University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames

(USC Thesis Other)

Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 1

UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
OF CALIFORNIA URBAN SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENTS
THROUGH BOLMAN AND DEAL’S FOUR LEADERSHIP FRAMES

by

Patricia Corral

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 2019

Copyright 2019 Patricia Corral
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 2
Acknowledgements
There are so many people I would like to acknowledge who were instrumental in
completing my educational journey. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my
dissertation chair and professor, Dr. David Cash. To my second committee member and
professor, Dr. Rudy Castruita. Your wisdom and guidance have greatly impacted my leadership
skills as I carry the torch for student equity. To my third committee member, Dr. Terry Walker.
Not only have you mentored and modeled for me what it means to be a female leader, but you
have also become a wonderful friend.
I am also very grateful to the amazing professors that taught me to be a change agent for
our neediest of students. You challenged my thinking and developed me into a confident school
leader. I would also like to acknowledge my USC colleagues as we encouraged and helped each
other throughout this dissertation endeavor.
Attending USC was a childhood dream of mine that began when I was young. In the
summer of 1989, I transcended onto the USC campus with Migrant Education. Living on
campus and attending class while learning about Latino issues, changed me. My dream to attend
USC began at that point. Thirty years later, I am proud to say that I am a graduate of USC.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 3
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful husband, Adauto Corral Jr., JR, and my
children: Brandon, Liliana, and Ryan. To my husband, there just are not enough words that can
express how grateful I am for all that you sacrificed for me. You earned this doctorate with me.
Thank you for helping make my dream come true. To my family, your support, encouragement,
and patience throughout this journey fueled me. No matter what life presents you with, all you
need is will and God to move forward.
I would also like to dedicate this to my parents, Maria and Dagoberto Melendez, who
sacrificed so much to come to this country. Your sacrifice provided the five of us the
opportunity for a better life and greater opportunities. To me, this selfless act is the greatest
sacrifice a parent can make. Finally, nothing is possible without my faith in God. For with God,
nothing is impossible–Luke 1:37.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 4
Table of Contents
Abstract ..............................................................................................................................10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .................................................................................11
Introduction ..................................................................................................................11
Background of the Problem .........................................................................................13
The Structural Frame .............................................................................................14
The Human Resource Frame .................................................................................14
The Political Frame ................................................................................................14
The Symbolic Frame ..............................................................................................14
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................15
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................16
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................16
Limitations ...................................................................................................................17
Delimitations ................................................................................................................17
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................17
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .............................................................................20
Evolution of Superintendent Leadership .....................................................................20
Superintendent as Teacher-Scholar........................................................................21
Superintendent as an Organizational Manager ......................................................22
Superintendent as a Democratic-Political Leader ..................................................23
Superintendent as an Applied Social Scientist.......................................................24
Superintendent as an Effective Communicator......................................................24
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 5
Characteristics of a Superintendent in 21st Century Leadership ...........................25
Superintendent Preparation ....................................................................................27
Leadership Frames .................................................................................................29
Leadership Theory .................................................................................................30
School Reform and the Impact on Superintendents both Nationally and in
California ...............................................................................................................31
21st Century Educational Reforms ..............................................................................34
Superintendent Relationships with School Boards of Education and Teachers ..........38
School Board Relationships ...................................................................................38
Teacher Relationships ............................................................................................40
Summary ......................................................................................................................41
Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................42
Introduction ..................................................................................................................42
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................42
Research Design.....................................................................................................43
Sample and Population ..........................................................................................45
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................45
Data Collection ......................................................................................................47
Analysis..................................................................................................................47
Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................49
Summary ......................................................................................................................49
Chapter Four: Research Findings.......................................................................................51
Introduction ..................................................................................................................51
Organization of the Data Analysis ...............................................................................51
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 6
Coding of Data .............................................................................................................52
Descriptive Characteristics ..........................................................................................52
Survey Participants ................................................................................................52
Interviewed Participants.........................................................................................54
Research Question 1 ....................................................................................................55
Findings: Surveyed Participants ............................................................................55
Findings: Interviewed Participants ........................................................................58
Remaining Student Centered (Symbolic) ........................................................59
Effective Communicator (Symbolic) ...............................................................59
Developing Structure and Systems (Structural) ...............................................60
Innovation (Structural) .....................................................................................61
Summary ................................................................................................................62
Research Question 2 ....................................................................................................63
Findings: Interview ................................................................................................63
Adapting to Political Environments while Remaining Student Centered ..............63
Leadership Evolution .............................................................................................65
Summary ................................................................................................................65
Research Question 3 ....................................................................................................66
Findings: Interview ................................................................................................66
Implementation Plan with Evaluation Tools....................................................67
Embrace Failure ...............................................................................................68
Successful Decisions ........................................................................................68
Summary ................................................................................................................68
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 7
Research Question 4 ....................................................................................................69
Findings: Interview ................................................................................................69
Understanding the Political Landscape ............................................................70
It is connecting to the Strategic Plan or District Priorities...............................71
Summary ................................................................................................................73
Discussion ....................................................................................................................73
Ancillary Findings .......................................................................................................75
Summary ......................................................................................................................76
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion ....................................................77
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................77
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................77
Research Questions ......................................................................................................78
Design Overview .........................................................................................................78
Key Findings ................................................................................................................79
Research Question #1 ............................................................................................79
An Effective Communicator (Symbolic) .........................................................80
Remaining Student-Centered ...........................................................................80
Developing a Structure and Systems ...............................................................80
Innovation ........................................................................................................80
Research Question #2 ............................................................................................81
Adapting to Political Environments while Remaining Student-Centered .......81
Leadership Evolution .......................................................................................82
Research Question #3 ............................................................................................82
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 8
Implementation Plan with Evaluation Tools Practices ....................................82
Embracing Failure ............................................................................................83
Research Question #4 ............................................................................................83
Ancillary Findings .......................................................................................................84
Innovation ....................................................................................................................84
Implications for Study..................................................................................................85
Superintendent Preparation ..........................................................................................85
Future Research ...........................................................................................................86
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................86
References ..........................................................................................................................88
Table 1: Four Frame Leadership Theoretical Framework .................................................99
Table 2: Surveyed Superintendents by Gender ................................................................100
Table 3: Surveyed Superintendents by Years of Experience ...........................................101
Table 4: Surveyed Superintendents by Current District ADA.........................................102
Table 5: Surveyed Superintendents by Highest Degree Earned ......................................103
Table 6: Interviewed Superintendents by Gender ............................................................104
Table 7: Interviewed Superintendents by Current District Grade Spans .........................105
Table 8: Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames (Conceptual Framework) ...........106
Table 9: Surveyed Participants Self-Rating Leadership Assessment Results .................107
Table 10: Surveyed Participants Highest Rated Leadership Frame.................................108
Table 11: Surveyed Participants Lowest Rated Leadership Frame .................................109
Table 12: Interviewed Participants Demographic Data and Self-Rating Scale Results ..110
Table 13: Kotter and Cohen’s Change Stages Compared with Bolman and Deal’s
Four Frame Alignment ...............................................................................................111
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 9
Table 14: Frame Characteristics Pertain to Research Question 4 ....................................113
Appendix A: Letter to Participate ....................................................................................114
Appendix B: Superintendent Survey ...............................................................................115
Appendix C: Interview Guide ..........................................................................................117
Appendix D: Permission to Use Survey ..........................................................................118

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 10
Abstract
Urban school superintendents have a great responsibility in leading public schools’ systems that
will produce thriving students as they are preparing for college, career, and life. This role is
riddled with obstacles and barriers both at the micro and macro political levels. This study seeks
to isolate which frame or frames according to Bolman and Deal, do superintendents employ as
part of their decision-making process. The four identified frames are human resource, structural,
political, and symbolic. The four research questions that guided this study were: Of the four
frames by Bolman and Deal, which frames do urban superintendents believe are the most critical
in the decision-making process? How does experience as a superintendent change the decision-
making process? How do superintendents evaluate the success or failure of the decision making
while using Bolman and Deal’s leadership frames? and, When making decisions with the
governing board, what factors do superintendents take into consideration when recommending
decisions to the governing board? This mixed-method study utilized both quantitative and
qualitative data collection to answer the four research questions. Twenty urban superintendents
responded to an 11-question survey including Bolman and Deal’s Leadership Self-Rating Scale.
Five urban superintendents participated in a one-to-one interview. Data analysis revealed a
discrepancy in perceived leadership frames and practical frames. The data also affirmed the
importance of using multi-frame thinking in their decision-making process so that urban
superintendents can appropriately identify problems and navigate solutions that will render
positive outcomes for students.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 11
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
The role of the school superintendent has continuously evolved over the last few decades
due in part to the school reform efforts set forth at the state and federal level (Kowalski, 2005a).
As the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of school districts, more than ever, superintendents lead
complex organizations that are influenced by social, economic, and political arenas. The
intersection of outside forces and internal ones requires a superintendent to have a set of
decision-making and problem-solving skills that can bring viable solutions to problems related to
student achievement (Kowalski, 2005a).
Superintendents need to be able to make leadership decisions that invest in positive
student outcomes. These decisions are affected by the manner in which the superintendent
balances organizational relationships and school reform efforts. As the duties of superintendents
continue to evolve, understanding the decision-making skills that will transform schools into
21st-century learning institutes is critical for future school leaders.
The responsibilities of the superintendent have increased over the last 100 years. Björk,
Browne-Ferrigno, and Kowalski (2014) credited A Nation at Risk, published in 1983 by the
federal government, as a turning point for school leadership as it charged that public schools
were failing students and placed the country in economic jeopardy. The public’s view of a
failing school system put a great deal of accountability on school districts, and thus school
reform efforts became a priority. Consequently, this significantly impacted the superintendents’
role in leading school districts. Callahan (1966) identified four conceptualizations that examine
the changes in superintendent roles over time and provide insight into understanding the current
challenges. The fifth conceptualization was added by Kowlaski (2005c). These five historical
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 12
and empirical evidence conceptualizations are embedded in the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) and Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards
(Björk, Kowalski, & Browne-Ferrigno, 2014; Hoyle, Björk, Collier, & Glass, 2005; Kowlaski,
McCord, Peterson, Young, & Ellerson, 2011a). These five roles help identify the complexity of
superintendents’ work and define the knowledge and skills required for effective practices.
Through the original work of Callahan (1966 as cited in Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski,
2014) and Kowalski and colleagues (2011 as cited in Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski,
2014), the roles are superintendents as teacher-scholar, manager, democratic-political leader,
applied social scientist, and communicator. These roles identify the skill set superintendents
need to operate in today’s world of high accountability through school reform efforts.
To meet the demands of 21st-century skills, California has revamped many critical
components that affect public education. In 2010, the state of California redesigned the
academic standards for all grade levels to what is now known as Common Core State Standards
(CCSS, California Department of Education, 2018c). In 2014, the formula on how schools in
California were funded was ameliorated and gave districts and local educational agencies more
local control over finances; hence the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was instituted.
Along with LCFF, The Local Control Accountably Plan (LCAP) outlines how districts and local
educational agencies will spend the monies to improve all student outcomes.
At the federal level, the reauthorization of the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary
Education Act in 2015 was named Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, U. S. Department of
Education, n.d.) that includes provisions that uphold protections for disadvantaged and high-need
students, and requires “all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will
prepare them to succeed in college and careers” (ESSA Highlights, para. 4). With all these
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 13
reform efforts to improve student academic achievement, superintendents are challenged with
providing leadership in support of such efforts. In addition to implementing reform efforts,
superintendents must also maintain working relationships with various stakeholders or
constituencies such as (a) the community, (b) school board, and (c) labor unions.
Despite the complexities a superintendency role possesses, the guidance of an
organizational leader who can maneuver through multiple frames demonstrates a higher level of
cognitive ability (Birnbaum, Bensimon, & Neumann, 1989).
Background of the Problem
Superintendents are under high pressure to remain transparent to all stakeholders as the
accountability for student achievement is greater than ever. Recent studies identified that district
leadership does have an impact on student achievement (Marzano & Waters, 2009). The purpose
of this study was to examine how superintendents in California urban school districts used
Bolman and Deal’s (2013) four frames in their decision-making process (see Table 1). Each
frame provides a structure for superintendents to help guide leaders into viewing issues through
multiple perspectives. The Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames: (a) structural, (b) human
resource, (c) political, and (d) symbolic will be the foundation in framing the manner in which
superintendents analyze the organization that leads to decision making. These four frames
provide a pathway into effective leadership practices that focus on reframing lens, such as those
outlined by Bolman and Deal, help maneuver the district leader into organizational frames, and
allow for a variety of perspectives to be studied. A description of each of the four frames as
presented in Reframing Organization by Bolman and Deal (2013) are discussed further.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 14
The Structural Frame
Bolman and Deal (2013) described this frame as the organizational architecture and
design of the institution. The structural frame coordinates human resources with the goals and
objectives of the organization. Organizations tend to go through a restructuring of this frame as
a response to major problems or opportunities such as “leadership changes, environmental shifts,
changes in technology, or organizational growth” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 86).
The Human Resource Frame
This frame is identified as a way to look at the fit between people and the organization. It
delves into tailoring the organization to meet the individual needs. Human resource explores the
work and environment conditions that are conducive to positive employee productivity. In
essence, it looks at what motivates people within the system to support the goals and efforts of
the organization.
The Political Frame
This leadership frame sees organizations as arenas to air conflicts. Leaders see decision
making as an opportunity to gain or exercise power. Decisions made in this frame involve the
allocation of scarce resources. When resources become scarce, the doors to bargaining and
negotiation open which brings forth stakeholder competition. In these cases, power becomes the
most important asset.
The Symbolic Frame
In this frame, symbols are utilized to make meaning of the system or culture of the
organization. There is an emphasis on culture that propels the organization to use symbols and
celebrations to transform the culture. This frame touches on the emotional message that speaks
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 15
to both the mind and heart. During times of chaos and uncertainty, symbols help make sense of
the world.
Studies indicated that the average superintendent’s tenure is about five to six years
(Kowalski et al., 2011a) and three years for urban school superintendents; with an average of
five to six years, superintendents need to work quickly in building the organization that
addresses educational policies. The information on specific superintendent decision-making
practices is scarce, therefore, understanding how superintendents use reframing leadership
frames to make decisions can be utilized by future superintendents and other school leaders as a
guide to effective leadership practices. Bolman and Deal (2013) posited that effective leaders
use three or more frames while managers stay within one or two frames. Hence, when effective
leaders are faced with decisions, it is crucial they possess the skill and wisdom to match one or
more frames to address the decision-making model.
Statement of the Problem
Superintendents have faced a variety of diverse and complex issues that are further
compounded by local, state, and federal accountability. A superintendent’s ability to make
leadership decisions through a careful balance of constituency relationships and reform efforts is
a skill worthy of delving deeper into to understand the decision-making process so that future
district leaders can avoid the common pitfalls of school leadership. Therefore, by identifying the
types of frame or frames a superintendent utilizes as part of their decision-making process has
the potential to determine what some of the explicit models superintendents use for decision
making.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 16
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand better how superintendents navigate
him/herself through the four frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2013) to make decisions that
affect student outcomes through a constructivism paradigm. Leaders who understand how and
when to utilize Bolman and Deal’s (2013) frames as part of their decision-making model will be
more successful in achieving their intended outcomes. Birnbaum et al. (1989) concluded that
organizations have multiple realities which should employ multiple lenses, so there is no reliance
on just one perspective for all decisions. Bolman and Deal claimed one of the pitfalls of
organizations is the oversimplification of problems within the systems, thus fallacies in human
thinking can ruin organizations. As educational practitioners, these errors cannot be afforded at
the expense of student lives.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
To examine the leadership frames superintendents employ when making decisions, the
researcher followed a mixed-method approach: both qualitative (open-ended) and quantitative
(close-ended). The four research questions the researcher used are:
1. Of the four frames established by Bolman and Deal, which frames do superintendents
believe are the most critical in the decision-making process?
2. How does experience as a superintendent change the decision-making process?
3. How do superintendents evaluate the success or failure of decision making while using
Bolman and Deal’s leadership frames?
4. When making decisions with the governing board, what factors do superintendents take
into consideration when recommending decisions to the governing board?

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 17
Limitations
Every effort was made to ensure the reliability and validity of the study. The source for
data collection was limited to volunteered survey results, superintendent interviews, and
published student achievement data. The study is limited to the number of survey responses the
researcher receives within the allotted time frame. As such, the responses collected are limited
to the information provided by the respondents. A minimum of three years combined as a
superintendent is required for surveys and interviews were required. The validity of the study is
reliant on the reliability of the instruments used to measure data.
Delimitations
The study is delimited by public unified school districts in the state of California.
Definition of Terms
Accountability: “The relationship between two parties, (a) provider of a good or service
(b) director with the power to reward or punish” (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 17)
Achievement gap: “When one group of students . . . outperforms another group . . .” and the
disparity of the scores is significant (National Center for Education Statistics, NCES,
2018, para. 1).
At risk: Students who are at risk of failing in school due to factors such as: sex, race, ethnicity
and low socioeconomic status (NCES, 2002).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Many states adopted the same standards for English and
math. Teachers, parents, and experts helped design these academic standards to prepare
students for success in college and the workplace. (California Department of Education,
CDE, 2018c)
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 18
Disadvantaged: Students “whose family, social, or economic circumstances hinder their ability
to learn at school” (Rand Corporation, n.d.a, para. 1).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Reauthorization of the 50-year-old national education law,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (U. S. Department of Education, n.d.)
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP): “a tool for local educational agencies to set goals . . .
and leverage resources . . . to improve student outcomes.” (CDE, para. 1, 2019a)
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): K-12 finance system that includes a base,
supplemental and concentration grants. (CDE, 2019b)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Former name of 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act that strengthened the position of the federal government on
public education to improve student achievement.
Stakeholders: “One who is involved in or affected by a course of action.” (Merriam-
Webster.com, 2019a, para. 3)
Superintendent: “One who has oversight and charge.” (Merriam-Webster.com, 2019b, para. 1)
Unified School District: A school district that operates primary, middle, and high school grades.
Urban: According to NCES Urban Schools Survey, urban districts are located in major cities
with populations of at least 100,000, high concentrations of poverty and minority
students: Hispanic and African American, and high crime rates. (NCES, 1996)
Organization of the Study
Chapter One includes the overview of the study, the background of the problem,
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions and hypotheses, the
importance of the study, limitations and delimitations, the definition of terms, and organization
of the study. In Chapter Two, a comprehensive review of the literature will be presented.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 19
Chapter Three includes an explicit explanation of the details of the study that include: the design,
sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. A report of the
findings of the study in detail is found in Chapter Four. Chapter Five includes a summary of the
findings and the implications the study findings have to educational leadership.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 20
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
“As education continues to be in the national spotlight, there are few roles as complex or
as pivotal as that of the public school superintendent” (Houston, 2001, p. 429).
There is no argument that a superintendent’s work is challenging and at times daunting as
it is riddled with perils (Houston, 2001). Despite the complexity of the position, a
superintendent’s leadership and courage have a significant influence on a vast community that
can directly transform the lives of children (Houston, 2001). Superintendents require a set of
skills that can balance external and internal forces found in public education. A historical
perspective into the changing role of the superintendents’ roles and responsibilities coupled with
the 21st-century challenges they face will provide a window of opportunity to understand further
what processes a superintendent involves him or herself in making decisions about issues in
public education.
The purpose of this study was to identify Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames and
how they are utilized in the decision-making process of superintendents. This chapter is
organized into three sections: evolution of superintendent leadership, school reform and
superintendency, and constituency relationships.
Evolution of Superintendent Leadership
Over the past 180 years, school superintendent leadership has evolved to maintain pace
with educational reforms and accountability (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). To
understand the complexity of a superintendent’s role, historian Raymond Callahan’s (1964) book
The Superintendent of Schools: An Historical Analysis identified four role conceptualizations
that helped define the knowledge and skills required for effective superintendent practice.
Callahan (1964 as cited in Kowalski, 2005a) sorted the four conceptualizations by eras in public
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 21
education: teacher-scholar (1850 to early 1900s), organizational manager, (early 1900s to
1930s), democratic leader (1930 to mid-1950s); and applied social scientist (mid-1950s to mid-
1970s) (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014, p. 452). Each one of these
conceptualizations, along with the addition of a fifth, help frame the scope and sequence of the
roles and responsibilities a school superintendent has come to acquire.
Superintendent as Teacher-Scholar
The role of a superintendent as a teacher-scholar or instructional leaders occurred during
the 1850s-1920s (Kowalski, 2005a). The primary role of a superintendent was to supervise
classroom instruction and assure uniformity of the curriculum (Kowalski, 2005a). Moreover, the
post-Civil War era brought an establishment of organized public school systems through
normative standards. Thus, superintendents were considered master teachers (Callahan, 1964 as
cited in Kowalski, 2005a). The idea of superintendents being master teachers resulted in
superintendents “authoring professional journal articles about philosophy, history, and
pedagogy” (Kowalski, 2005a, p. 4). They became “state-superintendents, college professors, and
college presidents” (Kowalski, 2005a, p. 4).
According to research (Kowalski, 2005a; Petersen & Barnett, 2003) the role of a teacher-
scholar began to subside for a variety of reasons stemming from politicizing the position of a
superintendent and citing research done by the National Education Longitudinal Study for 1988,
1990, and 1992 (as cited in Kowalski, 2005a). It concluded that evidence did not support a
relationship between school leadership and student achievement outcomes (Zigarelli, 1996).
This research has been updated through a meta-analysis conducted by Waters, Marzano, and
McNulty (2004) indicating there is indeed a direct correlation between leadership and student
achievement. Today, this role continues to be challenged as the Broad Foundation (as cited in
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 22
Kowalski, 2005a) and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003 as cited in Kowalski, 2005a)
believed that effective business, political, and military leaders can lead districts as being a
teacher-scholar is inconsequential to becoming superintendents (Kowalski, 2005a).
Superintendent as an Organizational Manager
In the next era, a superintendent’s responsibility emerged into an organizational
manager, early 1900s-1930s. The organizational manager dominated a superintendent’s job
description for the next three decades. As society transitioned from agrarian to industrialization,
school boards focused on resource management which infused the role of the superintendents to
center more on improving operations on time and efficiency, therefore, by increasing their role as
business managers; it also increased their stature, influence, and power (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno,
& Kowalski, 2014; Callahan, 1962; Kowalski, 2005a). By the late 1920s, it was recognized that
effective superintendent leadership was defined by serving both as an instructional leader and a
school-district manager as they complimented each aspect of their work (Browne-Ferrigno &
Glass, 2005; Kowalski, 1999). Findings by Kowalski and Glass (2002) indicated that a
superintendent’s management role is core to their leadership. In a study done by Glass, Björk,
and Brunner (2002), 36.4% of superintendents indicated their school boards expected them to be
an effective manager. Ten years later, Kowalski et al. (2011a) revealed that 78.5% of
superintendents rated management as the second most important role expectation by their school
board. The importance of a superintendent as a manager is rarely disputed as Björk, Kowalski &
Browne-Ferrigno (2014) stated that all other aspects of district leadership become insignificant
when budgets are not balanced, school facilities are deemed unsafe, and there are significant
personnel problems.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 23
Superintendent as a Democratic-Political Leader
The superintendent as a democratic-political leader is a combination of both
philosophical and political leadership (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). The
superintendent role as a democratic leader came about after the great depression era (1930s-
1950s) as competition for scarce resources increased among public agencies (Björk, Browne-
Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). This reality meant superintendents had to engage in political
activity and be savvy particularly with state legislation (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski,
2014) in areas of funding. Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, and Kowalski (2014) stated that a
resurgence of parent activism through the work of Ernest Melby, former Dean of Education at
Northwestern University and New York University, warned superintendents about insulating
themselves from the public and should “mobilize the educational resources of communities”
(Melby, 1955, p. 250). The effects of inadequate school funding urged superintendents to
become advisers, advocates, lobbyists, and political strategists.
A successful democratic-political superintendent would be able to gather support from
school board members, community, parents, and district employees for district initiatives
(Howlett, 1993). However, the idea of a democratic leader superintendent was not always
welcomed as many saw this leadership to be too idealistic and not problem-solving (Kowalski,
1999). The idea of a democratic school superintendent would resurface later because, in public
education, scholars such as Hanson (2003) and Wirt and Kirst (2001) acknowledged that even
the best educational policies will be ineffective without the support and acceptance from the
public (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). In 2010, found that 55% of
superintendents reported their level of political involvement was substantial (Kowalski et al.,
2011a). Moreover, the issue is not whether a superintendent will become involved in a political
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 24
manner but rather how do they intend to maneuver themselves when faced with it (Björk &
Gurley, 2005; Kirst & Wirt, 2009).
Superintendent as an Applied Social Scientist
The superintendent as an applied social scientist (mid-1950s-1970s) refers to
superintendents leading districts through the analytical lens to determine what works best for
students (Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2005). In other words, superintendents now had to make
decisions about improving schooling for students based on research findings (Björk, Browne-
Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). This shift of “intellectual paradigm” (Cooper & Boyd, 1987, p. 4)
stemmed from universities moving from practical training to using research findings and theory
in finding solutions to education problems (Copper & Boyd, 1987; Crowson & McPherson,
1987; Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). Fusarelli and Fusarelli (2005) credited three
significant shifts in viewing superintendents as social scientists and activists: “(1) . . .
demographic and societal changes that challenge efforts at school improvement; (2) systematic
reform initiatives such as . . . (NCLB); and (3) changes in administrator preparation focusing on
issues of equity and social justice” (pp. 192-193). Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (as cited
in Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2005) from 1954 exemplifies exactly how schools became the public
agent to resolve issues of discrimination.
Superintendent as an Effective Communicator
In the early 2000s, Theodore Kowalski added a fifth role conceptualization to the work of
superintendents: effective communicator (Kowalski, 2005a). Schools and districts have
traditionally been characterized as an isolated culture of teachers and administrators (Blasé &
Anderson, 1995). Kowalski (2005a) described the necessity of effective communication from
superintendents as the result of two key influences: (1) history of superintendent roles as
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 25
represented by the four conceptualizations; and (2) the merging of an information-based society
and a sustained dissatisfaction of public education. Thus, educational reform efforts in the late
1980s required superintendents to communicate to a variety of stakeholders (Kowalski, 2001)
which replaced the top-down communication model to an open, two-way mutually beneficial to
reduce the perceptions of power differences (Kowalski et al., 2011a). The expectation of being a
communicator as a district leader now involves engaging stakeholders in political dialogue,
sharing visions, creating a positive image, gaining community support for change, and keeping
the public informed (Kowalski, 2004).
Glass, Björk, and Brunner (2002) found that 95% of superintendents acknowledge they
are the primary source of information to their school boards. Furthermore, 69% of
superintendents agreed to have intense conversations with the community to communicate
district objectives and priorities. Ten years later, Kowalski (2011a) found that 85% of
superintendents indicated being an effective communicator was the single most crucial role.
Further research from Kowalski et al. (2011a), through superintendent responses in a
recent national study, ranked the five conceptualizations by importance: (1) effective
communicator, (2) manager, (3) instructional leader, (4) democratic-political leader, (5) applied
social scientist (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). Beginning with a superintendent
as an instructional leader and evolving into becoming an effective communicator, is evidence of
how the historical periods have come to contribute to what the current superintendent’s roles and
responsibilities are today.
Characteristics of a Superintendent in 21st Century Leadership
Paul Houston (2001) and (Kowalski, 2005b), former executive director of the American
Association of School Administrators, stated that a 21st-century school leader is one who will
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 26
serve as a “broker of services and insurer of equity” (Houston, 2001, p. 430). The amalgamation
of the five conceptualizations and 21st-century leadership under the ESSA (U. S. Department of
Education, n.d.) shed light onto the current challenges a superintendent will encounter.
According to Grogan and Brunner (2005), the traditional route of superintendents was an
instructor, manager to leaders, gaining experience, and professional growth in each position.
Their research found 48.5% of superintendents went from a teacher, assistant principal, principal,
central office administrator, and superintendent in school districts greater than 25,000 students.
Districts fewer than 25,000 students had superintendents that went from a teacher, assistant
principal, principal, to superintendent. While the work of a superintendent differs from that of a
classroom teacher or principal, there are commonalities. Such as managing large staff,
understanding educational intricacies, and developing their skills in working with parents and
community groups. They also found that superintendents in very large urban and very small
rural districts had the shortest tenure at one to three years. Understanding the superintendent
characteristics and issues they face may be important when identifying promising areas for
change on professional preparation and development approaches.
A 21st-century superintendent requires leadership grounded in democratic values and
processes (Björk & Gurley, 2005). A superintendent’s acuity about politics of education, school
board relations, cognizance of human political behavior both at the macro and micro levels of
educational politics in government and organization, defines what democratic leader is in public
education. To further understand what encompasses macro and micro educational politics, Björk
and Gurley (2005) described macro politics as the study of power, authority, and influence on
scarce resources. Macropolitics are the external forces on the environment at every level of
government: federal, state, and local. It involves the interactions, relationships, and political
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 27
navigation of interest groups. Examples of interest groups would be Department of Education,
the American Association of School Administration, and political and religious groups at the
federal level. State Boards of Education, state school officers, and professional associations at
the state level. In summary, it includes items such as standards, accountability models, school
finance, and the public at large (Björk & Gurley, 2005).
Micropolitics is described as the use of formal and informal power to influence or protect
the organization (Björk & Gurley, 2005). The formal power refers to issues of power and
organization structure. They involve the internal actions of individuals within a central office or
school site that are attempting to influence decisions. Culture and climate relations shape
informal micropolitics. Micropolitics are deemed critical as they help develop the
characterization of the formal organization.
Superintendent Preparation
Adequately prepared superintendents are an essential component of school reform. As of
2010, there were 600 institutions offering courses, degrees, or licensure programs. However, not
all of them have superintendent programs (Kowalski et al., 2011a). The American School
Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study (Kowalski et al., 2011a) surveyed over 1,800
superintendents between 2009-2010, found that 85% of surveyed superintendents completed a
university program to prepare them for superintendencies. The percentage of respondents that
earned a doctoral degree was 45.3%. The survey also revealed four academic areas rated the
highest level of importance to superintendents’ preparation: school law, school finance, school
public relations, and human resource management. Respondents rated that being mentored by
other superintendents was the most influential to their becoming superintendents followed by
school board members and college professors.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 28
According to Kowalski et al. (2011a), current literature review of university academic
programs found (a) a discrepancy in theory and practice, (b) low admission and completion rates,
and (c) the propensity of treating superintendent preparation as an extension of principal
preparation courses. Licensing criteria for most other professions have been standardized and
uniform yet educational licensing is much more political than it is professional (Kowalski,
Young, & McCord, 2011b). Marzano and Waters (2009) determined school leadership does
indeed impact student achievement,
California school administrators adhere to the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (CPSEL; Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014). These standards
have been in place since 2001. After a compilation of research studies and professional
literature, the CPSEL was recently updated and approved by the California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing in 2014 to reflect 21st-century leadership. “The CPSEL were adapted
from the national Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) . . . to fit the
California context and emerging accountability expectations” (Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2014, p. 1). These standards are organized into six broad categories along with
elements that highlight three to four focus areas within each standard as they clarify the intent of
the standard and help coordinate leader actions. Example indicators further narrow the criteria as
they delineate leader action. The six standards are:
o Develop and Implementation of a Shared Vision
o Instructional Leadership
o Management and Learning Environment
o Family and Community Engagement
o Ethics and Integrity
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 29
o External Context and Policy (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014, p. 3)
Leadership Frames
The premise of this research is how superintendents use Bolman and Deal’s (2013) four
leadership frames in their decision-making process. Bolman and Deal (2013) identified the
following four types of frames: Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic. Bolman
and Deal (2014) defined a frame as a set of beliefs or assumptions one carries to help navigate
themselves through the world. They believe frames are essential as human affairs do not come
with “navigation” systems to guide us. Having a frame does not directly result in good decision
making but rather Bolman and Deal (2014) argued that it takes time, practice, and feedback to
develop a level of expertise in utilizing the right frame or frames. Framing requires matching
mental maps to various situations). In leadership roles, there is often a buzz of voices pulling
you in many directions whether they be external or internal forces. Frames can outline for the
leader what is essential and what can be ignored. Bolman and Deal (2013, 2014) posited that
leaders who have the skill to engage in multi-frame thinking could provide more explicit
decision making that will match viable solutions to problems.
In Reframing Organizations written by Bolman and Deal (2013), they identified the
following characteristics for each of the frames. Structural frame or leadership is defined as a
leader who can diagnose the organization’s structural gaps and suggest manners in which to fix
them. They insist on clear goals and focus on detail and implementation. Structural leaders see
a real value in data and analysis along with the satisfaction of holding people accountable for the
results (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Evidence of how a superintendent worked within the structural
frame was through the implementation of the LCFF, LCAP, and common core standards, as
resources and clear goals needed to be identified and allocated.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 30
In the human resource frame, leaders view people as a great resource to the organization;
therefore, relationships are valued (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Human resource leaders empower
others through their philosophy and practices. They thrive under the strength of people’s talent
and creativity with empowerment and diversity (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Political leaders are
advocates and negotiators in democratic-political arenas such as realism and pragmatism
(Bolman & Deal, 2013). Leaders in the political frame utilize their time, network, and build a
power base. Political leaders make connections to key stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
They tend to persuade first, negotiate second, and coerce only if necessary (Bolman & Deal,
2013). A leader should encompass political skills and savviness to bring about organizational
change. The final leadership frame, symbolic, characterizes itself as leading by example and
using symbols or rituals to unite the organization. Symbolic leadership superintendents are in
their roles because they want to make a difference.
Leadership Theory
Peter G. Northouse (2016) described “Leadership is a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). Since leadership is a
process, current leadership research believes that leadership is not an inherent trait but preferably
one that can be learned and applied by anyone (Northouse, 2016). Although leadership is a
complex process and there are a variety of leadership approaches, the leadership style that best
encompasses the responsibilities of a superintendent and Bolman and Deal’s (2013) four frames
is that of a transformational leader. Northouse (2016) described a transformational leader as one
that interests themselves in improving performance and developing followers (Northouse, 2016).
Incorporating a strong set of values, transformational leaders can motivate others to support the
greater good rather than individual interests (Kuhnert, 1994 as cited in Northouse, 2016).
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 31
Research has affirmed how the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent have
evolved from an: (1) instructional leader; (2) manager; (3) democratic-political; (4) applied
social scientist; and (5) an effective communicator based on various historical, educational
reform periods (Björk, Kowalski & Browne-Ferrigno, 2014; Kowalski, 2005a). To meet the
accountability targets at the federal, state, and local levels, each era called for greater
superintendent responsibility. By combining the tenants of a transformational leader and
utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2013) leadership frames as part of their decision-making process to
address organizational issues, the research indicated a recipe for strong 21st-century leadership.
School Reform and the Impact on Superintendents
both Nationally and in California

Educational scholars agree there have been three substantial education reform efforts
over the last 30 years (Björk, Kowalski, & Young, 2005; Firestone, Furhman, & Kirst, 1990).
Arguably, the first wave school reform (1983-1986) came after the book A Nation at Risk, Action
for Excellence was published (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). Previous attempts
for national school reform in the 1960s with the Russian launch of Sputnik into space or the civil
rights movement of the 1960s that called for educational equality are considered to be precursors
to school reform. The evidence suggested school reform was a rather complicated process for
implementation despite the pressure to become innovative since schools could not build and
implement an organizational structure for change (Fullan, 2000; Hochschild & Scovronick,
2003).
This first wave of large scale education reform efforts called for greater accountability by
increasing students standardized test scores, increased high school graduation rates, and
improving teacher licensure requirements (Björk, Kowalski, & Browne-Ferrigno, 2014). These
reform initiatives had lasting effects as the use of student test scores became the standard in high
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 32
stakes accountability as a way to measure the quality of public education. The expanded
bureaucracies at the state and district level also increased the demands set on educators,
administrators, and superintendents (Björk, 1996).
The second wave of educational reform occurred during 1986-1989 and included:
(a) a standards-based assessment holding schools accountable for student test scores;
(b) an emphasis on higher order thinking, technology, problem-solving, and cooperative
learning;
(c) recognizing the demographic trends particularly children in poverty;
(d) radical calls to change the teaching and learning process to ensure all children would
learn;
(e) identification of failed legislative mandates that only perpetuated low academic
expectation, stifled creativity, and increased student failure rates; and
(f) advocacy to decentralize decision making and instituted school-based management
councils to increase teacher participation, to build a sense of ownership, and improve
teacher professionalism (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014, p. 449; see also
Björk, 1996).
Reformers abandoned the notion of blaming teachers for the condition of education and
instead tried to convince them they were essential to the reform process (Björk, Browne-
Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). The third wave of educational reform took place between 1989-
2003. This wave criticized previous reports that identified the solutions to be within the
organization and not on student learning and well-being (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski,
2014). Released reports asserted that educational reform had to focus on student learning rather
than organizational management, teachers, or school administrators. The second finding in
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 33
research reports indicated the importance of supporting parents was key to building students’
capacity to learn and advocated for schools to become service hubs for a variety of services
(Murphy, 1990; Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). Michael Fullan (1993) illustrated
that reports and federal legislation embodied the findings. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB, 2002) is an example of one of the reform efforts, however, despite federal policymakers
and the media’s attempt to sell these initiatives as astute and bold, the reality was these federal
laws reiterated reforms from the previous two reform eras rather than incorporating recent
research-based findings (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). NCLB received
bipartisan support from the House of Representatives and the Senate, however conservative and
progressive politicians viewed funding differently (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014).
Conservatives in Congress called for modest funding but a reallocation of state and district
resources. Whereas, progressives in Congress and district superintendents viewed NCLB as
severely unfunded mandates. They criticized Congress for not addressing the greater societal
issue of students in poverty and all the issues associated with it. Rather, school districts were
responsible for ensuring all students perform at a high academic level despite students’
disadvantages (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014).
Publications from various research groups suggested that we may be in a fourth reform
wave (2003-present) citing American students purported poor performance on national and
international assessments (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski, 2014). These failed student
results prompted the federal government to assure a consistent set of core curriculum standards
in all states and changed instructional strategies such as those outlined in Partnership for 21st
Century Skills (National Education Association, n.d.). Björk, Brown-Ferrigno, and Kowalski
(2014) and Diane Ravitch (2013) posited that reform begins with rethinking the centralized
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 34
control of public education and the purpose of it in a democratic society. As the federal
government attempts to centralize education through NCLB mandates and the use of Race to the
Top grants to leverage reform adoptions, it may have a significant impact on the future
expectations for superintendents in the United States (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Kowalski,
2014).
21st Century Educational Reforms
NCLB Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) increased the role of the federal government in
education by holding schools accountable for student outcomes through student test scores.
Districts had to ensure all students were deemed proficient by 2014. Schools faced sanctions for
not decreasing the achievement gaps among English learners, students in poverty, students with
disabilities, African-American, and Hispanic populations (CDE, 2017b). Paul Houston (2001),
executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, said that district
leadership under NCLB was particularly challenging to meet due to trends in education such as a
growing diversity, deregulation via school vouchers and charter schools, increased accountability
without additional authority, and a decentralization of power.
A superintendent’s instructional, political, and managerial role in implementing NCLB
(2002) reform efforts changed. NCLB dawned greater specific accountability for local districts
and states yet diminished a superintendent’s authority (Lashway, 2002). Under NCLB, parental
choice was increased and opened the door to more school choice for schools that failed to
demonstrate yearly progress. Districts that were required to implement corrective actions for
failing to meet accountability demands had to ensure these actions were deemed “scientifically
based research,” which added to their decision-making process as well as limiting viable options
available to districts (Lashway, 2002).
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 35
NCLB (2002) increased the superintendent’s instructional leader role. Traditionally, the
instructional leader role of a superintendent had been in a more symbolic, almost abstract
manner, by setting an overall district tone and support classroom instruction (Lashway, 2002).
NCLB compelled superintendents to be immersed in instructional strategies, instructional
coaching, and conducting student data analysis as part of decision making (Lashway, 2002). Not
necessarily in the daily instructional planning but just enough to hold principals and teachers
accountable for their instructional practices (Lashway, 2002).
Julie Marsh (2000) wrote that school districts are a direct link for the state, community,
and schools, and is a “crucial agent” in organizing human, social, and physical capital. She also
found that successful districts were able to carry out their vision and accomplish academic gains
when the leadership engaged with staff members about instruction and empowered them to take
risks (Marsh, 2000). When leaders concentrated on professional development around classroom
instruction and basing principal evaluations on true improvements, superintendents can indeed
create learning communities (Marsh, 2000). Therefore, aligning the right resources where
needed rather than micromanaging classrooms provided more significant results (Marsh, 2000).
ESSA (U. S. Department of Education, n.d.) was signed by President Obama in 2015 and
reauthorized the ESEA law. ESSA emphasized students be taught with high rigor to become
global citizens as they become prepared for college and careers. It gives states and local districts
greater control over what types of assessments will be used for accountability purposes and
increases the commitment to provide an equitable quality education for the most
underrepresented groups in public education. Unlike NCLB (2002), schools and districts will
not be negatively punished for not meeting educational targets but instead will receive additional
supports to ensure success (U. S. Department of Education, n.d.). NCLB outlined specifically
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 36
what the ramifications were for school leaders who found themselves in persistently low
performing schools, which was an eventual removal of the school leaders. Under ESSA, the
School Improvement Grant is now referred to as School Improvement Funds, gives districts
greater flexibility in adopting leadership improvement initiatives (Herman et al., 2017). As the
pipeline to superintendency begins at the school leadership level, this can be an essential
component to preparing future superintendents.
There are remnants in ESSA (2015) from NCLB (2002), such as retaining national testing
schedules as they are a requirement for student achievement. Evidence suggests test-based
accountability did have a “modest positive effect on student performance” (Jacob, 2017, p. 474).
The main difference between the two reforms is ESSA (U. S. Department of Education, n.d.)
“shrinks” the federal footprint in education conceding regulatory power and accountability to
states and local districts (Jacob, 2017). Rather than requiring all schools to reach performance
targets, ESSA (U. S. Department of Education, n.d.) will need states to focus on persistently low
performing schools and allow flexibility in implementing the most appropriately deemed
intervention (Jacob, 2017).
The State of California designed a new accountability system that combines local control
planning, school finance, and common core standards. “The California School Dashboard . . . is
an online tool designed to help communities across the state access . . . K-12 schools and districts
[information]” (CDE, 2017a). Included in the dashboard, is a combination of state and local
indicators. The state indicators include: “[a] high school graduation rate; [b] academic
performance; [c] suspension rate; [d] English learner progress; [e] preparation for college/career;
and [f] chronic absenteeism” (CDE, 2017a, State Indicators, para. 2). These results will be
further desegregated by racial groups, low income, homeless, foster youth, and students with
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 37
disabilities. The local indicators are: “[a] basic conditions [that include] teacher qualifications,
safe and clean buildings, and student textbooks; [b] implementation of academic standards;
[c] school climate surveys [including] student safety, connection to the school; and [d] parent
involvement and engagement” (CDE, 2017a, Local Indicators, para. 2). The California School
Dashboard will include results from parent surveys on student safety and school connectedness.
As the CEO of a school district, the superintendent plays a crucial part in leading efforts that
involve more parents and the community through the Family Engagement Framework (CDE,
2014).
The implications of the new educational reform efforts have on a superintendent lies in
the belief that the superintendent does have a strong connection to student achievement (Waters
& Marzano, 2007). The findings of a meta-analysis conducted by Waters and Marzano (2007)
about superintendent leadership with over 4,000 participants over the last 35 years, summarize
five findings that had a statistical significance with average student academic achievement:
(a) the goal-setting process; (b) non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction; (c) board
alignment with and support of district goals; (d) monitor progress on goals for achievement and
teaching; and (e) use of resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction.
California superintendents are tasked with leading the implementation of the Local
Control Accountability Plan, LCAP. They outline the manner in which student academic
achievement will be met, and its direct connection to the LCFF along with the transparency of
the California Online Dashboard, 21st-century school leaders, will need to find a way of leading
through shared power and engage all members in the organization (Houston, 2001). It will
require superintendents to focus on the qualities of learning and advocate for learners. Equally
important is the preparation of superintendents to lead in the 21st century which means nurturing
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 38
and mentoring leaders who see collaboration as a necessity along with becoming a reflective
practitioner. Houston (2001) further stressed the need of leadership preparation programs to
concentrate on problem analysis.
Superintendent Relationships with
School Boards of Education and Teachers
School Board Relationships
Superintendents serve districts that have numerous constituencies with genuine interests
in the school system, and as such, they influence the effectiveness of the district’s strategy such
as unions, school boards, and community members (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
Indeed, managing these relationships as they influence the superintendent’s vision can be a
challenge (p. 67). One of the top challenges superintendents face is building trust with their
constituency groups or stakeholders. Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998) defined trust
as the psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive
expectations of the intentions or behaviors of another. The idea of being vulnerable and trusting
can build strong relationships when the organization is a human enterprise (Houston, 2001;
Rousseau et al., 1998).
It comes to no surprise that one of the most important relationships a superintendent has
is with their school board of education. These relationships are built on trust and
communication. Understanding this complex relationship is what Houston and Eadie (2002) said
about being a savvy board superintendent should not be an option but rather a superintendent’s
highest priority, in fact, an ethical obligation. A school board represents the community and is
elected by voters in their district. According to the National School Board Association (n.d.), the
role of the local school boards of education is to work with their communities on improving
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 39
student achievement compliant with state and federal laws. The board’s primary responsibilities
are:
•
Setting direction
•
Establishing an effective and efficient structure
•
Providing support
•
Ensuring accountability
•
Providing community leadership as advocates for children, the school district and public
schools (para. 2)
In a survey conducted by the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS, 2014) found that
92% of superintendents were accountable to their school boards while only 4% were accountable
to the mayor and the remaining 4% to another entity (CGCS, 2014). Leaders are required to
have interpersonal skills to work successfully with organizations whose primary purpose is to
improve the lives of children. Doug Eadie’s (2003) book Eight Keys to an Extraordinary Board-
Superintendent Partnership stated that building and maintaining an exceptional partnership with
the school board deserves the superintendent’s time and attention. Eadie (2003) outlined eight
keys that through his research and work with school boards nationally, have developed a
promising partnership between superintendents and school boards. Each board member may
come with ideas on how to improve public education. Therefore, a leader needs to be able to
cultivate and unify efforts to avoid divisions (Childress et al., 2006; Eadie, 2003). The eight
keys Eadie identified are: (NOTE: These Keys are also the chapter titles.)
(1) Put partnership at the top of your list: The superintendent helps build capacity among the
board in the board’s role, their work, and the process and structure that will carry
governing policy.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 40
(2) Specialize in the governing business: This refers to engaging members in capacity
building by making the board feels accomplished in their governing work. In other
words, the superintendent is tasked with providing professional development
opportunities on governance topics as a way to build capacity among the board members
(Eadie, 2003).
(3) Empower your board: Take advantage of involving the board members creatively and
proactively.
(4) Turn board members into owners: Foster feelings of ownership among board members.
(5) Spice up the governing stew: Maintain board governing work by showing them the fruits
of their labor such as evidence of student achievement and business partnerships.
(6) Get your senior administrators on board: Utilize your executives to execute your
philosophy and vision through authentic board relationships
(7) Keep expectations in synch: Allow the school board to evaluate annually as well as
periodically throughout the year to adjust performance targets.
(8) Stay on the high growth path: Stay on target even though your board personalities will
change.
Teacher Relationships
As previously stated, the responsibilities of a superintendent have historically included
the role of teacher-scholar or instructional leader. Moreover, the Council of Great City Schools
indicated that in 2014, 92% of the nation’s superintendents came from the K-12 teacher pipeline
(CGCS, 2014). In looking at the current public education reform efforts coupled with the role
and responsibilities of a superintendent, one cannot deny the effects this will have on classroom
teachers. Improved student outcomes do not happen by chance but are indeed the collective
work of everyone involved in the organization (Elmore, 2005).
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 41
Summary
The complexity of a superintendent’s role and responsibility has run the gamut from
instructional leaders to a political figure. Their role continues to evolve through public education
reform efforts that at times may not be what is best for America’s students (Houston, 2001). As
“stewards” of public education, superintendents will need to create schools where students want
to attend which means increasing student engagement and innovation (Fusarelli & Fusarelli,
2005). Superintendents of the21st-century will undoubtedly need to develop a set of skills
necessary to help the decision-making process in leading districts. Reframing situations as
presented by Bolman and Deal (2013) have the potential to assist superintendents in examining
situations that may arise with instructional, managerial, or political arenas (Elmore, 2005).
While university superintendent preparation programs continue to develop and evolve, there are
many people with the potential to lead school districts. However, they may believe such a role is
out of their reach. By capturing a superintendents’ mindset when creating decision-making
frameworks, and explicitly identifying their reflective practices, it can assist new and incoming
superintendents to avoid disastrous situations that may lead many to abandon the leadership
position altogether.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 42
Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction
In a complex organization such as a public education institution, there are many factors
the district superintendent must take into consideration before making a decision. Decisions are
made to address some issue or dilemma that requires an agreement or resolution within the
organization. According to Bolman and Deal (2013, 2014), leaders should approach these
situations through appropriate leadership frames or mindsets. When faced with a dilemma
requiring a decision, these leadership frames can assist the leader in generating plausible
solutions (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Therefore, the researcher attempted to identify how urban
school district superintendents utilize Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership in their
decision-making process. Chapter Three includes a review of the purpose and design of the
study, the identification of the participants, the manner in which data was collected, and the
instrumentation used to analyze the data.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify how the leadership frames from Bolman and
Deal (2013) guide the decision-making process of California urban school superintendents. The
following research questions were developed to help address the research topic.
1. Of the four frames established by Bolman and Deal, which frames do superintendents
believe are the most critical in the decision-making process?
2. How does experience as a superintendent change the decision-making process?
3. How do superintendents evaluate the success or failure of decision making while using
Bolman and Deal’s leadership frames?
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 43
4. When making decisions with the governing board, what factors do superintendents take
into consideration when recommending decisions to the governing board?
Research Design
This study followed the six-step research process as presented by Creswell (2014). They
are: identification of the research problem, review of the literature, statement of the purpose for
research, data collecting, data analysis and interpretation, and reporting and data evaluation. A
mixed-method approach was used to understand the experiences of school superintendents as
they maneuver through their leadership roles involving making decisions by using a combination
of surveys and interviews (Creswell, 2014). A mixed-method approach incorporates data from
quantitative and qualitative research. This combination of data both open-ended and closed-
ended data provided a comprehensive overview that helped address the research questions
(Creswell, 2014). The study specifically used the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method model.
Therefore, the first phase of the study involved the quantitative data collection and analysis
followed with purposeful qualitative data collection and analysis. Once both sets of data were
compared, the interpretation of the data followed (Creswell, 2014). The quantitative research
presented numerical data that identified trends in the study (Creswell, 2014). The qualitative
research to the study attempted to understand how people make meaning of their environment,
define the process, and describe how those involved interpret their experiences (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Thus, the use of surveys and interviews provided a broader understanding of the
research problem.
The quantitative component of the mixed-method study consisted of a survey. The
survey was distributed to and answered by California urban superintendents. The survey
consisted of Bolman and Deal’s (2013) Leadership Orientation Self-Rating Survey that
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 44
determined what frame or frames did the superintendent gravitate more when leading: structural,
human resource, political or symbolic. This information is essential to the study as it provided
the necessary background information as to how and why urban superintendents base their
decision-making process. With the permission granted from Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal (see
Appendix D), their survey was converted into an online format using Survey Monkey so that
data could be disaggregated and scored. The surveys were compiled and analyzed to determine
similarities or patterns in urban school leadership and how that translates to success in how the
organization is structured, how the superintendent supports and empowers its employees, how
politically savvy the superintendent is when working with stakeholders, and how he or she
inspires the employees. A leaders’ capability to effectively maneuver through one or more
frames when addressing issues in their organization, indicated their awareness in considering
multiple perspectives to address a concern requiring a decision (Birnbaum et al., 1989; Bolman
& Deal, 2013). Along with the self-rating survey, demographic data about individual
superintendents and their district were asked. At the end of each survey, superintendents were
asked if they would be willing to participate in a 45-60 minute interview with the researcher.
The qualitative portion of this study involved a one-to-one interview with a California
urban superintendent. Each interview lasted between 30-45 minutes. Interviews serve a great
purpose as they are an opportunity to capture individual thoughts, best practices, and perceptions
of the superintendents. Individually, the interview responses shed light on challenges that come
with organizational structure and allocating the right resources where they are better suited.
More importantly, the interview responses provided insight into what leadership frame or frames
were used to make decisions that can impact student achievement. Explicitly, how do the current
urban school district superintendents balance the intersectionality of school reform and
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 45
constituency relationships to make decisions that will improve academic outcomes for students?
To understand the process of decision making better, surveys about leadership and decision
making along with superintendent interviews provided critical data needed. This study was
designed as a mixed-method study where quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis
converge to compare or determine the relationship followed by interpretation of the data
(Creswell, 2014).
Sample and Population
This study focused on leadership skills and the qualities of urban superintendents in the
State of California as they pertain to making decisions that affect student academic outcomes.
Superintendents had to meet the following criteria for the study:
(a) A current superintendent in a southern California urban school district.
(b) A minimum of three or more years’ experience as an urban superintendent for the
interview portion.
(c) Urban district grade level ranges from K-6, K-8, or K-12 to obtain a broad range of
qualitative and quantitative data.
A purposeful sampling of urban superintendents was used rather than a random selection.
A purposeful sampling ensured data collection met the study criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Therefore, online surveys were sent to urban superintendents in the State of California.
Instrumentation
The instruments used for the survey were ranked according to Bolman and Deal’s (2013)
Leadership Orientation Self-Rating Survey. The survey was transcribed into an online format
using Survey Monkey. The data was extrapolated through Excel for scoring to determine strong
to weak leadership frames. The survey was comprised of six leadership questions that Bolman
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 46
and Deal created to identify what leadership orientation leaders gravitate toward. In addition to
the Leadership Orientation Survey questions, the survey also requested demographic data about
each superintendent’s years of experience and district size.
The qualitative portion of the study consisted of a minimum of six interviews. Interviews
gave the researcher a greater insight into a person’s perspective regarding the research topic
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview structure consisted of semi-structured questions.
Semi-structured questions provided greater flexibility in both questioning and responses, which
allowed the researcher to explore further topics that are guided by the respondents’ answers
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). An interview guide helped guide the types of questions the
researcher needed to address the research questions. The interview guide was given to every
subject before the interview, so that time to process each guiding question resulted in a well
thought out response.
Open-ended questions were implemented based on the types of responses given by the
superintendents. Open-ended questions generated descriptive data that helped gain a better
understanding of the decision-making practices superintendents undergo. Before every
interview, the subjects were informed of the purpose of the study and advised that any question
that felt uncomfortable to answer, they would not be required to answer. Every interview was
recorded and transcribed to capture the information truly. All recordings were kept confidential
through appropriate storage. Any feedback and revisions regarding the interview questions were
done based on the input of the field-test participants. Letters to Participate, survey questions, and
interview questions for the superintendents can be found in Appendices.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 47
Data Collection
Superintendents who met the study criteria were sent a letter via electronic email or
mailed a request to participate letter for the surveys to their central office. Each letter described
the intent and purpose of the study. Each participant was invited to also participate in a 30-45-
minute interview. The contents for data collection entailed:
1) A Request to Participate Letter (Appendix A)
2) Survey questions (Appendix B)
3) Interview Guide (Appendix C)
4) Data
Analysis
The researcher began analysis using a two-phase comparison starting with the
quantitative portion first before moving on to the qualitative. Analysis started with data received
from online surveys that identified a ranking of the four leadership frames from Bolman and
Deal (2013, 2014). The results of the survey were converted into an Excel file. The responses
were calculated to identify the dominant leadership frames and subsequent frames on the scoring
guide provided by Bolman and Deal. This data indicated which frames or frames were dominant
for the leader. The identification of the self-rated dominant frame provided a starting point for
the qualitative part. The superintendent’s personal and professional demographic data was not
necessarily pertinent to the research study. The researcher believed that demographic data such
as years in education, identifying the highest level of education, and gender, may have an impact
on the decision-making process. For that reason, it was included.
Following the quantitative analysis, the researcher began analysis on the transcribed
interviews. Using the constant-comparative method the researcher started analyzing data in the
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 48
following steps: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Lichtman, 2013). Open coding
identifies broad concepts about the current data that can help answer the research questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Open coding continued throughout the six interviews with
California urban school district superintendents. The intent with open coding was to identify
data points pertinent to the research questions that emerged through the surveys and interview
responses.
Once the researcher felt open coding was exhausted, the researcher moved to the second
phase of data analysis. It consisted of a process called axial coding which gathers all of the open
codes the researcher extrapolated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During this process, the researcher
was able to refine the broad data categories further. The researcher focused on the relationship
between the a priori codes with the emergent codes centered on the strategies and practices as
they pertain to their identified leadership frame when dealing with making a decision. Finally,
selective coding allowed the researcher to gather main themes and develop assertions that helped
answer the four research questions.
Once both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed and interpreted, the researcher
utilized the qualitative data analysis and interpretation to follow up with the responses given
originally in the quantitative survey or first phase (Creswell, 2014). The qualitative data along
with the quantitative results gave depth. For example, how did the qualitative responses reflect
on the quantitative responses? As well as, are superintendents likely to make decisions within
one, two, three, or four frames?
To ensure credibility and trustworthiness, internal and external validity approaches were
considered. The comparison of quantitative and qualitative data that included interviews and
survey results were believable and plausible findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Constant
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 49
comparison of responses among California urban school district superintendents helped ensure
validity in the findings as rich notes transcribed remained intact and accurate (Maxwell, 2013).
Ethical Considerations
The researcher employed ethical considerations during the study design, data collection,
and data analysis. The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
guidelines were diligently followed. All participants, whether surveyed or interviewed,
consented to their participation in the study. The researcher clearly outlined the intent and
purpose of the study. As such, letters for participation were distributed to all interviewees.
The researcher made all attempts to remain objective to the study with the understanding
that an eagerness to understand the work of urban superintendents was a driving force to the
study. As the researcher researched California urban school superintendents, the potential for
ethical issues was a possibility. The researcher had to be mindful of the fact that during the
interviews, the interviewees may not have been as forthcoming with their practices as a way to
not pass judgment. For this reason, the constant comparison of data for reliability became very
important.
Summary
The former executive director of American Association of School Administrators, Paul
Houston (2001), stated that an effective 21st-century superintendent must let go of a “black and
white” mindset when navigating through dilemmas in the organization. Such a myopic mindset
is what Bolman and Deal (2013, 2014) cautioned any leader against doing. Instead, leaders
should practice multi-frame thinking as a way to approach the decision-making process (Bolman
& Deal, 2013) because doing so brings greater solutions to dilemmas. There is no denying the
role of a school superintendent is riddled with external pressures and internal affairs (Houston,
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 50
2001) yet they are held responsible for improving the lives of every child they serve. Therefore,
this study has the opportunity in identifying promising practices in decision making for any
current or future urban school superintendent that can positively improve the organization which
can also improve the lives of children. This study also has the potential in assisting higher
education institutions in designing practical course work for graduate students seeking leadership
roles.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 51
Chapter Four: Research Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to better understand the decision-making process of
California urban school superintendents through the lens of the four leadership frames identified
by Bolman and Deal (2013). The secondary purpose was to examine what leadership frames do
California urban superintendents apply to assist in the decision-making process. The tertiary
purpose was to examine a leaders’ ability to apply multi-frame approaches to their decision
making.
The first part of this chapter provides a brief description of the data collection in terms of
respondents and interviewees. The second part of this chapter is a descriptive analysis of the
following four research questions:
1. Of the four frames established by Bolman and Deal, which frames do superintendents
believe are the most critical in the decision-making process?
2. How does experience as a superintendent change the decision-making process?
3. How do superintendents evaluate the success or failure of decision-making while using
Bolman and Deal leadership frames?
4. When making decisions with the governing board, what factors do superintendents take
into consideration when recommending decisions to the governing board?
The final section of this chapter concludes with a discussion on the findings, and also includes
findings that materialized as a result of the analysis.
Organization of the Data Analysis
The analysis is presented in six sections. The first part of the data analysis provides a
description of how the data was coded. The second section provides a description of the online
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 52
survey respondents and the interviewed participants. The data collected from the online survey
was a duplicate of Bolman and Deal’s (2013) Leadership Self Rating Scale, granted with
permission along with demographic data about each respondent and their school district.
Sections two through five provide an analysis of each of the four questions.
Coding of Data
In order to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data to answer the research
questions, the researcher used a process to determine patterns, themes, and interpret what the
participants identified in the survey as well as the answered interview questions. The researcher
followed qualitative data analysis as stated in Maxwell (2013) beginning with listening to the
interview and rereading the interview transcripts. Categories were developed based on the
researcher’s memos and interview transcripts. The researcher looked for reoccurring themes in
the data aligned with the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) described the process of assigning codes to the data as open coding. Following the open
coding process, the researcher gathered the open codes to develop axial coding (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). After all the data was analyzed and coded, the findings were directly tied to the
research questions.
Descriptive Characteristics
Survey Participants
An email with an electronic survey link was sent to 43 current California urban public-
school superintendents. Upon opening the email, respondents were provided an explanation of
the study along with the survey link. Surveymonkey
®
hosted the link to the leadership survey.
The respondents completed the survey anonymously unless the respondent submitted contact
information in the last question. Providing an anonymous survey ensured a better participation
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 53
rate as judgments about their leadership approaches. The criteria to participate in the survey was
a current California urban public school superintendent in any grade range between kindergarten
and 12th grade. Superintendents must have student populations ranging from 2,000 to over
50,000 students and a minimum of three years of superintendent service was required for the
quantitative portion of the data. Twenty out of the 43 surveys were answered using the online
survey resulting in a 46.5% response rate.
Once the link was opened, respondents were asked a total of 11 questions. Questions one
through six were directly from Bolman and Deal’s (2013) Leadership Self Rating Scale.
Questions seven through 10 were demographic questions inquiring about the superintendent’s
gender, years as a superintendent, current Average Daily Attendance (ADA), and their highest
degree earned. Question 11 asked participants if they would be interested in an interview as part
of the qualitative data collection. Of the 20 superintendents that responded to the electronic
survey, more than half were women, 11 of the 20 (55%) while 9 of the 20 (45%) were male as
seen in Table 2. This percentage varies significantly from the results of the 2010 Decennial
study on American School Superintendents (Kowalski et al., 2011a) where 24.1% of
superintendents were female while 75.9% were male.
The survey results indicated 70% of the participants have six or more years with
superintendent experience. Additionally, 40% of the participants had nine or more years as a
superintendent (see Table 3).
Table 4 demonstrates the student enrollment distribution of the current superintendent
assignment. The survey results show that 40% of the surveyed participants work in districts with
an ADA of 10,000-20,999 students and only 10% of the participants work in school districts with
either student populations under 6,000 or above 50,000 students.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 54
The surveyed results demonstrated 70% of the participants earned a doctoral degree while
30% have a Master’s degree (see Table 5). This is a great contrast to the 2010 Decennial study
on American School Superintendents (Kowalski et al., 2011a) which indicated only 45.3% of
superintendents earned a doctorate, Ed.D or Ph.D. in any field. The same percentage was also
reported in 2000. This may indicate the growing trend among people in education obtaining
doctorate degrees.
Interviewed Participants
Interviewed participants first completed the online survey. The final question on the
survey requested contact information to participate in one-to-one interviews voluntarily. The
researcher selected five superintendents as they met the qualitative data criteria. The interview
criteria were: a current California urban superintendent and a minimum of three years as a
superintendent in California. Of the five interview participants, one was female, and four were
male (see Table 6).
The interviewed participants currently work in different grade spans within the
kindergarten through the 12th-grade public school system (see Table 7). The interviews were
held in their offices. The researcher conducted a semi-structured interview with the potential for
additional questions based on the participants’ responses. The 11-question interview guide was
forwarded to each superintendent before the interview time. The researcher was given
permission to record each interview which was then transcribed for data analysis. The five
interviewed superintendents have been referred to as Superintendents A-E. The researcher
ensured each superintendent confidentiality was safeguarded.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 55
Research Question 1
• Of the four frames established by Bolman and Deal, which frames do superintendents
believe are the most critical in the decision-making process?
Two leadership frames were rated high among surveyed responses. A high rating
indicated the leadership frame best described the superintendents’ leadership approach. The first
frame was human resource followed by symbolic. There was a discrepancy among the highest
rated frame(s) among the interviewed superintendents, who identified structural and symbolic
frames high. Some of the traits that emerged as common themes remained: student-centered and
leadership evolution.
Findings: Surveyed Participants
The first part of this mixed-method study required superintendents to rate their leadership
orientations using Bolman and Deal’s (2013) Leadership Self-Rating Scale. The self-rating scale
captures each respondents’ self-perceptions regarding the four leadership frames: (a) structural,
(b) human resource, (c) political, and (d) symbolic. Each of the frames has its distinct leadership
quality descriptions. Through a series of statements, respondents had to force rank order the
descriptors on a scale of one to four. A 4 “best describes you,” 3 “next best,” 2 “somewhat like
you,” and a 1 “least like you.” Each frame is designed as a mental model a leader can use to
approach their leadership. The identified leadership frame information was used to compare the
actual leadership frame, or frames, superintendents rely on to assist in their decision-making
process. Table 8 identifies the leadership traits used to describe each of the leadership frames.
Once participants completed Bolman and Deal’s (2013) Leadership Self-Rating Scale,
the researcher followed the author’s directions on how to calculate the results. The calculated
scores provided a rough indication of the leadership frame orientations. The highest score was
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 56
utilized to identify the strongest frame while the lowest score was used to identify the weakest
frame. Two surveyed participants had a tie among the highest frame orientation. Consequently,
one of the two tied participants also had a tie in the weak leadership frame. Table 9 provides the
individual results for each of the surveyed participants. Bolman and Deal acknowledged that
despite the self-rating scale having high reliability, self-rating scales tend to not be highly valid
due to its forced ranking limitations. However, the results can stimulate thinking and learning as
opposed to an accurate portrayal of a leader’s behavior (Bolman, 2015).
Table 10 further divides the results between the highest rated leadership frame “best
describes me.” Participants, number 5 and 14, had a tie for the highest rated leadership frame.
Thus the percentages will equal more than 100. The survey results illustrated 55% of the
participants felt they led with a human resource approach. This leadership frame indicates
superintendents led districts with strong importance of interpersonal relationships. An example
of such interpersonal skills would entail coaching and motivating the base through a sense of
teamwork. Human Resource leaders are viewed as great facilitators and participative managers
who empower others (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
The Symbolic leadership frame was the second highest percent rated frame at 30%.
Superintendents, who rated themselves high within this frame, led districts through a strong
connection between vision and inspiration. That is, leaders generate great hope and excitement
among the constituents as a means to commit to the organization’s mission. Such a leader relies
on personal charisma to mobilize people (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Fifteen percent of the surveyed participants identified more closely with the structural
leadership frame. Superintendents who identify their leadership orientation in this frame have a
strong sense of well-developed systems. Such leaders can identify, design and implement
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 57
structures and systems that will move the organization toward their goals. This is achieved by
having a strong emphasis on facts and data (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The demeanor of this leader
is to think clearly to make the right decision which is accomplished by having good analytic
skills (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Finally, only 10% of the participants deemed the political frame as a strength. A
superintendent who leads with this frame leads with the ability to mobilize the resources required
to achieve the district’s goals and objectives. This is accomplished by creating networks and
coalitions with stakeholders who hold power or resources needed. Such a leader demonstrates
strong advocacy and negotiating skills (Bolman & Deal, 2013).
Equally important to the study is determining what leadership frames superintendents
found to be the lowest rated frame. These ratings demonstrated a “least like you” response in the
self-rating scale. According to the survey results, 40% of the participants rated the Political
frame least like them, followed closely by the structural frame at 35%. Twenty percent of the
participants rated their interpersonal relationship, or human resource frame, least like them.
Finally, 10% of the participants determined the symbolic frame was the least like them. A
summary of the results for the lowest rated leadership frame are found in Table 11. The
percentage will exceed 100 due to a tie in participant number 14 results.
In summary, the top two leadership frames surveyed participants felt closely aligned to
their style leadership approach were the human resource and symbolic. The leadership frames
the majority of the participants felt was less aligned to their style of leadership was political and
structural frames. While it is understood that self-rating scales may not be highly valid, the
information does provide a window into the perceived leadership qualities the participants
believe themselves to be. The qualitative portion of the study will compare the results from a
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 58
practical view of their leadership frame as it pertains to decision making and how it correlates to
the results of the self-rating scale.
Findings: Interviewed Participants
There were four themes that emerged from the superintendent interviews. These themes
were centered around three leadership frames: structural, human resource, and symbolic frames.
Some of the traits that emerged as common themes were developing a structure and systems,
innovation, effective communicator, and remaining student-centered. The five interviewed
participants’ specific self-rated scale results were extracted to examine how they compared to the
surveyed participants (see Table 12). There was a correlation between the results of the self-
rating scale in 80% of the interviewed participants. Both identified the human resource frame
high. A second correlation was found in both the surveyed and interviewed participants’ low
ranking of the political frame.
The goal of the first research question was to determine which frames superintendents
believed are the most critical in the decision-making process. Research question number one
comprised of four sub-questions that attempted to capture characteristics of all four frames to
determine which one was frequently referenced. The sub-questions examined a superintendent’s
thought process when making decisions regarding the organizational structure which may
include topics such as goals, vision, and priorities and how are they communicated to both
district employees and the public. In addition, the thought process in allocating human capital to
meet district goals was also examined. To determine which frame was considered critical in the
decision-making process, the results from the self-rating scale strengths and interview responses
will be compared.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 59
The interviewed superintendents found structural and symbolic frames the most critical.
The original premise is a leader is considered effective when he or she can utilize multi-frame
thinking when making decisions rather than relying on one perspective.
Remaining student centered (symbolic). The first theme that emerged was remaining
student centered. The symbolic frame characterizes communicating a student-centered vision as
tenant of this frame thinking. Overwhelmingly, all five interviews had this theme interwoven in
most responses. The interviewed participants believed being student centered was at the heart of
the organization’s existence. All five interviewed respondents viewed equity and access for
students more critical in their strategic plans and more important than relying solely on student
achievement data. The idea of students being at the center of decision making seemed to have a
renewed sense of urgency. Superintendent B stated,
All the decisions are really driven by what’s in the best interest of our kids, using the
framework, the strategic plan framework, the mission, the purpose, and the aspirations
that are built in it. So, it really kind of drives itself and the ideas that everyone within the
organization uses that to guide how decisions are made.
Superintendent A believed it all starts with students, and what is best for them. By
evaluating the allocation of resources to best support schools, you can meet the needs of
students. Remaining student centered is also reflected by Callahan (1966) and Kowalski et al.
(2011a) as superintendents must be both a democratic leader and social scientist role
conceptualization.
Effective communicator (symbolic). The third theme that emerged was being an
effective communicator. An effective communicator entailed communicating the district’s
vision and strategic plan to everyone who is impacted by it. This included students, staff, district
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 60
personnel, governing board, and community. Kowalski (2005c) identified the superintendent as
an effective communicator as the fifth role conceptualization in superintendents.
Communication was strongly referenced in all five interviewed participants. Bolman and Deal
(2013) characterized a symbolic leader as someone who communicates a vision and leads by
example. Articulating a vision sets the purpose for the organization’s existence. All interviewed
participants believed conveying a message that put students at the heart of all decisions set a
focused and purposeful pathway.
Additionally, strong communication skills permeate through all other frames. Evidence
of communication tools used by all superintendents was the use of social media formats, video
messaging, published newsletters, and public appearances. Superintendent A visits every
classroom four times a year so that the superintendent is regularly communicating both formally
and informally. Superintendent E gathered all key decision makers in the area from a broad
variety of sectors and groups such as higher education, industry, faith-based, nonprofit
organizations, etc. In the past seven years, his efforts to communicate with the entire community
has grown substantially. It began as a strategic plan and later morphed into a community
engagement plan. The plan outlines the supports of promised areas and showcases success.
Superintendent E believed that if “your fingerprints aren’t on this, then we haven’t done a good
job listening.” Going toward building a shared vision was the process that we followed so that
our goals were shared. Our vision was shared, our priorities were shared and created a structure,
so there was ownership shared and accountability, transparency, modeling vulnerability, and
transparency among the leadership team.
Developing structure and systems (structural). The third theme found in four out of
the five interviews was a superintendents’ need in developing useful structures and systems.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 61
Respondents reflected on the organizational restructuring each had to endure when first
becoming superintendents. In three of the responses, superintendents referenced the need to
establish a strategic plan that served as the framework with how the district will achieve its
goals. Eighty percent of interviewed superintendents indicated this was not present at the time of
hiring. Superintendent B said, “we are not organized to really produce the outcomes that were
intended.” While Superintendent A said, “How can we best serve the sites? So, if the district
office is the support mechanism for the district, how can we organize and structure to best
provide services out at the site?”
Two of the respondents referenced a complete overhaul in the manner in which the
organization is constructed. This meant changing the district’s hierarchical organizational map
to a flat organizational structure. Superintendent B felt having a top-heavy structure where
decisions came from him, passed on to associate superintendents, directors, coordinators,
principals and all the way down to the classroom, was not working. He believed that replacing
the right people for positions was not sufficient in genuinely changing the belief system as this
produced minimal results. Thus, an entire restructuring needed to occur, so that correct systems
were in place to best serve the needs of students. The need to best serve students would be the
driving force behind all decisions.
Additionally, Superintendent E felt the need to overhaul the structure and systems in the
district. Superintendent E identified the inherited structure as “largely a top-down bureaucratic
structure.” Superintendent E’s desire was to shift to become “a power with structure.”
Innovation (structural). The fourth theme that emerged within both the structural and
human resource frame was innovation. Innovation refers to the dynamic process superintendents
engaged in to bring forth change in the district. All five superintendents saw an opportunity to
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 62
improve how initiatives, policy, and decision making had previously been done. Both
superintendent B and E utilized innovation or implementation teams as part of the guiding force
in the change process. These teams were responsible for seeking input, empowering people, and
communicating a vision. Superintendent A indicated the move toward creating a guiding team to
implement change. These same ideas were gleaned from John Kotter and Dan Cohen’s (2002)
book The Heart of Change as he described eight stages to successful change. Table 13 exhibits
lists of each of Kotter’s stages and their connection to Bolman and Deal’s four frames (Bolman
& Deal, 2013).
Based on the structure of innovation or implementation teams, it is evident there is a
multi-frame approach when introducing change. Multi-frame refers to the use of three or more
frames. There is a strong sense of empowering people in the process. Superintendent E said,
“The model I had making decisions, there’s a fundamental belief that we involve people in
decisions that affect them, trying to shift from control to involvement culture.” Bolman and Deal
(2013) concluded human resource becomes an afterthought to structural change which could be a
reason why so many changes or initiatives fail. Thus, involving people from inception has the
potential to improve the intended result.
Summary
Superintendents found the symbolic and structural frames to be the most critical in the
decision-making process. Based on the responses, neither one could exist without the other as
the district’s vision of remaining student centered was the foundation of its existence. For this to
occur, structures and systems had to be in place. The structural frame was initially rated low
among surveyed and interviewed participants, yet it was deemed a strong second contender
among the interviewee responses. The symbolic frame was ranked second highest among
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 63
surveyed participants; however, only 40% of the interviewed participants rated symbolic in the
top two frames.
Research Question 2
• How does experience as a superintendent change the decision-making process?
There were two themes that emerged from the responses to this question. The first theme
was adapting to political environments while remaining student-centered. The second theme was
leadership evolution based on experience. Some of the traits that were common in the themes
were the ability to adapt and greater self-efficacy in leadership abilities. Strong evidence of the
political frame was noted. Secondary to that is the symbolic frame orientation. Leadership
evolution involves all four frames
Findings: Interview
This question examined whether a superintendent’s leadership frame changed over time
regarding decisions related to local and state accountability models. The questions specifically
investigated whether there was a difference in decision making from their first year until current.
The last two sub-questions inquired about the impact LCFF, and LCAP has had on their
decision-making process.
Adapting to Political Environments while Remaining Student Centered
Political landscapes and accountability models are realities that can impact the decision-
making process of superintendents. However, 100% of the interviewed superintendents believed
maintaining centered on students rather than accountability models or politics was the driving
force to decision making. Superintendents had to be aware of the political dynamic of the
district they were leading as school districts are susceptible to outside political influences.
Adapting to political environments and accountability models was a trait that emerged from the
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 64
interviews when examining how experience as a superintendent changed the decision-making
process from year one to current. Thus, adapting was a key trait during their first year.
Once superintendents had a better understanding of the political environment, they felt
confident in their ability to lead. This finding is echoed in Björk and Gurley’s (2005) analysis of
a superintendent’s ability to negotiate both the macro and micro-politics of the organization to
influence policy and decision making. Superintendent A shared a story in which the
superintendent needed to explain to a state assembly member of his neutrality in politics.
Superintendent A explained, “Superintendents have to adapt, but your core should always remain
the same. They should always be around what’s best for kids, and that is our job to prepare them
for the future.”
In terms of accountability, the compelling response on how LCFF and LCAP have
influenced the decision-making process is that it had minimal impact. Aside from districts
having to become transparent in expenditures related to state indicators and reporting of the
results to the public, 80% of the superintendents expressed a good start to the accountability
process, however, it has its flaws. The most significant flaw is the lack of public understanding
despite efforts made by districts to communicate the plans with the community constituency.
Superintendent A said, “The intent was good, and then the politicians got hold of it, and now it’s
an unusable document. The parents don’t know how to find the information on it because it’s
too long. So, we play by the rules.” Superintendent B stated,
As far as accountability, yes the outcomes are very important because they’re important
to the community, the parents, everybody wants to have their kids at a school that’s
performing. But more than that for me and this board is to produce healthy, thriving
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 65
individuals. Not just those that can render a certain outcome with indeed no spirit for
learning.
Leadership Evolution
The second theme that emerged was leadership evolution. While any one frame does not
explicitly characterize leadership evolution, it does have nuances in all four frames. Through
experience and success, superintendents evolved in their leadership abilities. Eighty percent, or
four out of five interviewed, indicated a greater sense of self-efficacy between the first and
current year as superintendents. It is a trait worthy of mentioning as it involves personal beliefs
in one’s capabilities and the actions necessary to achieve organizational goals, as discussed in
Rueda’s (2011) book about Albert Bandura’s work on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy influences all
four frames as evidenced by a superintendent’s ability to organizational restructuring, allocation
of human capital to maximize results, the building of a coalition among stakeholders, and
communicating a vision with the school district.
Superintendent E indicated that as a first-time superintendent, he relied on mentors for
both minor and major decisions. Through a greater sense of self-efficacy, he only weighs in with
mentors on significant topics and trusts his “gut” more on the less significant topics.
Summary
Political frame orientation was evident in this research question. Adapting to current
political landscapes while remaining student centered and evolving as a leader based on
experience were two themes that have impacted superintendents’ experience in the decision-
making process. Through leadership evolution, superintendents’ self-efficacy increased as a
result of experience and success. New accountability models such as LCFF and LCAP have
provided greater engagement among the district’s constituents. However, it is the general belief
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 66
it has not impacted the decision-making process for California urban superintendents as the
consensus is, there are more compliance documents. Whereas the district’s strategic plan or
framework is pertinent to the needs of students, it serves. The collected belief is that urban
superintendents are more focused on the district’s purpose and objectives.
Research Question 3
• How do superintendents evaluate the success or failure of decision making while using
Bolman and Deal leadership frames?
There were two themes that emerged from the responses to this question. The first theme
had an evaluation framework that included multiple measures and input. The second theme was
embracing failure. The superintendents were asked about the evaluation process whether a
decision was deemed successful or failure through the lens of the four frames. Four out of the
five superintendents, 80%, described a detailed evaluation process involving many of the frames.
One commonality found in the 80% was the notion that failure is accepted and viewed as part of
the growth process of the organization. Structural and human resource frames were prevalent in
responding to this question.
Findings: Interview
Superintendent C’s response to this question was examining numerical data such as
suspension and graduation rates as a means to measure success or failure. Therefore, if the
suspension rate was low, then discipline plans were successful. If attendance and graduation
rates were high, it indicated students were engaged in learning. Student involvement is an
indicator in the superintendent’s strategic plan. This data is closely monitored by the site
principal and communicated to Superintendent C to monitor and report to the school board, no
further response regarding the evaluation process was provided.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 67
Implementation plan with evaluation tools. In terms of structure, four of the five
superintendents directly related to the evaluation process involving various metrics. Three of the
four superintendents referenced the establishment of key performance indicators and systems to
measure the outcomes. The process is completed by a team of district leaders or site leadership
who report to the superintendent. Data collection was both quantitative and qualitative involving
both numerical data, input from various stakeholder groups directly affected by the decision such
as union leadership, teachers, and district leadership. Data collection becomes organic and
authentic as Superintendent A and B visit every classroom in the district to see firsthand the
interaction between student and school.
Depending on the initiative, the superintendent directly involves him or herself in the
evaluation process. Superintendent A sought a third party to assist in the evaluation process
regarding special education. Superintendent A said, “a constant multiple-measure check in
ensuring that we have systems in place at every level to ensure that we are supporting the school
sites.” Superintendent E greatly detailed having the board identify their priority indicators Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) and how they are built into his evaluation. The KPIs are
communicated and shared with all leaders. The KPIs become part of his subordinate’s
evaluation. Knowing and understanding the KPIs is trickled down to the teacher level. This
promotes continuity between the classroom and leadership. “Rather than being renters in the
system, this engages everyone to be owners of the system” (Superintendent B).
Superintendent D echoed the emphasis of monitoring KPIs to measure what is successful
and failed rather than relying solely on LCFF and LCAP. Superintendent D believed to have a
baseline to track your progress. You must use what makes sense for your outcomes.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 68
Embrace failure. The responses indicated both a high level of transparency in terms of
acknowledging failures as well as embracing failure. Identifying what is not working brings
other solutions. Bolman and Deal (2013) referred to this as a leaders’ ability to change lenses or
reframing. Superintendent D highlighted the fact that one cannot take failures personally.
Superintendent C stated, “We allow people the freedom to make mistakes, to be risk takers.
Mistakes are good if the intent and effort were good.”
If it didn’t work out, it didn’t work out. It’s okay. We need to accept it, we need to own
it. If we need to do something different to make it better, we will. Like Mandela, who
says, “Quitting is winning too.” If it’s something that we totally had it wrong, we stop it
and move forward. (Superintendent C)
Superintendent E stated,
We also went through a formal process called Strategic Abandonment. What process,
practices, policies, procedures, programs, and any other Ps were specifically not meeting
our vision or mission. While not eliminating something at the risk of causing another
problem.
Successful decisions. Successful decisions are credited to everyone’s implementation
except for the superintendent. Eighty percent of the superintendents believed it is best to allow
for others to relish in the success. One hundred percent of the superintendents highlight success
publicly via speaking engagements, newsletters, and media. In other words, how do you build
scale within the district? Similarly, Superintendent A, B, and D reexamine success.
Summary
Creating a framework to evaluate successes and failures provided viable information to
the superintendent and his or her cabinet. Engaging in the practice of reflection and review, the
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 69
superintendent can capitalize on the effective practices while abandoning or modifying those that
were ineffective. Superintendents who utilized more than two frames to the evaluation process
seemed to have gathered critical data to assess better success or failure of the decision made.
Embracing failure created a sense of transparency.
Research Question 4
• When making decisions with the governing board, what factors do superintendents take
into consideration when recommending decisions to the governing board?
There were two themes that emerged from the responses to this question. The first was
understanding the political landscape. The second theme was connecting the recommendation to
a strategic plan or district priorities. Some of the traits that emerged as common themes were
being an effective communicator and developing trusting relationships. Evidence of all four
leadership frames was manifested in answering this research question.
Findings: Interview
The researcher found that each superintendent interviews revealed the importance of
being aware of the political climate of the governing board. Each district and governing board
lives in its own culture and reality. The approach a superintendent takes is dependent on the
current reality of the district and board. The researcher found that each participant’s response to
this question was reliant on the type of relationship he or she had with the governing board; thus
while there may be similarities, no two were the same. One common thread found was 100% of
the superintendents outlined the importance of having a positive relationship with the governing
board members through a strong foundation in trust and communication. The findings of this
research question coincide with Björk and Gurley’s (2005) statement about micropolitics within
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 70
recommending decisions to the governing board, in that understanding, they exist as a
characterization of the formal organization.
Understanding the political landscape. According to Björk and Gurley (2005),
investigations by Glass, Björk, and Brunner (2000), Bjork and Lindle (2001), and Björk and
Keedy (2001) determined a superintendent’s ability to have “political acuity in order to navigate
the political landscape” (Björk & Gurley, 2005, p. 174) are a must. This finding coincides with
the responses superintendents made when asked about recommending decisions to the governing
board.
Tapping into the tenants of the political and human resource frames are more prevalent in
this research question. Assessing the distribution of power, Superintendent C reflected on the
importance of not being a politician but rather politically savvy. A strong belief in people’s
ability and empowering others is evidence of the human resource frame. He believed the timing
was critical in bringing decisions to the board. He found that understanding how a decision may
affect the board member is important to know; for example, if the recommendation is to cut a
program during a board member’s election year, it may not be the best time to ask the board to
make those decisions?
Similarly, when Superintendent D is prepared to take a recommendation to the board, the
“prework” begins. Evidence of the political frame is evident as Superintendent D seeks
stakeholders that need to be leveraged. Superintendent D related the process of leveraging
people to a spider web because Superintendent D has to be strategic and the right timing in
which member he contacts first. Contacting the wrong person first can have unintended effects.
Essential to the theme is being an effective communicator. This trait is critical in
maneuvering through the political landscape of the governing board. The interview findings
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 71
indicated strong communication with each board member through a variety of formats. This
included weekly phone calls and newsletters. Sixty percent of the interviewed respondents
identified monthly meetings with each board member. Effective communication paved a road
for positive relationships with the members.
According to the 2010 Decennial Report on American school superintendents, 97%
believed they had a positive relationship with most to all the governing board members
(Kowlaski et al., 2011a). The same report indicated 98% of superintendents found that the board
accepts at least 80% of the time recommendations made by superintendents. Kowalski et al.,
(2011a) believed this is due in part to the mindfulness and respect for the position
superintendents give their boards.
Being student centered helped establish a positive, trusting relationship with the board.
According to the interviewed participants, building this relationship took time. This began with
extensive communication and involving the board members along the way. Three
superintendents divulged that due to the work they did in building positive relationships with the
board, they established a considerable amount of trust and no longer require as much
communication with the board.
Superintendents B and E described a more detailed process when recommending
decisions to the governing board. In these two responses, the answer to this research question
was centered on what is delineated in the strategic plan or district priorities. Identifying a
decision as it pertains to the strategic plan or district priorities, was step number one.
It is connecting to the strategic plan or district priorities. The strategic plan or district
priorities become the framework for board recommendations. Superintendent B explained his
process as, “Everything that I present is connected back to our strategic plan which is driven by
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 72
the needs of the kids.” After Superintendent B related the decision to the strategic plan,
Superintendent B would then filter through the different nuances and character traits of each
board member as a way to reassure the member it will not become a “political fiasco.”
Superintendent B felt this was important because the board member has established trust with
him, especially when dealing with the city and other agencies. In essence, the superintendent is
viewed as a broker.
Evidence of structural, symbolic, and political frames were evident in this process as
Superintendent B takes into consideration the reality of the governing board’s structure and
traits. Superintendent B associated all recommendations to the needs of the students and
clarified what he recommends is best for the students of his district.
Superintendent D operated similarly as Superintendent B when recommending decisions
to the board. Superintendent D responded, “When I think about fundamental shifts, it always has
to complement and grow those four areas [four board priorities]. If it’s not doing that, then
there’s no reason for me to bring it forward.” Connecting the recommendation to the vision of
the district is an example of symbolic frame thinking.
Superintendent E provided the most thorough response to this question. His response
included all four frames. Superintendent E required the use of a decision-making protocol with
his executive cabinet. The protocol entails detailed information about the topic, stating pros and
cons, and the member’s final endorsement. Once Superintendent E’s “litmus test” is met, he
takes the recommendation to the board. The process is repeated with the actual governing board.
Superintendent E holds all decisions loosely, meaning they do not own the decision with their
hearts. He believes he is there to act as their [governing board] agent to bring recommendations
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 73
that meet their actual needs. He stated, “Board members were here before me, they will be here
after me. It is their community first and their district.”
In summarizing the frames utilized by the interviewed superintendents, Table 14 provides
a quick view of the four frame characteristics superintendents employed when recommending to
the board.
Summary
The relationship between the superintendent and governing board is pivotal in the
decision-making process. Recommending decisions to the board requires all four frame
approaches. Coincidentally, the political frame was the lowest rated frame from both the
surveyed and interviewed superintendents. While no decision is ever perfect, dealing with a
human-based organization is complex; for this reason, applying multiple frames has the potential
to bridge organizational gaps that tend to stifle change.
Discussion
This chapter presented the findings of this mixed-method study using Bolman and Deal’s
(2013) Leadership Orientation Self Rating Scale survey to determine what leadership frame
California urban superintendents rate themselves in terms structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic frames. The data was then compared through a qualitative analysis of interviews.
The purpose was to arrive at a thorough understanding of four research questions. The findings
gathered from the study suggest both symbolic and structural frames were used more frequently.
This differs from the surveyed responses as the human resource frame was the highest rated.
Forty percent of respondents ranked the symbolic frame as their second highest. The qualitative
analysis concluded symbolic frame thinking is a strong driving force in the decision-making
process in California urban schools. Its connectedness toward a shared vision for purpose in an
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 74
industry that is geared in human outcomes is the foundation to how superintendents make
decisions.
The second part of the research was to understand how experience as a superintendent
changed the decision-making process. The evidence obtained through interviews indicated that
remaining student centered must be at the core of the belief system of each superintendent. This
indicated the characteristics of the symbolic frame. Interviewed respondents also reported
growth in their confidence level as they grew in their leadership abilities. In terms of
accountability, models such as LCFF and LCAP did not impact the decision-making process as
much as strategic plans or district priorities did. The general view is that these plans are more
aligned to the needs of the district. Research Question 2 responses revealed that a greater
understanding of the political landscape and gained experience resulted in a positive relationship.
Therefore, political and human resource frames were more prevalent.
The next part of the research examined how success and failures are evaluated. The
responses tapped into multiple frames. When decisions are deemed successful, credit is given
and recognized publicly. When decisions are considered to be a failure, the interviewed
superintendents believe in growing from failure. Adopting this belief opens the door to
transparency and improvement. Establishing frameworks that monitor the process invites
empowering people by seeking their input. This demonstrates evidence of the human resource
frame. The structural and political frame characteristics were evident in research question three.
Finally, the last part identified the factors superintendents take into consideration when
recommending decisions to the governing board. In 60% of the interviewed respondents,
multiple frames were adopted. The most common frames in this research question were political
and human resource. Superintendent E implemented a structure and system for how decisions
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 75
are recommended, thus aligning the effort to structural frame characteristics. Superintendent E
stated,
I think that decision making in general, as we lead this work, is complicated work, and
we’re usually really always trying to make sense of things. There’s almost never a
perfect decision. You’re always dealing with ambiguity. You’re managing complexity,
you’re managing the unexpected, who we are and how we are, that is what the decision
is. So, we may not land on the perfect decision, but the fact that we involved everybody,
their voices were heard, we all own it, we all support it, and we’re all going to give it our
best shot, and then if it fails, we’re willing to abandon it. Well, that’s all culture.
Ancillary Findings
During the analysis of data collection, some ancillary findings emerged; 100% of the
interview participants earned a Doctorate and one of the five interviewed superintendents was
not a teacher.
In addition to the research questions, the interviewed respondents offered additional
information regarding superintendent leadership. The use of innovation teams emerged as a
result of the qualitative data analysis. Innovation teams were used by two of the superintendents
as part of an implementation plan. The innovation teams sought input from stakeholders and
used implementation plan frameworks. Rather than relying on top-down mandates, the
innovation team involves empowered individuals in designing and implementing a plan. The
freedom in allowing empowered individuals to be involved at the inception has the potential to
result in meaningful work that assists in achieving the organizational goals.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 76
Summary
This chapter presented findings of this mixed-method study using both quantitative and
qualitative data collection. A research of the findings stated superintendents may identify their
leadership approach through the lens of human resource; however, when analyzing the
qualitative data, symbolic frame thinking was more prevalent. The research findings also
indicated that current urban school superintendents do indeed utilize multiple frames as part of
their decision-making process. In the fifth and final chapter, the study will be summarized along
with implications and recommendations for future research study.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 77
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Conclusion

This chapter provides a summary of the purpose of the study, the research questions, the
design overview, key findings, and ancillary findings. Implications of the study,
recommendations for future study, and conclusion will also be presented.
Statement of the Problem
Decision making can be complex for urban public school superintendents. Macro and
micro-politics along with accountability compound the complexity. There is a plethora of
literature on the decision-making process in leadership. However, there is little information with
regard to approaching the decision-making process through the lens of the four leadership frames
identified by Bolman and Deal (2013). Utilizing the leadership frames: (a) structural, (b) human
resource, (c) political, and (d) symbolic requires the leader to approach decision-making
scenarios with mental models that allow for viable solutions. This is an important area to study
because utilizing multi frame thinking gives the leader various perspectives to which decisions
can be thoroughly made in the best interest of students. Consequently, identifying the type of
frame or frames effective superintendents utilize as part of the decision-making process can
assist new or aspiring superintendents to promising practices.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand better how superintendents navigate
themselves through the four leadership frames (Bolman & Deal, 2013) to make decisions that
have an impact on student outcomes. Bensimon’s (1989) study of higher education leaders
concluded that organizations that have multiple realities are successful when leaders employ
multiple frames or lenses, so there is not a reliance on a singular perspective. This is further
echoed in Bolman and Deal’s (2013) work as they caution leaders against oversimplification of
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 78
problems within the organization. The four frames provide lenses into multiple perspectives and
approaches in leadership. Thus, the researcher sought to better understand how urban school
superintendents approach decisions that have the potential to impact students. This is important
to know as a way to coach new leaders entering a superintendency position. By merging the
complexity of a districts’ political environment and mental models of decision making, leaders
will be better equipped in avoiding common pitfalls of superintendents’ decision making. The
results of this study can assist in designing superintendent coaching models that contain multi-
frame thinking as part of their decision-making process. According to the 2010 Decennial
Report (Kowlaski et al., 2011a), 83% of superintendents were mentored. In short, having such
coaching frameworks may attract diverse, strong leader candidates to a superintendent position.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. Of the four frames established by Bolman and Deal, which frames do superintendents
believe are the most critical in the decision-making process?
2. How does experience as a superintendent change the decision-making process?

3. How do superintendents evaluate the success or failure of decision making while using
Bolman and Deal leadership frames?
4. When making decisions with the governing board, what factors do superintendents take
into consideration when recommending decisions to the governing board?
Design Overview
This study was completed using the Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method model. The
first phase consisted of collecting and analyzing quantitative data. Results from the quantitative
data were built upon and further explained in detail with the qualitative study (Creswell, 2014).
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 79
The benefit of designing the study around the integration of both quantitative and qualitative data
is the fact they can complement each other to understand better (Creswell, 2014) the decision-
making process. This increases the validity of the data (Creswell, 2014). Merging both open-
ended and closed-ended questions can fill in gaps within each type of question so that a more
comprehensive result can be obtained (Creswell, 2014). As a result, a mixed-method model
draws upon the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative (Creswell, 2014). For this reason,
mixed-method models have increasingly become the preferred approach among educational,
social, and health science research (Creswell, 2014).
The quantitative instrumentation, Bolman and Deal’s (2013) Leadership Orientation Self
Rating Scale identified the superintendents’ predominant leadership approach among their four
leadership frames along with the least leadership frame. According to Creswell (2014), the
qualitative data will build upon the quantitative results. As such, the quantitative data identified
human resource as the predominate frame used by urban school superintendents. Conversely,
the qualitative data indicated the symbolic frame was more dominant.
Key Findings
The key findings of this study were based on the data quantitative and qualitative data
collected and analyzed.
Research Question #1
Of the four frames established by Bolman and Deal, which frames do superintendents
believe are the most critical in the decision-making process?
Based on the quantitative analysis of the Leadership Orientation Self Rating Scale, the
human resource frame was identified as the predominant frame by urban school superintendents
followed by symbolic frame. Conversely, the qualitative data analysis indicated that
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 80
superintendents tend to use the symbolic frame as a starting point for their decision-making
process. There were two themes that emerged within the symbolic frame and two themes within
the structural frame for a total of four themes for research question one.
Remaining student-centered (symbolic). The first theme that emerged in the symbolic
frame was remaining student centered. Superintendents firmly believed they are students’
advocates to all other enterprises. For this reason, every decision that is made is centered on
students’ need for equity and quality education. Remaining student-centered was also reflected
by Callahan (1966) and Kowalski et al. (2011a), as superintendents must be both a democratic
leader and social scientist role conceptualization.
An effective communicator (symbolic). This was the second theme that emerged in the
symbolic frame as the superintendents believed they are responsible for communicating the
vision and goal of the district to stakeholders: staff, students, community, and board of
education. Kowalski (2005c) identified the superintendent as an effective communicator as the
fifth role conceptualization in superintendents. Bolman and Deal (2013) characterized a
symbolic leader as someone who communicates a vision and leads by example. Articulating a
vision sets the purpose for the organization’s existence.
Developing a structure and systems (structural). This was the third theme that
emerged. Developing a structure and system falls within the structural frame. Providing the
structure and system for a school district blazes the trail for the district to focus on vision and
goals outlined in the strategic plan.
Innovation (structural). Innovation quality was the fourth theme that emerged and
coincided with the structural and human resource. A superintendent’s ability to disrupt
traditional top-down managerial practices and utilize models that include evaluation tools, and
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 81
feedback from constituents involves a great deal of trust among the employees. In turn,
involving people in the initial phase of decision making has the potential to improve the intended
results.
Research Question #2
How does experience as a superintendent change the decision-making process?
The political frame emerged as the dominant leadership frame for this research question.
Moreover, through experience, superintendents gained greater self-efficacy in their decision-
making abilities. Self-efficacy is not identified per se in the four leadership frames; however, it
is worthy of noting. Self-efficacy involves the intersection of personal beliefs in one’s
capabilities and actions necessary to achieve goals as evidenced in Rueda’s (2011) book about
Albert Bandura’s work about self-efficacy. Within the political frame, there were two themes
that emerged; adapting to political environments while remaining student-centered and
leadership evolution.
Adapting to political environments while remaining student-centered. This theme
was vital in the success of each superintendent. Staying politically neutral while advocating
resources for student needs required a set of leadership skills whose characteristics can be
retrieved from every leadership orientation: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic
frames. This is the most excellent example of leading with multi-frame thinking as it
encompasses examining the district’s current systems and structure, empowering people through
a strong belief in their abilities, building linkages to stakeholders for resources, while centering
all efforts on the vision of the district. This finding is echoed in Björk and Gurley’s (2005)
analysis of a superintendent’s ability to negotiate both the macro and micro-politics of the
organization to influence policy and decision making.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 82
Leadership evolution. The second theme that emerged was leadership evolution. In
time, superintendents gained more experience. All of the interviewed superintendents believed
they are much more confident and courageous now than when they first started. Leadership
evolution is not directly related to the four frames. While confidence was strengthened as a
result of experience, superintendents did not falter from their belief in always doing what is best
for students.
Research Question #3
How do superintendents evaluate the success or failure of decision making while using
Bolman and Deal’s leadership frames?
Characteristics of structural and human resource frames were prevalent in this research
question. Two themes emerged from the responses to this question. The first theme had an
evaluation framework that included multiple measures and input. The second theme was
embracing failure. All five interviewed superintendents firmly believed credit to any success
should be given to everyone except the superintendent. Public acknowledgment for the work is
always done through social media, newsletters, and any public gatherings. Conversely, decisions
deemed failures were embraced and viewed as part of the growth process.
Implementation plan with evaluation tools practices. Evaluation tools were utilized as
a way of continuous examination of the implementation plan. The implementation plan included
progress monitoring measures. If an initiative was deemed unsuccessful, superintendents led the
team through an abandonment process. This included identifying factors that may have
contributed to the failure. Identification of factors that failed indicates a level of vulnerability on
behalf of those involved. Vulnerability is a characteristic that is associated with both the human
resource and symbolic frame. For this to occur, the superintendent must develop a trusting
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 83
culture in the organization. Vulnerability and trust build strong relationships when dealing when
the organization is a human enterprise (Rousseau et al., 1998; Houston, 2001). Effective
evaluation measures along the implementation journey assist the superintendent in continuing or
abandoning an idea.
Embracing failure. The second theme that emerged in this research question was
embracing failure. The interviewed superintendents viewed failure as part of the growth journey.
When decisions are deemed a failure, each superintendent allowed people the freedom to make
mistakes. Therefore, embracing failure is at the essence of multi-frame thinking. This signifies a
leaders’ ability change frame or lens in search of better, more powerful options (Bolman & Deal,
2013).
Research Question #4
When making decisions with the governing board, what factors do superintendents take
into consideration when recommending decisions to the governing board?
In this research question, evidence of all four frames: structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic frames emerged as a result of the superintendent interviews. The factors
superintendents identified were taken into consideration are understanding the political landscape
and connecting the recommendation to the strategic plan.
Superintendents found success in having an understanding of the political nuances within
the school board. The role of the superintendent is a liaison between the board and the school
organization. This requires the superintendent to develop a positive relationship with the board
so that they can leverage support and resources for improving practices for students. Kowalski et
al. (2011a) found that the positive relationships a superintendent has with their board are
attributed to the consideration and respect for the position superintendents give their boards.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 84
Additionally, superintendents described recommendations that involved governance,
policy, budget, and their connectedness to the district’s strategic plan were forwarded for board
recommendation. These kept recommendations centered on addressing the needs of the students
the district serves.
Ancillary Findings
In addition to the responses to the four research questions, additional information was
offered as a result of the four interviews on recommendations regarding superintendent
leadership.
Innovation
The theme of innovation emerged during the superintendent interviews. This theme was
evident in two locations: organizational structure and innovative teams. Innovation can disrupt
the status quo. Outside-the-box thinking involves acting differently (Dyer, Gregersen, &
Christensen, 2011). As such, innovation mimics multi-frame thinking in that it can include all
four frames thinking: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Three superintendents
implemented innovative practices that disrupted many standard or traditional practices.
In one case, Superintendent B was in the process of disrupting the traditional hierarchal
organizational structure. Due to his belief in empowering people within the organization, he
believed in having a more horizontal organizational structure. As a result, more people became
decision makers within the organization. Therefore, providing more meaning to the work,
everyone involved is invested in the vision of the school district. The freedom to innovate boasts
choice and hope which according to Bolman and Deal (2013), is needed to achieve commitment.
In two other interviews, superintendents implemented innovation teams. Innovation
teams involved themselves in designing plans, establishing structures and systems, and
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 85
incorporating an evaluation system to monitor progress. Through an inquiry model, innovation
teams sought more input and feedback from constituents. The effectiveness of innovation teams
has the potential to improve outcomes for students as many past practices of implementation
have failed. Hence, this becomes another example of the power behind multi-frame thinking.
As such, innovation teams may be an answer to many initiative pitfalls in school districts.
Implications for Study
This study contributes to the practice of the decision-making process of urban school
superintendents and aspiring school superintendents. The findings of this study add to the
development of school superintendents to optimize their leadership abilities so that the outcomes
of urban public school students improve.
Superintendent Preparation
To meet the needs of 21st-century school district leadership, it is imperative that quality
preparation programs are designed to attract and motivate aspiring leaders. Superintendencies
can sometimes be viewed as unattainable by many school leaders. However, through creative
course design that includes topics such as decision making and the use of multi-frame mental
models, it may gain the interest of a greater diverse population of future superintendents.
Furthermore, providing practical tools in decision making one can avoid leadership traps that can
lead to bad practices or unnecessary terminations.
More school leaders are seeking doctoral degrees. Universities have an excellent
opportunity to implement effective superintendent preparatory courses. Kowlaski et al. (2011a)
found most university academic programs had a propensity of treating superintendent
preparation as an extension of principal preparation courses. For this reason, designing 21st-
century superintendent preparatory programs can build leadership capacity in the decision-
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 86
making process. Urban school districts have the potential to benefit significantly from preparing
promising leaders. Developing multi-frame thinking takes effort, time, and feedback (Bolman &
Deal, 2013). Perhaps, mentoring or coaching models built into the curriculum can provide the
opportunities to aspiring superintendents. These opportunities can give aspiring superintendents
the mental elasticity to practice applying appropriate frames to various situations.
Future Research
This study surveyed 20 current urban school superintendents and interviewed five
superintendents in the State of California. Findings from this study revealed additional areas for
further exploration. The following are recommendations for future research.
• A study in superintendent preparation courses in colleges and universities that address
multi-frame decision making as 21st-century leaders.
• Examine innovative practices from other industries regarding effective decision-making
frameworks.
• Explore the support systems superintendents have to provide better mentorship to expand
leadership capacity around decision making.
Conclusion
This study attempted to shed light on a small body of literature around the decision-
making process of urban school superintendents in California through the lens of Bolman and
Deal’s (2013) four leadership frames. The data showed that most superintendents employ multi-
frame thinking in their decision making. Notably, multi-frame thinking coincides with
transformational leadership characteristics. According to Northouse (2016), transformational
leaders are change agents that articulate a clear vision, develop trusting relationships, and
empower others. An effective leader who applies multi-frame thinking is one that can envision
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 87
new possibilities and opportunities for the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The promising
practices of multi-frame thinking as opposed to singular myopic approaches to the decision-
making process, will result in viable solutions and better outcomes for all stakeholders, most
importantly students. The fluidity among the four frames gives the superintendent a broader
view of the organization and opens new possibilities to discover alternative solutions to an
otherwise constrained decisions-making process (Bolman & Deal, 2013. Thus, an effective
leader will have the acuity to match frames to various situations and adapt their approach for the
benefit of the organization.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 88
References
Bensimon, E. M. (1989). The meaning of “good presidential leadership”: A frame analysis. The
Review of Higher Education 12(2), 107-123. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/1308036060/
Birnbaum, R., Bensimon, E., & Neumann, A. (1989). Leadership in higher education: A Multi-
dimensional approach to research. The Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 101-105.
Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/645131
Björk, L. G. (1996). The revisionists’ critique of the education reform reports. Journal of School
Leadership, 6(3), 290-315.
Björk, L. G., & Gurley, D. K. (2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political
strategist. In L. G. Björk & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent:
Preparation, practice and development (pp.163-185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Björk, L. G., & Keedy, J. L. (2001). Changing social context of education in the United States:
Social justice and the superintendency. Journal of In-Service Education, 27(3), 409-431.
Björk, L. G., & Lindle, J. C. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy
15(1), 76-91.
Björk, L. G., Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Kowalski, J. (2014). The superintendent and educational
reform in the United States of America. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(4), 444-
465. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.945656

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 89
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent
in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications. Paper 13.
Retrieved from https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.
google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1011&context=eda_fac_pub
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J, & Young, M. D. (2005). National education reform reports:
Implications for professional preparation and development. In L. G. Björk & T. J.
Kowalaski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and
development (pp. 45-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blasé, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to
empowerment. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bolman, L. (2015). Author, teacher. Retrieved from www.leebolman.com
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E., (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2014). How great leaders think: The art of reframing. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Browne-Ferrigno, T. & Glass, T. E. (2005). Superintendent as organizational manager. In L. G.
Björk & T. J. Kowlaski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice,
and development (pp. 137-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
California Department of Education. (2014). Family engagement framework: A tool for
California school districts. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/pf/docu
ments/famengage frameenglish.pdf
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 90
California Department of Education. (2017a). Getting to know the California School Dashboard.
Retrieved from https://www.caschooldashboard.org/assets/pdf/california-school-
dashboard_English-v2.pdf
California Department of Education. (2017b). No Child Left Behind – CalEdFacts. Retrieved
from https://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/pc/cefnclb.asp.
California Department of Education. (2018a). What are the Common Core Standards? Retrieved
from https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/tl/whatareccss.asp
California Department of Education. (2018b). District organization: Reference for procedures
and responsibilities for all parties involved in the school district organization process.
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/do/
California Department of Education. (2018c). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education. (2019a). Local control and accountability plan (LCAP).
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
California Department of Education. (2019b). Local control funding formula overview:
Information about the funding provisions of the local control funding formula. Retrieved
from https://www.cde.ca.gov/Fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California School Boards Association. (n.d.). Governance and policy resources: Research,
guidance and services for effective school board governance; Role and responsibilities.
Retrieved from https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources/Effective
Governance/RoleandResponsibilitiesofSBMs.aspx.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 91
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that
have shaped the administration of public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Callahan, R. E. (1964). The superintendent of schools: An historical analysis. Final Report of
Project S-212. Washington, DC: Office of Education, Department of Health Education,
and Welfare.
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis (ERIC document
Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED010410.pdf
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school district.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=22671272&authtype=sso&custid=s8983984
Cooper, B. S., & Boyd, W. L. (1987). The evolution of training for school administrators. In
J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to administrative training in education
(pp. 3-27). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Council of Great City Schools. (2014). Urban school superintendents: Characteristics, tenure,
and salary. Eighth Survey and Report. Retrieved from https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/
DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Urban%20Indicator_Superintendent%20Summary%
2011514.pdf
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2014). California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educa
tor-prep/standards/cpsel-booklet-2014.pdf)
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 92
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crowson, R. L., & McPherson, R. B. (1987). The legacy of the theory movement: Learning from
the new tradition. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to administrative
training in education, (pp. 45-64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M., (2011). The innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five
skills of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press
Eadie, D. (2003). Eight keys to an extraordinary board-superintendent partnership. Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Press.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Public Law 114-95. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Firestone, W. A., Fuhrman, S., & Kirst, M. W. (1990). An overview of educational reform since
1983. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The reform of American public education during the 1980’s:
Perspectives and cases (pp. 349-364). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5-27.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1023/A:1010068703786
Fullan, M. (2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of
Educational Change, 17(4), 539-544.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 93
Fusarelli, B. C., & Fusarelli, L. D., (2005). Reconceptualizing the superintendency:
Superintendents as social scientists. In L. G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The
contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 187-202).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L. G., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendent: A look at the superintendent in the new millennium. Arlington. VA:
American Association of School Administrators.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L. G., & Brunner, C. C. (2002). The study of the American superintendency
2000: A look at the superintendent in the new millennium. Arlington, VA.: American
Association of School Administrators.
Grogan, M., & Brunner, C. C. (2005). Women superintendents and role conception: (Un)
Troubling the norms. In L. G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary
superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 227-249). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior (6th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, 17-19. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California: Rossier School of Education.
Herman, R., Gates, S., Arifkhanova, A., Barrett, M., Bega, A., Chavez-Herrera’s, E., & Wrabel,
S. (2017). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act:
Evidence review: Updated and Expanded. RAND Corporation.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 94
Hochschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It’s not just a job, it’s a calling. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428-433.
Houston, P., & Eadie, D. (2002). The board-savvy superintendent. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press.
Howlett, P. (1993). The politics of school leaders, past and future. Education Digest, 58(9), 18-
21. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California: Rossier School of Education.
Hoyle, J. R., Björk, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO:
Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jacob, B. (2017). The changing federal role in school accountability. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 36(2), 469-477.
Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Kowalski, T. J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Kowalski, T. J., (2001). The future of local school governance: Implications for board members
and superintendents. In C. C. Brunner & L. G. Björk (Eds.). The new superintendency
(pp. 183-201). Oxford, UK: JAI Press.
Kowalski, T. J., (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T.J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public
relations in schools (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-29). Upper Saddle River NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 95
Kowalski, T. J. (2005a). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. The
contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development. Retrieved from
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&ht
tpsredir=1&article=1020&context=eda_fac_pub
Kowalski, T. J. (2005b). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005c). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 54(2), 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500213322
Kowalski, T. J., & Glass, T. E. (2002). Preparing superintendents in the 21st century. In
B. Cooper & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds), The promise and perils facing today’s school
superintendent (pp. 41-60). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, I. P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011a). The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education in partnership with American Association of School Administrators.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/854552593/
Kowalski, T. J., Young, I. P., & McCord, R. S. (2011b). Factors accounting for variability in
superintendent ratings of academic preparation. Educational Leadership Faculty
Publications. Paper 24. Retrieved from https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article =1022&context=eda_fac_pub
Lashway, L. (2002). The superintendent in an age of accountability. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of Education, University of Oregon.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468515.pdf
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 96
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. London: Sage Publications.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544307756
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Marsh, J. A. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature on the
relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities: A CTP working paper.
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Melby, E. O. (1955), Administering community education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (2019a). Stakeholder. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com
Merriam-Webster. (2019b). Superintendent. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com
Murphy, J. (1990). The reform of American public education in the 1980s: Perspective and
cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Urban schools. The challenge of
location and poverty. NCES96-184. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96184
all.pdf
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 97
National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Digest of education statistics 2001. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002130.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Achievement gaps. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/
National Education Association. (n.d.). Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from
http://www.nea.org/home/34888.htm
National School Board Association, (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from https://www.nsba.org/
about-us/
No Child Left Behind. (2002). Public law 107-110: An Act to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Northouse, P. G., (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications,
Peterson, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2003, April). The superintendent as instructional leader:
History, evolution, and future of the role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Rand Corporation. (n.d.a). Disadvantaged students. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/topics/
disadvantaged-students.html
Rand Corporation. (n.d.b). Education reform. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/topics/educa
tion-reform.html
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to
America’s public schools. New York , NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 98
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 17, 205-215.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
U. S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act. Public Law 114-95.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/essa
Waters, J., & Marzano, R. (2007). The primacy of superintendent leadership. School
Administrator, 64(3), 10-16.
Waters, J., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning. Educational
Leadership, 61(7), 48-51.
Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2001). The political dynamics of American education (2nd ed.). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
Zigarelli, M. A. (1996). An empirical test of conclusions from effective school research. Journal
of Educational Research, 90(2), 103-110.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 99
Tables
Table 1
Four Frame Leadership Theoretical Framework
Human
Resource

Structural

Political

Symbolic
Emotional
intelligence

Do their homework;
study problems in the
organization

Are realists

Lead by example

Believe in shared
leadership

Focus on
implementation

Asses the distribution
of power and interests

Communicate a
vision

Demonstrates caring
and sensitivity

Establish task
forces/committees

Realize who they can
leverage

Use words such as us
and we

Strong belief in
people

Ask for advice

Build links to
stakeholders
Blend history, poetry,
and passion

Visible and
accessible

Willing to
experiment
Understanding to
others’ concerns
and interests
Uses stories as a
means to
communicate

Empower others Respect and use
history
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 100

Table 2
Surveyed Superintendents by Gender
Gender Number of Superintendents Percent
Female 11 55
Male 9 45
Note: n=20

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 101

Table 3
Surveyed Superintendents by Years of Experience
Number of Years Number of Superintendents Percent
Less than 2 4 20
3-5 years 2 10
6-8 years 6 30
9 years or more 8 40
Note: n=20

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 102

Table 4
Surveyed Superintendents by Current District ADA
Student ADA Number of Superintendents Percent
2,000 - 5,999 2 10
6,000 - 9,999 4 20
10,000 - 20,999 8 40
21,000 - 30,999 1 5
31,000 - 40,999 2 10
41,000 - 49,999 1 5
>50,000 2 10
Note: n=20

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 103

Table 5
Surveyed Superintendents by Highest Degree Earned
Highest Degree Earned Number of Superintendents Percent
Master’s Degree 6 30
Doctoral: Ed.D or Ph.D. 14 70
Note: n=20

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 104

Table 6
Interviewed Superintendents by Gender
Gender Number of Superintendents Percent
Female 1 20
Male 4 80
Note: n=5

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 105

Table 7
Interviewed Superintendents by Current District Grade Spans
Grade Range Number of Superintendents Percent
Grades K-12 4 80
Grades 9-12 1 20
n=5

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 106

Table 8
Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames (Conceptual Framework)
Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic
Do their homework
about their
organization
Empower others Clarify what they
want and what they
can get
Lead by example

Ask for advice

Strong belief in
people

Assess the
distribution of
power

Leaders frame
experience

Focus on
implementation

Visible and
accessible

Realize who they
can leverage

Communicate a
vision

Rethink the
relationship of
structure, strategy,
and environment

Build linkages to
key stakeholders

Respect for history

Leaders experiment

Source: Reframing Organizations (pp. 358-369), by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2013, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 107

Table 9
Surveyed Participants Self-Rating Leadership Assessment Results
Participant
Gender Structural
Human
Resource
Political Symbolic
1 M 13 19 17 11
2 F 15 24 9 12
3 F 13 16 10 21
4 M 15 10 21 14
5 M 16 8 18* 18*
6 F 21 17 10 12
7 M 14 12 15 19
8 M 14 20 13 13
9 F 10 16 14 20
10 F 17 18 12 13
11 M 7 19 17 17
12 F 12 21 9 18
13 M 8 21 15* 15*
14 M 12* 18* 12* 18*
15 F 12 22 10 16
16 F 11 20 15 14
17 M 11 16 15 18
18 F 11 19 15 15
19 F 20 16 9 15
20 F 19 12 16 13
*Note: Asterisk denotes a tie in scores; n=20
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 108

Table 10
Surveyed Participants Highest Rated Leadership Frame
Bolman and Deal
Leadership Frame

Number of Participants

Percentage*
Human Resource 11 55
Symbolic 6 30
Structural 3 15
Political 2 10
*Note: Percentages will equal 110 due to tie in results; n=20

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 109

Table 11
Surveyed Participants Lowest Rated Leadership Frame
Bolman and Deal Leadership
Frame

Number of Participants

Percentage*
Political 8 40
Structural 7 35
Human Resource 4 20
Symbolic 2 10
*Note: Percentages will equal 105 due to tie in results; n=20

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 110

Table 12
Interviewed Participants Demographic Data and Self-Rating Scale Results

Superintendent

Gender

Years as
Superintendent
District
ADA
Approx.

Highest Rated
Frame

Lowest
Rated Frame
A M 9 12,000 Human
Resource

Structural
B M 4 22,000 Symbolic Political
C M 11 14,000 Human
Resource

Political*/Symbolic*
D F 3 >50,000 Structural Human Resource
E M 11 >50,000 Human
Resource/
Symbolic*
Structural/Political*
*Note: Asterisk denotes a tie in results; n=5

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 111

Table 13
Kotter and Cohen’s Change Stages Compared with Bolman and Deal’s Four Frame Alignment
Kotter’s Stages
of Change

Structural Frame
Human Resource
Frame

Political Frame

Symbolic Frame
Sense of
Urgency
Involve people
throughout the
organization;
solicit input

Network with
key players; use
power base
Tell a
compelling story
Guiding team Develop
coordination
strategy
Do team building
for guiding a
team
Stack team with
credible,
influential
members

Put commanding
office or team
Uplifting vision
and strategy
Build an
implementation
plan
Map political
terrain; develop
agenda
Craft hopeful
vision of future
rooted in the
organization’s
history

Communicate
vision and
strategy
through words,
deeds, and
symbols

Create structures
to support the
change process
Hold meetings to
communicate
direction, get
feedback
Create arenas;
build alliances;
defuse
opposition
Visible
leadership
involvement;
kickoff
ceremonies
Remove
obstacles and
empower
people to move
forward
Remove or alter
structures and
procedures that
support the old
ways

Provide training,
resources,
support
Public hangings
of opponents
Early wins Plan for short-
term victories
Invest resources
and power to
ensure early wins
Celebrate and
communicate
early signs of
progress

Keep going
when going
gets tough

Keep people on
plan
Hold revival
meetings
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 112
New culture to
support new
ways
Align structure
to new culture
Create a
“culture” team;
broad
involvement in
developing a
culture

Mourn the past;
celebrate heroes
of the revolution;
share stories of
the journey
Source: Reframing Organizations (p. 391), by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2013, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 113

Table 14
Frame Characteristics Pertain to Research Question 4
Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic
Coordinate a strategy
Create structures for
change

Empower others
Hold a meeting to
communicate, get
feedback
Create a “team”
culture
Network with key
players
Map political terrain
to develop agenda
Craft a hopeful vision
Tell a compelling
story
Source: Reframing Organizations (p. 391), by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2013, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 114

Appendix A: Letter to Participate

Dear Superintendent,

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review this request. I am currently a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am pursuing an Ed.D degree in K-12
Educational Leadership under the guidance of Dr. David Cash and Dr. Rudy Castruita. The
purpose of the study is to understand the decision-making process of California urban
superintendents through Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames. Dr. Cash and Dr. Castruita
have identified you as a successful leader in your district. As a successful leader, I eagerly and
humbly request your assistance with my research. Collecting data from an effective leader such
as yourself could provide me with the critical information needed to complete my study.

I am aware that your time is limited therefore any time given to my research would be much
appreciated. Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary and confidential. The
survey will include inquiries about demographic information and leadership decisions. The
survey will take no more than 15 minutes.

This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board. Therefore, any data collected will remain anonymous and any data
presented in a manner where any individual can be identified. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me at pcorral@usc.edu.

Please click on the following link to take the survey at your earliest convenience. I appreciate
your time and assistance in my endeavor.

Sincerely,

Patricia Corral
Ed.D candidate USC

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 115
Appendix B: Superintendent Survey

Leadership Orientation and Demographic Survey

The questionnaire asks how you would describe yourself as a manager and leader. For each
item, give the number “4” to the phrase that best describes you, “3” to the item that is next best,
and on down to “1” for the item that is least like you. The first six questions pertain to Bolman
and Deal Leadership Orientation. The last four questions are related to demographic data.

1. My strongest skills are:
____ a. Analytic skills
____ b. Interpersonal skills
____ c. Political skills
____ d. Flair for drama

2. The best way to describe me is:
____ a. Technical expert
____ b. Good listener
____ c. Skilled negotiator
____ d. Inspirational leader

3. What has helped me the most to be successful is my ability to:
____ a. Make good decisions
____ b. Coach and develop people
____ c. Build a strong alliance and a power base
____ d. Inspire and excite others

4. What people are most likely to notice about me is my:
____ a. Attention to detail
____ b. Concern for people
____ c. Ability to succeed, in the face of conflict and opposition
____ d. Charisma

5. My most important leadership trait is:
____ a. Clear, logical thinking
____ b. Caring and support for others
____ c. Toughness and aggressiveness
____ d. Imagination and creativity

6. I am best described as:
____ a. An analyst
____ b. A humanist
____ c. A politician
____ d. A visionary

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 116
Demographic Data

7. What is your gender?
____ a. Female
____ b. Male
____ c. No response
8. How many years of work experience do you have in public education? Select one.
a. Less than three years
b. 3 to 5 years
c. 5 to 8 years
d. 8 to 10 years
e. More than 10 years

9. What is the ADA for your district
a. < 10,000
b. 10,000 - 20,000
c. 20,000 – 30,000
d. 30,000 – 40,000
e. 40,000 – 50,000
f. > 50,000

10. How many total years have you been a superintendent
a. 1-3
b. 4-6
c. 7-9
d. More than 10
e. More than 15

11. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
a. Bachelor’s Degree
b. Master’s Degree
c. Doctoral Degree

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 117
Appendix C: Interview Guide

Superintendent Interview Guide

Research Questions

Interview Question Guide
1. Of the four frames established by
Bolman and Deal, which frames do
superintendents believe the most
critical in the decision-making
process?
1. Describe the process you typically
follow when making decisions about
the organizational structure? This
process may include topics such as
goals, vision, priorities, etc.?
2. Describe the process you typically
follow when making decisions about
allocating your human capital to meet
the district goals?
3. How do you communicate the goals of
the district with district employees?
4. How do you communicate the goals of
the district with the public?

2. How does experience as a
superintendent change the decision-
making process?
1. Comparing your decision-making
process between now and your first
year as a superintendent, are there
differences in your approach? If so,
what are they?
2. How has new reform efforts such as
LCFF and LCAP influenced the
decision-making process?

3. How do superintendents evaluate the
success or failure of decision making
while using Bolman and Deal
leadership frames?
1. What systems do you have in place
that help measure success in your
decisions related to organizational
structure and implementation of
district goals?
2. How do you deal with decisions either
you or the Board have determined
failed?

4. When making decisions with the
governing board, what factors do
superintendents take into
consideration when recommending
decisions to the governing board?
1. What is the process you take when
recommending decisions to the
governing board?
2. Is there anything else you would like
to share with me related to my study?

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF SUPERINTENDENTS 118
Appendix D: Permission to Use Survey

Patti,

I am happy to grant permission to use our survey.

Best wishes for a successful study. I look forward to learning about your results.

Lee G. Bolman, Ph.D.
Professor and Marion Bloch/Missouri Chair in Leadership
Bloch School of Management
University of Missouri-Kansas City

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

The influence spouses have on superintendents in Los Angeles County school districts

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

California school board member training: motivation and impact on leadership and achievement

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Time’s Up: a transformative view of women leaning into the superintendency in California

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents

PDF

School board training and governance in California

PDF

CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

PDF

The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

African American female superintendents in California: an exploration of barriers and supports

PDF

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

PDF

California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals

PDF

Schoolwide structures, systems, and practices that are closing the achievement gap at a Southern California high-performing, high-poverty urban public elementary school: a case study

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

Asset Metadata

Creator Corral, Patricia (author)

Core Title Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2019

Defense Date 03/04/2019

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

Tag Bolman and Deal,California,California superintendents,decision-making,four leadership frames,OAI-PMH Harvest,School superintendents,urban superintendents

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Walker, Terry (committee chair)

Creator Email patticorral@gmail.com,pcorral@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-154296

Unique identifier UC11660174

Identifier etd-CorralPatr-7328.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-154296 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CorralPatr-7328.pdf

Dmrecord 154296

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Corral, Patricia

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