One possibility is to
increase credibility through accomplishing tasks that were agreed on at the beginning of
the entry period (Covey, 2006; Watkins, 2003). Creating a working relationship with
superiors (in this case the school board) is another way to build credibility. Thereafter,
one should consider analyzing the vision and goals of the organization to ensure that the
institution has alignment to carry out the goals and vision. Next, one should build a team
with the right people in the right positions (Collins, 2005a, 2005b; Watkins, 2003). One
should build relationships with shareholders that can help the organization. Balance
allows the leader to continue making quality decisions. Finally, one should help everyone
in the organization. Watkins (2003) stated that meeting these strategies will lead to a suc-
cessful transition into a new leadership position. Formal programs promoting this type of
plan are rare. The main program is the Broad Superintendents Academy (Broad Center,
30
2011; Quinn, 2007). Many publications the recommend that superintendents create an
entry plan (e.g., Eller & Carlson, 2009; Johnston, 2009; Neely, Berube, & Wilson, 2002).
Conclusion
Superintendents have a very complex job. They must be grounded in leadership
and organizational theory to have the foundation to lead intricate organizations. They
must balance their roles to maintain the health of the organization and meet the vision
and goals of the district. For this to happen, superintendents need the support of their
school boards. Communication is critical for building that relationship. When communi-
cation is strong, trust will increase and student success should follow.
Although the literature explains the need for the superintendent to have a positive
relationship with the school board and lists ways in which superintendents form these
relationships, there is little literature focusing on what superintendents are doing to forge
that bond. The list of skills is extensive, yet is there rarely a discussion by past and
present superintendents about how they put their skills into practice. The path to the
superintendency is now varied and requires considerable life experience. However, the
literature does not go beyond this point. There is a need for further research that identifies
trends in these experiences.
31
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The contemporary superintendent must navigate five leadership roles: teacher-
scholar, business leader, statesman, applied social scientist, and communicator (Callahan,
1966; Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2011). Utilizing these roles helps the superinten-
dent to make informed decisions in today’s complex educational system. Current super-
intendents must address challenges from increasing federal and state accountability
(Callan & Levinson, 2011; Harris, 2009; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). An alignment of
district vision and purpose, along with positive working relationships between the super-
intendent and school board, can help to meet these challenges and can be a catalyst for
improved student outcomes throughout the district (Kowalski et al., 2011; Leithwood &
Riehl, 2005; Smoley, 1999; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The purpose of this study is to
identify strategies that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and
trust with their school boards during their entry period.
Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003) defined case study research as an exploration of
occurrences from the perspective of participants within the given occurrence. For this
case study, researchers interviewed superintendents who work effectively in their profes-
sional environment. Carefully constructed questions helped researchers to identify strate-
gies that a superintendent may not have recognized. Combining qualitative methods with
survey research (a quantitative method) offered a means to elucidate the results (Mertens,
2005).
This chapter describes the method of research and the study procedures, including
the conceptual framework and the research questions that guided the study. The sample
32
and population are described, followed by a description of the instruments and an expla-
nation of the theoretical base and conceptual framework. The chapter concludes with a
description of the statistical method for analysis and triangulation of collected data.
Research Questions
To develop the research questions, the research team discussed what queries
would illuminate both the attributes of a successful superintendent and the attributes of
positive superintendent/school board relationships. The discussions repeatedly led to
communication strategies, the superintendent’s preparation for the position, and trust
strategies. Three research questions emerged from these discussions:
1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists aspiring superintendents
for entry into the superintendency?
Sample and Population
This case study focused on successful superintendents in California. California’s
superintendent population is large, at more than 1,000 (California School Board Associa-
tion, 2010). Surveys were sent to successful superintendents throughout California. The
average contract length for superintendents in the United States is 3 years (Kowalski et
al., 2011). It takes someone special to extend the length of his or her career as a superin-
tendent, given such short contract lengths. Mixed purposeful sampling was used to select
the superintendents for the study (Patton, 2002). Initially, criterion sampling was used to
identify 90 successful superintendents (Mertens, 2005; Patton, 2002). To validate the
33
superintendents’ responses to surveys sent to them, surveys were also sent to school
board presidents of the surveyed superintendents’ districts and the data sets were tri-
angulated. Theory sampling was used based on the responses to the surveys to determine
nine superintendents to study in-depth, one for each member of the research team (Patton,
2002).
The criteria for inclusion centered on the question, What is a successful superin-
tendent? The first criterion was high academic achievement. The members of the research
team chose superintendents who head school districts with either API of 800 or above
and 3 years of positive growth or districts with below 800 API and above average gains
for the areas in which they are located. The research team averaged the growth of the
schools in Los Angeles County (the county with the most school districts in the state) and
found that the average growth of schools over 3 years was 27 API points. The research
team wanted above-average district growth and set the standard at 30 API points over 3
years. These criteria were based on the role of superintendent as teacher scholar, specif-
ically as instructional leader (Callahan, 1966; Kowalski, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2011).
The next criterion for participation was a track record of success of at least 3
years, because there is a connection between prior success and future success (Kowalski
et al., 2011). To support this résumé of success, the successful superintendent was
required to have a positive reputation as verified by an executive search firm. The
research team did not set a limit on the type of district because California districts are
diverse, and the team wished to shed light on a subject that could help future and new
superintendents to increase their capacity for the position. Furthermore, identified super-
intendents were external hires because external hires are more likely to have had entry
34
plans that outlined the entry period for the superintendent (Callan & Levinson, 2011;
Watkins, 2003). The research team also looked for superintendents who were recent hires
because it was expected that they would have a clearer picture of the steps taken to create
a positive working relationship with the school board. Finally, the ADA of the district
was required to be above 2,000 students to ensure that the superintendent’s role was only
that of superintendent.
Instrumentation
This study used two instruments to collect data: a questionnaire and an interview
guide. Each instrument added to the researcher’s ability to triangulate the data and
improve the reliability of the study.
The questions for the questionnaire were based on the three research questions
and research gleaned from the literature review. Research by Bolman and Deal (2008),
Watkins (2003), Covey (2006), and Scott (2004) was paramount. The questionnaire was
limited to 20 questions to increase response rate from busy superintendents. Each
question was designed to address one or more of the research questions and was sup-
ported by concepts learned in the literature review. Appendix A illustrates the research
frameworks used to form the questionnaires for both the superintendents and the school
board presidents.
Appendix B displays the survey that was given to the superintendent and board
president. Column 2 identifies the research framework from which the question was
developed. Columns 3, 4, and 5 list the questions for the superintendent and the school
board president and the question number. Appendix C displays the final version of the
35
questionnaire. Appendix D displays the question alignment chart. Appendix E displays
the Topic by Time Triangulation table (Patton, 2002, p. 352).
The research team designed the interview schedule. Before creating the questions,
the research team piloted the initial survey with superintendents and school board
members. The surveys were modified based on pilot feedback, analysis, and discussion
by the research team. The research team developed the interview guide (Appendix F)
with field data in mind, coupled with research from the literature review. The questions
were created in a semistructured interview format (Patton, 2002). The questions were
written to induce responses that would address the research questions; they were open
ended to facilitate conversation. To develop the questions, the research team used
Patton’s (2002) Topic by Time Triangulation table (Appendix E). The research team used
the table to understand specifically what the questions were asking. The table also served
to guide the interviewee in understanding how responses would address the research
questions.
Due to superintendent preference, the interview guide questions were organized
by topic: (a) Superintendent Training and Preparation; (b) Superintendent Entry;
(c) Issues and Challenges of the Superintendency; (d) Superintendent Strategies, Super-
intendent/Board Relationships; and (e) Superintendent Evaluation.
As in the survey, both the superintendent and the president of the school board in
which the superintendent works were interviewed. Interviews were recorded and tran-
scribed for analysis. The instruments were tested for reliability and validity. After creat-
ing the instruments, the research team piloted the instruments with volunteer
superintendents. The instruments were then improved using the pilot data.
36
Interview/Data Collection Procedures
First, the research team analyzed public data from the school districts. The
districts that qualified were listed and survey packets were addressed to superintendents
leading those districts. Upon successful defense of the study design, the survey packets
were mailed. Survey packets contained explanatory cover letters to the superintendent
and school board member, questionnaires for both, return-addressed stamped envelopes,
and a $5 gift card to Starbucks™ as a reward for opening the survey packet. Follow-up
surveys were sent after 3 weeks to nonrespondents, using a friendly cover letter that
explained what the research team is doing and how responses would prepare and support
new and future superintendents.
Once the surveys were returned, the research team analyzed responses and super-
intendents were selected for case study interviews. Research team members performed a
series of mock interviews with one another in preparation for the interviews with partici-
pants. Members of the research team who were not being interviewed took notes on the
interviews and offered feedback to the practicing interviewers. The goal of this process
was to help the research team to practice recording data, using their preferred recording
devices, and to practice taking notes during the interview.
Those superintendents who agreed to participate in the study were interviewed
using the semistructured interview guide. This type of interview was chosen to keep the
interviewer and interviewee on track during the interview process. Superintendents and
their board members are extremely busy, and the research team wanted to extract as
much information as possible in a short time (20 to 40 minutes). Researchers recorded the
interviews and took notes on the interview guide, then entered reflective notes on com-
pletion of the interview. Responses of the superintendent and school board president
37
either reinforced or disputed responses to the questionnaire and interviews. A
professional transcriptionist transcribed all recorded data and then the researcher
reviewed the transcription for accuracy. Data collection took place over 5 months: July
through November 2011. After all data were collected, the data analysis process began.
Data Analysis
Triangulation
The research team created a Research Question by Data Source Triangulation
Matrix (Appendix G) to ensure that data were triangulated. The research team used
multiple methods of triangulation of data from three sources, as noted by the chart: inter-
views, existing documents and closed-end survey and rating. Appendix H shows the other
triangulation methods that were employed by the research team. Besides multiple
methods triangulation, monomethod triangulation was used. This study used purposeful
sampling, multiple investigators, and multiple interview guides.
Data Analysis Plan
Once the data were collected, the team met to analyze the data, using Creswell’s
(2003) six-step plan for data analysis. The first step was to prepare the data for analysis.
All survey data were typed and any voice-recorded materials were transcribed. In the
second step, all data were read. In the third step, the team applied the agreed coding
process. Codes were created based on the research team’s conceptual framework and the
themes of leadership, relationships, communication, and trust. The fourth step occurred
when the research team began to describe the emerging patterns in detail. It is here that
connections to leadership theory and the literature offered advice for the new superinten-
dent. For the fifth step, the team developed an outline for the qualitative narrative that
38
described the study and reported the results. In the sixth step, the team interpreted the
data. After sustained discussion, the interpretations were agreed on and interpretations
served as the basis for Chapter 5.
Ethical Considerations
All members of the research team participated in the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) process. This process included the Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI), an
online component that trains researchers to consider the ethical implications of research.
The goal was to ensure that the study would do no physical or emotional harm to partici-
pants.
Chapter Summary
The chapter describes the methodology of the study on how superintendents build
positive relationships with the school board during the entry period. This study focused
on successful superintendents in California. Instruments for collecting data were surveys
and interviews. Data analysis was done collaboratively, using appropriate statistical anal-
ysis, as well as appropriate qualitative analysis. It was the goal of the research team to
draw conclusions from these results that would inform the practice of prospective, new,
and experienced superintendents.
39
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Today’s superintendents face great challenges. These leaders must navigate
federal and state accountability, reductions in funding, growing student diversity, and the
maintenance of relationships with district bargaining units. All of these matters require
thoughtful attention. Superintendents are best served if they have a trusting working rela-
tionship with their school boards when facing these challenges (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Furthermore, the entry period is one of the most powerful times for a new leader, which
could mean success or failure in the new leadership position (Watkins, 2003). The aim of
this study was to identify what successful superintendents do to create trust with their
school board during the entry period. This chapter presents the qualitative findings from
matched surveys of superintendents and school board members and triangulates these
data with in-depth one-on-one interviews of a superintendent and the corresponding
school board president. The results of the study are then compared to the literature.
Three questions were developed for this study; each question was centered on the
superintendent’s entry period.
1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists aspiring superintendents
for entry into the superintendency?
This chapter first reports the demographics of the sample. Next, the results for
research questions 1, 2, and 3 are presented, discussed, and summarized. The chapter
40
includes tables, survey responses, and quotations from the interviews. The chapter
concludes with a chapter summary.
Participants
The research team collaboratively developed criteria for the sample population.
These parameters were meant to isolate successful superintendents from all others while
keeping the parameters open enough to capture superintendents from a variety of
districts. The superintendents and school board members who participated in this study
were all in California, representing every major region of the state. These superintendents
led a diverse range of students that included low socioeconomic status (SES), high SES,
monocultural (although no district in the state is truly monocultural), and multicultural
students. The size of the districts ranged from 2,000 to more than 50,000 students.
The initial sample included 90 superintendents and 90 school board presidents/
designees, purposely selected from criteria described in Chapter 3. The participants were
asked to complete a survey delivered to their district office. A total of 64 superintendents
returned completed surveys, for a participation rate of 71.1%. A total of 48 school board
members returned completed surveys, for a participation rate of 53.3%. Of the surveys
returned, 46 were paired; that is, both the superintendent and the board president/designee
from the same district returned surveys.
This section reports the demographics of the 64 superintendents who participated
in the study. Demographic data collected included gender and possession of a doctorate.
This information guided the research team to label the salutation section of the survey
letters to the sample. Table 1 displays the frequencies of gender and doctorate for the
participants in the study.
41
Table 1
Demographic Data for Participating Superintendents (N = 64)
Characteristic and category f %
Gender
Male 46 71.9
Female 18 28.1
Doctorate
Yes 39 60.9
No 25 39.1
As shown in Table 1, more males than females participated in the study. These
results are similar to the national decennial study conducted by Kowalski et al. (2011),
which had a gender distribution of 75.9% male and 24.1% female. Table 1 also shows
that a majority (60.9%) of the participants had earned a doctorate. These results are
higher than those reported by Kowalski et al., with 45.3% holding a doctorate.
The research team extrapolated three areas of demographic data from the districts
in which the superintendent sample worked: (a) size of the district as measured by ADA
or student enrollment numbers, (b) student ethnicity, and (c) geographic location. Table 2
shows that the largest portion of the sample came from districts with ADAs of 2,000 to
9,999 students, and the range of ADAs was 2,193 to 52,051.
The ethnic data for these districts were diverse, but disaggregation of the data
showed that the three largest ethnicity groups for each participating district repeated
throughout the results: Asian, Latino or Hispanic, and White. Table 3 reports these
results.
42
Table 2
Average Daily Attendance of Districts of Participating Superintendents (N = 64)
Average daily attendance f %
2,000-9,999 38 59.4
10,000-19,000 12 18.7
20,000-29,999 10 15.6
30,000-50,000+ 4 6.3
Table 3
Largest Ethnic Group per District (N = 64)
Ethnicity f %
Asian 7 10.9
Latino or Hispanic 28 43.8
White 29 45.3
The majority of districts in this study were located in southern California.
Although many districts were south of the Tejon Pass (the informal landmark, also
known as the Grapevine, that distinguishes southern California from the central and
northern sections of the state), they were distributed throughout the region, as well as in
various counties. The largest populated county in the state, Los Angeles, also had the
largest number of participants in the study, followed by Orange County (one of the most
43
affluent counties in the state). Table 4 shows that the districts were in a total of 16
counties.
Table 4
Number of Districts per Participating County (N = 64)
County f %
Alameda 2 3.0
Contra Costa 3 4.6
El Dorado 1 1.6
Imperial 1 1.6
Kern 5 7.8
Los Angeles 19 29.7
Marin 1 1.6
Orange 9 14.0
Riverside 5 7.8
Sacramento 1 1.6
San Bernardino 1 1.6
San Diego 8 12.5
San Luis Obispo 1 1.6
San Mateo 1 1.6
Santa Barbara 1 1.6
Santa Clara 3 4.6
Santa Cruz 1 1.6
Ventura 1 1.6
44
The data from the returned superintendent and board/designee surveys were tab-
ulated and placed in tables for review. Based on these survey responses, interview guides
were developed. The team members then selected two superintendents and their board
presidents from the pool of 46 matched pairs that represented a demographic that the
team member wanted to interview in depth. One superintendent/board president pair was
the team member’s primary choice for the in-depth interview; the other pair was a sec-
ondary choice in case any member from the first choice was unavailable or was not
willing to be interviewed.
The participant for this case study was Dr. Held (pseudonym), a superintendent
who has held both classified and certificated positions at all levels. She was from
northern California, a region of the state that did not have many superintendents qualify
for this study. Dr. Held had 6 years of experience as superintendent. Previously, she had
worked in two school districts. She started her career in a large northern California urban
district serving approximately 38,000 students. Approximately 65% of the students in
that district were deemed socioeconomically disadvantaged and 30% were designated
English Learners. In that district Dr. Held worked in classified positions, including food
service. She then progressed as a teacher, staff trainer, and principal in the district. Next,
she transferred and accepted a position as deputy superintendent in a middle-class district
serving 6,300 students. This was a high-achieving district, where the average student
scores were high proficient on the California Standards Test (CST). In 2005 Dr. Held
accepted the position of superintendent in the Temescal Elementary School District
(ESD; pseudonym).
45
Dr. Held was chosen by this researcher because she had “climbed the ranks” of
the educational ladder. Specifically, she had worked successfully in both classified and
certificated positions. Furthermore, a partner of an executive search firm gave her a
positive recommendation as a successful superintendent. On a personal note, she once
worked in the same large urban district in which this researcher currently works and has
held leadership positions in districts near the researcher’s place of residence. The
researcher anticipated that Dr. Held’s responses would inform aspiring superintendents’
preparations, both generally for the position and specifically for the local region.
The Temescal ESD is a middle-class district with approximately 4,000 students,
tucked in the Sierra Nevada foothills. From 2008-2010 the district gained 19 points, from
870 to 889. In 2010 seven groups were deemed numerically significant for California’s
API: Asian, Hispanic or Latino, White, two or more races, socioeconomically disadvan-
taged, English Learners, and students with disabilities. Temescal ESD has seven schools
(five elementary schools and two middle schools). Six of the seven schools had a
statewide ranking of either 9 or 10 in 2010. Ten schools were deemed to be the best
schools in the state. The one school that was not rated 9 or 10 had a statewide ranking of
7; that school’s API in 2010 was 840, which means that average student scores were at
least proficient on the CST.
The researcher also interviewed the Temescal ESD board of trustees president,
Mrs. Mlynarski (pseudonym). Mrs. Mlynarski has served on the Temescal ESD board of
trustees since 2002. She was board president for Dr. Held’s entire tenure and continues to
serve in that capacity. Since 2004 she has been an elected delegate to the California
School Board Association and in 2008 became president of her county school board
46
association. In 2010, the Temescal ESD Federation of Teachers and the California School
Employees Association of Temescal ESD endorsed her for reelection to the governing
board. She has three children who have attended schools in the Temescal ESD and has
lived in the community for over 18 years.
Results for Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, What strategies/behaviors are successful superinten-
dents using to build strong relationships and trust with the board during their entry
period? The research team focused on the entry period and trust because these can be key
areas that lead to organizational success (Covey, 2006; Neff & Citrin, 2005; Watkins,
2003). Both Neff and Citrin (2005) and Watkins (2003) detailed entry plans that a leader
can use to guide and ultimately maximize effectiveness during the entry period. The
research team anticipated that this question would test this assertion.
The results from the surveys and interviews showed three key strategies that most
of the successful superintendents in this study used to build strong trusting results during
the entry period. First, the superintendents in this study identified and addressed the
school board’s priorities. Second, they used entry plans. Third, they focused their efforts
around frequent communication during the entry period.
Address Board Priorities
The superintendents in this study both understood the priorities of the board
members and effectively addressed those priorities. This theme was identified through
specific questions on the superintendent and board surveys, along with questions posed in
the interviews. Central to this theme are the realities that school board members are
publically elected officials who help to connect the district to the community (Smoley,
47
1999). One of the roles of the school board is to set policy for the district. Kowalski
(1999) contended that assisting board members with policy goals could lay the ground-
work for trust.
The superintendent and board surveys showed that the superintendents and boards
generally prioritized the same challenges. Of the 64 superintendents who responded to
survey question 5, 42 (65%) reported that their boards prioritized the same challenges.
The board member responses to this question affirmed the superintendents’ responses,
with 39 of 48 participating school boards members agreed that the superintendent priori-
tized the same challenges (Table 5).
Table 5
Responses to Survey Question 5: Superintendent and Board Prioritized the Same Chal-
lenges
Superintendents Board members
Response f % f %
Yes 42 65.60 39 81.25
No 21 32.80 3 6.25
No response 1 1.60 6 12.50
In her interview, Dr. Held revealed that her strategy to understand what the school
board priorities was simply to listen. “I became more reflective about who was in the
room and when I should really be quiet and listen to people.” The school board president,
Mrs. Mlynarski, said that the board made sure to discuss their goals with Dr. Held. “We
48
went through the board goals with her saying, ‘These are our priorities and these are the
goals that we have in place.’” Some of these goals represented challenges that the district
wanted to overcome. Mrs. Mlynarski reported, “We just sat down with her and said,
‘These are areas where there are issues in the district. There are problems that we would
like to see overcome.’” Through listening, the superintendent was able to recognize what
was most important to prioritize.
Question 8 on the superintendent survey and question 8 on the board survey were
developed by the research team to identify the general areas for these priorities. The
question utilized Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four lenses that leaders use to analyze and
address to lead the organization effectively: structural, political, human resource, and
symbolic. The majority of the superintendents prioritized their leadership efforts to
address human resource issues. Table 6 shows the responses of superintendents and
school board members when discussing where the superintendents focused their leader-
ship efforts during the entry period. The second half of table under the human resources
section shows that 42 of the 64 superintendent participants (65.6%) named human
resources as the focus of their leadership efforts during the entry period. The school
board members’ responses yielded a similar trend: 28 of 48 school members (58.3%)
agreed that human resources was a leadership focus during the entry period.
Human resources was an issue in the Temescal ESD when Dr. Held was hired.
Her entry period was a critical time to repair relationships with bargaining units. Mrs.
Mlynarski expressed this need during the interview: “I do know that labor relations was
something that the board addressed with her right away. Those were some particular high
priority areas that we wanted to see her spend time on.” Dr. Held made sure not only to
49
Table 6
Responses to Survey Question 8 by Superintendents and Board Members Regarding
Superintendent’s Leadership Efforts or Focus During the Entry Period, by Bolman and
Deal Frames
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 48)
Frame and response f % f %
Structural
1 12 18.8 13 27.1
2 18 28.1 11 22.9
3 14 21.9 17 35.4
4 18 28.1 5 10.4
NR 2 3.1 2 4.2
Political
1 8 12.5 5 10.4
2 19 29.7 9 18.8
3 14 21.9 11 22.9
4 19 29.7 20 41.7
NR 4 6.3 3 6.3
Human Resources
1 42 65.6 28 58.3
2 10 15.6 12 25.0
3 9 14.1 2 4.2
4 3 4.7 4 8.3
NR 0 0.0 2 4.2
Symbolic
1 13 20.3 6 12.5
2 15 23.4 12 25.0
3 18 28.1 12 25.0
4 13 20.3 15 31.3
NR 5 7.8 3 6.3
Note. NR = no response.
50
listen to the school board and prioritize in agreement with them, but also to go out into
the district office, school sites, and the community and listen there as well. Mrs.
Mlynarski support this assertion:
I know she had talked to people in the district, to the sitting superintendent. So
she did her homework and researched the district and what was happening. My
sense was that she came in with a plan to mend fences, fix some of the communi-
cation issues, rebuild trust. We told her what we needed. She spent a lot of time
visiting school sites, visiting classrooms, attending school functions—various
places where her presence could be seen and people knew she was there and
cared.
Applying this strategy helped Dr. Held to create her entry plan.
Entry Plans
The second theme that emerged from analysis of the data related to research
question 1 was that these superintendents had entry plans. Entry plans allow leaders to
accelerate the productivity of their transition into the new leadership role (Watkins,
2003). Watkins discussed the importance of using an entry plan to secure early wins or
accomplishments that build the leader’s credibility. When a leader begins to establish
credibility, confidence and later trust increases for that leader (Neff & Citrin, 2005).
Table 7 shows that 90% of superintendents had entry plans, most of which were
not formal. Perhaps these plans were not formal plans because a smart superintendent
identifies the critical needs of the district before making major changes. Dr. Held
reported that this was her strategy. “I just sat down with just a lot of people and kind of
said ‘Tell me what I need to know’ and tried to just shut up and listen. I did weekly
FYI’s.”
51
Table 7
Responses to Survey Questions 1a and 1b by Superintendents and Board Members
Regarding the Superintendent’s Entry Plan, the Board’s Awareness of the Plan, and the
Superintendent’s Report of the Plan to the Board
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 48)
Question and response f % f % Total
1a
Yes 58 90.60 36 75.00 94
No 6 9.40 12 25.00 18
1b
Yes 27 42.20 25 52.10 52
No 37 57.80 22 45.80 59
No response 0 0.00 1 2.10 1
During Dr. Held’s reporting of the plan to the school board, the board made sure
to give her a framework within which to work that brought together the board’s and the
superintendent’s goals. Mrs. Mlynarski detailed this process:
We just asked her to begin to align her approach to bringing things more into line
with the goals that we had in place already. So it wasn’t like we created a brand
new document or plan necessarily. We gave her the framework upon which she
could lay out her personal set of goals, which she did with success.
Frequent Communication
The third strategy that emerged through survey responses and the interviews was
the theme of frequent communication. Communication proved to be a strong topic during
the data gathering process and after careful examination of the data. The survey and
interview results showed that a majority of these successful superintendents communi-
cated often with their school boards. Two possible reasons for this frequent
communication is that it is the preference of the school board members and that frequent
52
communication creates what Covey (2006) called transparency. Transparency helps
organizations to gain trust because the public, or in the case of the superintendent the
board, can see exactly what the organization/superintendent is doing.
Table 8 shows that frequent communication was the activity most frequently used
to promote trust with the school board: 46 of 68 the participating superintendents (67.8%)
indicated that frequent communication built trust with the school board and 40 of 47
participating board members (85.1%) chose the same response. School board members
agreed with greater frequency that frequent communication was effective in building trust
with the school board (85.1% of board members versus 67.6% of superintendents).
Table 8
Responses to Survey Question 13 by Superintendents and Board Members Regarding
Activities Used by the Superintendent During the Entry Period to Promote Trust on the
Part of the School Board
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 48)
Activity f % f %
Frequent communication 46 67.6 40 85.1
Secure early wins 5 7.4 1 2.1
Meet with stakeholders 14 20.6 6 12.8
Other 3 4.4 0 0.0
These results suggest that communication was a key strategy that aided
superintendents in creating trust with their school boards. The results could also suggest
53
that board members simply prefer frequent communication. Results of the interview with
Mrs. Mlynarski support these suggestions. When asked what strategies Dr. Held used to
build trust with the school board, she responded,
What I saw happen was a very openness about keeping the board informed on
what was happening in the district. If there was a school bus that broke down or
there was an incident at a school where police were called or there was an injury
or something, she was very quick to make sure that the board knew about it. Right
away. We didn’t hear about it in the grocery store. Those were the kinds of things
that were very specific things that she would jump right in and get it out there and
make sure that the people who needed to know what was going on knew what was
going on. She would quickly follow that by being there herself to make sure that
the on-the-spot communication was done as well with the other people. That de-
veloped a real sense on the part of the board of being able to trust her to know
what was going on and that the district is going to take care of business. It wasn’t
horrible things happening all the time, but when they did, she was taking charge.
This response suggests that frequent communication allowed the school board to see that
the superintendent knew what was happening in the district and was going to lead the
district, especially during difficult times.
Summary of Results for Research Question 1
The successful superintendents who participated in this study reported strategies
that they used to build trust with their school boards during the entry period. The tri-
angulated results of the surveys and interviews identified three themes around this central
idea: addressing the priorities of the school board, having an entry plan, and frequent
communication. These successful superintendents addressed the priorities of the school
board: 81.25% of the school board members indicated that their superintendents priori-
tized the same challenges as the school board, resulting from the superintendent’s
strategy of listening first. Dr. Held made it a priority to listen to the school board so she
could understand their priorities. During the interview she commented, “I became more
54
reflective about who was in the room and when I should really be quiet and listen to
people.”
The second theme that emerged was that 90% of these superintendents indicated
that they had an entry plan. Dr. Held reported that she interviewed as many people in and
around the district as possible until themes emerged that would define her plan. “My plan
was to pull from that (and I shared this with the board), to pull from that some common
themes. . . . I put together a plan and gave the board feedback periodically.”
The third theme that emerged was the strategy of frequent communication. Many
of the successful superintendents in this study had used this strategy to build trust, as
reported by 67.6% of the superintendents and 85.1% of the board members. Mrs.
Mlynarski confirmed the power of frequent communication on the part of Dr. Held’s:
To make sure that the on-the-spot communication was done as well with the other
people—that developed a real sense on the part of the board of being able to trust
her to know what was going on and that the district is going to take care of busi-
ness.
Ultimately, these successful superintendents were conscious of the priorities of
the school board and of the importance of communication.
Results for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, How do superintendents implement these strategies
and evaluate their success? In developing this question the research team wanted to
know both how successful superintendents use their success strategies and what methods
of progress monitoring they use to monitor their progress. As described in Chapter 2, the
works of Bolman and Deal (2008), Collins (2005a, 2005b), and Covey (2006) offer a lens
to analyze the strategies of successful superintendents. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four
frames are the structural frame, human resource frame, the political frame, and the
55
symbolic frame. Each of these frames offers lenses for evaluating a superintendent’s
efforts for gaining trust from his or her board, as well as from those whom he or she is
expected to lead. The superintendent should be expected to ensure that the structure of
the district is healthy (structural frame), the needs of the employees are met (human
resource frame), the superintendent uses knowledge of the political arena to secure
resources (political frame), and the superintendent works to ensure that the district has a
positive reputation and is supported by its members (symbolic frame).
Successful superintendents take actions to build trust with the school board.
Because the entry period is relatively short, the successful superintendent progresses
rapidly through Covey’s (2006) five waves of developing trust: self-trust, relationship
trust, and stakeholder trust related to organizational, market, and societal trust. The first
step in gaining self-trust is building credibility. When the superintendent is new to the
organization, building credibility would be a wise initial move. Moving forward, the suc-
cessful superintendent would work to build positive working relationships. This study
found that superintendent works on these relationships both inside the district office and
outside the office with various stakeholders. Once these relationships are developed, the
superintendent can take actions to maintain these relationships.
In analyzing the data related to this question, three themes emerged. The first
theme was individual communication; the successful superintendents in this study tended
to communicate well with all individual stakeholders, including the school board. The
second theme was weekly communication, which the school boards generally preferred.
The third theme was understanding the board’s level of trust, both at the beginning and
end of the entry period. When the superintendents understood these concepts, they tended
56
to enjoy a positive relationship with the board and their level of trust with the superinten-
dent increased.
Individual Communication
The successful superintendents in this study appeared to have a knack for under-
standing what the board wanted him or her to accomplish. How did the superintendents
know what the board wanted and how did they communicate that knowledge?
Table 9 shows that individual communication is the key to building strong rela-
tionships between superintendent and board. Of the 65 respondents to this question, 42
(64.6%) selected individual communication as a key for practice for developing strong
relationships with the school board. The board members agreed with the superintendents:
28 of the 48 board members (58.3%) cited individual communication as critical.
Dr. Held agreed with the results of the survey. She reported that she excelled at
individual communication. Describing how she implemented this strategy, she said,
“People, phone, paper. You see people. You respond to phone calls. You get to all those
dynamic things and the last thing you work on is the paperwork.” For Dr. Held it truly
was people first.
You can have all the skills in the world, but what you need most of all, on top of
some of those skills, the skill set, is the notion of the ability to build trust and
relationships. . . . There’s this whole piece about trust and relationships and that
charismatic leadership that if you are going to be successful, you have to have that
prong out there, too. If you can win somebody’s heart, they’ll do anything for
you.
Dr. Held went beyond talking about the importance of building relationships; she
made it a priority in her entry period. After talking with the school board, she decided
that the school board wanted her to be visible and accessible. Both of these ideas were in
57
Table 9
Responses to Survey Question 14 by Superintendents and Board Members Regarding
Activities Used by the Superintendent During the Entry Period to Build a Strong Rela-
tionship With the School Board
Superintendents (N = 65) Board members (N = 48)
Activity f % f %
Retreat 12 18.5 5 10.4
Community/team building 2 3.1 5 10.4
Individual communication 42 64.6 28 58.3
Additional board workshops 4 6.2 1 2.1
Informal meetings 5 7.7 9 18.8
line with what she had already planned to do. This excerpt from the interview highlights
Dr. Held’s efforts to build relationships and trust within the district.
Things the school board wanted were things like visibility, accessibility—well,
ka-ching! Listening to these conversations, you’re thinking, “Well, that’s not in-
surmountable. I can do that.” They were very refreshing conversations and, taking
the time the first, particularly in the first 60 days, getting out there and connecting
with as many people as I could was really important for them. Going into the
cafeteria, connecting with food service people. Talking to the custodians and the
utility techs . . .
[The goal of] my first 60 to 90 days was just to communicate—be as
visible as possible. Then from that, I framed what were some key areas where I
was going to try to be more responsive to what the board and the district needed
in order to complement their notion of how to keep moving forward.
Dr. Held made sure to communicate individually with school board members.
This was particularly important because this was the mode of communication desired by
58
Mrs. Mlynarski, who said, “I prefer face-to-face communication with people. That’s just
me. I liked being able to sit with her and talk to her about what was going on.”
Weekly Communication
Being an excellent communicator is an imperative for the superintendent (Callan
& Levinson, 2011). There are many methods for communicating. Superintendents in this
study used various methods to communicate, but they mainly communicated through
weekly email, personal contact, individual telephone calls, and letters to the board
(Appendix I). Of the superintendents, 34 (53%) utilized weekly emails, 38 (59.9%) used
in-person communication, 39 (60.9%) made individual telephone calls, and 44 (68.8%)
drafted weekly letters to the board. The board responses were similar to those by the
superintendents. Appendix I shows that 27 (56.25%) of the board members received
weekly emails, 22 (45.83%) received in-person communication, 22 (45.83%) received
individual telephone calls weekly, and 29 (60.42%) received letters from the superinten-
dent. The appendix also indicates that more modern methods of communication, such as
blogs, text messages, and social networking, occurred rarely, if at all.
When asked about the board’s least preferred method of communication, Mrs.
Mlynarski commented, “Any communication from the superintendent to the board is
good. It is the lack of communication that is the problem, it’s not really the method.”
Communication was vital to Dr. Held. During the first 90 days as superintendent,
she made sure to get to know the “who’s who” of the district and the community. She met
with every principal and asked, “What kind of support do you need?” Next, she asked
them, “What are your goals?” She also made sure to spend time with the Board President,
Mrs. Mlynarski. She sought long-time employees and asked them, “What should I
59
know?” Through this process Dr. Held became friends with the former superintendent of
the district. It would appear that, in doing so, she had a support person with whom she
could discuss ideas and who would understand the issues with which she was dealing.
As Dr. Held began to know the district and community, she made sure to share
her findings with the school board. In her weekly letter to the board she had a section
called “Connections.” In these updates Dr. Held was mindful of the board’s request to
“get to the point and don’t waste my time with poundage of paper”—a suggestion from
the previous superintendent. Dr. Held laid out this understanding in the interview:
I had headers in my FYI’s at the time and I had one called “Connections.” So I’d
tell them whom I had connected with and they started feeling guilty that they
weren’t introducing me to people. They started saying, “Aw gee, we should have
done that one for you.” It was fine; everybody’s busy and I was happy to do so.
These updates were every week. I think it’s pretty typical that every week a
superintendent sends the board some kind of an update. The superintendent in
[University Unified] used to send a dissertation every week. Not in my nature!
Plus, in [Temescal], they hated that kind of weight and not much content. They
wanted to “get to the point and don’t waste my time with poundage of paper.” So,
that’s something you would also want to know as a superintendent—how was the
previous superintendent communicating that went really well for everybody. With
the board, it was not surprising to hear that weekly FYI was really important.
Initially, she sent these weekly updates to the board by mail. Later, she sent them
electronically and was given a positive response from the board.
At the time it was going to them in the mail, so I started doing it electronically
and they really liked that. You always write those things with the knowledge that
. . . it’s supposed to be between you and the board but it could be released to the
public. So you always are mindful about what you put in there.
Technology became a key tool for communicating with most stakeholders. Dr.
Held found it essential to utilize e-mail. Specifically, she made sure to post the most
important question or the vital answer in the subject line. In doing so, she was able to
communicate rapidly with many people quickly and accurately.
60
It’s not really that hard with technology, you just hustle. You can send fast email
responses to people, don’t have to be real complicated with how you answer. I’ve
always had good secretaries. On thing that sounds bizarre, but like in emails, I use
just the subject line—pose the question, answer the question in the subject line, so
I don’t have to write pages and pages of stuff. Just fast communications where it’s
necessary.
Understanding the Board’s Level of Trust
The second part of research question 2 asked, How do superintendents evaluate
their success? Townsend et al. (2007) suggested that superintendents and their school
boards frequently review their goals and the progress toward their attainment. Harris
(2009) recommended that superintendents ask for feedback and listen carefully to the
responses. Hoyle et al. (2005) advised superintendents and their school boards to create
collaboratively on a process for setting goals and development of the evaluation process,
then have formative evaluation meetings and conduct a summative evaluation. The
surveys and interviews highlighted that these successful superintendents reviewed their
entry plans frequently, their boards felt that they gave clear feedback, and overall the trust
and relationship levels for these superintendents increased.
Table 10 shows that 89.1% (n = 57) of the superintendents had reviewed their
entry plans with the school board. The number of times the plan was reviewed varied. For
example, 30 superintendents (46.9%) had the plans reviewed once or twice and 12
superintendents (18.8%) had the entry plans reviewed more than four times.
The data suggest that these successful superintendents clearly monitored the
board’s level of trust and the positive nature of the relationship that they shared. Table 11
shows that the boards had various levels of trust with the surveyed superintendents upon
61
Table 10
How Often Were Superintendents’ Entry Plans Reviewed With the Board?
Category f %
Never 7 10.9
1-2 times 30 46.9
3-4 times 6 9.4
More than 4 times 12 18.8
Did not apply 9 14.0
Table 11
Responses to Survey Questions 15 and 16 by Superintendents and Board Members
Regarding the Board’s Level of Trust in the Superintendent at the Beginning and End of
the Superintendent’s Entry Period
Highest Lowest
Trust level 5 4 3 2 1 0
Board’s level of trust in
the superintendent
Upon entry 20 16 9 2 0 0
End of entry period 36 10 1 0 0 0
Superintendent’s
perception of board’s
level of trust
Upon entry 24 25 14 1 0 0
End of entry period 42 20 2 0 0 0
62
entry. One area of note is the growth in the board’s trust in the superintendent. Upon
entry, 20 superintendents held the highest levels of trust with their boards; by the end of
the entry period, that number had increased to 36 superintendents. The responses by the
superintendents followed the same pattern, as 24 responding superintendents stated that
they had their school boards’ highest trust upon entry, and that number had increased to
42 by the end of the entry period.
Dr. Held reported that she improved her level of trust with the school board. Mrs.
Mlynarski stated that, initially, some of the school board members had wanted to see
whether Dr. Held would address the issues that the district considered to be important:
I would say that was probably more circumstantial than it was personal. We had a
lot of fences to mend in the district. There was a sense of, “Well we think we have
the right person, but we are not going to go out on a limb and be 100% sure until
we see what she can do with it.”
By the end of the entry period, these successful superintendents had high levels of
trust from their board. Table 12 shows how satisfied both parties were at the end of the
entry period: 51 of the 64 superintendents (79.7%) were very satisfied and 41 of the 48
board members (89.1%) were very satisfied with the overall relationship between the
superintendent and the board.
Dr. Held enjoyed a positive relationship with her school board, based on the
results that she was producing. Dr. Held was effective at meeting the goals that had been
outlined in her entry plan. She stated and accomplished what she was going to do. She
did what was most important for the district and what was most important in the eyes of
the school board members. Mrs. Mlynarski described the end of Dr. Held’s entry period:
63
Table 12
Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question 9 Rating the Over-
all Relationship Between the Superintendent and Board at the End of the First 90-100
Days in Office
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 46)
Rating f % f %
Very satisfied 51 79.7 41 89.1
Satisfied 12 18.8 4 8.7
Unsatisfied 1 1.6 0 0.0
Very unsatisfied 0 0.0 1 2.2
No response 0 0.0 2 4.4
We saw a marked change in things like our collective bargaining and negotiation
process with the employee unions. We saw levels of trust in those conversations
that we had not seen prior. We could see that her influence was making a differ-
ence there. Then we gathered feedback in general from teachers and from admin-
istrators. We had a couple of school sites where we were having a lot of incidents
of instability with site administrators and she kind of recognized some of the
issues and when it and started to unwind, some of those issues right away and fig-
ured out what we could do to correct it. We just saw action on her part that was
definitely in the best interest of the district. It was right away, I can say within the
first 90 days.
Feedback from school board to superintendents seems to have varied. As shown
in Table 13, 41 superintendents reported that they did not get direct feedback from the
school board; in contrast, 34 board members reported that they provided direct feedback
to the superintendent. Despite this contradiction, the results presented in Tables 11 and 12
show that these successful superintendents recognized that they had the trust of the board
and that they had a positive working relationship with the school board.
64
Table 13
Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question 17 Regarding the
Board’s Feedback to the Superintendent
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 46)
Feedback provided f % f %
Yes 23 35.93 34 73.91
No 41 64.06 12 26.08
At the appropriate time, the board evaluated Dr. Held based on the goals that had
been mutually identified upon her entry. The board went step-by-step through the goals to
determine whether she was responsive to the needs of district. Their evaluation was posi-
tive. Mrs. Mlynarski explained:
We have a superintendent evaluation form that we have used. It has gotten
tweaked here and there and it’s getting ready to be tweaked again soon. But it
basically goes step by step through the board’s goals and it addresses the areas
that we are looking for the superintendent to be responsive to the needs of the
district. We use that as a form to say whether she enhanced communication with
employees or developed staff development, whatever was the specific item that
was in those goals would be. We sat as a group and just looked at those and
ranked how she was doing in each of those areas.
Dr. Held took her evaluation beyond that of the school board. She gave the
superintendent evaluation instrument to her administrative team. When she met with
people, she also asked for feedback because she wanted to grow.
I had the board do an annual evaluation. That was important to me. I gave my
admin team the board’s evaluation. I didn’t give their responses to the board, but I
wanted to hear what they had to say about me as well. I met with people and they
knew I wanted feedback. They knew I wanted to grow. They knew that I was
comfortable and that I wasn’t afraid of what I was going to hear from them. So if
there was a place where they wanted me to work on it and do things a different
way, then they’d tell me.
65
This was also the case with the school board. Dr. Held described the relationship
as healthy, stemming from trust. She stated that it was fundamental to the tone of the
district, which is why she considered it to be important that she receive formal and
informal feedback. She also sought feedback regarding her district projects. She made
sure to discuss what she was doing with the school board. She then benchmarked with
them to ensure that what she was doing made sense to the school board.
It was a really healthy relationship. I was so blessed with the students, with the
staff, with the community, and the board. People don’t understand how important
the board is, because they seem so vague. You know, they’re this group out
there—what – don’t they have a day job? But they’re critical. The relationship is
critical to the tone of the district. So I asked for their feedback—formal and
informal feedback. I would say if I had something big going on, I would bench-
mark with them, say, “This is where I am headed, this is the kind of stuff I’m
pulling together. Does this make sense to you? Because I don’t want to spend
more time on this if you’re not going to find this useful.”
Dr. Held sought early feedback on key district projects to ensure board support for
projects from the beginning to the end of the project.
Summary of Results for Research Question 2
Successful superintendents in this study applied their trust-building strategies
through communication. Individual communication was used by 64.6% of the superin-
tendents. Dr. Held used this strategy for building a relationship not only with the school
board but also with key stakeholders in the district. As she made herself available, the
board’s trust in her grew because they could see her making efforts that were in the best
interest of the board.
The superintendents also applied their trust-building strategies through weekly
communication. These communications entailed weekly emails, in-person communica-
tion, individual telephone calls, and weekly letters to the board. The survey responses
66
showed that letters to the board was the most popular method of weekly communication;
68.8% of responding superintendents reported using this method.
The superintendents tended to consider that they enjoyed trusting and positive
relationships with the school board. The survey showed similar results from both the
superintendent and the school board. For example, 20 board members gave their
superintendent a rating of 5 and 24 superintendents rated their level of trust with the
board at 5. At the end of the superintendent’s entry period, 40 board members gave a
rating of 5 and 42 superintendents assumed that they would have received a rating of 5.
Results for Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, What formal/informal leadership preparation assists
aspiring superintendents for entry into the superintendency? The research team devel-
oped this question to identify the superintendents’ base knowledge.
Based on the discussion in Chapter 2, there are two basic paths to the position of
superintendent. The first path is the formal path: teacher, principal, associate superinten-
dent, and superintendent. The alternate path would be from an institute of some kind,
such as the Broad Academy or some other foundational approach for noneducators.
These people are usually from the business arena, the military, or some other faction
where the person would have had a leadership position in a larger organization. Both
paths would require some sort of formal schooling. The traditional path would include
university coursework lead to some sort of superintendent certification. More than likely,
most superintendents would have a doctorate. The other path, the nontraditional path,
would have some sort of academy process, where the prospective superintendents would
learn about key educational theory and the typical organization of a district. Connected
67
with this would be experience, whether in the educational system or in the private sector,
to demonstrate why this person should be considered to be a leader.
Three themes emerged related to this research question. First, the superintendents
have had high-quality training. Second, the superintendents appeared to be excellent
communicators. Third, the superintendents valued their previous experiences.
High-Quality Training
These superintendents tended to be well trained. Table 14 shows that a majority of
the superintendents and their boards were satisfied with the training that the superinten-
dent had undergone. Of the 64 superintendents who responded, 46 reported that they had
had adequate formal training. Board members agreed: 46 of the 48 school board
members reported that their superintendent had had adequate formal training.
Table 14
Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question 10a Regarding the
Adequacy of the Formal/Informal Training That the Superintendent Received to Prepare
for the Superintendency
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 46)
Adequate training f % f %
Yes 46 71.88 46 95.83
No 17 26.56 1 2.17
No response 1 1.56 1 2.17
68
Dr. Held agreed with these findings, stating that her experiences both at the
master’s and doctoral levels had helped her in the role of superintendent. She also utilized
her state administration association, which provided trainings for administrators, future
superintendents, and sitting superintendents. Dr. Held also found that many county
offices of education offered some insightful services and trainings.
I’d say the bulk of my training was through the University of La Verne. I went
through the master’s program and the doctorate program there. I did some
academies through ACSA [Association of California School Administrators], but
I think the more intensive training came through my work with La Verne.
Unfortunately, all training experiences were not considered to be worthwhile, but
they exposed her to diverse philosophies for becoming a successful superintendent. She
appreciated the various points of view presented at these training sessions. Another
critical experience was connecting with her superintendent peer group. Having a cadre of
professionals to work with allowed her to always have someone with whom she could
discuss issues. She found that help was always available. “The biggest thing is you need
to be reflective and realize that you do need to seek more information, rather than pre-
tending.”
Communication Skills
Table 15 shows that most superintendents either had training on how to be effec-
tive communicators or at least appeared to have had proper training on how to do so. The
superintendents appeared in the eyes of most school boards to have been trained on how
to communicate well. The table shows that 42 (65.6%) of the 64 superintendents had had
some training on communication and that 45 (96.0%) of the board members agreed that
the superintendent had had some sort of training in effective board communication.
69
Table 15
Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question 12 Regarding
Whether the Superintendent Had Received Training in Effective Communication With
Board Members
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 47)
Adequate training f % f %
Yes 42 65.6 45 96.0
No 22 34.4 2 4.0
When asked to describe her formal training in communication, Dr. Held discussed
how the concept of communication permeated many aspects of her formal training.
Communication was discussed in her doctoral program and in various training sessions
that she has attended, most notably the California School Board Association annual con-
ference, where she had successful training on superintendent/board relationships. She
remarked, “The California School Boards Association has an annual conference. One of
the subsets of training is communication. Communication was a subset of the doctoral
program and a subset of the ACSA programs.” This notion was reinforced by Mrs.
Mlynarski: “Dr. Held’s strength was her ability to communicate.”
Valuable Experiences
Experience appears to be a key factor in helping a prospective superintendent to
be hired. Table 16 shows a strong relationship between experience and consideration for
the position. Of 64 responses by superintendents, 62 (97%) indicated that experience was
a factor in their selection for employment; 47 of 55 (85%) board members responded
agreed. When asked to discuss the factors that led to her being hired, Dr. Held stated that
70
Table 16
Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question 18 Regarding
Factors That Led to the Superintendent Being Hired
Superintendents Board members
Factor (N = 64) (N = 48)
Experience 62 47
Training/education 47 40
Prior success 59 40
Interpersonal skills 58 42
Trustworthiness 53 37
Political connections 8 2
Professional connections 22 9
her experiences in her previous district had been a major factor. She noted that the district
valued the strong letters of recommendation based on the relationships that had been built
with her superiors and colleagues in her previous district.
They liked what they saw on paper and they were impressed with the letters from
the superintendent of [Capital City] at the time, even though I was coming from
[University Unified]. . . . The CBO of [University Unified], his letter was like,
“The world’s going to crash with Dr. Held gone. We’ll never be able to do
finances again!” Well, they wanted somebody with a strong financial background.
I said to him, “Why did you write this?” He said, “You know, you’ve got to say
good things about people.”
Table 17 shows that experience also helped these superintendents to find success
in their current roles. Dr. Held stated that it was not only her experience but also her prior
career that had helped her as superintendent. Dr. Held had started working for her home
71
Table 17
Superintendents’ and Board Members’ Responses to Survey Question 19 Regarding
Factors That Led to the Superintendent’s Success During the Entry Period
Ranking of factor leading to success
Superintendents (N = 64) Board members (N = 48)
Factor 1 2 3 1 2 3
Experience 23 12 16 23 0 0
Training/education 0 5 8 0 0 3
Prior success 2 10 15 0 0 4
Interpersonal skills 27 18 7 0 18 0
Trustworthiness 5 13 9 0 0 5
Professional connections 0 0 2 0 0 0
Other 1 0 0 0 0 0
school district at a young age as a classified staff member; she worked up the ranks to
become a top administrator. These experiences gave her first-hand knowledge that she
could use to work well with the various bargaining units in the district.
Actually it was prior career. I started off as a Teacher’s Aide. I became a clerk. I
worked in Summer Programs, where I had to work with food services. I was a
teacher. I was a staff trainer. I was a director of some programs. All of this was in
[Capital City], in an urban setting. I was 30-some years in [Capital City], so that
my prior nonadministrative career was critical. I think it added credibility when I
talked to the unions, when I talked to people like Gus. Because Gus could find all
sorts of people who had known me for decades by the time he and I really crossed
paths. So, the broad experience in education, kind of, literally growing up: I
started as a paid employee when I was 16. In administration, that was critical; . . .
being a principal was really important for buy-in from other principals. Truth be
told, I don’t think you have to be a principal to be a superintendent, but for other
principals, it gave a comfort for them. But also central office administration was
really a nice transition because I could see the broad picture. So that was really an
72
important role for me to have. Before I became superintendent, my work on
cabinet level, I could listen to conversations about facilities and bonds and things
that my educational background hadn’t taken me into, Skelly hearings for person-
nel. There were a whole lot of issues where I thought sometimes it didn’t make
sense but I was becoming familiar with vocabulary. You know how it is, you put
it in the back of your head and then you can tie it up later or you can catch on
much more quickly later, having been in on those cabinet conversations.
Summary of Results for Research Question 3
The successful superintendents who participated in this study apparently had
undergone excellent training. Of the 64 responding superintendents, 46 were satisfied
with their training. Dr. Held counted herself in this group. She reported that she was satis-
fied with her university-based coursework, as well as with training received in the state
administrators program. Another key for these successful superintendents was that they
had received or appeared to have received training in communication techniques. The
survey responses showed that 65.6% of the participating superintendent had had some
sort of communication training, and 96% of the participating board members reported
that their superintendent had had some sort of communication training. Based on this
high incidence, it could be inferred that the superintendents appeared to communicate as
if they had been trained to do so. Finally, successful superintendents in this study
reported valuable experience. Of the participating superintendents, 97% cited their expe-
rience as a key to being hired, and 85% of the board members agreed. In agreement with
the survey results, Dr. Held commented that her experience had helped her to build credi-
bility in the district, especially with the various bargaining units.
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented and discussed the qualitative data from this study. Each
question from the study elicited strong themes. These themes included prioritizing the
same challenges as the school board, having an entry plan, communication strategies,
73
being present, communicating weekly, executing the entry plan, having high-quality
training, communication skills, and experience. Communication was key theme for all
three questions. Because this was such a strong piece, further research should be done on
this theme. Chapter 5 contains the summary, conclusions, and implications of the study.
74
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Today’s superintendents must employ skills that will enable them to be success-
ful. They should use these skills to build positive relationships with their school boards.
Although this may be common sense for many, it is not a reality in most districts. Attri-
tion rates for superintendents are increasing (Kowalski et al., 2011). When superinten-
dents and their boards lack harmony, the tenure of those superintendents usually comes to
an abrupt end. This is seen most often in urban school districts, where superintendents
have the lowest tenure of any of their colleagues. When school boards and superinten-
dents work together to create policies centered on student achievements, student out-
comes can improve (Harris, 2009; Kowalski et al., 2011; Leithwood, 2005). The entry
period is the best time for the board and the superintendent to create a positive working
environment aimed at helping students to find success (Eller & Carlson, 2009; Townsend
et al., 2007).
This study was designed to identify strategies that successful superintendents used
to create trust with their school boards during the entry period of the first 90 to 100 days.
Three research questions guided the study:
1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists aspiring superintendents
for entry into the superintendency?
75
This study used a qualitative design utilizing purposeful sampling. The research
team mailed 90 surveys to superintendents and their Board President/designee. The team
received 46 match-paired surveys from the sample. The survey data from both parties
were used to validate or contradict statements in the surveys. Next, the researchers used
data from these surveys to generate interview guides for one-on-one interviews with a
superintendent and his or her school board president. The interviews were designed to
identify the skills and strategies that the superintendents used to gain success during their
entry period. The researchers transcribed the interviews, analyzed the transcripts, and
triangulated the data to generate findings detailing the successful strategies and the
implementation of these strategies to create trusting relationships with the school board
within the first 90 to 100 days in the position of superintendent.
This chapter presents conclusions based on the findings. The chapter also reviews
implications of the results and presents recommendations for further research.
Summary of Findings
This study revealed nine findings. First, the successful superintendents addressed
the priorities of the school board. Second, most of these successful superintendents
created entry plans that outlined their goals for what they would accomplish in the first
90 to 100 days. Third, the superintendents communicated frequently with key people,
such as the board president. Fourth, the superintendents communicated individually with
key stakeholders. Fifth, the superintendents made sure to communication weekly with the
board. Sixth, the superintendents understood the various board members’ level of trust in
the superintendent. Seventh, the superintendents had undergone high-quality training.
76
Eighth, the superintendents had excellent communication skills. Ninth, the superinten-
dents valued their previous experiences.
Findings for Research Question 1
One of the key strategies for successful superintendents was to address board pri-
orities. Successful superintendents identified the board’s most pressing needs and aligned
their goals with those needs. This finding is in agreement with the research by Bolman
and Deal (2008), whose human resource frame values putting the needs of people
working in an organization first. Many superintendents find success and build trust when
they put the needs of the board members first. The work of Covey (2006) also supports
this finding; he emphasized demonstration of respect and listening first to build the
leader’s credibility in the organization. The more a superintendent builds credibility with
the board, the more flexibility he or she has to accomplish his or her own priorities
(Townsend et al., 2007).
The participating superintendents tended to use entry plans that outlined what
they expected to accomplish upon entry into the district. Most of these entry plans were
informal. A new superintendent might develop a formal entry plan until experience has
been gained, followed by an informal plan when moving to another district. Formal entry
plans ensure that the school board, and if desired the public, know exactly the direction in
which the district is moving. Watkins (2003) supported this finding through his recom-
mendation to build an entry plan that allows the leader to choose appropriate solutions for
addressing the needs of the organization. Support for this finding can also be found in the
work of Neff and Citrin (2005), who promoted building an eight-point entry plan that
77
helps the new leader to build a solid foundation in the organization and to build momen-
tum for continued success beyond the first 100 days.
Frequent communication helps superintendents to build positive working relation-
ships with the school board. One might assume that board communication would be a
daily routine, but it seems that weekly communication was sufficient to meet the prefer-
ences of most school board members. A caveat to this finding is that many board
members wanted weekly individual communication, as well as deep communication at
the time of the school board meeting. Rich communication during school board meetings
allows the district to be transparent in his actions. Covey (2006) noted that such transpar-
ency yields greater trust in the organization because others can see what is going on with
the organization.
Findings for Research Question 2
Individual communication is an asset for a superintendent. Superintendents who
communicate individually with their board members and their communities make con-
nections between those groups (Callan & Levinson, 2011). The more they connect with
these groups, the higher the levels of trust (Hurley, 2006). A superintendent who listens
before acting makes great strides with the people with whom he or she works. Being
present is not just about being quiet; it entails understanding what is being said and taking
action when appropriate. Superintendents who clearly understand what is being said to
them are more likely to implement strategies that communicate understanding of board
priorities. The literature supports this conclusion. Within Hurley’s (2006) 10-factor
model of trust is the concept of benevolent concern, in which the seeker of trust shows
78
concern for others. Covey (2006) also supported this conclusion with his ideal of demon-
strating respect.
Weekly communication is not only a strategy that is critical for success for
superintendents; however, effective weekly communication leads to positive superinten-
dent/board relationships. Effective communication takes place in many ways.
Superintendents communicate with the school board most often via letter. These letters
tend to be delivered to board members weekly, bimonthly, or in some districts, monthly
(Harris, 2009). Another way in which superintendents communicate effectively with their
boards is in board meetings. In both closed and open sessions, accessible superintendents
utilize time to represent the district (Callan & Levinson, 2011) to show what they have
accomplished, to verify next projects, and to get clarification on what to do next. Suc-
cessful superintendents make sure that the board is always “in the loop” and that board
members are aware of what is happening in the district, whether the information is good
or bad. Such actions follow Covey’s (2006) trust-building practices, including confront-
ing reality and holding oneself and others accountable. These practices generate transpar-
ency and, in the case of the superintendent, transparency reduces surprises for the school
board that might have negative political implications.
Successful superintendents understand the board’s levels of trust in them. One
way in which the superintendents can gauge the level of trust is the entry plan. Although
these entry plans may not be formal, they can be measures of success for the superinten-
dent. The findings showed that school boards may use the goals generated within the
entry plan as points for feedback. Entry plans, formal or informal, should have clear goals
with clear expectations for results (Callan & Levinson, 2011; Neff & Citrin, 2005;
79
Watkins, 2003). The more results accomplished, the more success the superintendent and
the district are likely to have. Watkins (2003) described these results as securing early
wins, in which the leader addresses critical issue early on to demonstrate that his or her
leadership will have a positive impact on the organization.
Findings for Research Question 3
The results show that these superintendents had had high-quality training as part
of their education. Superintendents are generally highly educated persons. All have some
form of higher education, many have doctorates (Kowalski et al., 2011). Superintendents
tend to value their education and training. The results of the study indicated educational
experiences helped these superintendents to navigate issues during the first 90 days of the
superintendency. This conclusion differs from that reported by Kowalski et al. (2011),
who noted many issues concerning how superintendents are trained. One reason for the
differences in results is that the usefulness of the training is difficult to quantify in a large
study because the training may have helped them to solve issues that arose specific to
individual situations.
Many superintendents were educated on how to best communicate with others,
including school boards. State school associations offer training on superintendent/board
communication skills. These lessons on communication show many superintendents that
it is important to communicate with all people. The superintendents in this study under-
stood that one of the best ways to communicate with the board was by doing so in the
board members’ preferred medium, whether formal or informal. Finding that communi-
cation method is critical and should be a priority as the new superintendent becomes
acquainted with the school board (Callan & Levinson, 2011).
80
Experience guides superintendents to success, whether in schools or in the district
office. Superintendents generally have held a variety of positions: teacher, principal,
director, and assistant superintendent. Having a background in curriculum and instruction
seems to help successful superintendents in their role as instructional leader, a finding
also reported by Kowalski et al. (2011).
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study identified two important implications for practice
(a) communication, and (b) a plan of entry that helps the superintendent to address the
priorities of the board and that serves as a tool for evaluation.
Communication was central to interpreting the results of findings related to the
three research questions. Successful superintendents communicate in strategic ways. One
example is the strategy of communicating individually with stakeholders. Another factor
in communication is the frequency of the communication. This study found that most
school board members preferred weekly communication, which was practiced by the
majority of the superintendents. If communication is an important piece for creating trust
with the school board, then coursework on communication is an important element of
superintendent training programs. Such training should include how to communicate
clearly, how to communicate to a group, and how to communicate with individuals. The
prospective superintendent should keep in mind that communicating clearly with all
stakeholders is very important, especially listening, which allows the superintendent to
determine the needs of the school board and the community. When superintendents have
an understanding of the needs of the stakeholders, they generate positive relationships
with all of them, most notably the school board.
81
Having an entry plan has strong implications for practice. Entry plans allow the
superintendent and the school board to work together and craft goals for the district. The
goals should be apparent, easy to understand, and measurable. Although many superin-
tendents do not develop formal entry plans, a formal entry plan would help to ensure
transparency of goals and would make the goals more concrete for both the public and
the school board, which would make the goals easier to understand and evaluate. Super-
intendent preparation programs would serve the prospective superintendents well if they
included entry plan developing in the curriculum.
Recommendations for Research
Three recommendations for research arise from this study. First, this study
included only superintendents in California. Other states may have differing needs for
their superintendents. The current study design could be expanded to include superinten-
dents throughout the United States. A study with a national focus might identify strate-
gies that are specific to certain regions, including strategies that were not identified in this
study.
The second recommendation is to study the school board’s role in the success of a
superintendent. The superintendents in this study were able to increase trust with the
school boards rapidly. Were these boards effective boards? Do effective school board
tend to trust their superintendents more that ineffective school boards? Do successful
superintendents also have effective school boards? Are effective school boards the result
of effective superintendents who help to shaped the school boards? Do state school board
associations help to create successful school boards? Many questions emerge related to
this topic.
82
The third recommendation is to conduct a comparison study to compare and
contrast trust-building strategies of strong superintendents with those of weak superinten-
dents. Do unsuccessful superintendents ignore these strategies or are they less effective at
executing these strategies? Answers to these questions could be critical in developing
better training programs for prospective superintendents.
Concluding Remarks
This study examined the skills, implementation practices, and preparations that
are critical in creating trusting relationships with school boards in the first 90 to 100 days
of the superintendency. Communication was perhaps the key to the success of these
superintendents; the better the communication between superintendent and school board,
the more positive results for the district. When the relationship between the school board
and the superintendent is strong, the superintendent can utilize previous experience to
guide the district to do what is best for the students. It is important that future superinten-
dents pay close attention to their training, learn from experience, and communicate effec-
tively with all people.
83
REFERENCES
Adamson, M. T. (2010). Beyond a guided tour: Orienting new board members. School
Administrator, 67(3), 6.
Björk, L., & Gurley, K. (2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political
strategist. In L. Björk & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent:
Preparation, practice and development (pp. 163-185). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Björk, L. G., & Lindle, J. C. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational
Policy, 15(1), 76-91.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bradt, G., Check, J., & Pedraza, J. (2009). The new leader’s 100-day action plan: How to
take charge, build your team, and get immediate results (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Broad Center. (2011). The Broad Superintendent Academy. Retrieved from http://www
.broadacademy.org/
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A
multi-level review and integration. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606-632.
California School Board Association. (2010). The California School Board Association.
Retrieved from http://www.csba.org
Callahan, R. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis (U.S. Office of
Education Report S-212). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
Callan, M., & Levinson, W. (2011). Achieving success for new and aspiring superinten-
dents: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Collins, J. (2005a). Good to great. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. (2005b. Good to great and the social sectors. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., Jackson, B., & Poster, J. (2002). Is “superintendent preparation”
an oxymoron? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1, 242-255.
Covey, S. M. (2006). The speed of trust. New York, NY: Free Press.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-
proaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Drucker, P. F. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York, NY: Harper.
84
Egli, R. (2010). Recognizing your board for better relations. School Administrator, 63(3),
6.
Eller, J., & Carlson, H. (2009). So now you’re the superintendent! Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press & American Association of School Administrators.
Fusarelli, B. C., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2005). Reconceptualizing the superintendency:
Superintendents as applied social scientists and social activists. In L. Björk & T.
Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and
development (pp. 187-206). Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Grenny, J. (2006, July/August). Knowing no boundaries: Five crucial conversations for
influencing administration. The Physician Executive, 32(4) 12-15.
Gustafsson, C. (2005). Trust as an instance of asymmetrical reciprocity: An ethics per-
spective on corporate brand management. Business Ethics: A European Review,
14(2), 142-150.
Guzley, R. M. (1992). Organizational climate and communication climate: Predictors of
commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 379-
402.
Harris, S. (2009). Learning from the best. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/AASA.
Hoyle, J., Björk, L., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO:
Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hurley, R. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 55-62.
Johnston, G., Townsend, R. Gross, L., Lynch, G., Garcy, P., Novotney, P., & Roberts, B.
(2009). The superintendent’s planner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L.
Björk & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice and development (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J., & Keedy, J. L. (2005). Preparing superintendents to be effective com-
municators. In L. Björk & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent:
Preparation, practice and development (pp. 207-226). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T., McCord, R., Petersen, G., Young, I., & Ellerson, N. (2011). The American
School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study. New York, NY: Rowman & Little-
field Education.
85
Laboratory for Student Success. (2002). A synthesis of educational leadership literature.
Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/misc/leadership synthesis.pdf
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership: A review of the research. Retrieved from
http://www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/ReviewOfTheResearchLeithwood.pdf
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In
W. Firestone, and C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on edu-
cational leadership (pp. 12-27). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right
balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrat-
ing diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moore, A. D., Dexter, R. R., Berube, W. G., & Beck, C. H. (2005). Student assessment:
What do superintendents need to know? Planning and Changing, 36(1-2), 68-89.
Neely, R., Berube, W., & Wilson, J. (2002). The entry plan. School Administrator, 59(9),
28-30.
Neff, T., & Citrin, J. (2005). You’re in charge—Now what? New York, NY: Crown Busi-
ness.
Orr, M. T. (2007). Learning advanced leadership: Findings from a leadership develop-
ment programme for new superintendents. Educational Management Administra-
tion & Leadership, 35, 327-347.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petersen, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2005). The superintendent as instructional leader:
Current practice, future conceptualizations, and implications for preparation. In L.
G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Prepara-
tion, practice, and development (pp. 107-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Quinn, T. (2007, August). Preparing non-educators for the superintendency. Educational
Digest, 73(4), 54-60.
Scott S. (2004). Fierce conversations: Achieving success at work and in life, one conver-
sation at a time. New York, NY: Berkley Books.
86
Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating
the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. New
York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Smoley, E. (1999). Effective school boards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Teitel, L. (2006). Supporting school system leaders: The state of effective training
programs for school superintendents. Retrieved from http://www
.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/
Attachments/PDF/SupportingSchoolSystemLeaders.pdf
Townsend, R. S., Johnston, G. L., Gross, G. E., Lynch, P., Garey, L., Benita, R., &
Novotney, P. (2007). Effective superintendent-school board practices. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Trombetta, J. J., & Rogers, D. P. (1988). Communication climate, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment: The effects of information adequacy, communication
openness, and decision participation. Management Communication Quarterly,
1(4), 494-514. doi10.1177/0893318988001004003
Watenpaugh, M. (2007, August). Superintendent’s entry plan. Plan presented at the San
Rafael City school board meeting, San Rafael, CA.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
87
APPENDIX A
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Bolman and Deal’s
four-frame model for
effective leadership
Watkins’s first 90
days
Covey’s behaviors
that establish trust
Hurley’s 10-factor model
for trust
Structural leaders:
Do their homework
Rethink relationship
of structure, strategy,
and environment
Implement
Experiment
Match strategy to
situation
Achieve alignment
Talk straight
Deliver results
Risk tolerance (ability to
have faith that things will
work out)
Align individual organi-
zational interest
Human resource
leaders:
Communicate strong
beliefs in people
Put people first
Are visible and ac-
cessible
Empower people
Negotiate success
Accelerate your
learning
Build your team
Expedite everyone
Demonstrate respect
Listen first
Learning and seeking
feedback
Extend trust
Right wrongs
Security
Benevolent concern
Predictability, integrity
Communication (e.g.,
frequency and candor)
Level of adjustment
Political Leaders:
Clarify needs
Assess distribution of
power
Focus on building
relationships and
networks
Persuade, negotiate,
and coerce
Secure early wins
Create coalitions
Confront reality
Practice accounta-
bility by holding
oneself and others
accountable
Create transparency
Relative power
Capability
Symbolic Leaders:
Lead by example
Frame experiences
Capture attention
Vision
Respect/use history
Clarify expectations
by creating vision
and agreements
Show loyalty
Keep commitments
Number of similarities
From (a) Reframing Organizations (pp.355-372), by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2008, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; (b) The First 90 Days (pp. 12-15), by M. Watkins, 2003,
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; (c) The Decision to Trust (pp. 55-62), by R.
Hurley, 2006, Harvard Business Review, retrieved from www.hbr.org; and (d) The Speed
of Trust (pp. 127-229), by S. M. Covey, 2006, New York, NY: Free Press.
88
APPENDIX B
INITIAL SURVEY DEVELOPMENT CHART
RQ F Superintendent Board Member #
1
2
W Did you have an entry plan?
____ Yes _____ No
If yes, was it a formal written
document?
Are you aware of the superinten-
dent having a plan of entry?
____ Yes _____ No
If yes, was it formally presented
to you?
1
1
2
W Was there any discussion of an
entry plan during the inter-
view/recruitment process?
____ Yes _____ No
Was there any discussion of an
entry plan during the interview
process?
____ Yes _____ No
2
1
B
W
H
C
What were your greatest initial
challenges?
Rank Top 3
Board relationships
Community/business rela-
tions
Facilities
Fiscal operations/budget
Labor relations/collective
bargaining
Media Relations
Parent Groups/PTA
Student achievement
Vision/strategic planning
Other
What did you observe to be the
greatest initial challenges facing
the superintendent when he/she
started the job?
Rank Top 3
Board relationships
Community/business rela-
tions
Facilities
Fiscal operations/budget
Labor relations/collective
bargaining
Media Relations
Parent Groups/PTA
Student achievement
Vision/strategic planning
Other
3
1
2
B
W
H
C
Did the board prioritize the same
challenges?
____ Yes _____ No
Did the superintendent prioritize
the same challenges?
____ Yes _____ No
4
89
1
2
B
W
H
C
How often do you use these
methods or strategies to
communicate with your board?
(D, W, M, N)
Blog -->
Email
Fax
Group phone call
In person communication
Individual phone call
Social networking
Text message
Through other staff
members
Letter to the Board
Other ____________
How often does your superinten-
dent use these methods or strate-
gies to communicate with you?
(D, W, M, N)
Blog
Email
Fax
Group phone call
In person communication
Individual phone call
Social networking
Text message
Through other staff
members
Letter to the Board
Other ____________
5
1
2
B
W
H
C
What methods or strategies do
you prefer to use to communicate
with your board?
(rank top 5 in order of preference)
Blog
Email
Fax
Group phone call
In person communication
Individual phone call
Social networking
Text message
Through other staff
members
Letter to the Board
Other ____________
What methods or strategies do
you prefer your superintendent
use to communicate with you?
(rank top 5 in order of preference)
Blog
Email
Fax
Group phone call
In person communication
Individual phone call
Social networking
Text message
Through other staff
members
Letter to the Board
Other ____________
6
90
1
2
B
W
Which best describes your leader-
ship efforts or focus during the
entry period?
ADD DESCRIPTION
Structural
Political
Human Resources
Symbolic
Which best describes your
superintendent’s leadership
efforts during the entry period?
ADD DESCRIPTION
Structural
Political
Human Resources
Symbolic
7
1
2
B
W
H
C
How would you rate your overall
relationship with your board
members?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Unsatisfied
Very unsatisfied
How would you rate your rela-
tionship with your superinten-
dent?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Unsatisfied
Very unsatisfied
8
3 W
C
Do you believe your
formal/informal training ade-
quately prepared you for entry
into the superintendency?
____ Yes _____ No
Do you believe your superinten-
dent was adequately trained for
the position?
____ Yes _____ No
9
2
3
W Where did you receive your most
effective training for entry into
the superintendency?
Rank your top 3 responses
Foundations
Government agency
Mentor/partnership
Personal research
Professional associations
University based
programs
Other ____________
None
Where do you believe your
superintendent received his/her
most effective training for entry
into the superintendency?
Rank your top 3 responses
Foundations
Government agency
Mentor/partnership
Personal research
Professional associations
University based
programs
Other ____________
None
10
91
1
2
3
B
H
C
Did you have any formal training
on how to effectively communi-
cate with your board members?
____ Yes _____ No
Do you expect your superinten-
dent to have been properly trained
on how to effectively communi-
cate with the board members?
____ Yes _____ No
11
1
2
W During the entry period, how
often did you review your plan
with the board?
Does not apply
Never
1-2 times
3-4 times
more than 4
During the entry period, how
often did the superintendent
review his/her plan with the
board?
Did not have a plan
Never
1-2 times
3-4 times
more than 4
12
1
2
B
W
H
C
What activities during the entry
period did you use with your
board to establish trust?
Rank in order of importance
Frequent communication
Secure early wins
Meeting with key stake-
holders
Other ______________
What activities did your superin-
tendents use during the entry
period that most effectively
promoted trust?
Rank in order of importance
Frequent communication
Secure early wins
Meeting with key stake-
holders
Other ______________
13
92
1
2
B
W
H
C
What activities during the entry
period did you use to build strong
relationships with your board?
Rank in order of importance
Retreat
Community /team build-
ing
Individual communication
Additional board work-
shops
Informal meetings
Other ______________
What activities did your superin-
tendent use during the entry
period that helped build a strong
relationship?
Rank in order of importance
Retreat
Community /team build-
ing
Individual communication
Additional board work-
shops
Informal meetings
Other ______________
14
1
2
H
C
What was your perception of the
board’s level of trust with you
initially?
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
What was your level of trust in
the superintendent upon initial
entry?
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
15
1
2
H
C
What was your perception of the
board’s level of trust with you by
the end of the entry period (90 to
100 days)?
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
What was your level of trust in
the superintendent by the end of
the entry period (90 to 100 days)?
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
16
1
2
3
B
H
C
What factor(s) lead to your
hiring?
Check all that applies
Experience
Training/Education
Prior success
Interpersonal skills
Trustworthiness
Political connections
Professional connections
Other ______________
What factor(s) lead to your deci-
sion to hire the superintendent?
Check all that applies
Experience
Training/Education
Prior success
Interpersonal skills
Trustworthiness
Political connections
Professional connections
Other ______________
17
1 B What factors led to your success What factors do you believe led 18
93
2
3
H
C
during the entry period?
Rank top 3
Experience
Training/Education
Prior success
Interpersonal skills
Trustworthiness
Political connections
Professional connections
Other ______________
to your superintendent’s success
during the entry period?
Rank top 3
Experience
Training/Education
Prior success
Interpersonal skills
Trustworthiness
Political connections
Professional connections
Other ______________
3 What professional experience
prepared you for the superin-
tendency?
Check all that apply
Deputy Superintendent
Asst. Superintendent
o Human Resource
o Curriculum
o Business
Director
Principal
Assistant principal
Teacher
Other / Nontraditional
_________________
What minimum professional ex-
perience would you like to see in
a superintendent?
Check the minimum
Deputy Superintendent
Asst. Superintendent
o Human Resource
o Curriculum
o Business
Director
Principal
Assistant principal
Teacher
Other / Nontraditional
_________________
19
3 What training/preparation would
you have wanted more of?
OPEN ENDED
What training/preparation would
you have wanted the superinten-
dent to provide (if any)? (RQ #1)
20
Note. Framework legend: B = Bolman & Deal, W = Watkins, C = Covey, H = Hurley.
94
APPENDIX C
FINAL QUESTIONNAIRES
95
96
97
98
99
100
APPENDIX D
QUESTION ALIGNMENT CHART
Survey
Question
Research
Question 1
Research
Question 2
Research
Question 3
1 X X
2 X X
3 X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X
10 X X
11 X X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X X
18 X X X
19 X
20 X
Totals 16 16 7
Question 1 : Strategies Behaviors = Relationships, Trust
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Question 2 : Implement/ Evaluate
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Question 3 : Training / Preparation
9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20
101
APPENDIX E
TOPIC BY TIME TRIANGULATION
Past Present Future
Behaviors and
Experiences
x x x
Opinions and
Values
x x
Feelings and
Emotions
x x
Knowledge and
Skills
x x x
Sensory
Information
Source: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed., p. 352), by M. Patton,
2002, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
102
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW GUIDES
103
104
105
106
APPENDIX G
RESEARCH QUESTION BY DATA
SOURCE TRIANGULATION
RQ #1 RQ #2 RQ #3
Open-ended
Questionnaires
Interviews X X X
Group
Interviews
Observational
Fieldwork
Existing
Documents and
Artifacts
X X X
Word Frequency
Counts
Extant Quantitative
Records
Closed-ended
Surveys and
Ratings
X X X
107
APPENDIX H
OTHER TRIANGULATION METHODS
RQ #1 RQ #2 RQ #3
Mono-method X X X
Analyst
Theoretical
Perspective
108
APPENDIX I
METHODS USED BY THE SUPERINTENDENTS TO
COMMUNICATE WITH BOARDS
109
110
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry periods. Three research questions guided the study: 1. What strategies/behaviors are successful superintendents using to build strong relationships and trust with the board during their entry period? 2. How do superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success? 3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assists aspiring superintendents for entry into the superintendency? ❧ The research team used a qualitative approach for data collection and analysis. Data were gathered via surveys and interviews of participating superintendents and their designated school board members. ❧ Nine themes emerged from the data regarding the practices of these successful superintendents: (a) They addressed the priorities of the school board
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Superintendent strategies and behaviors: building and promoting trust and strong relationships during the entry period in California
PDF
Superintendent and school board relations during an entry period: trust, training, and teamwork
PDF
How successful superintendents build trusting relationships with their school boards during their entry period
PDF
Strategies for relationship and trust building by successful superintendents: a case study
PDF
The first 90 days: strategies to build a strong board relationship
PDF
Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Building productive relationships between superintendents and board members
PDF
CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents
PDF
School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts
PDF
The superintendency in a California school district: preparation, recruitment, and career longevity
PDF
Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents
PDF
Perception of the preparation, recruitment, and retention of California school district superintendents
PDF
The preparation, recruitment, and retention of California schoool district superintendents
PDF
Successful superintendents of schools: preparation, recruitment, and retention
PDF
High-performing school district superintendents: preparation, recruitment, and retention
PDF
Strategies utilized by special education local plan area directors to influence superintendents with special educations programs and services
PDF
Essential relationship skills necessary for superintendents to possess in order to maintain a positive working relationship with their governing boards
PDF
Reclaiming the superintendency: the skills, strategies and experiences of successful women superintendents in California
PDF
School board training and governance in California
Asset Metadata
Creator
Howland, Sean J.
(author)
Core Title
Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/26/2012
Defense Date
02/24/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Communication,Educational Administration,entry period,first 90 days,history of the superintendency,K-12 leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board,superintendent,Trust
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Escalante, Michael F. (
committee chair
), Freking, Frederick W. (
committee member
), Rojas, Alex (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sjhowlan@usc.edu,sjhowlandedd@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c127-677775
Unique identifier
UC1351226
Identifier
usctheses-c127-677775 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HowlandSea-549.pdf
Dmrecord
677775
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Howland, Sean J.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
entry period
first 90 days
history of the superintendency
K-12 leadership
school board