University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
SUPERINTENDENT STRATEGIES AND BEHAVIORS: BUILDING
AND PROMOTING TRUST AND STRONG RELATIONSHIPS
DURING THE ENTRY PERIOD IN CALIFORNIA
by

Jeannette Garcia
____________________________________________________________________
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 Jeannette Garcia

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Michael F. Escalante, my dissertation
chair, for his guidance throughout the dissertation process. I also thank the other
members of my committee, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. John Garcia, for the time that they
took to assist me to complete the process.
Special thanks go to the other eight members of my thematic dissertation group.
Together, we trudged through a process that, had it been endeavored individually, would
have been quite lonely.
I thank my family, friends, and colleagues, some of who did not necessarily
understand what writing a dissertation entailed but nevertheless repeatedly asked how I
was doing in the process and offered words of encouragement.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables vi
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Importance of the Study 6
Limitations of the Study 7
Delimitations of the Study 8
Assumptions of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 8
Academic Performance Index (API) 8
Entry Period 9
No Child Left Behind Act 9
School Board 9
Superintendent 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review 10
Evolution of the Superintendency 10
Characteristics of Superintendents and Districts 13
Current Superintendent Challenges 14
Superintendent Preparation and Leadership Theory 15
Superintendent Preparation 15
Leadership Theory 21
The Entry Period and Superintendent and School Board Relationships 26
Entry Periods 27
Superintendent-School Board Relationships 29
Communication 31
Trust 32
Conclusion 33
Chapter 3: Methodology 35
Research Questions 35
Research Design 36
Conceptual Framework 36
Figure 1: Conceptual frameworks 37
Population and Sample 38
Superintendents 38
School Board President or School Board Member Designee 40

iv
Instrumentation 40
Surveys 41
Open-Ended Interview Guides 42
Pilot Testing 43
Data Collection 43
Data Analysis 44
Ethical Considerations 45
Chapter Summary 45
Chapter 4: Results 46
Participants 47
Survey Participants 47
Interview Participants 48
Results for Research Question 1 51
Communication 52
Building Trust in Relationships 55
Leadership Focus and Efforts 58
Discussion: Research Question 1 61
Results for Research Question 2 62
Entry Plans 63
Factors That Influence Success During Initial Challenges 66
Activities That Promote Trust and Strong Relationships 70
Discussion: Research Question 2 74
Results for Research Question 3 74
Training 75
Professional Experience 78
Discussion: Research Question 3 81
Chapter Summary 82
Chapter 5: Conclusions 83
Summary of Findings 85
Research Question 1: Communication Promotes Trust and
Strong Relationships 85
Research Question 2: Entry Plans are Prevalent in Successful
Superintendencies 86
Research Question 3: Experience Assists Superintendents During
the Entry Period 88
Implications for Practice 89
Future Research 90
Conclusion 91
References 93
Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Survey 96
Appendix B: Board Member Survey 99
Appendix C: Superintendent Interview Protocol 102

v
Appendix D: Board Member Interview Protocol 104
Appendix E: Superintendent Recruitment Letter 106
Appendix F: Board Member Recruitment Letter 107
Appendix G: Alignment of Survey Questions to the Research Questions 108

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographics of Participating California Superintendents 48
Table 2: California Counties and Number of Districts by County 49
Table 3: Superintendents’ Methods of Communication and Frequency of Use 53
Table 4: School Board President/Designees’ Preferred Methods of
Communication and Frequency of Use 54
Table 5: Superintendents’ Perceptions of School Board’s Level of Trust
Initially and at the End of the Entry Period 56
Table 6: School Boards’ Level of Trust in the Superintendent Initially and
at the End of the Entry Period 57
Table 7: Superintendents’ Leadership Efforts or Focus During the Entry Period 59
Table 8: Superintendent Entry Plans 63
Table 9: Superintendents’ Use of Entry Plans During the Interview/Recruitment
Process 64
Table 10: Superintendents’ Review of Entry Plan With School Board 64
Table 11: Superintendents’ Top-Ranked Initial Challenges 67
Table 12: School Boards’ Observation of Superintendents’ Top-Ranked Initial
Challenges 68
Table 13: Factors Leading to Success During the Entry Period 70
Table 14: Superintendents’ Relationship With the School Board During the
Entry Period 71
Table 15: School Boards’ Relationship With Superintendents During the
Entry Period 71
Table 16: Superintendents’ Activities That Promoted Trust 72
Table 17: Superintendents’ Activities That Promote Strong Relationships 73
Table 18: Superintendents’ Rating of the Adequacy of Their Formal/Informal
Training for Entry Into the Superintendency 75
Table 19: Superintendents’ Ranking of Effective Training Sources for Entry
Into the Superintendency 77

vii
Table 20: Superintendents’ Report on Receiving Effective Training on How to
Communicate Effectively With Board Members 78
Table 21: Reported Professional Experience Preparation for the Superintendency 79

viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the strategies/behavior that successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships with their school board during their
entry period. The superintendents selected for this study (a) worked in urban or suburban
districts in California with an average daily attendance of at least 2,000 students,
(b) worked in a district with an Academic Performance Index (API) of over 800 with any
growth over a 3-year period or in a district with an API under 800 with a 30-point net
growth over 3 years, and (c) were hired externally.
A thematic group of nine doctoral researchers used a qualitative approach to
address the research questions. The team collaborated theory and conceptual frameworks
from Bolman and Deal, Covey, Hurley, and Watkins to develop a survey that was
administered to superintendents who met selection criteria and their school board
president/board member designees. Interview guides were developed collaboratively and
each researcher conducted an in-depth interview with one superintendent and one school
board president/board member designee for an individual case study.
Superintendent/school board relationships are crucial to the success of a
superintendency. This study showed that (a) communication is essential to the building of
trust and strong relationships with school boards, (b) entry plans are prevalent in
successful superintendencies, (c) professional experiences versus training and preparation
are key to overcoming initial challenges in superintendencies, and (d) the traditional path
to the superintendency continues to be a legitimate path to achieving the chief executive
position in a school district.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The modern superintendency is replete with challenges. Many of these challenges
have been exacerbated by provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB),
including heightened accountability, public scrutiny, and unattainable expectations for
school boards. Subsequently, these challenges and demands have resulted in the
evolution of the superintendent’s role so that it requires amelioration of interests of
various stakeholders, including the school board, district/school personnel, and parents
and community.
From coast to coast the search for highly qualified superintendents is continuous.
The average superintendent tenure is 5-6 years; superintendents serving large urban
districts have an average tenure rate of 1-3 years (Glass, Franceschini, & American
Association of School Administrators, 2007). The constant and rapid turnover of
superintendents means that the demand for the position will remain high. However, the
challenges and stresses associated with the position mean that the supply will be
continuously low.
Those who seek to undertake the challenges of the superintendency have found
that the skills that are required to perform the job are numerous and span various
domains. The requisite skills and competencies for the effective execution of the position
have been a point of contention for those who argue that current and past superintendents
have not been and are not qualified for such a demanding position. These issues further
underscore the evolution of the superintendency.
2
The superintendency was developed nearly 175 years ago as the result of growing
local educational systems. Kowalski (2005) described the evolution of the
superintendency from the 1850s in five conceptual stages, each stage responding to
educational, social, political, or economic beliefs: (a) superintendent as teacher-scholar,
(b) superintendent as manager, (c) superintendent as democratic leader, (d)
superintendent as applied social scientist, and (e) superintendent as communicator. Each
stage of the superintendency expanded on the previous stage, adding to the complexity
and demands of the modern superintendency. Despite the complexities and demands of
the position, some continue to aspire to the superintendency and many current
superintendents wish to continue in the position.
As custodians of educational systems, states have the right to set licensing or
credentialing requirements for superintendent positions. While there is some variability
among states, the general principle of licensure or credentialing has remained uniform
across the nation. Superintendent positions require at least a master’s degree in education
administration and/or education administrative services licensure or credentialing. The
American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study suggested that most
superintendents took the traditional route to the position by participating in some
preparation program (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Dissatisfaction with educational outcomes has created skepticism about the
effectiveness of preparation programs and state licensing or credentialing requirements.
While 80% superintendents rate their preparation program as either good or excellent,
criticism about these programs continues (Kowalski et al., 2011). It would seem that the
most vocal critics are groups or organizations outside the education profession
3
(Kowalski, 2005). Organizations such as the Broad Foundation and the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute (2003) have contended that past and present career educators lack the
knowledge and skills necessary for an effective superintendency. Despite offering little
evidence to their claim, these organizations have called for a look outside the educational
field for talent capable of driving change and positive outcomes in schools and districts.
Criticism expressed by organizations outside of education and the public has
prompted school boards to reassess their hiring practices as well as their expectations of
the superintendents whom they hire. Political dynamics and public scrutiny have led large
urban school districts to ease the requirements of the superintendent position. Some large
urban school districts have changed their policy to allow hiring of persons with no
traditional academic background or experience. Examples of this are New York City’s
hiring of Cathie Black, whose background is in publishing, and the hiring of other
noneducators in cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle with large
urban school districts.
Once past the initial hurdle of being hired, superintendents must navigate the
highly political nature of the position. Their relationship with the school board is central,
not only to their continuous employment but also to their ability to move an educational
agenda forward toward positive student outcomes. There is not a more important time
than the superintendent’s entry period, during which the new superintendent can establish
a trusting relationship and secure early wins that will lead to future effectiveness and
longevity (Watkins, 2003).
Watkins (2003) underscored the entry period as the most crucial time for a
superintendent. During the entry period, lasting 90 to 100 days, the superintendent
4
reaches out to all stakeholders, builds relationships, and demonstrates skills and
capabilities to fulfill the demands of the position efficiently. Relationship building is an
essential component of the entry period.
Establishing a positive relationship with the school board during the entry period
will pay dividends over time for a superintendent. The 90- to 100-day entry period is
quite short but, during this critical period, a superintendent can foster a relationship of
mutual trust. The long-term effect of a positive and trusting relationship for a
superintendent can be a highly effective and productive superintendent/board working
partnership and a satisfied school board (Houston & Eadie, 2002). A satisfied school
board may be a contributing variable in a superintendent’s contract renewal; given the
volatility of tenure of district superintendents, keeping the school board satisfied is
advantageous to a superintendent.
A superintendent’s ability to build a healthy and trusting relationship with the
school board depends on a broad range of skill sets and behaviors that a superintendent
may have learned over time. These skill sets and behaviors may or may not have been
learned though a formal preparation program, but they are essential to the
superintendent’s sustainability and success.
The superintendent’s duties and responsibilities are complex. Superintendents are
expected to develop and implement policy, oversee curriculum implementation and
instruction, maintain the overall financial health of the district, manage personnel,
negotiate with collective bargaining units, and respond to state and federal accountability
requirements. One leadership style alone may not be sufficient to address the various
5
duties and responsibilities; instead, a set of skills and behaviors is more suitable to
address the complex duties and responsibilities.
According to Kowalski (2005), the current conceptualization of the
superintendent is that of communicator. Therefore, communication is an essential skill
and strategy that a superintendent should employ, especially during the entry period.
Communication will facilitate the superintendent’s efforts to build a trusting and
collaborative relationship with the school board. Establishing a culture of communication
will engender trust, which can lead to a positive collaboration.
The entry period is the most crucial time period for any superintendent. Districts
have varying challenges. The difference between successful and unsuccessful
superintendents, as measured by tenure, is the relationship with the school board.
Establishing a trusting relationship with the school board is paramount for the effective
and efficient completion of an educational agenda that leads to improved student
achievement. Facilitating the superintendent’s endeavors is the application of skills and
behaviors that enable the building of trust. A school board that trusts its superintendent is
likely to be satisfied with the superintendent’s efforts and will likely allow that
superintendent to confront the demands of the position with little interference.
Statement of the Problem
Within the current educational climate, the superintendent as a leader must
navigate multiple challenges such as increasing federal and state accountability,
decreasing resources, contentious union relationships, special education litigation,
changing community needs, and the volatile politicalization of the school board. These
factors can strain the relationship between superintendent and the school board, leading
6
frustration and high attrition on the part of the superintendent. What strategies are
successful superintendents using to build strong relationships during the entry period?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during
their entry period.
Research Questions
To examine the strategies/behaviors that successful superintendents use to build
strong relationships with the school board during the entry period, the following research
questions were developed to guide the study:
1. What strategies/behaviors did successful superintendents use to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How did superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry
into the superintendency?
Importance of the Study
The field of education is going through unprecedented changes. The position of
superintendency has historically mirrored changes in education. This study is important
not only to aspiring and current superintendents but also to various educational
stakeholders and interest groups, such as school boards and superintendent preparation
programs.
This study can provide insight to aspiring superintendents, first-time
superintendents, and current superintendents as they move to serve a new district. The
7
study identified effective strategies/behaviors that superintendents can use to develop a
healthy and trusting relationship with the school board. The study emphasizes the
importance of the entry period of 90 to 100 days, during which the development of this
relationships is crucial.
School boards will benefit from this study by understanding the importance of a
healthy and trusting relationship with their superintendent. In addition, school boards will
be able to identify their crucial role during the entry period in facilitating the
superintendent’s efforts toward positive student outcomes. School boards will be able to
identify the essential skills and behaviors that a superintendent should demonstrate in
carrying out duties and fulfilling responsibilities.
Preparation programs will benefit from this study by incorporating in their
coursework practical and effective leadership strategies/behaviors that successful
superintendents use. This study highlights what preparation programs are missing in their
education of future and current superintendents and ways in which the programs can be
revised to meet the educational needs of their students and provide school boards with
highly qualified candidates.
Limitations of the Study
Even though every measure is taken to ensure reliability and validity of the study,
limitations are acknowledged: (a) The results of the study were limited to the participants
in the study, (b) the participants were located in California due to location constraints of
the research team, (c) interview guide and interview questions were administered to
participants who met inclusion criteria, (d) the study took place over a brief period of
8
time, (e) the study was limited to participants who responded voluntarily to the study, and
(f) the validity of the study was dependent on the reliability of the survey instruments.
Delimitations of the Study
The participants were selected based on inclusion criteria, such as district API,
district size, and external hires. Therefore, any observations or generalizations are
restricted to those areas within those district boundaries.
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were made: (a) All participants provided authentic
answers based on their own professional experience, (b) strategies identified in the study
would have an impact on the superintendent board relationship, (c) district API scores
were valid, (d) district API scores were due to some extent to the influence of the
superintendent, (d) externally hired superintendents were more likely to have written an
entry plan, (e) the interview questions and interview guide were valid, and (f) the
information shared by participating superintendents related to their experience during
their entry period (90 to 100 days).
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined for application within this dissertation:
Academic Performance Index (API)
A numeric index (or scale) that ranges from a 200 to 1,000, calculated from the
results of each school’s/district’s students’ statewide tests. The purpose of the API is to
measure academic performance and growth; it is an indicator of performance level. The
statewide performance target for all schools and districts is 800 (California Department of
Education, 2011).
9
Entry Period
The first 90 to 100 days of a superintendent’s tenure within a school district or
organization.
No Child Left Behind Act
Federal legislation that made schools and districts accountable for student
success, imposing severe consequences for schools and districts that do not make
progress
School Board
A committee of elected officials who oversee all aspects of district policy,
structure, and governance. The school board hires and evaluates the superintendent.
Superintendent
The appointed chief executive officer of a public school district who is
accountable to the school board.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The call for highly qualified superintendents has long been made. Yet, the current
conditions of the job have made it less attractive for possibly highly qualified candidates
to pursue and the qualifications of current superintendents have come to be questioned.
Superintendents are charged with a great deal of responsibility as a result of
unprecedented educational reforms. The most recent national educational reform, NCLB,
has increased awareness of student achievement. As a result, school boards have made
student achievement their priority and a gauge of superintendent success. Thus, a
relationship by which superintendents and schools boards work closely together may
increase conditions salient to the retention of qualified superintendents, moving
educational agendas forward and increasing student achievement.
The purpose of this study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during
their entry period. This chapter is organized into three sections to summarize the
evolution of the superintendency, superintendent preparation and leadership theory, and
the entry period and superintendent and school board relationships. This chapter also
presents a review of the literature on conceptual frameworks relating to trust and
communication essential to superintendent and school board relationships.
Evolution of the Superintendency
Developed nearly 175 years ago, the superintendency is a profession with a varied
history that reflects the demands and challenges of a continuously changing educational
climate. To illustrate the evolution of the superintendency, role conceptualizations were
11
created to denote five critical stages in which the superintendent’s responsibilities were
augmented to signal a new direction in education (Kowalski et al., 2011):
(a) superintendent as teacher-scholar, (b) superintendent as business manager,
(c) superintendent as statesman, (d) superintendent as applied social scientist, and
(e) superintendent as communicator (Callahan, 1966; Kowalski et al., 2011).
The first role conceptualization, superintendent as teacher-scholar, was born in the
industrial age, a period in which cities expanded, as did their school systems (Candoli,
1995). One of the main responsibilities for superintendents during this period was
implementing curriculum and supervising teachers (Björk & Kowalski, 2005; Sharp &
Walter, 2004). As instructional leaders, superintendents championed public education and
lobbied for school funding to support a free public education (Callahan, 1962).
According to Callahan (1962), by the early 1900s the role of superintendent began
to change as a result of a milieu that had an affinity for business-like values and practices.
The acceptance of business-like practices and values and the fashioning of school
organizational structures based on them led to the development of the superintendency as
a stand-alone and true profession with executive-type leadership. Subsequently,
superintendent and school board relationships began to develop and become increasingly
important, especially as superintendents derived their power from school boards. It is in
this era that the superintendent moved from instructional leader to manager of a school
system; thus, the second role conceptualization, superintendent as business manager, was
developed.
The 1930s was a period that apportioned greater power to government and its
figures as a result of the Great Depression (Kowalski et al., 2011). The superintendent
12
became the central political figure in an educational system. As a statesman, the
superintendent was able to garner support for education and, more important, for the
individual school district. The superintendent was expected to reach out to those who
worked in the district, local communities, and state for support in funding and other
resources to meet the district’s goals (Kowalski, 2005).
Social changes in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s led to dramatic changes in the
American educational system, and the superintendent became a different type of
executive: the applied social scientist (Callahan, 1962; Candoli, 1995). Some of the social
issues faced by the superintendent of this era were school desegregation, equal education,
and compensatory education. It can be noted that superintendents continue to face these
issues.
Kowalski (2005) posited that the fifth role conceptualization, superintendent as
communicator, has been present since the creation of the superintendency. Yet, according
to the author, the information-laden society, the speed at which events occur, and overall
communication expectations from within and outside the district have rendered the role
of superintendent as communicator absolute. Kowalski et al. (2011) posited that
communication is essential to the superintendent’s repertoire of skills in the management
of employees and collaboration with various stakeholders. Furthermore, the authors
suggested that communication facilitates understanding and navigation of organizational
structures, climates, and cultures.
There is no role conceptualization for current superintendents. As Kowalski et al.
(2011) noted, role conceptualizations are predicated on the social, political, and economic
conditions of the time. Given the milieu, current superintendents can be characterized as
13
those who must exercise all five role conceptualizations and discern the context for their
appropriate application.
Characteristics of Superintendents and Districts
Kowalski et al. (2011) reported on the characteristics and demographics of the
superintendency. These findings are important because they give insight into the types of
persons who are disposed to enter the superintendency. Moreover, these findings
identified the similarities in characteristics of school leaders. Kowalski et al. (2011)
reported that males currently comprised 75.9% of the superintendency; 27.7% were age
50 or younger; and 90.8% were married. Despite a lack of variability in characteristics,
superintendents are becoming more representative of the districts that they lead.
However, in terms of race and ethnicity, there has been only a small increase in the
number of superintendents of color; Hispanics/Latinos and Blacks/African Americans
each constitute only 2% of the superintendent population (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Characteristics of employing districts provide insight into the challenges faced by
superintendents. Kowalski et al. (2011) reported that 68.3% of superintendents were
employed in districts with 2,999 or fewer students and 31.7% were employed in districts
with 3,000 or more students. Only 14.5% of all districts had a minority student
population of over 51%, and 47% of districts had a minority student population of 5% or
less. These findings belie the assumption that districts are either completely homogenous
or heterogeneous; instead, the findings suggest that district student populations mirror
their community.
14
Current Superintendent Challenges
Unlike its educational reform predecessors, NCLB has imposed many and varying
challenges on superintendents. The coercive nature of NCLB has resulted in
superintendents playing crucial leadership roles in which they must assess school needs
and seek to meet often unrealistic or conflicting demands of various stakeholders
(Kowalski et al., 2011). The mismatch of NCLB’s high expectations, accountability, and
limited resources has made the superintendency one of the most challenging
contemporary executive positions.
Kowalski et al. (2011) found that superintendents are now given the charge of
determining what should be improved in a district and how it will be improved. The
dissimilarities in over 14,000 school systems means that there is no uniform approach or
solution to the issues. Furthermore, the varying needs, resources, and philosophies of
these school systems have an effect on the type of person who occupies the position and
the expectations placed on that person (Kowalski et al., 2011).
In a study that focused on new superintendents, Orr (2006) identified the types of
challenges that superintendents faced. The challenges focused on (a) the nature of the
work (e.g., time management and delegation, curriculum challenges); (b) board relations
(e.g., board micromanagement, individual board member agendas and personalities,
learning board expectations, board disharmony and infighting, board turnover); (c)
budgetary matters (e.g., fiscal crisis, lack of knowledge of finance); (d) power and
politics; and (e) learning the community and district culture. The findings supported that
the superintendency has been and continues to be complex and that all of these issues or
responsibilities do not necessarily fall within the traditional domains of the
superintendency: managerial, political, and educational (Orr, 2006).
15
Superintendent Preparation and Leadership Theory
According to Kowalski (2005), most superintendents enter the position via the
traditional route of moving through a district’s organizational hierarchy. They enter the
educational arena as teachers and then ascend to administrative positions in schools and
within the district (Glass, Björk, & Brunner, 2000). In taking this traditional route, most
superintendents have completed preparation programs that confer a state license or
credential to practice education administration.
Superintendent Preparation
Superintendent preparation and support programs are an essential component of
education reform. Yet, few superintendent preparation programs exist, and the majority
of the programs center on the preparation of principals and education administration in
general. What little literature exists on preparation and support of superintendents
highlights the adequacy and efficacy of these programs. Teitel (2005) looked at the long-
term preparation and support programs available to aspiring and current superintendents.
Using a “snowball” referring technique, the author found the following superintendent
preparation and support programs to be available: (a) university-based programs (e.g.,
Columbia University’s New Superintendent Seminar Series and Stanford University’s
Executive Program for Educational Leaders); (b) national, state and regional
superintendent membership organizations (e.g., American Association of School
Administrators, Project Leadership, Washington Association of School Administrators);
(c) foundations (e.g., Gates Foundation/Washington State); and (d) for-profit companies
(e.g., Educational Research Development Institute). Teitel (2005) looked at programs
whose mission was to sustain and support superintendent development and found the
following common attributes in these types of programs: (a) “safe space”—superin-
16
tendents were able to talk honestly; (b) peer and fellow participants—allowed for the
building of relationships; (c) personal learning—learning about their own leadership; and
(d) practicality—useful ideas that connect to their work and their districts.
Teitel (2005) also looked at what superintendents learned in these programs.
Teitel reported that participants learned content—ideas that they could use immediately
versus inquiry and reflection, balancing of nonsuperintendent input, and development of
a superintendent learning community. Teitel concluded that these innovative
collaboration models are essential to the continuous development and support of
superintendents, given the context and challenges of the position.
However, brewing dissatisfaction with current student achievement outcomes in
districts has resulted in a firestorm of criticism of superintendent recruitment and
preparation programs (Smith, 2008; Walters & Marzano, 2006). Two types of critics of
superintendent preparation and recruitment have emerged: (a) critics from within the
education profession, including researchers who advocate for more rigorous, practice-
based preparation of superintendents (Cooper, Fusarelli, Jackson, & Poster, 2002); and
(b) critics outside the profession, who advocate deregulation of the superintendency and
hiring of executives outside the education field (Broad Foundation and Thomas B.
Fordham Institute, 2003).
Orr (2006) posited that improving superintendent preparation programs is
essential to developing and supporting superintendents and is the most practicable
solution to quality problems. Orr reported that graduate preparation programs have been
severely criticized for their inadequate content. University-based master’s programs and
(increasingly) doctoral programs in education administration are the focus of this
17
criticism. Most of these programs are similar, providing core courses in school
administration, finance, school law, and human resources, as well as organizational and
leadership theory (Glass et al., 2000). Strengths in these types of programs are found in
their professors, course content, and attention to issues of instruction and testing, but
weaknesses in these programs center on the lack of hands-on application and linking of
content to practice (Orr, 2006).
The American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study reported that 8 of 10
respondents overall evaluated their preparation program as good or excellent, a rating that
was consistent across years of experience (Kowalski et al., 2011). Kowalski, Petersen,
and Fusarelli (2009) obtained the opinions of first-year superintendents about their
professional preparation, and their findings revealed similar overall positive opinions: (a)
91.8% of novice superintendents agreed that their preparation program had prepared them
to be a democratic leader, (b) 84.6% agreed that their preparation program had prepared
them to be an instructional leader, and (c) 80.4% agreed that their preparation program
had prepared them to communicate effectively. However, only 57.7% of novice
superintendents agreed that their preparation program had prepared them to work
effectively with board members. The respondents indicated that preparation programs
could be improved by providing greater coverage of school board relationships
(Kowalski et al., 2009).
Privately funded leadership foundations such as The Broad Foundation and
Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003) have spearheaded initiatives that call for removal of
certification requirements for superintendents, contending that talent to lead school
systems can be found outside the education profession. In the publication Better Leaders
18
for America’s Schools: A Manifesto, issued by The Broad Foundation and Thomas B.
Fordham Institute (2003), it was contended that American schools face a leadership
crisis. While there is a surplus of certified candidates for school administrative positions,
it is argued in the publication that these candidates are not necessarily qualified. The core
issue is quality; the authors contended that preparation programs fail to produce
candidates with the vision, energy, and skills to transform educational institutions.
In a similar vein, Levine (2005) argued that university-based programs are
inadequate and that a growing number of them are lowering admissions standards and
offering watered-down programs. However, this argument is contradictory to the results
of a survey of current superintendents, of whom nearly 80% rated their preparation
program as good or excellent (Kowalski et al., 2011). Levine (2005) contended that
university-based programs offer irrelevant curriculum; however, The American School
Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study revealed that courses in school law, school
finance, school public relations, and human resource management were perceived to be
of greatest importance, all of which are part of the standard core curriculum in university-
based preparation programs.
The Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003) argued that a
broader, more talented pool of candidates must be tapped—candidates who do not
necessarily have academic backgrounds or experience in education. As a response, in
2001 the Broad Foundation created The Broad Center, a national executive leadership
development program to “raise student achievement, by recruiting and supporting
executive leadership talent from across America to become the next generation of urban
19
school district leaders” (The Broad Center, 2011, para. 1). The Broad Center operates two
executive programs, one of which is The Broad Superintendent Academy.
The Broad Superintendent Academy was started in 2002 by Los Angeles-based
philanthropist and entrepreneur Eli Broad. The purpose of this academy is to identify and
prepare successful executives from large organizations and place them in large urban
school districts to improve the quality of education. Each year, the academy selects
candidates, referred to as fellows, to participate in a 10-month executive training program
while they continue in their current positions. The training exposes participants to best
practices in public school systems and addresses the following topics specific to urban
school district leadership: (a) instructional alignment, (b) operational excellence, (c)
stakeholder engagement, (d) organizational leadership, (e) interpersonal leadership, and
(f) management. Fellows analyze case studies and meet with superintendents across the
country to conduct observations and to discuss best practices with leading K-12 education
experts. Tuition and expenses are paid by the Broad Foundation.
After completion of the program, Broad fellows are expected to actively seek
superintendent positions in urban school districts. They can seek positions in the nine
states that no longer have credentialing or licensing requirements for superintendents or
in the 21 of the remaining 41 states that have provisions for waivers or emergency
credentials (Kowalski & Björk, 2005). The academy does not guarantee jobs for fellows;
instead, it offers support in searching for a position. The academy also offers continuing
support to fellows who accept a position in one of the 200 “eligible districts” within 12
months of completing training. To date, the academy has graduates in 37 cities serving in
the capacity of superintendent (The Broad Center, 2011).
20
Smith (2008) argued that easing the licensure or credentialing requirements for
the superintendency does not necessarily lead to an increased interest by qualified
candidates. Since 1993, Michigan has not had any certification requirements for any of its
school leadership positions. Then-Governor Engler spearheaded the deregulation of the
superintendency because he wanted former Chrysler chief executive Lee Iacocca to
become a Michigan school superintendent. However, Michigan’s deregulation was much
more broader; it was an attempt to replace urban school superintendents with executives
from outside education. Smith’s 9-year study concluded that Michigan’s deregulation of
school leadership positions, particularly the superintendency, did not attract “new
sources” of leadership and provided no evidence that deregulation had led to a “larger or
more diverse applicant pool” (p. 41).
Thus, the issue is not one of recruitment of quality candidates; rather, it is an issue
of desirability. The Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003) manifesto
argued that a highly talented and eager pool of candidates will emerge as a result of
deregulation but, as Smith (2008) noted, the applicant pools to alternative preparation
programs such as the Broad Academy are often teachers and current administrators from
the education field. Kowalski and Björk (2005) refuted as anecdotal the claim by
deregulation proponents that persons outside of the education profession have been
effective superintendents. They suggested that reformers campaigning to deregulate the
superintendency are exacerbating the issue of superintendent quality by proposing that
candidates need not master specific knowledge base to be an effective superintendent and
that top-level executives should be spared having to study pedagogy and school
administration. The truth is that the leadership demands of the superintendency are more
21
complex than anyone is willing to partake. If the nature of the practice were more
uniform across districts, deregulation might make sense. The reality is that practice is far
from uniform across districts.
Leadership Theory
The tendency to romanticize leaders has led to the assumption that one individual
can fix everything in an enervated organization. The tendency to romanticize leaders is
misleading; no one individual can do it alone. Also, as Spillane (2005) suggested, there is
a tendency to focus on what leaders do to “fix” organizations versus how and why they
manage to turn the organizations around.
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), leadership is relational and contextual,
which separates it from position and power. The authors suggested that leaders use a
more comprehensive approach to solving an organization’s complex problems. Their
conceptual framework provides superintendents an analytical tool by which to diagnose
and solve problems. This analytical tool has been divided into four frames: (a) structural,
(b) human resources, (c) political, and (d) symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The frames
are mental models that work similarly to what Malcolm Gladwell (2005) referred to as
“rapid cognition”: intuitive discernment and judgment made unconsciously as a result of
extensive knowledge and experience (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Each frame can be used
independently but they are more potent when used in combination, especially when a
problem requires a multiple-lens analysis and solution.
Although it is not new, the structural frame enables leaders to look at the
mechanics of an organization: the process of how things work. It is rooted in the belief
that an organization has goals and objectives and will work in the most efficient way to
22
achieve them. Because the structure of most organizations is hierarchical, division of
labor is emphasized. The structural frame espouses the need for organizational structures
to be flexible or malleable to foster continuously changing goals and objectives; thus, the
structural frame encourages participation and quality (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The allocation of work is central to the structural frame. Assigning or delegating
responsibility is essential in completing the goals and objectives of the organization. This
requires that the leader have extensive knowledge about the basic functions of the
organization, its rules, standards, and standard operating procedures, as well as
knowledge about the people who work within it. Leaders must make decisions about the
roles that they want individuals to play and how those individuals are to be coordinated.
The integration of all individuals is achieved through vertical and horizontal
coordination. The degree and extent to which each of the coordination methods is applied
is dependent on the organization’s goal or objective (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Continuous
improvement and realignment in an organization can be achieved through structuring.
Leaders can use this frame when there is an organizational problem or to address external
or internal pressures such as environmental shifts, technology changes, organizational
growth, or leadership changes (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Given the tenure rates of superintendents, especially entering superintendents,
having the structural frame in the basic repertoire of knowledge and skills is beneficial.
According to Bolman and Deal (2008), success of the structural frame can be achieved by
adhering to the following principles: (a) reconceptualize the organization’s goals and
strategies; (b) carefully study existing structures and process to fully understand how
things work; (c) design a new structure in response to changes in goals, technology, and
23
environment; and (d) experiment along the way, retaining things that work and discarding
those that do not.
People are important. People can either stagnate or move an organization forward.
The human resource frame underscores the mutual interdependency between an
organization and its people. To use the human resources frame effectively, leaders must
understand need—both human need and the need of the organization. When both human
and organization needs are met, both people and organizations are productive and move
forward. When either human or organizational needs are not met, stagnation results
(Bolman & Deal, 2008).
While the needs of the organization can be quite simple—to meet goals and
objectives, the same may not be true of people. Tapping into the talents of individuals to
meet the goals and objectives of the organization can be complex. But a few strategies
can help to cultivate the talents of people to move the organization forward, beginning
with hiring the right people. Except in start-ups, most organizations already have human
capital in place; hiring the right people may or not be an option for some leaders.
Therefore, to provide direction, leaders should begin by developing and implementing a
shared philosophy for managing people. According to Bolman and Deal (2008),
managing human resources will then require the following strategies: (a) keeping
people—rewarding their performance, protecting their jobs, promoting from within, and
sharing success; (b) investing in people—developing their knowledge and skills, (c)
empowering people—providing information and support, encouraging autonomy and
participation, redesigning work, fostering self-management teams, and promoting
egalitarianism; and (d) promoting diversity—being explicit and consistent about the
24
organization’s diversity philosophy and holding managers accountable. By employing the
human resources frame, leaders can tap into the talents of individuals by ensuring
satisfaction in the job that they are performing.
The political frame assists leaders in navigating an organization’s clouding as a
result of warring interests among individuals and groups. This frame presumes that
groups and individuals are inherently in conflict. Therefore, leaders must establish goals,
bargain, and negotiate among competing interests (Bolman & Deal, 2008). While
legitimacy of power for a leader comes from the position, interest groups can and will
attempt to attenuate a leader’s power. Bolman and Deal (2008) suggested that, to
circumvent this, leaders should consider the following: (a) organizations are coalitions of
assorted individuals and interest groups; (b) coalition members have enduring differences
in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality; (c) most important
decisions involve allocating scarce resources: who gets what; (d) scarce resources and
enduring differences put conflict at the center of day-to-day dynamics and make power
the most important asset; and (e) goals and decisions emerge from bargaining and
negotiation among competing stakeholders as they jockey for their own interests.
The effectiveness of the political frame and the change that it brings about will be
heavily dependent on the political skills of the leader. Constructive leaders will “know
how to fashion an agenda, map the political terrain, create networks of support, and
negotiate with both allies and adversaries” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 228). Through the
process the leader will further understand the importance of relationships, specifically
long-term relationships and how they assist to determine the outcomes of goals and
objectives.
25
The symbolic frame provides a tool for leaders to look at the underlying meaning
and beliefs that drive organizations. This frame purports that organizations are imbued by
traditions and culture that are developed over time and that influence day-to-day
operations. Leaders must understand the forms and functions of symbols because these
can be more important to people than the desired outcomes of the organization. Examples
of symbols include secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). Together, these forms and functions assist in the development of
culture. Whether an organization has culture or the organization is the culture, culture
simply denotes how things are done in an organization. Whether leaders can influence
and change an organization’s culture continues to be debated. The symbolic frame
provides the leader with a tool to define an organization’s culture and how to use and
possibly modify it to accomplish the goals and objectives of the organization.
The four frames posited by Bolman and Deal (2008) provide leaders with an
analytical tool to diagnose and solve organizational problems. Which frame is used is
situation dependent. However, effective leaders will use multiple frames to assess a
situation and to arrive at a solution. Once learned, the frames will become part of the
leader’s basic repertoire of tools, and using them will be as efficient as “rapid cognition.”
According to Northouse (2007), there are many ways to define leadership, but the
following are elements found to be pervasive in its definition: (a) leadership is a process,
(b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in a group context, and (d)
leadership involves a goal attainment. Thus, Northouse defined leadership as “a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”
26
(p. 3). Because leadership is a process and a negotiation between the leaders and those
being led, an emergent style of leadership is most beneficial to superintendents.
Northouse (2007) described selected approaches to leadership and how they can
assist in improving leadership in any situation: (a) trait approach, (b) skills approach,
(c) style approach, and (d) situational approach. Northouse also described the use of
leadership styles in improving organizational problems. One of these styles, which fits
the definition of leadership posed by Northouse, is transformational leadership.
According to Northouse (2007), transformational leadership amalgamates two forms of
leadership: assigned leadership and emergent leadership. By virtue of their position,
leaders possess assigned leadership, but leadership can also be attained through influence,
support, and transactions such as communicated behaviors; this form of leadership is
emergent leadership.
According to Northouse (2007) transformational leadership is the transforming of
people to achieve the goals and objectives of the organization. It involves having
knowledge of people’s emotions, needs, and motives. Transformational leadership
parallels Bolman and Deal’s (2008) human resources frame in that it involves exchanges
between the leader and the follower—meeting the needs of the people to achieve the
overall goals and objectives of the organization. By developing their knowledge about the
needs of their employees, superintendents can create transactions with them to meet the
goals and objectives of the organization.
The Entry Period and Superintendent
and School Board Relationships
Organizations thrive because of their people, and investing in those people
through meaningful relationships will continuously pay high dividends. Superintendents
27
are in the business of leading and managing people, with the purpose of increasing and
sustaining student achievement. Building relationships and active collaboration and
cooperation among stakeholders such as parents, administrators, and the school board
that result in positive educational outcomes is paramount for the superintendent. No other
period in the superintendent’s career is as important as the entry period, whether as a
first-time superintendent or as a continuing superintendent in a new district. According to
Watkins (2003), the first 90 days on the job will determine whether a superintendent will
succeed or fail.
Entry Periods
Starting something new is always difficult. Starting something new in a complex
and continuously changing climate is extremely challenging. The superintendency may
be one of the most confusing jobs in education, as evidenced by the short tenure of large
urban school district superintendents. Jentz and Murphy (2005) suggested that embracing
confusion can be channeled into something positive. Rather than succumbing to external
and internal pressure to act quickly to solve problems, the authors suggested that
superintendents take time to devise and develop entry plans. Entry plans enable
superintendents to learn about the new organization they are in, learn about themselves,
and collectively learn about the organization as a whole (Jentz & Murphy, 2005).
Jentz and Murphy (2005) suggested that an entry plan should be site specific. Not
all entry plans will be the same, even if developed by the same individual. The five steps
to developing and implementing an entry plan according to Jentz and Murphy (2005) are
as follows:
28
1. Designing an entry plan—thinking about objectives and when to go public with
the methodology of the plan; meeting with board members, principals, and other
stakeholders; matching people and dates to activities; establishing a moratorium on
making changes;
2. Seeking feedback—requesting feedback on the entry plan draft from the school
board and other stakeholders; listening to feedback; making revisions;
3. Getting the word out—providing a context and rationale for the entry plan;
communicating/disseminating the entry plan to all stakeholders;
4. Conducting interviews and site visits—learning more about the organization;
data collection; and
5. Convening sense-making meetings—reflecting on the implementation of the
entry plan; reporting current status to the school board; instituting a collaborative
problem-solving approach.
While they are time consuming and complex, entry plans can provide an
alternative to a “haphazard and troubled entry” by a superintendent (Jentz & Murphy,
2005, p. 744). According to the authors, entry plans potentially allow new
superintendents to (a) transform natural confusion into a resource for personal and
organizational learning; (b) gain new knowledge, trust, and credibility by collaborating
with other stakeholders; and (c) establish an approach to leadership that is both top down
and bottom up.
Watkins (2003) emphasized the importance not only of entry plans but also of the
entry period. The entry period involves careful analysis and strategy. Watkins outlined 10
conceptual steps for an entry period that will assist in overcoming challenges:
29
Promote yourself—separating what worked it the past; accepting that the new job
requires new learning about yourself and what works
Accelerate your learning—learning about the new organization’s structure,
politics, and climate
Match strategy to situation—use the appropriate tools to diagnose problems,
develop and implement solutions
Secure early wins—build credibility by meeting objectives towards the overall
goal
Negotiate success—build long-lasting productive relationships; communicate
expectations, style, resources and personal development
Achieve alignment—realign the organization’s structure to facilitate the
accomplishment of goals and objectives
Build your team—systematically and strategically choose the right people to meet
the goals and objectives of the organization
Create coalitions—develop vertical and horizontal relationships; build internal
and external alliances
Keep your balance—take stock of what is important to maintain equilibrium
Expedite everyone—develop others’ strengths so that it benefits the entire
organization. (pp. 12-15)
Whether the superintendent is a novice or experienced, entry plans and entry
periods are determinants of success or failure. Superintendents are often pressured to act
quickly, to “hit the ground running.” However, as Jentz and Murphy (2005) suggested,
“hit[ting] the ground learning” perhaps is the best course of action (p. 738). Taking the
time to learn about the organization’s people and cultivating relationships are first steps
in mending what is wrong with the organization.
Superintendent-School Board Relationships
The majority of school boards are elected and in turn appoint the majority of
superintendents. Together, school boards and superintendents play vital roles in
30
improving student achievement. Thus, the success of a school district is determined by
the positive relationship between the school board and superintendent (Kowalski et al.,
2011). Kowalski et al. (2011) found that 97% of superintendents surveyed reported that
they maintained a positive relationship with their school board members. However,
superintendent-school board relationships are not devoid of conflict. Many school board
members lack in-depth knowledge about education and educational policy and therefore
can be easily influenced by politics, the community, or external interest groups. Intrinsic
factors such as member diversity and differing visions and goals can result in intragroup
conflict that can hamper reform efforts (Grissom, 2010). Grissom’s findings concur with
the findings reported by Kowalski et al. (2009) that novice superintendents indicated a
need for greater coverage of board relationships in preparation programs.
Although there is little research on the effects of the school board on student
achievement, Glass (2001) suggested that in a district in which the superintendent knows
that the school board will support his/her decisions, the superintendent is willing to take
more risks toward organizational reform. Moreover, the superintendent who does not feel
secure about school board responses to controversial issues will be unwilling to take risks
to bring about needed change (Glass, 2001). Grissom’s (2010) study corroborated Glass’s
finding, adding that “conflict among board members, whose capacity for making
effective decisions plays an important role in the success of organizational outcomes, is a
function of both external and internal factors, including . . . member characteristics, and
the environment in which the board operates” (p. 623). Therefore, superintendents must
not only establish positive relationships with their school board; they must also act to
maintain the cohesiveness of the school board.
31
Collaborative leadership and cohesiveness at the top of the district is a base for
increased and continuous student achievement. Together, the superintendent and school
board are responsible for creating goals and objectives. As the district’s chief executive
officer, the superintendent is responsible for leading and for managing resources to meet
goals and objectives. Given the complexities of education and heightened accountability,
maintaining a healthy relationship with the school board is essential for the
superintendent.
Communication
Kowalski (2005) characterized the current role of superintendent as that of
communicator. The concept of communication and the superintendent is not new and has
been alluded to in other research areas but it has received little specific attention, despite
burgeoning evidence suggesting that “relationship-enhancing communication . . . is
necessary for advancing an educational agenda” (Kowalski, 2005, p. 101).
Transformational leadership, as well as the use of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames,
encourages, if not requires, the use of relationship-enhancing communication because
classic models of communication do not fit these emergent styles of leadership. Instead, a
communication style that elicits information sharing, mutual understanding, openness,
credibility, and trust is most fitting and promotes a positive organizational culture and
climate and an organization that is more willing to take risks and reform to meet goals
and objectives.
Communication in general is important to move an organization forward.
According to Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler (2002), the type of
communication that effectuates change is not large scale; rather it is small scale,
32
personable, and often informal rather than formal. Those small, informal or crucial
conversations improve the organization by improving relationships and revitalizing the
organization (Patterson et al., 2002). Key to these casual conversations is the free flow of
relevant information. However, the skilled communicator must be mindful of conditions
in which the free flow of information is not strategic; the communicator must be able to
discern the optimal conditions for sharing information. Engaging in crucial conversations
during the entry period involves not only finding the right moment for them; it also
involves development of a safe environment that supports these conversations. A safe
environment that facilitates communication is created when there is mutual trust.
Trust
Building trust can take time. However, given the short time frame of the entry
period, the entering superintendent does not have the luxury of time. Covey (2006)
posited that the speed at which trust is achieved can be increased to have an impact on the
enhancement of relationships. The entering superintendent can build trust by eliciting
both character and competence. In developing an entry plan and meeting its objectives,
an entering superintendent can build trust within the short transition period of 90 to 100
days. Taking the initial step of developing an entry plan shows that the entering
superintendent has self-confidence in the ability to set and achieve goals and keep
commitments. In developing an entry plan, the entering superintendent has built
credibility, judgment, and influence.
Hurley (2006) suggested that trust is a decision-making process that can be
identified, analyzed, and influenced. Understanding the model for trust will enable
superintendents to “create an environment in which trust flourishes” (p. 56). The model
33
of trust involves 10 factors, of which the first three concern the “truster” and cannot be
influenced: (a) risk tolerance, (b) level adjustment, and (c) relative power. The other
seven factors are situational between the “truster” and “trustee” and can be influenced to
manage trust once they are understood: (a) security, (b) number of similarities,
(c) alignment of interests, (d) benevolent concern, (e) capability, (f) predictability and
integrity, and (g) level of communication.
To trust is to take a risk. Minimizing the risk of trust can pay high dividends for
superintendents. How much trust one gives to another is dependent on the risk that one is
willing to take (Hurley, 2006; Kramer, 2009; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007).
Lowering perceived risk is essential in moving an agenda forward. Research has
emphasized that trust is influenced by emotions (Schoorman et al., 2007). As Kramer
(2009) posited, people more often than not have a predisposition to trust. This
predisposition to trust is of benefit to superintendents, especially during the entry period.
They need to convert the school board’s early trust to early results. In doing so, they are
building confidence in their character and competency and setting the tone for the future
relationship with the school board.
Conclusion
The role of the superintendent has changed over time since its inception. The past
couple of years have exposed the superintendency to public scrutiny as never before.
Heightened accountability and the changing educational climate have politicized the
position. Influences from other sectors such as business have equated student
achievement to market-like targets that superintendents must achieve. Because these
targets have not been met, especially in large urban school districts, some have proposed
34
deregulation of the superintendency. Deregulation proponents argue that superintendents
lack the knowledge and skills requisite for the demands of the job. However, The
American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study (Kowalski et al., 2011) offered a
differing conclusion, based on the finding that most participants suggested that their
programs had prepared them to carry out the functions of their jobs.
Success or failure in the superintendency is variable. Entering superintendents,
whether novice or experienced, derive their power from school boards. Healthy, positive
relationships with the school board are essential to moving an educational agenda
forward. These relationships must begin with open forums of communication that are
fortified by trust. One advantage for superintendents is that most people are inherently
willing to trust. It is the superintendent’s responsibility to sustain this trust throughout
his/her tenure. The entry period is one of the most crucial times for a superintendent, as it
is the time when positive relationships are built. The entry period will set the tone of the
superintendency and determine whether school and district goals and objective are met.
35
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted by a thematic dissertation group of nine doctoral
candidates from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
The thematic group collaborated on the topic of superintendent and school board
relationships to review pertinent literature, design the study, and determine methodology.
The study identified strategies/behaviors that successful superintendents use to build
strong relationships and trust with their school boards during the entry period.
Chapter 2 described the evolution of the superintendent’s role and the importance
of building trust with the school board to move an educational agenda forward. The
literature is abundant in theory and models of leadership but it is limited in terms of
specific strategies used by superintendents to build a strong and trusting relationship with
the school board during the entry period. This chapter describes the procedures used to
address the research questions: (a) research design, (b) sample and population,
(c) instrumentation, (d) data collection, and (e) data analysis.
Research Questions
To identify the strategies/behaviors that successful superintendents use to build
strong relationships and trust with their school boards within the entry period, the
following research questions were developed:
1. What strategies/behaviors did successful superintendents use to build strong
relationships and trust with the board during their entry period?
2. How did superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
36
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry
into the superintendency?
Research Design
The study used a qualitative approach to identify strategies/behaviors that
successful superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with their school
board during their entry period. A qualitative approach was used because it was deemed
that the collection of diverse types of data would provide the best understanding of the
problem of the study (Creswell, 2009). Moreover, qualitative design provided
comprehensive evidence that quantitative method could not have achieved (Creswell,
2009). The study began by employing a survey to superintendents in California and their
respective school board president/school board member designee in order to generalize
results to the population. The second phase focused on using an open-ended interview to
collect detailed views from participants regarding their practices.
According to Creswell (2009), the use of a survey allows for identification of
broad trends in a population. A large sample can be captured via a survey. A follow-up
interview allows for documentation of in-depth perspectives of participants and
exploration of outlier cases in the survey (Creswell, 2009). The thematic group
collaboratively developed the survey questions and interview questions. The aggregate
surveys and interviews of each group members were used for triangulation.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual frameworks and models that were used in the study and were part
of the literature review were those of Bolman and Deal (2008), Covey (2006), Hurley
(2006), and Watkins (2003). The conceptual frameworks were synthesized (Figure 1) and
37
Synthesis of Conceptual Frameworks
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
organizational interest
Human resource
leaders:
Communicate strong
beliefs in people
Put people first
Are visible and
accessible
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

Figure. Conceptual frameworks. 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.
38
served as an analytic tool for superintendent practices regarding leadership strategies,
relationship building, communication, and trust. The thematic group engaged in
discussion, used the conceptual frameworks, and developed questions in the areas of:
entry plans, communication, relationships, informal/formal training, and trust that were
included in a survey that was distributed to superintendents and their school board
president/school board member designee. Open-ended interview questions based on the
frameworks of Bolman and Deal (2008), Covey (2006), Hurley (2006), and Watkins’
(2003) were employed.
Population and Sample
Superintendents
The thematic group worked collaboratively to determine the population and
sample of the study. The study focused on superintendents in the state of California. The
following parameters were established for the population and selection of the sample: (a)
current superintendent in the state of California working in a district with an average
daily attendance (ADA) of at least 2,000 students; (b) superintendent in a district with an
API of over 800 with any growth over a 3-year period, or a superintendent in a district
with an API under 800 with a 30-point net growth over 3 years; (c) superintendent hired
externally, and (d) superintendent from either urban or suburban school districts.
The thematic group was interested in identifying the strategies/behaviors that
effective superintendents used to build a strong and trusting relationship with their school
board. Therefore, a purposeful sampling approach was employed. In using a purposeful
sampling approach, the group was able to gain insight and in-depth understanding and not
39
limit the scope of the study (Patton, 2002). The thematic group had a population of over
1,000 superintendents from which to draw a sample.
As noted in the literature review, the use of entry plans is an effective formal
communication tool used by entering superintendents to move an educational agenda
forward and assists in building trust with the school board. The thematic group agreed to
sample experienced and successful superintendents versus superintendents who were new
to the position, based on the assumption that experienced and successful superintendents
were more likely to have developed entry plans. Another assumption made by the
thematic group was that external hires, as opposed to hires from within the district, were
also more likely to have developed entry plans; therefore, internal hires were excluded
from this study, constituting a limitation of the study.
The thematic group chose to send surveys to superintendents in districts with an
average daily attendance of 2,000 students. The rationale was that districts with larger
student populations face greater and diverse challenges and stress the importance of
strong and trusting relationships between superintendents and their school boards. The
superintendents were from various types of districts, such as elementary/union districts
(Kindergarten through Grade 8), unified/joint districts (Kindergarten through Grade 12),
and high school districts (Grades 9-12). Superintendents from county offices, the
California Youth Authority, and state special schools were not included in the study.
The thematic group chose California’s API as an indicator of superintendent
success. The API is a growth model accountability system created by California to
measure academic performance and growth of schools and districts on a variety of
academic measures; the API numeric index ranges from 200 to 1,000 (California
40
Department of Education, 2011). The thematic group determined that using this indicator
was the best available measure of student achievement. The group determined that a
successful superintendent was one whose district’s API was under 800 and had shown net
growth of 30 points over the previous 3 years (2008–2010), as well as superintendents
whose districts had achieved 800 points and sustained any growth during the previous 3
years. California has set 800 as the performance target for all schools and districts; thus,
the thematic group use this number as an indicator of success.
School Board President or School Board Member Designee
In addition to surveying and interviewing one superintendent, each researcher in
the thematic group surveyed and interviewed the superintendent’s school board president.
In the event that the school board president was not available to be included in the study,
a school board member designee chosen by the school board president was included in
the study. The school board president/school board member designee survey and
interview was the basis for triangulation.
Instrumentation
The thematic group worked collaboratively to develop the instrumentation used in
the study. The group used conceptual frameworks and models presented in the literature
review from Bolman and Deal (2008), Covey (2006), Hurley (2006), and Watkins (2003)
to address the research questions. The instruments used in the study were (a) the
superintendent survey, (b) the school board president/school board member designee
survey, (c) the superintendent open-ended interview guide, and (d) the school board
president/school board member designee open-ended interview guide. The surveys and
interview guides were developed to include concepts of leadership, entry plans,
41
relationships, and trust. The research questions guided the content of both the surveys and
the open-ended interview guides. By embedding the research questions in the survey and
interview guide, the thematic group was able to address the research questions.
Surveys
The thematic group developed the surveys collaboratively. Two surveys were
developed for the study. The first survey, administered to superintendents (Appendix A),
consisted of 20 questions designed to obtain information regarding the use of entry plans
by superintendents, challenges faced by superintendents, types of communication used by
superintendents, relationships and relationship building by superintendents, and their
leadership style. The survey was also designed to capture information about
superintendent training and preparation. The questions in this survey were formatted
variably. Survey items were designed to be both open ended and closed ended. A 4-point
Likert-type scale was used for some items. The survey was designed for distribution via
the U.S. Postal Service.
The second survey, also developed collaboratively, was administered to school
board presidents/school board member designees and formatted variably (Appendix B).
The survey consisted of 20 questions designed to obtain information regarding the school
board president’s/school board member designee’s perceptions about the superintendent’s
strategies/behaviors. The survey was designed to mirror the superintendent survey to
cross-reference the responses by superintendents on their survey. The survey was
designed for distribution via the superintendent and was enclosed in the superintendent
survey packet.
42
Open-Ended Interview Guides
The interview guides were developed collaboratively using the frameworks and
models of Bolman and Deal (2008), Covey (2006), Hurley (2006), and Watkins (2003) as
presented in the literature review. The research questions also guided development of the
interview guides. The interview guides (Appendix C and Appendix D) focused on the
following concepts: entry periods and entry plans, school board relationships, leadership
strategies, communication, and trust. Superintendents and school board president/school
board member designees who completed the interviews were selected from the sample of
participants who completed surveys.
The interview guides allowed for flexibility in composition and administration
(Patton, 2002). The aforementioned was also a limitation and issue in using an interview
guide. Because the researchers had flexibility in how the questions were ordered or
posed, the interviewees may not have answered the same types of questions consistently.
Nevertheless, the open-ended interview guide approach allowed for a relaxed and
informal experience that allowed the researchers to develop rapport with the interviewees
and ask follow-up or probing questions based on responses to the guide questions (Patton,
2002).
Each thematic group researcher was responsible for conducting a 30- to 60-
minute in-person interview with a superintendent and school board president/school
board member designee. The interviewees were chosen from the study sample that
completed and returned a survey.
Patton (2002) suggested that how the world is studied determines what is learned
from it. The theoretical base was agreed on by the thematic group and was grounded in
theory by Bolman and Deal (2008), Covey (2006), Hurley (2006), and Watkins (2003).
43
All four frameworks were amalgamated to produce the questions for the surveys and
interview guides.
Pilot Testing
According to Creswell (2009), pilot tests of instruments can assist in determining
whether there are flaws, limitations, or other weaknesses in the instruments. After the
members of the research group had develop the survey instruments collaboratively, each
member piloted the survey with a superintendent and school board president/school board
member designee who met the selection criteria. The cohort members shared survey
results and collectively made corrections to the survey prior to its implementation for the
study.
Data Collection
A qualitative (Creswell, 2009) and multiple-methods approach was used to collect
data. The thematic group worked collaboratively to plan for collection of qualitative data.
After developing the final draft of the two surveys, each member of the thematic group
was responsible to mail the survey to 10 superintendents and 10 school board
presidents/school board member designees who met the sample criteria. Along with the
survey, a cover letter from the researcher and the thematic group’s dissertation chair was
enclosed, explaining the purpose of the study and the surveys, as well as consent to
participate in the study (Appendix E and Appendix F). Each member of the thematic
group followed up with each survey recipient with telephone calls and/or emails to
encourage return of the surveys. Each member of the thematic group collected five
completed surveys from superintendents and five completed surveys from school board
president/board member designees for their case study. The completed surveys from each
44
member of the thematic group were coded and analyzed for inclusion in each member’s
individual case study.
To collect qualitative data, each member of the thematic group conducted an
interview with one superintendent, using the collectively developed interview guide.
Each member of the thematic group purposefully selected a superintendent and school
board president/school board member designee from their returned survey group for their
case study. The member contacted the superintendent and school board president/school
board member designee for availability via telephone or email and scheduled an
appointment for the interview. The interviews, ranging in duration from 30 to 60 minutes,
were audio recorded and transcribed. Questions were asked one at a time. All researchers
made an attempt to remain neutral while asking questions. Each researcher attempted not
to influence the response of the interviewee and was mindful of the method for taking
notes. The researchers provided transitions between the various topics such as entry
plans, superintendent strategies/behaviors, trust, communication, and relationships.
Data Analysis
The purpose of the study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships with their school boards during their
entry period. A qualitative approach was used to gather data to address the research
questions. A chart of the relationship of the research questions to the survey questions is
provided in Appendix G. Each member of the thematic group distributed surveys,
collected surveys, and conducted open-ended interviews with a sample of the study’s
population for his or her case study. The thematic group convened and each member
presented his or her survey and interview results. Each member organized and coded
45
survey and interview results for analysis. Themes or patterns in the results are reported in
Chapter 4. The researchers did not encounter discrepancies that would have required a
third party to determine the overall quality or effectiveness of the data collection.
Ethical Considerations
All nine members of the thematic group completed the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) application, which required completion of the Collaborative IRB Training
Initiative (CITI). The CITI is an online human subject educational program designed to
promote ethical conduct toward human participants in research projects. The IRB process
ensured that all aspects of the study (surveys, interviews, data collection procedures, etc.)
were conducted ethically and without physical or emotional harm to participants.
Chapter Summary
This chapter focused on the research methods used to address the question of
what strategies/behaviors are used by effective superintendents to build strong
relationships and trust during the entry period. The instruments used to collect the data
were developed collaboratively based on conceptual frameworks reviewed in Chapter 2.
Each member of the thematic group collected data individually based on a collaboratively
designed process. The results were brought together and shared by the members. The
thematic group worked collaboratively to disaggregate, code, and analyze the data.
46
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Rising levels of accountability, coupled with increased qualifications and skill
sets, have resulted in a complex contemporary superintendency, one starkly different
from the one envisioned nearly 175 years ago. Public scrutiny has added another layer of
complexity to the superintendency. Today’s superintendent must navigate the local
political landscape while leading a district toward increased levels of efficiency and
effectiveness for the purpose of increasing student achievement. Therefore, should be
given to those qualifications and skills sets, how they are developed prior to a
superintendency, and how they are executed during a superintendency.
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected through surveys and
interviews. The study was designed to ascertain strategies/behaviors that successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during
their entry period. The study examined Bolman and Deal’s (2008) conceptual
frameworks in leadership, Hurley’s (2006) model of trust, and the tools for
communication posited by Patterson et al. (2002), as well as theory of effective
superintendent entry periods and plans (Jentz & Murphy, 2005; Watkins, 2003). The
thematic group developed three research questions based on the review of literature to
guide the study.
1. What strategies/behaviors did successful superintendents use to build strong
relationships with their school board during the entry period?
2. How did superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
47
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry
into the superintendency?
A qualitative approach including surveys and personal interviews was used to
collect data. The thematic group sent out 90 superintendent surveys and 90 school board
president/designee surveys to persons who met selection criteria. A total of 64
superintendent surveys and 48 school board president/designee surveys were returned;
resulting in 46 matched pairs and an overall 62.2% survey return rate. The survey data
were analyzed using cross-tabulation/descriptive statistics.
The members of the thematic dissertation group individually selected one
superintendent and one school board president/designee for interviews. The interviews
were audio recorded and transcribed. The data collected in the interviews were coded and
analyzed for reporting. This chapter reports data on the study’s participants, followed by
a presentation of the survey findings according to research question.
Participants
Survey Participants
Basic demographic data for the participants in this study were obtained from the
superintendent survey distribution list. The superintendents who were chosen to
participate in this study met the selection criteria described in Chapter 3. Survey
participants were employed in school districts in California; thus, their perspectives about
contemporary superintendent and school board relationships are limited to the state.
Historically, White males have dominated the profession of superintendent;
however, in recent years there have been changes in this profile (Kowalski et al., 2011;
Tyack & Hansot, 1982). The majority of the superintendent sample was male (71.9%)
48
and White (45.4%; Table 1). The majority of the survey participants were from the
southern California region, with 29.7% from Los Angeles County, 14.0% from Orange
County, and 12.5% from San Diego County (Table 2).

Table 1

Demographics of Participating California Superintendents (N = 64)

Characteristics and category f %

Gender
Male 46 71.9
Female 18 28.1

Ethnicity
White 29 45.4
Other 35 54.6

Interview Participants
Each member of the thematic group interviewed one superintendent and the
respective school board president/board designee. Selection of interviewees was based on
convenience, accessibility, and interest of the researchers; therefore, findings could not be
generalized to the population and served only for data triangulation and to provide insight
into superintendent/school board relationships during the entry period. To maintain
confidentiality and anonymity, the interviewees and district were assigned pseudonyms.
The superintendent interviewed for this study was assigned the pseudonym Tim Chung,
the school board president was assigned the pseudonym Jerry Crew, and the district was
assigned the pseudonym Carpenter Union School District.
49
Table 2

California Counties and Number of Districts by County

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

Carpenter Union School District is a suburban school district located in Santa
Clara County; it consists of 21 elementary schools and seven middle schools, with a total
enrollment of 18,370, according to the district website. The ethnic distribution of the
district is as follows: Hispanic 5.4%, American Indian 0.21%, Asian 70.9%, Pacific
Islander 0.27%, Filipino 1.1%, African American 1.1%, White 20.3% and Multiracial
0.72%. Of the 18,370 students enrolled, 5.7% received free or reduced-price lunches and
9.7% are English Learners.
50
In the past 3 years the district has continued to increase its API. In the 2010-2011
school year the district achieved an API of 955, well above California’s benchmark of
800. In the 2009-2010 school year the district achieved an API of 951 and in the 2008-
2009 school year the district achieved an API of 946. The district met its 2010-2011
federally established Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) of percent proficient. In
English Language Arts, 88.5% of the students scored proficient or above and in
Mathematics, 89.3% of the students scored proficient or above. The benchmarks for
English Language Arts and Mathematics were 67.6% and 68.5%, respectively. The data
suggest that the district has seen successful in improving and sustaining student
achievement.
Superintendent Chung has been in education 36 years. He has worked in large
urban and mid-size suburban school districts. He began his education career as a high
school mathematics teacher, but after 6 years he left education to work for a telephone
company in their data management division. He later returned to education as a computer
education curriculum specialist, followed by work as coordinator of secondary programs.
He was promoted to Assistant Superintendent of Education Services. His first
superintendency was at a central California school district, where he held the position for
13 years. Currently, he is the superintendent of Carpenter Union School District, a
position he has held for the past 6 years. Superintendent Chung is a graduate of the
University of California, Los Angeles, with a degree in Mathematics. He obtained his
master’s degree in Education Administration from California State University, Los
Angeles. He is an active member of the Association of California School Administrators
(ACSA).
51
Jerry Crew is the current school board President for Carpenter Union School
District. He was elected to the board in November 2001 and was involved in the search
for and selection of the current superintendent. Board President Crew’s background is in
technology; he is currently employed in the field of technical writing. He has a son who
attends a middle school in the district. President Crew’s top priority for the past 2 years
has been equalization funding, especially concerning teacher’s salaries. He rated
Carpenter Union School District as an excellent school district.
Results for Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, What strategies/behaviors did successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships with their school board during the entry
period? This question is rooted in the literature that suggests that the actions that a
superintendent takes during the entry period are consequential to the success or failure of
the superintendency (Jentz & Murphy, 2005; Watkins, 2003). The literature suggests that
a broad set of skills and development of measureable goals are essential to the success of
a superintendent and that the entry period thus requires careful analysis and strategy
(Watkins, 2003). Based on the literature, the question also suggests that, because school
boards appoint superintendents and play a vital role in improving student achievement,
positive relationships are necessary to ensure success (Jentz & Murphy, 2005; Kowalski
et al., 2011). Characteristics identified in these studies included communication,
relationship building, and leadership focus. The following themes emerged from the
surveys and interview data in response to research question 1: communication, building
trust in relationships, and leadership focus and efforts.
52
Communication
According to Patterson et al. (2002), effective communication is small in scale:
personal and informal. Survey responses indicated that superintendents predominantly
use four methods of communication with their school board: (a) e-mail, (b) in-person
communication, (c) individual telephone calls, and (d) letters. Three of the four methods
of communication predominantly used by superintendents were personal and informal.
Table 3 identifies the four methods of communication used by superintendents and their
frequency of use. Survey data indicated that the frequency of communication used the
most by superintendents was weekly. E-mail was used weekly by 53.1% of the
participants, in-person communication was used weekly by 59.4% of the participants, and
individual telephone calls were used weekly by 60.9% of the participants. The formal
method of communication used by participating superintendents was a letter to the board,
used weekly by 68.8% of the participants.
School board presidents/designees were asked their preferred method of
communication with their superintendent. Table 4 identifies the four methods and
frequency of communication preferred by school board presidents/designees: (a) e-mail,
(b) in-person communication, (c) individual telephone call, and (d) letter to the school
board. These preferred methods were identical to the methods used by superintendents.
The survey data also indicated that the preferred frequency of communication was
weekly. E-mails were preferred weekly by 56.3%, in-person communication was
preferred weekly by 45.8%, and individual telephone calls were preferred weekly by
45.8% of school board president/designee participants. Letters to the board, the most
formal method of communication, were preferred weekly by 60.4% of the participants.
53

Table 3

Superintendents’ Methods of Communication and Frequency of Use

Method and frequency f %

E-mail
Daily 13 20.3
Weekly 34 53.1
Monthly 5 7.8
Never 11 17.2
Other 1 1.6

In-person communication
Daily 4 6.3
Weekly 38 59.4
Monthly 15 23.4
Never 2 3.1
Other 5 7.8

Individual telephone call
Daily 5 7.8
Weekly 39 60.9
Monthly 9 14.1
Never 3 4.7
Other 8 12.5

Letter to the school board
Daily 0 0.0
Weekly 44 68.8
Monthly 8 12.5
Never 11 17.2
Other 1 1.6

54

Table 4

School Board President/Designees’ Preferred Methods of Communication and
Frequency of Use

Method and frequency f %

E-mail
Daily 11 22.9
Weekly 27 56.3
Monthly 4 8.3
Never 2 4.2
Other 4 8.3

In-person communication
Daily 6 12.5
Weekly 22 45.8
Monthly 14 29.2
Never 4 8.3
Other 2 4.2

Individual telephone call
Daily 8 16.7
Weekly 22 45.8
Monthly 10 20.8
Never 2 4.2
Other 6 12.5

Letter to the school board
Daily 1 2.1
Weekly 29 60.4
Monthly 4 8.3
Never 14 29.2
Other 0 0.0

55
These results indicate that communication between superintendents and their
school boards is strategic and that there is clear plan for information dissemination on the
part of superintendents. Furthermore, the results indicated that sharing information or
communicating promotes and builds support for transparency. Superintendent Chung
agreed that communication is essential in keeping the school board abreast and assisted
him in building strong relationships with his school board.
Every Friday, they get some sort of communication from me, whether it be a
Friday memo, where I highlight some of the things that might have happened this
week, or a board packet. . . . Board meetings are on Tuesday, so they get the
board packet on Friday. During the week they get a lot of e-mails from me; I’m
just passing along things that in the olden day we just used to print.
Superintendent Chung also gives his school board a calendar of his activities for the
following week to show the board what he is doing. He stated that this activity promotes
transparency.
I think it’s good for new superintendents to show their school board that they are
busy and that they are not available at the board’s beck and call . . . to take a
phone call or to just take a drop-in. So, I am a big fan about putting my calendar
out there so that they know.
When asked about the frequency of communication with his board,
Superintendent Chung indicated that his day is atypical and that on average he spends
less than an hour a day communicating with his board. He indicated that he meets with
his board before each board meeting to answer questions about the board packet, so that
there are no surprises on the board table.
Building Trust in Relationships
According to Covey (2006), trust is the most essential ingredient in effective
communication and the foundational principle that sustains relationships. But the entering
superintendent can easily build trust by exhibiting both character and competence. Survey
56
data indicated that the perception of trust during the entry period was sustained and in
some instances increased by the end of the entry period—an indication that the
participating superintendents were able to convert the school boards’ early trust to early
results. Table 5 reports on the level of superintendents’ perceived trust by their school
board upon their entry and at the end of the entry period. The majority of respondents
(76.1%) indicated that they perceived the school board to have had an initially high level
of trust (Level 5 or 4) in them. By the end of the entry period, 96.9% of the participants
indicated that the board had a high level of trust (Level 5 or 4) in them.

Table 5

Superintendents’ Perceptions of School Board’s Level of Trust Initially and at the End of
the Entry Period

Level of trust f %

Initial level of trust
5, High 24 37.5
4 25 39.1
3 14 21.9
2 1 1.6
1, Low 0 0.0

End level of trust
5, High 42 65.6
4 20 31.3
3 2 3.1
2 0 0.0
1, Low 0 0.0

57
Similarly, school boards initially had a high (Level 5 or 4) level of trust for their
superintendents. That level of trust was sustained and in some instances increased by the
end of the entry period. Table 6 reports on the school boards’ level of trust in their
superintendent initially and at the end of the entry period. The majority of the
respondents (76.6%) indicated that the school board had an initially high level (Level 5 or
4) of trust in their superintendent. By the end of the entry period, 97.9% of participants
indicated that the school board had a high level (Level 5 or 4) of trust in their
superintendent.

Table 6

School Boards’ Level of Trust in the Superintendent Initially and at the End of the Entry
Period

Level of trust f %

Initial level of trust
5, High 20 42.6
4 16 34.0
3 9 19.1
2 2 4.3
1, Low 0 0.0

End level of trust
5, High 36 76.6
4 10 21.3
3 1 2.1
2 0 0.0
1, Low 0 0.0%

58
Survey results indicated high levels of confidence or trust upon initial entry in the
superintendent’s ability to get the job done. That confidence or trust continued and in
some instances increased after the entry period. Character and competence, therefore,
may translate into trust and promote opportunities for change. Superintendent Chung
indicated that trust was high during his entry into his current superintendency and he
identified a couple of strategies that enabled him to sustain and increase the initial level
of trust. He was asked, “What strategies did you use with your board to build trust?”
Going up front, we talked about how they wanted to handle business in today’s
e-mail world; how did they want to handle responses from the public? So they’ll
get an e-mail saying, “My kid has gotten beat up at school and what are you going
to do about it?” I told them, “How do you normally handle it? Does the board
president respond to these? Does the superintendent respond to these?” I said,
“Well, I’d rather handle it.” So, from day 1 they knew, and they know today, that
every e-mail they get . . . because I see them . . . that is an issue—they know it
gets handled. So, they don’t have to say . . . “Well, did Tim get this? Is he
working on it?” Then we try to backfill them on the Friday memos, just to let
them know that we handled it and that we handle every single one that comes
through. Because I don’t want anyone to fall through the cracks and someone to
say, “Well, no one has responded to that.” So, the board got into that pattern. It’s
a good pattern to be in.
School Board President Crew was asked the same question: “What strategies did
the superintendent use with the school board that helped establish trust?”
If there was one, I would say it was to keep us all equally informed and to discuss
all the policy issues. Most if not all of our board members understood the role of
the board and superintendent and did not try to affect district or school operations.
Leadership Focus and Efforts
Bolman and Deal (2008) suggested that the consequences of myopic leadership
could be catastrophic. Survey data indicated that participating superintendents were
diverse in their leadership focus and were not settling on one leadership style. Table 7
presents information on what best described the superintendents’ leadership efforts or
59

Table 7

Superintendents’ Leadership Efforts or Focus During the Entry Period

Leadership effort/focus and rank f %

Political
Ranked 1 8 12.5
Ranked 2 19 29.7
Ranked 3 14 21.9
Ranked 4 19 29.7
No Response 4 6.3

Structural
Ranked 1 12 18.8
Ranked 2 18 28.1
Ranked 3 14 21.9
Ranked 4 18 28.1
No Response 2 3.1

Human resources
Ranked 1 42 65.6
Ranked 2 10 15.6
Ranked 3 9 14.1
Ranked 4 3 4.7
No Response 0 0.0

Symbolic
Ranked 1 13 20.3
Ranked 2 15 23.4
Ranked 3 18 28.1
Ranked 4 13 20.3
No Response 5 7.8

60
focus during the entry period. Using Bolman and Deal’s (2008) conceptual framework,
superintendents agreed to political, structural, human resources, and symbolic focus
while diagnosing, analyzing, and solving problems during their entry period. The
superintendents (65.6%) ranked the human resources framework as their first identifier of
their leadership effort or focus during the entry period.
The findings suggested that superintendents need to know not only what to do but
how to do it and how to prioritize it. It is no coincidence that the human resource frame
emerged as the highest-ranked descriptor of a superintendent’s leadership focus. Leading
a district is much about the management of the people who work in it, given that
education is a service field. However, the other frames are important because they serve
as an assessment tool for the type of leadership focus and the effort that is to proceed.
Superintendent Chung described his approach in leadership efforts and focus.
I think they need to . . . get the lay of the land. You can’t come in with precon-
ceived notions about what worked in the previous job for you and you can’t come
in thinking it’s going to work in your new job. So, it’s a matter of doing a lot of
listening, asking a lot of questions, meeting with as many staff members and com-
munity members, city folks, as you can so that you have a good idea. . . . So if I
were to go to Lodi tomorrow (I don’t even know where Lodi is) . . . but, if I were
to go there, I would have to figure out what are the important things this com-
munity values, what are some of the areas that they think . . . especially some of
the people who are outside of the school system . . . because they hear what good
or bad things go on in the school system. So, you really want to get what they’re
listening to, what they are hearing.
School Board President Crew stated the following about Superintendent Chung’s
leadership efforts and focus during the entry period: “Superintendent Chung was open,
friendly and collaborative. He had presence, meaning that he was respected.”
Superintendent Chung also found open-mindedness important.
It’s important to not come in with preconceived notions about how things should
go, and, just being able to fit into the current system. Unless the board has
61
marching orders for you, because the system is broken and you need to fix it, fit
your schedule into their schedule and figure out what changes need to be made. A
lot of listening—I can’t stress that more.
While Superintendent Chung’s interview responses suggested that he elicited all
four of Bolman and Deal’s (2008) leadership frames, he indicated preference for one.
I probably see myself as reality based . . . politically based. Boy, so many things,
when you think are so simple on the inside and you turn them loose to the outside
have so many political ramifications. . . . We have a team approach to decision
making. I have a human resources person, an instruction person, and a finance
person, and most of the decision making that comes out of my office is with us
brainstorming all of the possibilities of the pros and cons of everything, so it’s
pragmatic but it’s also based on political reality.
The results of the interview corroborated survey results: Success during an entry
period requires diverse leadership efforts and focus. As Northouse (2007) suggested,
leadership efforts are a process, involve influence, and occur in a group context.
Discussion: Research Question 1
Identifying the strategies/behaviors superintendents used to build strong
relationships is important as the job of superintendent increases in complexity. Survey
and interview results identified three such strategies/behaviors. First, communication that
is personal and informal, such as e-mail, in-person communication, and individual
telephone calls, was identified as one of these strategies/behaviors. Nevertheless, letters
to the board, a formal method of communication, was strongly favored and used by
superintendents. Equally important, survey and interview responses indicated that both
superintendents and school boards preferred the aforementioned methods of
communication and at the same frequency: weekly. Trust was identified as the second
strategy/behavior. As survey and interview data indicated, trust was viewed as a
byproduct of effective communication. Trust paved the way for the superintendent’s
positive relationships with the board and a greater autonomy to carry out the
62
responsibilities of the position. This was facilitated not just by building trust but also by
the third strategy/behavior: leadership focus and effort. According to survey and
interview results, superintendents were able to assess and execute a plan of action for the
district. Together, these three strategies facilitated the entry period of superintendents to
achieve early results and early wins.
Results for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, How did superintendents implement these strategies
and evaluate their success? This question is rooted in the literature that suggests that
finding appropriate methods for implementing strategies can be difficult but, when the
right methods are found, they provide opportunities for change and subsequent success in
an organization. Jentz and Murphy (2005) suggested that an entry plan is one method of
strategy implementation for entering superintendents. They argued that entry plans
address the confusion that is generated by conflicting demands that superintendents face
during entry. Moreover, entry plans allow the countering of external pressures and
organizational cultural influences (Jentz & Murphy, 2005). Entry plans alone cannot
address all initial challenges that superintendents might confront. Therefore,
superintendents must possess a skills set that will enable them to overcome such initial
challenges. In addition, while conducting district business, superintendents should to
continue to build and promote trust and strong relationships with the school board. The
following themes emerged from the surveys and interview data in response to research
question 2: entry plans, factors that influence success during initial challenges, and
activities that promote trust and strong relationships.
63
Entry Plans
The job of superintendent could be one of the most confusing and complex jobs in
education. While entry plans provide superintendents an opportunity to learn about the
organization that they are entering, they serve as a method for implementing change
strategies (Jentz & Murphy, 2005; Watkins, 2003). Survey data indicated that a majority
of the superintendents (90.6%) used entry plans. Table 8 reports on the use of entry plans
by these superintendents. The superintendents were also asked whether their entry plans
were formal written documents; 54% indicated that their entry plans were formal written
documents. Entry plans can also communicate to the board that a superintendent has
thought about the issues of the district.

Table 8

Superintendent Entry Plans

Had an entry plan f %

Yes 58 90.6

No 6 9.4

The superintendents were asked whether entry plans were part of the
interview/recruitment process. Most of the superintendents (54.7%) indicated that they
had used an entry plan as part of the interview/recruitment process (Table 9).
64
Table 9

Superintendents’ Use of Entry Plans During the Interview/Recruitment Process

Used an entry plan during interview/recruitment f %

Yes 35 54.7

No 29 45.3

Evaluation is a key component in the implementation of entry plans. The
superintendents (46.9%) indicated that they reviewed their entry plan at least once or
twice during the entry period (Table 10).

Table 10

Superintendents’ Review of Entry Plan With School Board

Entry plan reviewed with school board f %

Never 7 10.9
1-2 times 30 46.9
3-4 times 6 9.4
More than 4 times 12 18.8
Does not apply 9 14.1

65
Entry plans provide superintendents with opportunities to learn about themselves
and their new environment. A district’s history, political structure, and culture strongly
influence how entry plans are implemented and supported. Superintendent Chung, like
the majority of superintendent respondents, reported that he had had an entry plan. His
plan was geared to development of strong relationships.
Yes, I did [have an entry plan]. I also had an exit plan! But the entry plan for a
district like Carpenter—a very high-profile district—was to make sure I got out
into the community. Obviously joining Rotary, meeting with my colleagues,
meeting with my feeder high school superintendents . . . making connections with
city management. We serve six municipalities, so it’s difficult to know all of the
players in all six municipalities. But Carpenter and the neighboring district are the
major players because of the major geographical areas that we serve. Having
regular meetings with them . . . just getting to know the lay of the land to know
what politics and inner workings of the city and school district are. This is a very
dynamic community, a very educated community, and the school district is para-
mount in everyone who lives here. The better the school district, the better their
home value is. I think people know that, they are always talking about it. But just
being able to tap into those people who are already here working and to learn the
politics of the situation was important for me.
Superintendent Chung indicated that his entry plan was very informal, unlike
those of the majority of survey respondents.
I think some superintendents have something like 90 days of listening. . . . I knew
that I had to do a lot of listening. I also looked at what wasn’t working here and
trying to change that because it was a great time to do it and as a new superin-
tendent to do some new things. When you enter a new organization that’s running
well, everybody says, “Well, that’s what we always do.” Well, “that’s how we
always do it” isn’t necessarily the best, the most productive, most efficient. I was
able to . . . make a lot of those changes because the organization was running well
and was willing to experiment.
Superintendent Chung was asked how often he went to the board to talk about the
district’s progress. He indicated that they met mid-year. “I was hired in July, and we met
in January to have a mid-year evaluation.” He added that the district was used to having a
mid-year review, so he was happy to continue to do so.
66
But before we had a mid-year evaluation, in the summer when they hired me, I
facilitated a meeting with the board so that an outside facilitator came in and we
were able to discern the top 10 issues they wanted me to focus on this year. Not
exactly problems, but just issues that maybe they thought needed to be looked at.
From that top 10 list I formulated a plan that sort of gave my executive staff some
ideas about where I wanted to go. The mid-year [meeting] was just a touching
basis point to see how we did. And at the end of the year I gave my board a port-
folio. In a portfolio you can describe how your year went—the good and the bad
things—and can show them examples of why you got that report.
School Board President Crew agreed: “At the end of 6 months we conducted a
formal semiannual evaluation of Tim’s performance. The results were overwhelmingly
positive; the board was happy with the work Tim had done.”
Factors That Influence Success During Initial Challenges
Conflicting demands from various stakeholders have resulted in the
superintendency being one of the most challenging contemporary executive positions.
Orr (2006) identified five types of initial challenges that superintendents face: (a) the
nature of the work, (b) board relationships, (c) budgetary matters, (d) power and politics,
and (e) learning the community and district culture. Whether novice or experienced,
entering superintendents have a repertoire of factoring knowledge that allows them to
influence these initial challenges toward success.
These superintendents were asked to rank what they perceived to be their greatest
initial challenges. Table 11 presents information on initial challenges in the
superintendency that received the highest ranks. The top three initial challenges for
superintendents were (a) board relationships (29.7%), (b) fiscal operations/budget
(23.4%), and (c) student achievement (12.5%). Two of the three initial challenges
correspond to Orr’s (2006) findings on superintendent challenges. The superintendents
were asked whether their school board prioritized these same challenges; 65.6%
67
Table 11

Superintendents’ Top-Ranked Initial Challenges

Initial challenge f %

Board relationships 19 29.7
Community/business relationships 2 3.1
Facilities 4 6.3
Fiscal operations/budget 15 23.4
Labor relations/collective bargaining 6 9.4
Media relations 0 0.0
Parent groups/PTA 1 1.6
Student achievement 8 12.5
Vision/strategic planning 3 4.7
Other 6 9.4

responded affirmatively. Table 12 presents information on what the school boards
considered to be the greatest challenges facing their superintendents when they started.
The top three initial challenges facing superintendents as observed by their school
board were (a) fiscal operations/budget (22.9%), (b) student achievement (16.7%), and
(c) board relationships (14.6%). These findings correspond to the superintendents’
responses about school boards prioritizing these challenges.
68
Table 12

School Boards’ Observation of Superintendents’ Top-Ranked Initial Challenges

Initial challenge f %

Board relationships 7 14.6
Community/business relationships 4 8.3
Facilities 2 4.2
Fiscal operations/budget 11 22.9
Labor relations/collective bargaining 5 10.4
Media relations 0 0.0
Parent groups/PTA 0 0.0
Student achievement 8 16.7
Vision/strategic planning 4 8.3
Other 7 14.6

Superintendents in high-performing districts face challenges unrelated to student
achievement. As most superintendents indicated via the survey, initial challenges were
centered on board relationships and fiscal operations/budget. Superintendent Chung
indicated in his interview that he did not have initial challenges when he started at
Carpenter. He also did not have any of the three initial challenges indicated by the
majority of surveyed superintendents. He spoke about a challenge that he encountered,
although not initially, that focused on curriculum and community relations.
Every district has challenges. I say we didn’t have challenges because, in the
realm of what my colleagues face statewide, we didn’t have challenges. But
69
Carpenter certainly had challenges. . . . We had a Chinese language immersion
program. I knew that kids struggled to learn how to write formal Chinese. China
had adopted what’s called the simplified version of Mandarin written out and so it
was a no brainer to me: Why wouldn’t you move everybody to simplified? Well,
when you sit and you talk and figure out the lay of the land, you realize that that is
a political hot potato because there is a lot of Taiwanese, Chinese in this com-
munity and there’s a lot of people who value the traditional written form of the
language and, probably because of their politics, despise the simplified version.
That is just one example of what I had to grapple with coming here.
School Board President Crew commented on an initial challenge that was similar
to the survey findings related to school board relationships.
For some board members an initial challenge was trying not to compare interper-
sonal relationships with the current and former superintendents. Finding the right
amount of time to spend with individual members was an issue, as well as con-
tinuing the same leadership program instituted under the former superintendent.
Once initial challenges were identified, the superintendents were asked about
factors that supported success in overcoming these challenges. Table 13 presents
information on the highest-ranked factors that led to success during the entry period: (a)
interpersonal skills (42.2%), and (b) experience (35.9%).
Superintendent Chung indicated in his interview that he had had no initial
challenges in his early superintendency. Nevertheless, in his survey response he indicated
that the following factors assisted him to overcome challenges: interpersonal skills,
experience, and trustworthiness. These responses are not the same as the superintendent
responses presented in Table 13. Yet, his interview response to this question was more in
line with all survey responses. In his interview response Superintendent Chung agreed
that experience was a factor in overcoming initial challenges.
I’ve always done this; it’s a subliminal pathway for me. I always know that we are
on 2-year board election cycles. I always know that when you need hard decision
making from your board, you get it in the year in which no one is running—the
off year. In the year you’re going to have a board election, be sure that everything
is running smoothly and everything is in place and nobody out there can throw
stones at the system.
70
Table 13

Factors Leading to Success During the Entry Period

Factor f %

Experience 23 35.9
Training/Education 0 0.0
Prior Success 2 3.1
Interpersonal Skills 27 42.2
Trustworthiness 5 7.8
Political connections 0 0.0
Professional connections 1 1.6
Other 6 9.4

Activities That Promote Trust and Strong Relationships
Superintendent/school board relationships have been described as positive by
superintendents (Kowalski et al., 2011). Yet, conflict among superintendents and board
members can exist at any time, especially during the entry period, and can hinder
implementation of an entry plan. Superintendents must therefore act to maintain
cohesiveness in the school board. As the district’s chief executive, the superintendent is
charged with planning and implementing activities that promote trust and strong
relationships. Most (79.7%) responding superintendents rated their relationship with the
school board during the entry period (Table 14). Most school board presidents/designees
71
Table 14

Superintendents’ Relationship With the School Board During the Entry Period

Relationship rating f %

Very Satisfied 51 79.7
Satisfied 12 0.0
Unsatisfied 1 1.6
Very Unsatisfied 0 0.0

(89.1%) rated their overall relationship with their superintendent during the entry period
as very satisfactory (Table 15).

Table 15

School Boards’ Relationship With Superintendents During the Entry Period

Relationship rating f %

Very Satisfied 41 89.1
Satisfied 4 8.7
Unsatisfied 0 0.0
Very Unsatisfied 1 2.2

Activities that promote building trust and strong relationships can assist a
superintendent in having a successful entry period and superintendency. The participating
72
superintendents were asked about the activities that they implemented during the entry
period that promoted trust and strong relationships. Activities with frequent
communication (70.8%) were ranked highest and found to be most prevalent with
superintendents as activities that promoted trust (Table 16).

Table 16

Superintendents’ Activities That Promoted Trust

Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3
(N = 65) (N = 54) (N = 48)
Activity f % f % f %

Frequent communication 46 70.8 11 20.4 5 10.4
Secure early wins 5 7.7 9 16.7 35 72.9
Meeting with key stakeholders 14 21.5 34 62.9 8 16.7

School Board President Crew agreed with this finding. When he was asked what
type of activities were implemented by Superintendent Chung, he indicated that the
superintendent kept them constantly informed throughout the entry period. “He kept us
all involved with key decision making at every appropriate level.”
Activities that promote strong relationships also have some of the same
foundational principles as activities that promote trust. However, activities that promote
strong relationships with the school board may allow for involvement of stakeholders
outside the board. Information on activities implemented by superintendents with their
school board during the entry period to promote strong relationships are presented in
73
Table 17. Survey data indicated that superintendents responded favorably to two
activities for building strong relationships with the school board: individual
communication (64.6%) and informal meetings (40.7%).

Table 17

Superintendents’ Activities That Promote Strong Relationships

Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3
(N = 65) (N = 54) (N = 48)
Activity f % f % f %

Retreat 12 18.4 7 11.9 7 12.5
Community team building 2 3.1 6 10.2 14 25.0
Individual communication 42 64.6 14 23.7 5 8.9
Additional board workshops 4 6.2 8 13.5 9 16.1
Informal meetings 5 7.7 24 40.7 21 37.5

Superintendent Chung agreed that informal meetings assisted him in building
strong relationship with his school board but noted that retreats also proved a powerful
tool for him.
We use to meet twice a year and in those meetings we would talk about issues that
we couldn’t talk about at a board meeting because they take up an hour of dis-
cussion. I know of some board meeting items that take up an hour, but not ours:
. . . housing for students, special education programs that we’d like to be investing
in . . . doing a parcel tax to stem budget cuts. All of those big-ticket items suit
themselves to an advance or a retreat, and so we used to have those twice a year.
74
Discussion: Research Question 2
Survey data corroborated with interview data, as well as with the literature. An
entry plan is multipurpose. It assists the superintendent in evaluating and analyzing the
current and proposed state of a district. It also serves as a method by which a
superintendent can implement strategies/behaviors such as establishing clear
communication and building and projecting competency and subsequently trust. Equally
important is the progress evaluation of the entry plan. The evaluation process allows for
adjustments to the entry plan as it is implemented.
All superintendents will have initial challenges. Overcoming those challenges and
succeeding though the entry period can be attributed to factors such as experience and
interpersonal skills. Planned and purposeful activities assisted many superintendents in
building trust and strong relationships with their school boards. Communication emerged
as one of the most-used strategies in the superintendent’s quest to build trust and strong
relationships with the school board. Similarly, school boards suggested that
communication is a behavior that they value most in their superintendent.
Results for Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, What formal/informal leadership preparation assisted
superintendents for entry in the superintendency? This question is rooted in the literature
that suggests that a superintendent’s preparation is an indicator of a successful
superintendency. Superintendent preparation can come in two forms: formal and
informal. Formal preparation by superintendents has come to be criticized for its
adequacy and efficacy (Smith, 2008; Walters & Marzano, 2006). Orr (2006) suggested
that superintendent preparation programs are necessary but need improvement, despite a
recent study that reported that 8 of 10 superintendent respondents rated their preparation
75
program as good or excellent (Kowalski et al., 2011). The following themes emerged
from the surveys and interview data in response to research question 3: training and
professional experience.
Training
Training of superintendents can be formal or informal. Formal training is
available through (a) university-based programs, (b) national and regional organizations,
(c) foundations, and (d) for-profit companies (Teitel, 2005). Informal training is available
everywhere and can be obtained through daily interactions or relationships.
Participating superintendents were asked whether their formal/informal training
had adequately prepared them for entry into the superintendency. Most superintendents
(73.0%) indicated that their formal training had been adequate for entry into the
superintendency, and even more (98.4%) indicated that their informal training had
adequately prepared them for entry into the superintendency (Table 18).

Table 18

Superintendents’ Rating of the Adequacy of Their Formal/Informal Training for Entry
Into the Superintendency

Formal training Informal training
(N = 63) (N = 62)
Adequate f % f %

Yes 46 73.0 61 98.4
No 17 27.0 1 1.6

76
Superintendent Chung agreed with the majority of responding superintendents
that his informal training had provided adequate preparation for entry into the
superintendency.
I had kind of a negative movement towards my background. I’ve looked at a lot of
my supervisors and there were some things I didn’t like about what they did and I
said I could do things better. That motivated me to get the jobs that they had. I got
probably my most mentoring through working with my colleagues. When I came
up here—brand new to the county—I had a superintendent right next door who
was roughly the same age, came a couple of years before me [which provided a]
network.
Superintendent Chung added that formal training, coupled with informal training,
proved to be effective.
I was also in a superintendent’s academy and through that group I met my future
colleagues. If I had anything that I needed to talk to them about, I could just pick
up the phone and call. I’m sort of idealistic and want to do the best job I can.
There are so many things when you are an underling: I can do that, I can do this;
but as you move up, you’re really dependent on people who work for you. When I
got up to the superintendency, I realized that building the strongest team is the
way to make your impact on leadership in an organization.
As a follow-up, participating superintendents were asked where they had received
the most effective training for entry into the superintendency. Two thirds (67.8%) of the
superintendents ranked prior experience as their most effective training for entry,
supporting their responses that their informal training had been adequate. Second, one
third (38.6%) of the superintendents indicated that mentor/partnership had provided
effective training. Third, one quarter (26.8%) identified professional associations as an
effective training source for superintendents (Table 19). Two of the three highest-ranked
forms of training can be classified as informal training; thus, most superintendents
indicated that their informal training had supported an effective entry into the
superintendency.
77
Table 19

Superintendents’ Ranking of Effective Training Sources for Entry Into the
Superintendency

Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3
(N = 59) (N = 57) (N = 56)
Training source f % f % f %

Foundations 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Government Agency 1 1.7 1 1.8 0 0.0
Mentor/partnership 9 15.3 22 38.6 11 19.6
Personal research 1 1.7 1 1.8 8 14.3
Prior administrative experience 40 67.8 13 22.7 3 5.4
Professional associations 1 1.7 10 17.5 15 26.8
University-based programs 6 10.1 7 12.3 13 23.2
None 1 1.7 3 5.3 6 10.7

The literature suggests that communication is a prevalent and effective strategy in
building trust and strong relationships with school boards. Participating superintendents
were asked whether they had received training on how to communicate effectively with
their board members. Most superintendents (65.6%) indicated that they had received such
training (Table 20).
Superintendent Chung recalled taking a class on how to communicate effectively
with members of the board. However, he indicated that his most effective training was
hands-on by actually working with board members.
78
Table 20

Superintendents’ Report on Receiving Effective Training on How to Communicate
Effectively With Board Members

Received effective training f %

Yes 42 65.6
No 22 34.4

[In] the academy there [were] a couple of sessions about working with your
board. Mine was more through doing it. When I was assistant superintendent, my
superintendent had me in most closed sessions with the board. I’ve carried for-
ward that concept wherever I’ve worked. I’ve always wanted my staff to be in
with the board so that they knew the complete board working relationships.
Superintendents sometimes keep them out and you don’t know what goes on
behind closed doors and you have to second-guess yourself and you really don’t
get experience. When my staff become superintendents, that’s something that
won’t be missing in their training–didn’t want to do that to people.
Board President Crew was asked to talk about Superintendent Chung’s training.
He referred mostly to his informal yet effective training.
Most likely, he received his training from on-the-job experience, discussion with
other superintendents, and then teaching and training others. I think his ability to
communicate effectively with board members came with experience and he was
already well experienced.
Professional Experience
Experience emerged as the second theme that assisted superintendents through the
entry period. Experience, unlike training, is acquired throughout life; through experience,
technique is mastered and independent responsibility is mastered. Superintendents were
asked to indicate what professional experiences prepared them for the superintendency.
Survey results indicated that the top three professional experiences that prepared
79
superintendents for the superintendency were principal (85.7%), teacher (77.8%), and
assistant superintendent (67.2% Table 21). According to the literature, most
superintendents enter the education field as teachers and move up through district
hierarchies (Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski, 2005). The survey results corroborate the
literature.

Table 21

Reported Professional Experience Preparation for the Superintendency

Yes No
Professional experience f % f %

Prior superintendent experience (N = 64) 37 57.8 27 42.2
Deputy Superintendent (N = 64) 19 29.7 45 70.3
Assistant Superintendent (N = 64) 43 67.2 21 32.8
Assistant Superintendent, Business (N = 61) 6 9.8 55 90.2
Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum (N = 63) 29 46.0 34 54.0
Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources
(N = 62) 16 25.8 46 74.2
Director (N = 63) 33 52.4 30 47.6
Principal (N = 63) 54 85.7 9 14.3
Assistant Principal (N = 63) 33 52.4 30 47.6
Teacher (N = 63) 49 77.8 14 22.2

80
For Superintendent Chung, the principalship was not in his repertoire of
professional experiences. His path to the superintendency included the following
positions in ascending order: teacher, curriculum specialist, coordinator, director, and
assistant superintendent. He was asked about the traditional path and whether any steps in
that path could be omitted.
I don’t know; I skipped the principalship. I was never principal, formally.
Informally, I was. But when you work on a campus, whether you are an assistant
principal or a teacher, you certainly know what a principal does. So in my training
and coming up through the ranks and working with principals, you know what
good principals are and you know what they need to be supportive at their school.
Board President Crew was asked about the professional experience that had prepared his
superintendent for the position. He indicated that the 12 years of experience as a
superintendent in a nearby but smaller district had helped prepare the superintendent for
the position.
Superintendent leadership preparation has come under attack in recent years, as
well as the efficacy of superintendents who come up through the traditional ranks of the
district hierarchy. Organizations such as The Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham
Institute (2003) contend that better qualified candidates for the superintendency can be
found outside the educational field. Superintendent Chung was asked to assess the
appropriateness of noneducators entering the superintendency.
I don’t think it is doable. I think people who don’t understand basic educational
pedagogy, what good instruction is like–I mean, if they don’t understand, they
don’t have the innate quality, they’ve never been in the classroom and actually
how to teach, basically people who don’t . . . I’m not saying they have to be kids,
they can teach adults . . . basically deliver instruction and know what pedagogy
works for the human mind. I don’t think people from the outside know that. So I
think they are at a disadvantage. The Broad Academy trains for urban leadership,
but I would say that, if that is the direction of an urban area like Philadelphia, Los
Angeles, or San Diego, most of the time if you’re smart, you become the superin-
tendent of those large urban school areas that you also have a chief academic
81
officer who knows instruction. I mean, that is our business. How could a district
be like running a business? When you’re making decisions that affect instruction,
you need to know what is effective instruction, what it looks like.
Discussion: Research Question 3
The debate about how to prepare superintendent continues, especially as the task
of leading and managing districts becomes more complex. It has been argued that persons
who take the traditional path to the superintendency and are traditionally trained or
prepared though a master’s or doctoral program the focuses of which is leadership theory
and management lack the ability to handle external pressures and increased
accountability. While a divide might exist between what is being taught in preparation
programs and the skill sets that superintendents need, superintendents have found
success.
In their survey responses the superintendents indicated that they considered both
their formal (73.0%) and informal (98.4%) training for entry into the superintendency to
be adequate. They reported that their most effective training came from prior
administrative experience (67.8%), mentor/partnership (38.6%), and professional
associations (26.8%). They agreed that their university-based programs, while helpful,
had not provided the most effective training for entry into the superintendency.
Therefore, it could be argued that the adequacy and effectiveness of university-based and
other types of preparation programs is irrelevant to the success of superintendents.
If the argument continues to be about the superintendent’s ability to handle
external pressures, then having effective communication skills can offset this seeming
deficiency. Survey responses from the superintendents indicated that they had received
training in communication (65.6%). Therefore, they had the requisite skills to handle
external pressure. The question then becomes whether those who are applying pressure
82
understand the dynamics of education. Furthermore, the traditional path to the
superintendency of moving through district hierarchies continues to be the most logical
path to the superintendency. The traditional path to the superintendency, because of its
complex nature, offered superintendents training in political, fiscal, managerial, and
leadership considerations. Thus, a superintendent’s most valuable and effective
preparation is experience, which may be also an indicator or success.
Chapter Summary
There was a high level of agreement between superintendents and school board
presidents/designees in their survey responses, as well as in their interview responses.
Their survey responses supported the literature presented in Chapter 2.
Three findings emerged from the results. The first finding is related to research
question 1: Communication emerged as a significant strategy in promoting trust and
building strong relationships with the school board. The second finding is related to
research question 2: Entry plans, whether or not formally written, are prevalent in
successful entry periods. The third finding is related to research question 3: Experience,
as opposed to education and training, assists superintendents for entry into the
superintendency.
83
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
The job of superintendent, while rewarding, is demanding, especially as
educational reform efforts at the federal, state, and local levels have focused on
accountability, with the goal of increasing or sustaining student achievement. Walters and
Marzano (2006) suggested that effective superintendent leadership could result in
positive student achievement. This positive result is correlated to the superintendent’s
development, execution, and evaluation of goals in conjunction with a positive, trusting,
collaborative relationship with stakeholders, particularly with members of the school
board (Walters & Marzano, 2006). Watkins (2003) suggested that there is one optimal
moment in a superintendent’s tenure that determines whether he or she will be successful:
the entry period, or the first 90 to 100 days on the job. During the entry period, goodwill
is prevalent because board members trust that the superintendent can make a difference.
This is because, as Kramer (2009) suggested, people are likely to have an initial
predisposition to trust. It is during the entry period that superintendents should capitalize
on that initial trust to build strong relationships with their school board that will lead to a
successful superintendency, quality classroom instruction, and increased or sustained
student achievement.
The purpose of this study was to identify strategies/behaviors that successful
superintendents used to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards
during their entry period. In order to identify these strategies/behaviors, a thematic group
of nine doctoral students surveyed successful superintendents and their school board
president/designees in California. The survey instrument was developed collaboratively
84
after a review of the literature. Sixty-four superintendents and 48 school board
presidents/designees participated in the survey. Each member of the thematic group
conducted follow-up interviews with one superintendent and the respective school board
president/designee for depth in perspective and triangulation of data. The nine doctoral
students collaborated after a review of the literature and developed three research
questions that guided the study:
1. What strategies/behaviors did successful superintendents use to build strong
relationships with their school board during the entry period?
2. How did superintendents implement these strategies and evaluate their success?
3. What formal/informal leadership preparation assisted superintendents for entry
into the superintendency?
Research question 1 focused on the actions of successful superintendents and how
these actions assisted them during their entry period in building the relationships that
would enable them to carry out and sustain a successful superintendency. This research
question suggests that these actions are replicable and useful to current and aspiring
superintendents. Research question 2 focused on how these actions were implemented
and how they were determined to be successful by the superintendents who used them.
This research question suggests the existence of various strategies, only a few of which
are effective in building strong relationships. Research question 3 focused on identifying
skill sets and preparation of successful superintendents before and after obtaining a
superintendency. This research question suggests that the training and preparation of
superintendents is a key factor in a successful superintendency.
85
Summary of Findings
The survey and interview data revealed three major findings, each related to one
of the three research questions. There was a high level of agreement between the survey
and interview data, supporting the validity of the three major findings.
Research Question 1: Communication Promotes Trust and Strong Relationships
Research question 1 asked, What strategies/behaviors did successful
superintendents use to build strong relationships with their school board during the entry
period? The data showed that communication was the most effective strategy/behavior
used by superintendents in building trust and strong relationships with their school board.
The survey responses indicated that the superintendents communicated with their school
board frequently (weekly) and that their methods of communication with the board were
both personal and informal. The survey responses identified four predominant methods of
communication that superintendents used and that were preferred by their school board:
(a) e-mail, (b) in-person communication, (c) individual telephone call, and (d) letter to the
board. The findings from the superintendent interview also suggested the need for
frequent communication. Weekly board letters were rated as a significant method of
communication because they provided a summary of events or actions taken during the
course of the week. Superintendent interview data revealed that e-mails were a quick and
easy way to communicate with board members about daily occurrences or to give status
updates.
By communicating frequently with the board, superintendents were able to
suggest to their boards that they were actively working on improving or sustaining the
status of the district. Frequent communication also gave the board the impression that
incidents were handled as they occurred and were resolved in a timely manner. This
86
frequent communication led school boards to trust their superintendents’ capacity to do
the jobs that they hired to do.
The survey and interview findings are supported and are similar to the
conclusions presented by Patterson et al. (2002), who suggested that changes in
organizations are brought about through communication that is small in scale, personal,
and informal. The communication methods used by these superintendents, such as e-mail,
in-person communication, and individual telephone calls, are those personal, informal,
small-scale types of communication that bring about effective change. Moreover, these
methods are free-flowing, two-way types of communication that can be initiated by either
the superintendent or the school board. The superintendents also used letters to the board
as a method of formal communication. This finding is supported by Bolman and Deal
(2008), who suggested the use of relationship-enhancing communication that underscores
information sharing. Letters to the board provide a method of information sharing. When
issued weekly, letters to the board promote a positive culture in the district that is goal
and objective orientated.
Research Question 2: Entry Plans Are Prevalent in Successful Superintendencies
Research question 2 asked, How did superintendents implement these strategies
and evaluate their success? The findings demonstrated that entry plans, whether or not
formally written, are prevalent in successful superintendencies. The survey data revealed
that entry plans were used by a majority of the superintendent respondents. However,
survey data also revealed that these entry plans were not necessarily formal written
documents. Superintendent interview data revealed that entry plans were district specific,
in that district needs determined the content and focus of the entry plan. The
87
superintendent interview data indicated that a crucial component of an entry plan is
information gathering.
The survey and interview data were aligned with what Jentz and Murphy (2005)
stated about entry plans being district specific. Entry plans allow a superintendent to learn
about the new district and what their role in the new district will be. All of the districts
surveyed met criteria set by the researchers to be designated as high achieving. While the
challenges faced by these districts might not necessarily be related to student
achievement, these districts face continuous external and internal pressures. Jentz and
Murphy suggested that entry plans can assist superintendents in resisting these external
and internal pressures. Entry plans allow superintendents to avoid a “haphazard and
troubled entry” (p. 744).
While not supported by the survey and interview data, the literature suggests that
entry plans should be formal written documents. Watkins (2003) and Jentz and Murphy
(2005) outlined steps to developing and implementing the formal entry plan as follows:
(a) designing the entry plan, (b) seeking feedback, (c) getting the word out, (d)
conducting interview and site visits, and (e) convening interviews and site visits. The
seeking of feedback or the evaluation of the entry plan was found in the survey data. The
majority of the responding superintendents indicated that they had reviewed their entry
plan with their school board at least once. Seeking feedback or evaluation of the entry
plan is not only a means of effective communication; it allows the school board to
provide meaningful contributions and to effectuate collective decision making. As Jentz
and Murphy (2005) suggested, this form of collective decision making assists in building
strong and trusting relationships.
88
Research Question 3: Experience Assists Superintendent During the Entry Period
Research question 3 asked, What formal/informal leadership preparation assisted
superintendents for entry in the superintendency? The findings from the survey and
interviews showed that experience, above all other formal/informal leadership
preparation, assisted superintendents in their entry in the superintendency. Survey results
indicated that the majority of superintendents believed that their training, simply
described as formal and informal, was adequate. When asked what specific type of
training, the majority indicated that prior administrative experiences had prepared them
for entry into the superintendency. The survey findings also indicated that university-
based programs or professional association sponsored training were not rated as effective
or considered the most important contributors to preparation. This finding is new when
compared to the findings by Teitel (2005) and Orr (2006), who looked at university-based
programs and professional associations and considered them the only sources of
preparation. However, prior professional experiences, while informal, are nevertheless a
source of preparation for superintendents, as indicated by survey and interview responses.
The superintendent interview findings suggested that prior professional
experience had prepared these participants for the superintendency. Superintendent
Chung indicated that every time he moved up in the district’s hierarchy, he acquired new
strategies and skills but also saw the strategies and skills used by (or lacking in) his
supervisors and considered implementing the same or considered doing things better.
This finding is similar to the work reported by Cooper et al. (2002), who advocated more
rigorous, practice-based preparation for superintendents. Therefore, the perceived lack of
qualified candidates, as argued by the Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham
Institute (2003), cannot be considered as an issue of quality preparation programs but
89
rather an issue of the lack of quality professional experiences for superintendent
candidates.
Implications for Practice
The results of the study corroborated the literature’s focus on the importance of
entry periods for superintendents. The entry period was found to be a crucial period in
superintendencies. Entry periods were found to be the optimal time in which
superintendents could build and foster trusting and strong relationships with school
boards. The trust and strong relationships built during this period enabled superintendents
to meet district goals and objectives.
The findings indicated that a majority of the superintendents had used entry plans
during their entry period. However, a significant percentage had not had formally written
entry plans. A possible reason for this finding is that the entry plan as a formally written
document is a relatively new tool and has only recently been discussed in the literature.
Entering superintendents need not fear the formal written entry plan. Entry plans are fluid
documents and can be amended during the entry period based on feedback from various
stakeholders. Because entry plans are district specific and the goals and objectives are
aligned to the needs of the district, they provide a formal communication tool and road
map to building relationships, not only with the school board but also with other district
stakeholders.
The importance of communication as a trust- and relationship-building strategy is
important in the superintendent’s entry period, as well as throughout the superintendency.
Entering superintendents should develop a plan for communicating with the school board.
As survey and interview data indicated, communicating with the board on a weekly basis
90
is the desired frequency. Using personal methods such as e-mail, telephone calls, and
individual communication with board members yields high dividends in decision making
and creates conditions for mutual trust and building strong relationships. Communication,
as survey and interview results indicated, creates an atmosphere of openness and
credibility and it assists in moving an organization forward.
The traditional path to the superintendency continues to be a legitimate path, as
expressed by the superintendents in their survey and interview responses. Survey and
interview results indicated that the professional experiences of superintendents assisted
them for entry into the superintendency. Those who aspire to the superintendency should
choose professional experiences that will enhance the skills needed for success in the
superintendency as identified in this study. Those who aspire to the superintendency, as
well as current superintendents, should seek out other superintendents as mentors; having
a mentor superintendent allows for exchange of problem-solving strategies and assists
with the transition into and through the entry period.
Future Research
Superintendent/school board relationships will continue to be instrumental to a
district’s success. The entry period was identified as a crucial period in the
superintendency. This study provided insights into both superintendent/school board
relationships and entry periods but also raised questions that guide the following
recommendations for future research.
1. It is recommended that this study be replicated but include more superintendent
and school board president/designee interviews. A larger sample of interviews would
allow for a stronger validation of survey results.
91
2. It is recommended that a study be conducted in which novice and/or
experienced superintendents are followed though their entry periods. The study would
identify strategies/behaviors that were implemented during the entry period and ascertain
which were successful.
3. It is recommended that a study be conducted to examine how superintendents
develop and implement their entry plans. This study would examine the effectiveness of
entry plans during the entry period.
4. It is recommended that a study be conducted to examine the professional
experiences of superintendents and how these experiences have influenced the repertoire
of skills used in their superintendencies.
5. It is recommended that a study be conducted to examine the relationships
between externally hired superintendents and the success of a district.
Research and literature on the entry period, entry plans, and superintendent/school
board relationships are limited. These recommendations will assist in adding to the
research base and supplementing the literature on the topics.
Conclusion
The complexity of the superintendency will not ease in the near future. As history
has shown, the role of superintendent is becoming increasingly complex. The job of
superintendent is a multifaceted one that requires a specific skill set. This study found
that this skill set is not logically or typically attained outside the education field, simply
because the education field is unique. By its nature, it is a service field, and traditional
business strategies do not necessarily fit the needs of this field. It seems more logical to
acquire these skill sets within the walls of schools and districts.
92
This study underscored the importance of communication in building trust and
strong relationships during the entry period. To be successful, superintendents should
listen and gather information during the entry period. They should take the time to know
the district’s various stakeholders and devise goals and objectives that address the needs
of the district. As Jentz and Murphy (2005) suggested, superintendents should “hit the
ground learning” (p. 738).
93
REFERENCES
Björk, L. G., & Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Broad Center. (2011). The Broad Superintendent Academy. Retrieved from http://
www.broadacademy.org/
Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003). Better leaders for America’s
schools: A manifesto. Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
California Department of Education. (2011). The Public Schools Accountability Act of
1999: CalEdFacts. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca
.gov/ta/ac/pa/cefpsaa.asp
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: An historical analysis. St. Louis,
MO: Washington University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 010
410)
Candoli, C. (1995). The superintendency: Its history and role. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 9, 335-350.
Cooper, B. S., Fusarelli, L. D., Jackson, B. L., & Poster, J. (2002). Is superintendent
preparation an oxymoron? Analyzing changes in programs, certification, and
control. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1, 242-255.
Covey, S. M. R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY:
Little, Brown.
Glass, T. E. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, school boards
and reform. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Education Commission of the
State.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). A study of the American school superin-
tendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
94
Glass, T. E., Franceschini, L. A., & American Association of School Administrators.
(2007). The state of the American school superintendency: A mid-decade study.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Grissom, J. A. (2010). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public
organizations: The case of California school boards. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 20, 601-627.
Houston, P., & Eadie, D. (2002). The board-savvy superintendent. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Hurley, R. F. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 55-62.
Jentz, B. C., & Murphy, J. T. (2005). How leaders start when they don’t know where to
start. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 736-744.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The evolution of the school district superintendent position. In L.
G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Prepara-
tion, practice, and development (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J., & Björk, L. G. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent:
Implications for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought,
40(2), 73-92.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J., Young, I. P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011).
The American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study. Arlington, VA:
American Association of School Administrators.
Kowalski, T. J., Petersen, G. J., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2009). Novice superintendents and the
efficacy of professional preparation. American Association of School Adminis-
trators Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(4), 16-26.
Kramer, R. M. (2009). Rethinking trust. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 2-10.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/
pdf/Final313.pdf
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 6301 et seq. U.S.C. (2002)
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orr, M. T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and
determination. Teachers College Record, 108, 1362-1403.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial conversations:
Tools for talking when stakes are high. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
95
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of
organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review,
32, 344-354.
Sharp, W. L., & Walter, J. K. (2004). The school superintendent: The profession and the
person. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Smith, B. (2008). Deregulation and the new leader agenda: Outcomes and lessons from
Michigan. Education Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 30-65.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.
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
Tyach, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in
America, 1820-1980. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Walters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from http://www
.mcrel.org/pdf/leadershiporganizationdevelopment/4005RR_Superintendent_lead
ership.pdf
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all
levels. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
96
APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENT SURVEY

97

98

99
APPENDIX B
BOARD MEMBER SURVEY

100

101

102
APPENDIX C
SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

103

104
APPENDIX D
BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

105

106
APPENDIX E

SUPERINTENDENT RECRUITMENT LETTER

June 10, 2011
Dear Superintendent ####,
Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this
packet. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may determine
what strategies and/or behaviors superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with
their school boards during the entry period. The current study may serve as a useful best practice
resource for new superintendents who strive to establish, create and maintain strong relationships
with their school boards, such as yours.
My name is Jeannette Garcia, and I am a part of a thematic research team under the guidance and
direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. You have been identified as a successful superintendent and someone who
can add to the knowledge base of superintendent research.
If you agree to participate in this research study, please complete the superintendent survey and
return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope, along with the signed statement of
consent. Also included in this packet is a survey for your board president or designee. A copy of
the board president or designee survey has been included for your information. We would
appreciate your assistance in ensuring that your board president or designee receives the
information and returns their survey.
Your participation in the study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at anytime.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study.
All information obtained in connection with this study will be kept confidential and anonymous
by the researcher and dissertation committee members. No data will be presented in any manner
where an individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the participation in this study, you can contact
Jeannette Garcia or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you
very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Jeannette Garcia Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
jeannetg@usc.edu mescalan@usc.edu
(###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### cell
107
APPENDIX F

SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT RECRUITMENT LETTER

June 10, 2011
Dear Board Member of #### Unified School District,
I would like to congratulate you on having a successful superintendent leading your school
district. My name is Jeannette Garcia and I am a part of a thematic research team under the
guidance and direction of Dr. Michael F. Escalante from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. You have been identified as being part of a successful
governance team and someone who can add to the knowledge base of superintendent/school
board research.
Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review the information enclosed in this
packet. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study that may determine
what strategies and/or behaviors superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with
their school boards during the entry period. The current study may serve as a useful best practice
resource for new superintendents who strive to establish, create and maintain strong relationships
with their school boards, such as yours.
If you agree to participate in this research study, please complete the board member survey and
return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope, along with the signed statement of
consent.
Your participation in the study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at anytime.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in this research study.
All information obtained in connection with this study will be kept confidential and anonymous
by the researcher and dissertation committee members. No data will be presented in any manner
where an individual and/or district can be identified.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the participation in this study, you can contact
Jeannette Garcia or Dr. Michael F. Escalante at the University of Southern California. Thank you
very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Jeannette Garcia Dr. Michael F. Escalante
Researcher Dissertation Chair
jeannetg@usc.edu mescalan@usc.edu
(###) ###-#### (###) ###-#### cell
108
APPENDIX G
ALIGNMENT OF SURVEY QUESTIONS TO
THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Research Question Alignment Chart
Survey
Question
Research
Question 1
Research
Question 2
Research
Question 3
1 X X
2 X X
3 X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X
10 X X
11 X X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
16 X X
17 X X X
18 X X X
19 X
20 X
Totals 16 16 6

Question 1 : Strategies Behaviors = Relationships, Trust
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Question 2 : Implement/ Evaluate
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Question 3 : Training / Preparation
9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to ascertain the strategies/behavior that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships with their school board during their entry period. The superintendents selected for this study (a) worked in urban or suburban districts in California with an average daily attendance of at least 2,000 students, (b) worked in a district with an Academic Performance Index (API) of over 800 with any growth over a 3-year period or in a district with an API under 800 with a 30-point net growth over 3 years, and (c) were hired externally. ❧ A thematic group of nine doctoral researchers used a qualitative approach to address the research questions. The team collaborated theory and conceptual frameworks from Bolman and Deal, Covey, Hurley, and Watkins to develop a survey that was administered to superintendents who met selection criteria and their school board president/board member designees. Interview guides were developed collaboratively and each researcher conducted an in-depth interview with one superintendent and one school board president/board member designee for an individual case study. ❧ Superintendent/school board relationships are crucial to the success of a superintendency. This study showed that (a) communication is essential to the building of trust and strong relationships with school boards, (b) entry plans are prevalent in successful superintendencies, (c) professional experiences versus training and preparation are key to overcoming initial challenges in superintendencies, and (d) the traditional path to the superintendency continues to be a legitimate path to achieving the chief executive position in a school district.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

The superintendency in a California school district: preparation, recruitment, and career longevity

PDF

The obscurity inside the margins: the preparation, recruitment, and retention of women of color superintendents

PDF

High-performing school district superintendents: preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Perception of the preparation, recruitment, and retention of California school district superintendents

PDF

CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

PDF

Essential relationship skills necessary for superintendents to possess in order to maintain a positive working relationship with their governing boards

PDF

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

PDF

California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals

PDF

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

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Jeannette (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/26/2012

Defense Date 02/23/2012

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

Tag Communication,entry period,entry plan,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationships,school board,superintendent,superintendent preparation,Trust

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email jeannetg@usc.edu,jxg2802@lausd.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c127-677653

Unique identifier UC1335371

Identifier usctheses-c127-677653 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaJean-550.pdf

Dmrecord 677653

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Garcia, Jeannette

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