The first 90 days: securing early success in the superintendency

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE FIRST 90 DAYS: SECURING EARLY SUCCESS
IN THE SUPERINTENDENCY
by
Gary Roughton
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2007

Copyright 2007 Gary Roughton

ii
DEDICATION
I began this journey 10 years ago, starting on fire and completing required
course work and residency requirements in just over 2 years. Then I hit the disser-
tation wall head on. I wore the title of ABD like it was some badge of honor. Hon-
estly, it was to justify the failure of not completing something that I had started. I
was not raised that way. Of all the things my dad drilled into my head, the one that
has always stuck with me, showing others that I possessed leadership quality, was
to never quit, always finish what was started.
Although ABD always nagged, it did not bother me enough to do anything
about it. Then in February 2000 my father passed away after a very brief bout with
mesothelioma. My father was such a motivating factor in my attending college in
the first place. He was a manager for a small, independent telephone company in
McLoud, Oklahoma, where I grew up and where he employed me during the
summers.
In that sweltering Oklahoma heat, I would walk behind a plow-cat, feeding
underground telephone cable through the tube that ran down the side of the plow. I
would walk behind this plow-cat all day long through the humid Oklahoma woods,
wrestling with mosquitoes, chiggers, poison ivy, and poison oak. At the end of the
day my dad would remind me why I wanted to go to college. So when I got an op-
portunity to be reinstated to the USC doctorate program, I jumped at the chance.
I dedicate this paper to my dad. He taught me the value of an education and
the power of choice that comes with it. This is my final step in what has become a
lifetime of education. My dad always dreamed of being a teacher and a coach, and I
guess, through me, he did.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge the following people who supported and loved me without
judgment: my beautiful, supportive wife of 24 years, Linda, who taught me to
laugh in spite of myself; my amazing sons, Matt and Mike, who have brought me
more joy and happiness than I could ever repay; my sisters, Debbie and Tammy,
who have joined me in this wonderful career of education; my baby sister, Melissa,
who has showed me that being handicapped in no way prevents a life from being
fulfilled; Dr. Scott Price, who always believed that I could; my best friend, Greg
Queen, who has been there for me for over 30 years, “Go Sooners”; my mentor,
Steve Dunnam, who told me, “Don’t sweat the small stuff, coach,” a saying that I
have learned to live by; and most of all, my mother, who is responsible for every-
thing that I am or ever will be; she is the foundation upon which this life has been
built.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY............................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................4
Research Questions...................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study.................................................................................5
Importance of the Study ...........................................................................5
Assumptions of the Study.........................................................................6
Limitations of the Study ...........................................................................6
Delimitations of the Study........................................................................6
Methodology.............................................................................................7
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................7
Organization of the Study.........................................................................8
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................9
History of the Superintendency ....................................................................10
The Superintendent-School Board Relationship ..........................................13
The Process of Selecting the Superintendent ...............................................14
The Coming Crisis........................................................................................15
Training Prospective Superintendents ..........................................................17
Harvard University: Urban Superintendency .........................................19
The Broad Center....................................................................................19
The ACSA Superintendents Academy ...................................................20
Summary.................................................................................................21
Organizational Leadership............................................................................21
The First 90 to 100 Days ..............................................................................26
Conclusion....................................................................................................33
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................34
Research Design ...........................................................................................34
Population and Sample .................................................................................36
Procedure......................................................................................................36
Instrumentation.............................................................................................37
Data Analysis................................................................................................40
Qualitative Study ....................................................................................40
Quantitative Study ..................................................................................41
Summary.......................................................................................................43

v
Chapter 4: RESULTS ...........................................................................................44
Background Characteristics of Survey Respondents....................................44
Research Question 1 .....................................................................................52
Survey.....................................................................................................52
Interviews ...............................................................................................55
Research Question 2 .....................................................................................58
Survey.....................................................................................................59
Interviews ...............................................................................................64
Research Question 3 .....................................................................................66
Survey.....................................................................................................67
Interviews ...............................................................................................73
Preparation....................................................................................................75
Conclusions ..................................................................................................76
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION.....................................................................................77
Conclusions ..................................................................................................77
Significance of the Entry Period.............................................................78
Entry Plans..............................................................................................79
Political Arena ........................................................................................81
Interviewing and Listening.....................................................................82
Leadership Shortage ...............................................................................83
Preparation..............................................................................................84
Implications ..................................................................................................85
Current Superintendents .........................................................................85
Future Superintendents...........................................................................86
Recommendations for Future Research........................................................87
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................90
APPENDICES
A. INTERVIEW GUIDE ..............................................................................95
B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT.....................................................................105
C. INTERRATER MATRIX ......................................................................107

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Participants’ Background
Characteristics .....................................................................................46
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Participants’ Experience .............................48
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Preparation
for Current Superintendency ...............................................................49
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Characteristics of Current
Superintendency ..................................................................................51
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Research
Question 1............................................................................................53
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Research
Question 2............................................................................................60
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Research
Question 3............................................................................................68

vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to gain greater insight into the first 90 days of
the superintendency, to verify whether this period of transition is important to the
success of superintendents, and to understand the value that superintendents assign
to the time frame. The study was designed to identify whether superintendents used
formal and/or informal entry plans and whether these plans provided a significant
aid to superintendents in the transition period. The study focused on identifying
strategies, plans, and conceptual frameworks that were used in the first 90 days by
successful superintendents. Included in this purpose was to discover those mistakes
that superintendents reported that they may have made so that these lessons could
be communicated to persons who might assume the post of a new superintendency.
A mixed-methods design consisting of qualitative and quantitative compo-
nents was employed to address three research questions. Individual superintendent
interviews were conducted and served as the qualitative research tool, and an elec-
tronic superintendent survey distributed through the Association of California
School Administrators served as the quantitative research tool. Qualitative methods
were used to identify patterns during the entry period from the perspectives of the
superintendents. Quantitative data provided a base of trends on which to anchor the
qualitative data. The qualitative and quantitative portions of the current study were
examined separately and then the findings from each were analyzed to provide a
triangulation of the results. The study concluded that the entry period was vital to
the success of these incoming superintendents. The majority of these superinten-
dents did not have a formal entry plan, but rather an informal plan with a wide vari-

viii
ance of strategies. Participants reported that they were unprepared for the political
aspects of the superintendency, especially board-superintendent relationships.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The first superintendents in public schools were scholars or educators who
were generally promoted to the position of school superintendent. During this time
there was little or no training for the superintendency. Responsibilities were simple
and mundane; they consisted of tasks such as supervising teachers, grounds upkeep,
and student testing (Townley, 1992). But the superintendency is forever evolving.
As it has transformed over the years, it has become more complex as local school
districts and their leaders are forced to comply with new laws that incorporate
regulations, accountability measures, and shared leadership.
Griffiths (1966) described three stages in the development of the superin-
tendency. These three stages included the years 1837 to the time at which he pro-
posed the three stages. In the first stage the superintendent had little responsibility
for school management, buildings, or finances; in fact, the superintendent’s major
responsibility was supervision of the instructional program. In stage two the su-
perintendent assumed the responsibilities of a business official; business operations
became the primary focus, with particular emphasis on efficiency of operation.
Stage three saw the beginnings of the present-day superintendent, in which training
superintendents focused on developing an understanding of political power and the
skills needed to share authority with competing groups.
Today, preparing for the superintendency often starts in the classroom and
expands over time and through experience. It often encompasses both on-the-job
training and classroom work. This training is often complicated by the fact that
there is typically a variety of academic paths to the superintendency. While

2
universities are addressing the need for professional leaders in the superintendency,
it is within reach to train, select, and support school superintendents using a coher-
ent model that is grounded in national standards and that presents an understanding
of the demands of the complex position (Holloway, 2001).
Unfortunately, the American Association of School Administrators (AASA,
1993) stated that traditional universities and college programs were teaching out-
dated styles of leadership and management. In agreement, Fuller et al. (2003) indi-
cated that traditional training leaves superintendents unprepared for the political
realities of the superintendency. It is important to the success of future superintend-
ent candidates that training programs offer a curriculum reflective of the challenges
facing today’s superintendents. Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) emphatically
stated that, if superintendents are to be educational leaders, training must incorpor-
ate leadership programs that emphasize “forming a community vision for children,
crafting long-range goals and plans for raising the achievement of every child,”
(Goodman & Zimmerman, ¶ 2), and ensuring availability of guidance, support, and
necessary resources. Therefore, it is of equal importance to look at the role of lead-
ership in creating the strengths and characteristics that these superintendents pos-
sess. It is also necessary to determine how success is achieved and to examine the
kind of training that is available that may contribute to a successful tenure.
The training needed by aspiring superintendents should not only reflect
skills and knowledge needed for a successful tenure but should be reflective of the
accountability issues currently facing public education.
The demands of the superintendency are many, requiring new superintend-
ents to draw on a wide range of analytic, strategic, and interpersonal skills. They
must attend to the particular political demands of school boards, teacher unions,

3
and local governments. They must influence constituents who are not subject to
their authority but have far-reaching influence on schools. They must have an un-
wavering desire to act in the best interest of students while juggling challenges of
accountability, fiscal shortcomings, and the demands of state and federal mandates.
The pressure and demands of the job, now magnified by the accountability require-
ments of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, will influence the number
of leaders aspiring to be superintendents (Johnson, 1996). Current federal and state
mandates, along with financial challenges, are creating extreme pressure on super-
intendents and are keeping qualified candidates from pursuing the top position.
Factoring in the record number of superintendents reaching retirement age and the
high turnover rates associated with the unrealistic job expectations, the result is a
shortage of trained qualified candidates.
These demands have created a need to examine superintendents in their first
90 days in an effort to identify entry plans, commonalities, and strategies that lead
to a successful tenure. Leaders, regardless of their level, are most vulnerable in
their first few months in a new position because they lack detailed knowledge of
the challenges that they will face and what it will take to succeed in meeting those
challenges; they also have not yet developed a network of relationships to sustain
them (Watkins, 2003). Failure to create momentum during the first few months
virtually guarantees an uphill battle.
Watkins (2003) suggested that, during this time of transition, successful su-
perintendents must have a plan of attack that will produce positive results quickly
and set a course for their tenure. Building credibility and securing early wins lay a
foundation for long-term success.

4
Statement of the Problem
Accountability, political pressures, unrealistic job expectations, high turn-
over rates, and impending retirements have created a need for qualified school
leaders who can move into the role of the superintendent. Many believe that a
strong superintendent can be a champion of reform by assessing a district’s needs,
devising solutions to its problems, and taking charge of its policies and practices,
while ensuring compliance with state and federal mandates (Johnson, 1996).
“The changing of the guard and the challenges it poses for the new leader”
are not new and have not become easier, “given the complexity of modern organ-
izations and the speed at which business is conducted” (Watkins, 2003, p. 14).
Compounding the challenge is a leadership crisis due to a lack of training, in-
creased accountability, demands from state and local boards, and dwindling support
from an apathetic public (Johnson, 1996). Coupled with a high turnover rate and
the impending retirement of many of California’s most experienced and successful
superintendents, this leaves a genuine need for superintendents to know what the
position requires before they are selected for the position and then to know what
they should do as soon as they enter the transition period.
Research Questions
Currently, very little research exists on the topic of public school superin-
tendents, especially in the areas of entry plans and strategies to secure early
success. This lack of research in the area of the transition of a new superintendent
into their new position led to the development of three research questions designed
to understand this period of change.
1. Do superintendents agree that the first 90 days are important to a success-
ful superintendency?

5
2. Have new superintendents entered their new districts with a formal or in-
formal plan? What is the time line of the plan?
3. What strategies and conceptual frameworks have superintendents found
to be the most successful in their first 90 days and, in hindsight, what would the
superintendents have done differently upon entry into the superintendency?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to gain insight into the first 90 days of the su-
perintendency, to verify whether this period of transition is important to the success
of superintendents, and to understand the value that superintendents assign to the
timeframe. The study also sought to determine whether the 90-day period is
counted by superintendents to be the critical “window” of transition or whether, in
fact, the time of transition is longer or shorter than 90 days. The study was designed
to identify whether superintendents used formal and/or informal entry plans and
whether these plans were a significant aid to superintendents in the transition pe-
riod. Finally, the study focused on identifying the strategies, plans, and conceptual
frameworks that were used in the first 90 days by successful new superintendents.
Included in this purpose was to discover mistakes that these superintendents may
have decided that they had made so that these lessons could be communicated to
persons who might one day assume the superintendency.
Importance of the Study
The findings will be of assistance to current and aspiring superintendents in
their preparation for a new superintendency through strategies, entry plans, and
frameworks that other superintendents have used successfully during their transi-
tion period. Universities and other training institutions could benefit from the

6
findings of this study in developing or improving curriculum associated with train-
ing of future superintendents.
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were made regarding the case study and survey:
1. Responding superintendents answered honestly and candidly based on
their experience.
2. Superintendents chosen for the qualitative interviews in this study were
successful, as identified by their peers.
3. Surveys and superintendent interviews provided useful information re-
garding the importance of the first 90 days of the superintendency.
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations of the study were acknowledged:
1. The study was limited to participants who responded voluntarily.
2. The participants’ experience as superintendents varied dramatically.
3. The participants’ districts varied dramatically.
4. Due to time and logistical constraints, the study interview and survey tool
were administered only to California superintendents.
5. Validity of the study was dependent on the reliability of the instruments.
6. The researcher is the instrument of discovery in a qualitative inquiry and
has the responsibility to provide an accurate and valid data.
Delimitations of the Study
Due to the nature of the study’s design, several delimitations were applied
to this study.

7
1. The participant pool was restricted to superintendents serving in Califor-
nia districts with average daily attendance (ADA) ranges from 5,000 to 50,000.
This range was selected to focus the study on a relatively large portion of Califor-
nia districts and to ensure that the districts studied had common elements.
2. The participating superintendents were members of the Association of
California School Administrators (ACSA).
Methodology
A mixed-methods design consisting of qualitative and quantitative compon-
ents was employed to address the three research questions. Individual superintend-
ent interviews served as the qualitative research tool, while an electronic superin-
tendent survey distributed through ACSA served as the quantitative research tool.
Qualitative methods were used to identify patterns that may exist during the entry
period from the perspective of the superintendents. Qualitative research provides
deeper, more detailed information than quantitative research; quantitative research
serves to provide a base of trends on which to anchor qualitative data. The quali-
tative and quantitative portions of the current study were examined separately and
then the findings from each were analyzed to provide a triangulation of the results.
Definition of Terms
The definitions associated with this study are related to the position of
public school superintendent in the state of California and are commonly used
within the realm of public education. The following terms have a specific definition
within the scope of this study.

8
Accountability: State and federal regulations, laws, and/or mandates that
district and schools must meet or comply with in meeting specific student achieve-
ment, policy, and fiscal management standards.
Entry plan: A written plan that outlines strategies and goals that a new
leader would follow during the entry period as a superintendent to create a success-
ful tenure.
Superintendent: The top leadership position in a California public school,
equal to that of a chief executive officer (CEO) in private industry.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 presents the introduction, the background of the problem, the
statement of the problem, the research questions, the importance of the study, the
limitations, the delimitations, and the assumptions made in the study. Chapter 2 is
a review of the relevant literature with respect to the superintendency, including
historical trends of the superintendency, training programs, and the selection
process for the position of superintendent; chapter 2 also examines leadership
frameworks in business, organizational theory, and the process of entry into new
leadership roles. Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including
the research design, population and sampling procedure, instruments and their im-
plementation, and procedures for data collection and data analysis. Chapter 4
presents the results of the data collected for the study. Chapter 5 discusses and
analyzes the results, culminating in a summary, recommendations, and conclusion.

9
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Little educational research, theory, or literature has been developed that
pertains specifically to the role of the superintendent. However, there exists signifi-
cant literature on the CEO and other business leaders. Although this literature is
based in the private sector, many of the theories and conceptual frameworks
developed around leadership and management could be applied to the evolving role
of the superintendent. Of particular interest is the discussion of the first 90 days of
the superintendency and the importance of preparing and executing a plan during
the transition period. The review of the literature presented in this chapter was used
to develop the theoretical basis to answer the research questions presented in
chapter 1.
In addressing the aforementioned questions this chapter focuses on the role
of the superintendent from its beginnings to the current state of the position in
public education. It examines the relationship between the superintendent and the
school board, with attention to the selection process used to find qualified candi-
dates. The review touches on the challenges facing superintendents and the expand-
ing shortage of qualified candidates. With these factors in mind, the review
examines training opportunities for aspiring superintendents and conceptual frame-
works of leadership than can be applied to superintendents and CEOs. The chapter
concludes with a review of the frameworks that new superintendents can utilize in
creating an entry plan to establish a successful tenure in their first 90 to 100 days.

10
History of the Superintendency
The U.S. system of universal public education has undergone many changes
in the past 100 years. Early in the nation’s history rural one-room schools were
created in abundance, each with its own school board. These small locally governed
schools met the educational needs of the local families whom they served. Teacher
training was often hurried, with students entering teacher colleges after high school
graduation in May and leaving the college to run an entire school 60 days later in
September, while being supervised by a county superintendent (Pipho, 2000).
The eventual growth of urban school districts, along with the closing and
consolidation of one-room school houses into rural districts in the years following
World War I (which increased the demand for higher education) prompted state
legislatures and local school boards to respond to the needs of their constituents.
These needs included teachers, principals, and superintendents to lead schools and
their growing school districts.
The office of superintendent of schools is generally regarded as the
preeminent position in American public education (Townley, 1992). This view has
not always prevailed, as public schools existed in the United States long before the
first superintendent was appointed, and many years passed before the majority of
districts appointed persons with this title (Campbell, Fleming, Newell, & Bennion,
1987).
The first office of State Superintendent was established in 1812 in New
York; the duties assigned to the position included developing a plan for a common
school system, reporting the management of funds, and providing school-related
information to the state legislature (Butts & Cremin, 1953).

11
The position of local school superintendent emerged in the mid-1800s.
Between 1837 and 1950, 13 districts (all urban) established the position. By 1890
most major cities had followed this lead (Knezevich, 1984).
According to Townley (1992), the first superintendents were teachers. The
common practice was to appoint the best teacher as superintendent. There was no
consistent pattern in the title of the man or woman who was named to this position.
At various times the person selected to head the school district was designated
Visitor, Manager, Treasurer, or Headmaster. Not until the early 1800s did the word
superintendent emerge as the title for the CEO of American schools, combining the
Latin words super (over) with intendere (direct attention to). This title seemed to fit
the needs of boards of education when they decided to employ someone to oversee
and direct the operations of schools.
Griffiths (1966) described three stages in the development of the superin-
tendency spanning the years from 1837 to the present. Each stage describes the
duties of the superintendent and its evolution to the present-day role of the superin-
tendent. In the first stage, from 1837 to 1910, the role was scholarly, with the major
responsibility being to oversee the instructional program. During the second phase
of development, from 1910 to 1945, the superintendent assumed the responsibilities
of a business official, becoming the executive officer of the board of education.
Business operations became the primary focus, with particular emphasis on effici-
ency of operation. The third stage, 1945 to the present, witnessed the superintend-
ency evolve into a position of shared leadership. Charged with working with local
school boards, communities, and businesses, the role of the superintendent has
transformed into a more public position.

12
Carter and Cunningham (1997) explained the historical development of the
superintendent in four stages, beginning with the superintendent’s role as assisting
members of the clergy and board members in a clerical capacity. During the second
stage the role of the superintendent became scholarly, as the demands of the curri-
culum required more academic expertise in teaching. As the population continued
to grow and schools became bigger, the needs of boards began to shift to needing a
businessman to handle budgetary affairs. The last stage called for superintendents
to be the CEO to the board of education.
The second half of the 20th century began to see an extensive tightening
of control over schools through legislative action and judicial rulings by state
and federal courts. At the same time, control of schools by local school boards
diminished as unions, pressure groups, and external government agencies usurped
traditional powers (Johnson, 1996). One case in point is the recent California
legislative action that gave partial control of the Los Angeles Unified School
District to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a decision that will ultimately be decided
by the courts and that could be a precedent for future control of school districts.
The development of the superintendency and its subsequent evolution have
various implications.
Writing about a new generation of administrators, Susan Moore Johnson
(1996) observed that new superintendents are expected to diagnose local educa-
tional needs and implement strategies for improvement. Often, these needs are the
direct result of state and federal mandates or directions from local boards of
education.

13
The Superintendent-School Board Relationship
Local school boards have been delegated powers and duties by the state for
the purpose of ensuring that their schools are operated properly. Perhaps the most
significant role that the school board fills is that of selecting and overseeing the
district superintendent (National School Boards Association, 2002). The relation-
ships among the board, the superintendent, and the school district are vital to the
success of all.
Today, more than ever before, a superintendent’s key responsibility is to
define the relationship between the board of education and the organization that it
represents. All other leadership responsibilities, curriculum, instruction, human
resources, and finance can be delegated to some degree, but shaping this vital
relationship cannot be entrusted to anyone else. The ways in which superintendents
execute that responsibility defines and models the superintendent’s core values
(Johnson, 1996).
From the creation of the superintendency to the present, superintendents
have had a relatively clear sense of to whom they must answer. They were hired by
and were beholden to local boards of education and felt little or no allegiance to
state education departments. In contrast, superintendents are now being asked to
serve more than one master. As state and federal governments move to control
domains that were previously the exclusive province of local school districts,
superintendents must decide whose agenda will guide their actions and whose
priorities they will follow. As more of their options are limited or dictated by
regulations and laws promulgated beyond the local level, superintendents are
sometimes frustrated and unclear about how to reconcile conflicting demands of the

14
local school board with policies and priorities of state and federal governments
(Conley, 2003).
Much of the variability, uncertainty, and controversy that school systems
experience today comes from outside the organization, yet the board of education
members often embody and express much of that turmoil. A superintendent must
judge the extent to which this energy can be constructive or destructive for the
school system.
The need to satisfy school board members plays a critical role in the tenure
of the school superintendent. The top priority in terms of relevance and importance
is fostering good school board relations (Harvey, 2003). Weakened board relations
with the superintendent account for many of the short tenures of superintendents
(Glass, 2001; Mendez, 2003).
The Process of Selecting the Superintendent
School boards have been given significant decision-making responsibility
regarding who leads their schools. It is common practice for school districts,
through their boards, to hire an executive search firm to develop position guide-
lines, advertise for applications, and screen candidates for the position of superin-
tendent. The firm presents a list of candidates that meet the board’s qualifications.
The interview process usually begins with a series of interviews with district and
community stakeholders. Final candidates can expect visits to their present district,
schools, and communities by stakeholders to confirm qualifications and possible
matches. Often, a final interview with the board is required.
Long before a district chooses a superintendent, it decides what sort of
leadership it seeks: leadership for change, stability, or continuity. Much of the

15
search centers on making the right match between a candidate and the district’s
needs. The understandings reached between the candidate and the community
define much about the kind of leadership that will follow (Johnson, 1996).
An editorial in the Washington Post (Merrow, 2004) concerning the choice
of the next school chief for the District of Columbia school system offered this
about the hiring process:
What’s striking is how unimaginative and predictable the search process is.
Just as the National Football league, the National Basketball Association
and Major League Baseball seem to play musical chairs with their respect-
ive coaches, search firms recycle superintendents. Typically, a new superin-
tendent arrives in a city, hailed as the answer to every problem—low test
scores, poor attendance, embarrassing graduation rates. When change does
not occur overnight, or perhaps at all, disappointment sets in. The superin-
tendent departs for the next school district, and the cycle begins anew.
(p. B1)
This reparative cycle suggests a high demand for new leaders who want the
superintendent job but who may have reservations due to the difficult challenges
associated with the position. As these challenges persist, it becomes more difficult
for the local board to find qualified candidates who meet the district’s needs.
The Coming Crisis
The complexities of modern education, together with today’s political
realities, economic constraints, and social problems, make the job of the superin-
tendent one of the most challenging of all executive undertakings. Given these
factors and others previously discussed, the critical shortage of qualified superin-
tendents should be no surprise to school boards and/or communities (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2000). Data outlining the impending crisis caused by the shortage of
superintendent candidates are presented in this section. In an Education Com-
mission of the States (ECS) survey of the superintendency, 71% of the respondents

16
described the superintendency as being “in crisis” (Usdan, McCloud, Podmostko,
& Cuban, 2001).
Some current superintendents contend that the shortage has been created
through the current demands of the position, both political and organizational,
along with a continual criticism of the superintendent position. Frustration within
the superintendency has further diminished the pool of viable candidates, with only
65% of the sitting superintendents stating that they would start this career path
again if given the choice (Usdan et al., 2001).
Paul Jessup, a superintendent in southern California since 2003, stated that
he had “seen some really good people beaten down and give up when they heard
that the average superintendency is 2.4 years or that the position is only for those
who can financially walk away because they’re at the end of their careers” (per-
sonal communication, 2004). Dr. Philip Pendley, a superintendent from a large
rural school district in southern California, added,
I think that we sometimes think leaders come in only one package and I
don’t believe that’s true. I think the potential for leadership lies within many
people but not everyone. There are some leaders whose behavioral style just
does not allow them to be leaders. They are just to self absorbed. We need
to place people and give them opportunities early in their careers to demon-
strate leadership and to practice and learn. (personal communication, 2004)
According to a 1999-2000 survey conducted by AASA, the median age of
superintendents was then 52.5 years. This was the oldest median age ever recorded
in the survey, which is conducted every 10 years. At a recent Leadership and Policy
Forum at Harvard University the general issue of the crisis in education quickly
became the issue of the crisis in educational leadership. Participants bemoaned the
fact that a growing number of districts had superintendents who were serving in an
interim status. Indeed, there is a growing market for retired superintendents who

17
are willing to serve in interim capacity while boards of education continue their
search to find the perfect candidate.
Unfortunately, it is becoming more difficult and time consuming for boards
and their executive search teams to find qualified candidates. According to search
firms, this task is increasingly difficult and accentuates the pronounced shortage of
candidates. Because of this difficulty, some school boards, especially in large urban
districts, have sought nontraditional candidates from outside the education arena.
The military, the business world, and even the legal profession have become targets
of superintendent searches. Major urban school systems such as Los Angeles,
Chicago, Washington, San Diego, Seattle, and Jacksonville, as well as smaller
districts such as Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Eatonville, Washington, have hired
persons who have brought to their new jobs a talent for making decisions and clear-
ing away administrative debris. When the phenomenon of superintendent shortages
is combined with that of early retirement, there is an imminent crisis in the need for
leadership development.
Training Prospective Superintendents
The task of preparing district leaders to be superintendents is complicated
by the fact that there is typically a variety of academic paths to the superintend-
ency, including state education programs, universities, and professional organiza-
tions, many of which fall short in preparing future superintendents for the political
realities of the position.
Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, and Glass (2005) described state education agencies,
universities, and professional organizations as the “iron triangle,” which has
collaborated in defining requirements for administrator licensure. Critics of these

18
programs claim that the requirements are not coherent and are designed with
unrelated courses to meet certification requirements that are outdated by 30 years.
The AASA (1993) pointed out that traditional college and university preparation
programs are teaching outdated styles of leadership and management that empha-
size stress control, order, quality, and efficiency.
According to Fuller et al. (2003), traditional training leaves prospective
superintendents wholly unprepared for the political realities of the superintendency.
While experience may matter the most, a new skill set is required for today’s super-
intendent. A combination of professional expertise on schools and skills in leader-
ship, politics, finance, and management is necessary for success.
Criticism of preparation programs is not new. The National Commission on
Excellence in Educational Administration (NCEEA, 1987), sponsored by the
University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA), identified needs and
concerns of educational leaders, in particular the preparation programs for these
critical positions. The NCEEA criticized preparation programs for their deficien-
cies, including a lack of curricular coherence, rigor, pedagogy, and structure to
provide the kinds of knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to produce a large
supply of exceptional district leaders.
Recognizing the need to commit to a collaborative effort to improve educa-
tional leadership and its preparation programs, the UCEA convened the National
Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation in 2002
to address the needs for strengthening district leadership for the 21st century. The
target of this report was to review the current state of leadership preparation in the
United States by examining exceptional and innovative programs (Jackson &
Kelley, 2002).

19
Training programs such as those at Harvard University and the Broad
Center offer a comprehensive and rigorous training program to aspiring future
superintendents.
Harvard University: Urban
Superintendency
Since 1990 Harvard University has provided a program to prepare persons
for top leadership positions in urban school systems. The program blends tradi-
tional academics and practical business application. The strength of the program is
that it utilizes mentoring as a key factor in training future superintendents. Each
year a limited number of candidates are selected to participate in the 2-year pro-
gram. The program leads to a doctoral degree through the Harvard Graduate School
of Education. This program is differs from other doctorate programs by including a
full-time 6-month internship in a superintendent’s office. A substantial stipend is
offered during the internship.
The Broad Center
The Broad Center for the Management of School Systems is a national
nonprofit organization established by the Broad Foundation and former Michigan
Governor John Engle. The academy is a rigorous 10-month executive management
program designed to prepare the next generation of public school chief executives.
Its mission is to improve student achievement by recruiting, training, and support-
ing executive leadership talent from across America to become the next generation
of urban district leaders. The Center operates two executive development programs:
(a) the Broad Superintendents Academy, and (b) the Broad residency in urban
education. The focus of the program relies heavily on their 90-Day Superintendent

20
Entry Plan to prepare future superintendents for successful entry. The entry plan
focuses on orientation activities that assist the new superintendent to gather
information quickly about the district and community to establish an early presence
and to create a network of contacts and resources (Broad Center for Superintend-
ents, 2004).
Participants in the 10-month academy retain their full-time employment
status and attend the academy for seven extended weekends. The program’s faculty
is composed of corporate CEOs, high-level government officials, nonprofit execu-
tives, and leading education policy makers, practitioners, and researchers. Each
weekend session includes a panel of distinguished urban superintendents, school
board presidents, or union leaders. Between sessions, participants are expected to
undertake a series of rigorous individual skill-building activities and performance
projects to build their leadership portfolios.
Twenty-three accomplished professionals completed the program in its first
year (2002) and became the first class of Broad Center Fellows. The Center con-
tinues to train superintendents for urban leadership positions.
The ACSA Superintendents
Academy
A training program that merits consideration, particularly because it per-
tains to a majority of the superintendents who participated in this study, is the
ACSA Superintendents Academy. the academy is widely regarded as the “fast
track” into the superintendency in California. It helps aspiring superintendents to
avoid pitfalls, learn practical tips from seasoned superintendents, and build a
resource network of colleagues. The academy offers 70 hours of instruction in

21
seven weekend sessions. The extensive course syllabus and materials provided to
each participant are an exceptional resource for ongoing reference.
Summary
Although the Harvard, Broad, and ACSA programs are three exceptional
training programs, there is much more to leadership than possessing an array of
knowledge and learning a set of prescribed skills. There are many in leadership
positions who, despite their knowledge and skill level, utterly fail to inspire and to
truly lead (Glanz, 2002). Subsequently, there is a need to examine and understand
the role of organizations in successful leadership.
Organizational Leadership
Leadership has long been perceived to be the key in the efficient function-
ing of organizations. Traditionally, the role of the leader has been perceived as a
bold action-orientated figure who solves most of the problems and draws others to
his or her side in the effort. Although there may be some call for such a style of
leadership today, a growing body of research calls for a more participative
approach in schools (Blankstein, 2004). Kouzes and Posner (1995) defined
leadership as the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations.
This definition seems to fit well with current studies on organizational leadership.
Goodlad (1984) provided a substantial body of evidence that leads to three
conclusions. First, leadership matters. Even when other variables, including
resources and personnel, are held constant, a single leader can have an enormous
impact on the entire organization. Second, leadership effectiveness includes both
personal predispositions and acquired knowledge and skills. Third, a leader must
have empathy, common sense, and intelligence among other leadership traits.

22
When defining leadership in the educational world, Hansot and Tyack
(1982) defined a successful superintendent as an educational leader politically
adept at building coalitions, willing to abandon a narrow professional ideology, and
skillful in creating coordinated programs in individual leadership. According to
Trigg (1997), the key to success as a superintendent is to provide a safe environ-
ment and ensure that students learn. Successful leaders within the public schools
stay focused on the organization’s foundation. They possess essential leadership
characteristics and they hire, train, and keep quality people.
In the book Leading Change Kotter (1996) stated that the amount of signi-
ficant, often traumatic, change in organizations has grown tremendously over the
past 2 decades. As a result, more and more organizations reduce costs by improving
the quality of products and services and locating new opportunities for growth and
increased productivity. This statement is reflective of the accountability issues
facing public schools, such as fiscal constraints and responsibility, No Child Left
behind, and student test scores. How do superintendents create change in their
organizations to keep current with these challenges? It would benefit the new
superintendent to first understand the state of the new organization.
Watkins (2003) described the state of the organization in his STaRS model,
which illustrates the state of the organization as being a start-up, turnaround,
realignment, or sustaining success. Utilizing the STaRS model allows the new
leader to accelerate the diagnosis of the new organization and to develop effective
action plans.
In Reforming Organizations Bolman and Deal (1997) examined four
perspectives or frames that have helped leaders to find clarity and meaning amid
the confusion of organizational life. Through “reframing,” leaders have a tool for

23
finding new opportunities and options in confusing and troubling organizations.
These four frameworks are critical to the culture and climate of a school district.
Leaders may use one or a combination of these frameworks, depending on the
strength of the personal characteristics that they posses. Their four frames view
organizations as templates: (a) the structural frame shows how to organize and
structure groups and teams to get results; (b) the human resource frame shows how
to tailor organizations to satisfy human needs, improve human resource manage-
ment, and build positive interpersonal and group dynamics; (c) the political frame
shows how to cope with power and conflict, build coalitions, hone political skills,
and deal with internal and external politics; and (d) the symbolic frame shows how
to shape a culture that gives purpose and meaning to work, stage organizational
drama for internal and external audiences, and build team spirit through ritual,
ceremony, and story.
Bolman and Deal (1997) described a frame as a set of ideas or assumptions
that one carries in the head as a mental map.
Like maps, frames are both windows on a territory and tools for navigation.
Every tool has distinctive strengths and limitations. The right tool makes the
job easier, but the wrong one just gets in the way. One or two tools may
suffice for simple jobs, but not for more complex undertakings. Managers
who master the hammer and expect all problems to behave like nails find
organizational life confusing and frustrating. The wise leader, like a skilled
carpenter or a professional chef, wants at hand a diverse collection of high
quality implements. Experienced leaders also understand the difference
between possessing a tool and knowing how to use it. Only experience and
practice bring the skill and wisdom to size up a situation and use tools well.
(p. 13)
Kotter (1996) offered an eight-step framework for leaders to produce
successful change of any magnitude in organizations. The first four steps in the
transformation process help to “defrost” a hardened status quo. The fifth through
seventh step introduce new practices. The eighth stage grounds the changes in the

24
organizational culture and helps make them successful. Kotter’s eight-stage process
of creating major change.
The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change
1. Establish a sense of urgency
Examine the market and competitive realities
Identify and discuss crises, potential crises, or major opportunities
2. Create the guiding coalition
Put together a group with enough power to lead the change
Get the group to work together like a team
3. Develop a vision and strategy
Create a vision to help direct the change effort
Develop strategies for achieving that vision
4. Communicate the change vision
Use every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new
vision and strategies
Have the guiding coalition role model the behavior expected of
employees
5. Empower the broad-based action
Get rid of obstacles
Change systems or structures that undermine the change vision
6. Generate short-term wins
Plan visible improvements in performance or “wins”
Create those wins
Visibly recognize and reward people who made the wins possible
7. Consolidate gains and producing more change
Use increased credibility to change all systems, structures, and
polices that don’t fit together and don’t fit the transformation vision.

25
Hire, promote, and develop people who can implement the changed
vision by reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change
agents
8. Anchor new approaches in the culture
Create better performance through customer- and productivity-
orientated behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective
management
Articulate the connections between new behaviors and organiza-
tional success
Develop means to ensure leadership development and succession
(pp. 21-22)
If new leaders succeed in meeting these core challenges, they should have success
at creating change. Failure to surmount any one of them, however, is enough to
cause potentially crippling problems (Kotter, 1996).
The differences between organizations and leadership is a very fine line at
best. Public education and the corporate world share many of the same challenges.
The approaches to overcome these challenges are universal. Bolman and Deal
(1997), Kotter (1996), Johnson (1996), and Watkins (2003) all offered convincing
insights and tools that will benefit any organization contemplating or undertaking
major change.
There are differences in the theories of organizations and how best to lead
them. Bolman and Deal (1997) offered their four frames to help leaders view their
leadership experience through distinct “lenses.” Neff and Citrin (2005), Kotter
(1996), and Watkins (2003) offered not only frameworks that could assist new
leaders in creating organizational change but also theories on how best to succeed
in the transition period.

26
The First 90 to 100 Days
The concept of the first 100 days is credited to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first
term as President of the United States in 1933. In his first 100 days FDR proposed
and Congress enacted a sweeping program to bring recovery to the nation. Within
100 of Roosevelt’s inaugural proclamation, “We have nothing to fear but fear
itself,” America had a sense of renewed hope and confidence. His agenda and the
speed with which he accomplished it has been the measuring stick for every U.S.
President since. In fact, more than 70 years later this special time period has woven
its way into popular culture as a measure of success for new leaders (Neff & Citrin,
2005).
The idea of studying the first 90 to 100 days of a leader’s tenure first began
in the business world. The importance of this “window of transition” has begun to
take on the importance that it merits (Watkins, 2003). Once in the “window of
transition,” various authors advise new leaders how to proceed best through this
period of uncertainty and change. According to Susan Moore Johnson, author of
Leading to Change: The Challenge of the New Superintendency (1996), one of the
earliest expectations that many newly appointed superintendents face is to define a
vision for change. A superintendent today, awash in others’ hopes for leadership, is
expected to formulate educational visions that will inspire and guide constituents as
they set out to improve their schools. According to Watkins (2003), leaders,
regardless of their level of experience, are most vulnerable in the first few months
in a new position because they lack detailed knowledge of the challenges that they
will face and what it will take to succeed in meeting the challenges. Building credi-
bility and securing some early wins lay a firm foundation for long-term success.
Each new leadership role will demand that you adjust to a different culture,
operating process, support system and management style within the

27
organization. Every shift in the work environment requires a fresh start and
a new response. The bottom line is this: As a leader you are going to have
many first hundred days over your career. (Neff & Citrin, 2005, p. 19)
According to Neff and Citrin (2005), everyone’s countdown period to a new
leadership position is different, depending on whether the leader comes into a new
position from inside the organization or was recruited from the outside, whether the
new leader is entering a company in crisis or in a stable environment, and whether
the leader is moving directly into a new position from an already demanding one or
has the luxury of free time for additional preparation. Neff and Citrin asked leaders
which actions they rated as the most important for getting off to the right start.
The leaders named five items: (a) absorb information, (b) define the company’s
challenges, (c) establish credibility and win employees’ trust, (d) assess the senior
management team, and (e) prepare emotionally. As a result of their research and to
put the first 100 days into proper context, Neff and Citrin developed a series of key
actions that new leaders can follow to achieve success, referring to these actions as
The First Hundred Days Pyramid. This framework includes eight steps in
building a foundation that leads to building momentum in the next 100 days
and beyond.
Prepare yourself during the countdown.
Align expectations
Shape your management team.
Craft your strategic agenda.
Start transforming culture.
Manage your board or boss.
Communicate.
Avoid common pitfalls. (p. 17)
Cottrell (2005) maintained, “Success is ultimately realized by people who
make more right choices . . . and recover quickly from their bad choices” (p. 8).

28
Given the stakes, it is surprising how little good guidance is available to new
leaders about how to move effectively into new leadership positions. Few of the
many available books and articles on leadership directly address transition.
Transitions are periods of opportunity, a chance to start afresh and to make
needed changes in an organization. But they are also periods of acute
vulnerability, because new leaders lack established working relationships
and a detailed understanding of their new role. If new leaders fail to build
momentum during their transition, they will face an uphill battle from that
point forward. (Watkins, 2003, p. 3)
Watkins discussed the importance of transition acceleration and reaching
the breakeven point in this transition. The breakeven point is the point at which the
new leader has contributed as much value to the new organization as he or she has
consumed from it. It is at this point that new leaders begin to create value in their
new organization.
One of Watkins’s (2003) most significant frameworks that assists new
leaders in assessing the new organization is his STaRS model. Watkins explained
that there are four broad types of business situations with which new leaders must
contend during the transition period: start-up, turnaround, realignment, and
sustaining success. In all four of the STaRS situations the goal is a growing and
successful business. Each type of transition represents a unique set of challenges. In
the “start-up” situation the responsibility is to create or rebuild the organization. In
the “turn-around” situation the focus is on creating change quickly by building
organizations, structures, and systems from scratch. In “realignment” the organiza-
tion is likely to have strong people and products, with the focus being to find the
islands of excellence in an organization to create building blocks to make needed
changes. In the “sustaining success” situation the goal is to avoid decisions that
cause problems and to find ways to take the business to the next level.

29
The key point is that businesses tend to move predictably from one type of
situation to another. “Understanding the history of your new organization will help
you grasp the challenges and opportunities of your situation” (Watkins, 2003, p.
64) and ultimately help to create an entry plan and success in the first 90 days.
Watkins also suggested that, from observing new leaders and experimenting with
methods of accelerating transitions, he developed strong beliefs about the
challenges of transitions and what it takes to succeed. These beliefs are summarized
in five propositions taken from Watkins’s (2003) text:
The first proposition is that the root causes of transition failure always lie
in a pernicious interaction between the situation, with its opportunities,
pitfalls, and the individual, with his or her strengths and vulnerabilities.
Transition failures happen when new leaders misunderstand the essential
demands of the situation or lack the skill and flexibility to adapt to them.
The second proposition is that there are systematic methods that leaders can
employ to both lessen the likelihood of failure and reach the breakeven
point faster. The key then is to match your strategy to the situation
The third proposition is that the overriding goal in a transition is to build
momentum by creating virtuous cycles that build credibility and by avoid-
ing getting caught in vicious cycles that damage credibility. Leadership is
about leverage. To be successful the new leader will have to mobilize the
energy of many others in the organization.
The fourth proposition is that transitions are a crucible for leadership
development and should be managed accordingly. Precisely because they
strengthen diagnostic skills, demand growth and adaptation, and test per-
sonal stamina, transitions are an indispensable development experience for
every company’s high potential leaders.
The fifth proposition is that adoption of a standard framework for acceler-
ating transitions can yield big returns for organizations. Adopting standard
approaches to learning about a new organization, securing early wins, and
building coalitions translates into speedier organizational adjustments to
the unavoidable stream of personnel shifts and environmental changes.
(pp. 4-7)
In The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People Stephen Covey (2004) talked
about seven success principles that leaders can utilize at the beginning of a new
leadership role. Covey contended that, in assuming a leadership role in any

30
organization or business, it is important to write a business plan to establish
direction and guidelines to create change. Covey’s seven habits are principles that
can move organizations and affect change. Both Watkins and Covey strongly
recommended taking early advantage of opportunities to create change. Although
Covey presented a holistic principle-centered approach to his framework for creat-
ing change, it complements Watkins’s transition acceleration model by assisting
leaders in assessing strengths and weaknesses, therefore helping to identify per-
sonal vulnerabilities that could impact their new situation in an organization.
Neff and Citrin (2005) claimed that their eight-point plan could provide a
new leader with insight to build an agenda and plan for the first 100 days. They
developed their framework in the shape of a pyramid, the idea being that each layer
consists of a set of key actions that can be layered, building up to the first 100 days.
By using the eight-point plan, new leaders can accelerate the learning curve and
reduce the anxiety that is standard for all leaders who start a new assignment.
Kotter (1996) approached transforming organizations through identification
of what he called the “eight mistakes.” These eight mistakes form the foundation of
his framework for “the eight-stage change process.” Kotter claimed that these eight
stages can lead to successful change in any organization. Neff and Citrin (2005),
Watkins (2003), and Kotter (1996) all offered complementary frameworks and
applied a multitude of similar ideas and approaches to creating change and transi-
tion in an organization.
According to Watkins (2003), in any type of situation it can be useful to
put together a 90-day plan and to get buy-in from the supervisor or supervising
authority. Usually, a new leader will be able to devise a plan after a couple of
weeks in the new position. Once the new leader has begun to connect with the

31
organization and to get the “lay of the land,” a 90-day plan should be written, even
if it consists only of bullet points. It should specify priorities and goals as well as
milestones.
Taking into consideration that there is very little research on formal and
informal entry plans, utilizing the frameworks proposed by Watkins (2003) and
Neff and Citrin (2005) could give new leaders insight on how to develop such a
plan. Watkins shares strategies in his 90-day acceleration plan. This framework
consists of 10 steps that should be developed during the initial 90 days to create
success and momentum as a new leader.
Promote yourself
Accelerate your learning.
Match strategy to situation
Secure early wins
Negotiate success
Achieve alignment
Build your team
Create coalitions
Keep your balance
Expedite everyone (Watkins, 2003, pp. 13-14)
Watkins referred to entry plans as part of the transition process. He offered the
following explanation as to why there is so little advice on what he referred to as
accelerating transitions or entry plans:
In part, the answer is because there are many different kinds of transitions;
thus, it is not enough to come up with general rules of one size fits all
advice. The challenges of transition acceleration vary depending on situa-
tional factors. It matters a great deal whether you are making a key
“passage” in terms of level in the organization, whether you are an insider
or an outsider, whether you have formal authority, and whether you are
taking over a successful or troubled group. Thus, it is essential that you

32
match your strategy to the situation you face. If you succeed at this, you
will free up time to concentrate on fixing problems and exploiting
opportunities in your new organization. (p. 10)
Consider the challenge that a new leader faces in diagnosing a new organiz-
ation’s business situation. How does he or she reach consensus and direct reports
about what actions should be taken, unless he or she has an entry plan? “Even if the
new leader achieves the necessary shared understanding, he is likely to have con-
sumed significant time and energy in the process and might have missed some
important opportunities and failed to identify some ticking time bombs” (Watkins,
2003, p. 11). Utilizing Watkins’s STARS model, new leaders can powerfully
accelerate the diagnosis of the new organization and the development of an effect-
ive entry plan. It also helps the new leader to reach a shared understanding of the
situation with other key players more quickly. Whether taking over an entire
organization or managing a short-term project, new leaders can use this tool to
accelerate transition. Practical advice should be tailored to the situation, the level of
the new leader, his or her experience with the new organization, and the condition
of the business. The fundamental goal of Watkins’s research is to “provide new
leaders with practical frameworks for diagnosing their situations and developing
their own customized transition acceleration plans” (p. 11).
Collins (2001) referred to his Level 5 Leadership:
We must think of transition as a process followed by breakthrough, broken
into three stages: disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined
action. Within each of these three stages, there are two concepts; the
buildup and breakthrough.
“Wrapping around the entire framework is a concept called the flywheel, which
captures the gestalt of the entire process of going from good to great” (p. 14).
To accomplish this, new leaders must have a plan that defines what needs to be
accomplished in the first 90 days.

33
With the anticipation of change as the result of an incoming superintendent
and the opportunity to look at situations with fresh eyes, the entry plan
helps people to understand that “business as usual” is under review. It also
allows the new superintendent to provide focus so that people see the
district working to continually improve the program’s quality. The entry
plan documents the need to balance change with stability. (Neely, Berube,
& Wilson, 2002, ¶ 2)
Conclusion
The role of the superintendent has evolved from one of teacher to its present
role of CEO. Along the way the position of superintendent has become more diffi-
cult and challenging, requiring aspiring superintendents to posses the skills and
knowledge equal to that of the private sector top corporate leaders. Unfortunately,
factors such as challenging state and federal mandates, pay, early retirement, and a
demanding public have created a shortage of candidates for the position. Accentuat-
ing the pronounced shortage of aspiring candidates is the question of adequate
training and preparation to develop the necessary skills to create change in these
organizations. Those who accept the challenge will benefit from the research by
Watkins, Kotter, Bolman and Deal, and Johnson, among others. Their research in
leadership, organizations, transitions and developing entry plans give aspiring and
new superintendents the tools to develop successful strategies in creating change
and success in the first 90 days of a new leadership role.

34
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the qualitative and quantitative methods employed to
address the research questions of the current study. This chapter addresses the
research questions, research design, and the research methodology, including the
population and sampling procedure, instrumentation, and procedures for data
collection and analysis. Three research questions guided the study:
1. Do superintendents agree that the first 90 days are important to a success-
ful superintendency?
2. Have new superintendents entered their new districts with a formal or
informal plan? What is the time line of the plan?
3. What strategies and conceptual frameworks have superintendents found
to be the most successful in their first 90 days and, in hindsight, what would the
superintendents have done differently upon entry into the superintendency?
Research Design
Qualitative and quantitative research techniques were used to address the
research questions. While qualitative research may best be used to discover themes
and relationships at the case level, quantitative research can be used to validate
those themes and relationships in sample populations. Due to the descriptive nature
of the qualitative portion of this study, the qualitative method was complemented
by a quantitative approach (Best & Kahn, 1998). The use of both qualitative and
quantitative data makes the current study a mixed-methods design (Bazeley, 1999).
The qualitative portion of this study consisted of two separate data
collection approaches to address the research questions: (a) individual case studies

35
consisting of interviews with current superintendents, and (b) an electronic survey
sent to all superintendents in California who were members of the AACA. The
researcher in the current study was one of a 10-member cohort who worked on this
thematic project in a collaborative manner. Each member published an individual
dissertation on the topic of superintendent entry. Working collaboratively, the
members gathered and analyzed extensive information on the topic. Each cohort
member interviewed two superintendents using the interview guide (appendix A).
The qualitative portion of this study can be described as a grounded theory
study. Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1968). Grounded
theory qualitative studies are those in which the researcher attempts to develop
theory that is “grounded in” the data. Morse and Richards (2002) stated that a
grounded theory approach is appropriate when the goals of the study are to
“process questions about changing experiences over time or its stages and phases”
(p. 30), and this description applies to the research questions of the current study.
The quantitative portion of this study employed a cross-sectional survey
design. A survey (appendix B) was designed by the cohort to collect information on
(a) the demographic and background characteristics of the respondents (gender,
ethnicity, age, education, years of work experience in a variety of educational areas,
specialized training), (b) characteristics of the superintendency (number of districts
served, how they were hired, years served, district size, district type), (c) training
and preparation for the superintendency, (d) characteristics of the entry period of
the superintendency (e.g., specific transition and planning activities), and (e) char-
acteristics of the current superintendency (e.g., opinions of leadership and other
factors related to the current position).

36
Population and Sample
The population of interest consisted of school superintendents in California
who were members of ACSA. In California, approximately 1,000 superintendents
serve local school districts as the CEO. ACSA serves approximately 750 California
members who serve as superintendent. Criteria for selection to participate in the
survey study were based on the desire to find California superintendents experienc-
ing complex issues facing educational leaders.
The sample employed in the qualitative portion of this study consisted of 20
California superintendents. These superintendent interviewees were prescreened
through invitation to participate in the research study by letter, electronic mail, or
personal contact. For the quantitative portion of the study, all 750 members of the
ACSA were invited to participate in the quantitative portion of this study, and 272
superintendents completed the survey.
Procedure
A pilot study involving a small-scale interview using the research instru-
ment (survey guide) with former and current superintendents was conducted by a
group of researchers prior to the implementation of the official interview. The pilot
study was utilized to gain knowledge and practice pertaining to the relationship
between researcher and interviewee. The pilot study served as a tool to fine tune
and revise the interview guide and its components. Pilot studies are intended to
determine whether the proposed procedures have merit and to correct revealed
flaws (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).
The pilot study interviews were conducted with the use of a tape recorder.
This device was used to gain insight into the interview process on the part of the
researcher and to provide resources of information used in the literature review. All

37
sample participants in the pilot study gave full permission to participate in the pilot
study and to be recorded. The pilot interviews provided insights into the research
methodology and instrument: (a) Questions were tested to ensure reasonably
unbiased data, (b) proposed methods for coding and analyzing data were discussed,
and (c) an interrater reliability matrix was developed.
The domains addressed in the interview guide consisted of the following:
(a) superintendent, (b) entry plans, (c) leadership frameworks, (d) decision-making
strategies (e) education/preparation, and (f) superintendent demographics.
An interrater reliability matrix (appendix C) was designed by the members
of the research group. Nine major domains were identified by the group, based on
the literature review. These domains served as the identifiers of the matrix and were
aligned to the questions in the interview guide. To the right of each domain, four
levels of implementation were used to describe the level at which the domain was
implemented by the interviewee. Conference calls were scheduled as regular class
sessions so cohort members could share interview results. Over the course of calls,
the group selected four interview transcripts, which were read and evaluated based
on the interrater matrix. Extensive discussion ensued to calibrate the evaluation
criteria of each researcher’s interviews to ensure unbiased and accurate evaluation
of the interview.
Instrumentation
Given that this was a case study and grounded theory study, interviews,
observations, surveys, and document analysis were utilized. The assessment of the
first 90 days of the superintendency was best determined through the individual
interviews with superintendents and analysis of the survey data. Interviews with the

38
superintendents were conducted using a superintendent interview guide (appendix
A), specifically utilizing an open-ended interview format to allow for detailed
responses from the superintendents. Numerous frameworks were utilized to
formulate the basis of the interview guide, including the works of Bolman and
Deal, John Kotter, and Michael Watkins. Each of these frameworks served as the
basis for analyzing the superintendents’ leadership style, entry preparation, and
organizational makeup.
The superintendent interview guide consisted of four questions; subques-
tions were used to support the main questions and gain insight in detail from the
responses of the superintendents. The questions in the interview guide focused on
key themes that address the research questions related to preparation for the super-
intendency, successful strategies, and entry/transition plan. The interview guide
corresponded to a standardized open-ended interview design.
In addition to the four main questions on the interview guide, the sub-
questions sought to identify and address the trends related to the information found
in the literature review. The exact wording of questions within the interview guide
served as the focal point of the interview investigation. Due to the nature of the
superintendency position, time constraints allowed for interviews to last approxi-
mately 45 minutes to 1 hour. Analysis of key superintendent documents such as
entry/transition plans assisted in evaluating and confirming the findings of the
interviews. ACSA and the researchers at the University of Southern California
were responsible for data collection. Interviews, surveys, and document analysis
were conducted during November and December 2004. The research group was
responsible for the creation of the survey questions, superintendent interview guide,
consent to participate in the study, and interrater matrix.

39
Merriam (2001) described the role of the investigator in a qualitative study
as the primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data. Therefore, it is the
investigator’s responsibility to be aware of and limit personal biases that might
influence the investigation. Hence, the researcher must be sensitive to the context in
which the study occurs, including variables such as the physical setting, nonverbal
behaviors, covert and overt agendas, and or the surroundings.
Prior to each superintendent interview, respondents were provided a copy of
the interview guide, a copy of the Institutional Review Board approval of the study,
and a consent to participate form. All respondents were asked the same questions in
a similar fashion. However, due to the inherent time restrictions facing superintend-
ents, questions directly relating to the interrater matrix were given priority.
In order to increase validity and reliability of the findings, several measures
were taken. For instance, superintendents were given the interview guide prior to
the actual interview to assure that significant and accurate information was elicited.
The researcher served as the sole interviewer in order to produce sound and con-
sistent reliability across interviewee response interpretations. The interrater matrix
tool was used to calibrate researcher evaluation of responses from superintendents.
The researcher had not undue relationships with the interviewees that would
suggest position power or mistrust that might jeopardize the validity of the study.
The researcher held no professional position of power over any of the participants.
Utilizing the interview guide tool and the survey served as triangulation to facilitate
convergence of the findings. Triangulation has been defined as the “analysis of
different data types and methods to illuminate the same question” (Morse &
Richards, 2002, p. 76). The use of a triangulated research design allows for the
validation of the findings of a study across multiple perspectives, hence

40
strengthening the level of confidence in the results. The methodology of combining
the survey tool, interview guide, and document review to study the same phenome-
non was based on the assumption that any bias inherent to particular data sources,
investigators, and methods would be neutralized (Creswell, 1998).
Using primary source documents found in the literature, the superintendent
survey instrument was created by the current researcher and other researchers at the
University of Southern California. ACSA, the researcher, and university faculty
were involved in the construction of the survey tool, its organization, and its word-
ing. The majority of the survey questions were based on a 5-point Likert-type scale,
with additional questions fashioned in binary and forced choice design to identify
the participants’ demographic information. A copy of the survey is contained in
appendix B.
Data Analysis
Qualitative Study
The research questions formed the basis of the search for themes from the
qualitative analysis. The recorded responses of the interviewees were transcribed.
Two methods of deriving themes from the transcribed interview data were
employed. First, the researcher read the transcriptions and made notes regarding the
information provided by the participants. This information was synthesized so that
a relatively small number of themes formed the main set of results. Second, the
transcribed interview data were analyzed using Version 5.0 of a computer program
named Ethnograph
®
(Qualis Research Associates, 1998). The primary use of
Ethnograph is as an organizational tool. Ethnograph allows qualitative data to be
manipulated and categorized based on keyword searches. Segments of the

41
interviews can be marked and reports can be generated with the text organized
around various user-selected themes.
Quantitative Study
The survey contained questions aimed at collecting background data on
each respondent rather than specifically addressing the three research questions.
For these items, descriptive statistics (consisting primarily of frequencies and
percentages) were computed. These items included both demographic information
(e.g., gender, ethnicity, age) and information on work experience (e.g., years of
teaching experience, years of administrative experience).
The second set of survey items related directly to the three research
questions.
Research question 1 asked, Do superintendents agree that the first 90 days
are important to a successful superintendency? Question 25 (“Based upon your
pre-entry assessment, which of the following descriptions best defined the overall
state of your school district prior to your entry as superintendent?”) set the back-
ground for the first research question. Questions 26 (“How important is the entry
period for a successful superintendency?”) and 27 (“Rate the importance of your
interaction with each of the groups or categories below in creating your entry or
transition strategy to your current superintendency”) directly related to the first 90
days of the superintendency, and therefore were used to address the first research
question.
Research question 2 asked, Have new superintendents entered their new
districts with a formal or informal plan? What is the time line of the plan? Several
survey items related to this research question. Question 22 (parts 1, 5, 6, and 7)

42
addressed the relationship between professional development activities and board-
superintendent relations, community relations, coalition building/setting common
goals, and entry plan creation. Question 23 addressed areas in which the superin-
tendent had exhibited effective leadership. Question 24 assessed the usefulness of
various activities in performing the superintendent duties. Question 27 examined
importance of interactions with various groups in creating the entry or transition
strategy. Question 28 assessed additional characteristics of the entry plans for the
superintendency. Question 29 determined which of several tasks were part of the
superintendents’ entry strategies.
Research question 3 asked, What strategies and conceptual frameworks
have superintendents found to be the most successful in their first 90 days and, in
hindsight, what would the superintendents have done differently upon entry into the
superintendency? Question 30 examined the areas of focus during the entry period
in the current superintendency. Question 31 was an open-ended question that asked
respondents about other areas of focus during their entry period that might not have
been listed in Question 30. Question 32 addressed leadership efforts or focus during
the entry period of the current superintendency. Question 33 examined factors that
might inhibit the respondent in the role of superintendent and possible changes in
focus since the entry period. Question 34 asked about the extent to which each of
several factors affected the current superintendency. Question 35 examined current
leadership strengths and weaknesses. Question 36 examined the focus of the
current superintendency. Question 37 asked respondents what the key elements of
their entry plan would be if they were to obtain their current position now.

43
Summary
A mixed-methods design study consisting of both qualitative and quanti-
tative components was employed to address the three research questions of the
study. Each of these three research questions related to the entry period of school
superintendency. Qualitative interview data were collected from three superintend-
ents and quantitative survey data were collected from 274 superintendents. The
qualitative and quantitative portions of the current study were examined separately
and then the findings were combined to provide robust results.

44
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the survey and interview
data. First, the background characteristics of the survey respondents, their work-
related experiences, and their preparation for the current superintendency are
described, followed by the characteristics of their current superintendency. Next,
each of the three research questions is addressed via triangulation, utilizing research
literature, survey data, and interview data.
Background Characteristics of Survey Respondents
The research provided a description of the characteristics of the responding
school superintendents. Three factors were considered: age, gender, and education.
In terms of age, Townley (1992) indicated that most superintendents were of
middle age, while data from a study in Colorado (Colorado Association of School
Executives, 2003) indicated that over half of school superintendents were 50 to 60
years old. In the current study 70.7% of the superintendents were 50 to 59 years
old, clearly consistent with previous studies. While it is true that a substantial
amount of experience is required to obtain a superintendent position, it is unlikely
that people in their 40s are unable to have obtained this experience, and they may
be more likely to impart energy and new methodologies to the position. Neverthe-
less, in the current study only 15.4% of the responding superintendents were
younger than 50 years.
Hodgkinson and Montenegro (1999) indicated that women and minorities
composed approximately 20% of the superintendents in the United States. In the
current study 23.5% of the survey respondents were female, indicating that there

45
has been little change in the 6 years since the Hodgkinson and Montenegro study.
While the number of females in superintendent positions may be growing, further
strategies to attract and retain female superintendents should be implemented
(Institute for Educational Leadership, 2001). Keller (1999) identified several such
strategies: (a) restructure the superintendency to make it less personally demanding,
(b) recognize the value of leadership approaches that are traditionally considered
feminine, and (c) call on current superintendents to identify, encourage, and mentor
promising female educators. Several of the superintendents interviewed by the
cohort in this study were women. None of the interview questions related to
gender-specific issues, asking only for identification of gender as demographic
information. In the interviews none of the female superintendents referred to any
issues or experiences relating to the fact that they were women.
In Colorado 37% of superintendents held either a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree
(Colorado Association of School Executives, 2003). The study by Hodgkinson and
Montenegro (1999) on the characteristics of the superintendency found that less
than one third of the respondents had earned a doctorate in education. The survey
respondents in the current study were more likely than previous samples to hold a
doctorate. Specifically, 45.7% of the survey respondents held a doctoral degree.
This may indicate a trend toward hiring doctoral-level superintendents or it may be
that California is more likely to hire doctoral-level superintendents than other states
(e.g., Colorado). Nevertheless, master-level superintendents were the most common
(51.8%) in the current study. Less than 3% had only a Bachelor’s degree, indicating
that some graduate education was important to those who hired superintendents.
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the superintendents who partici-
pated in the survey. The majority of the sample was male (76.5%) and

46
Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Participants’ Background Characteristics

Characteristic and category f %

Gender (N = 281)
Male 215 76.5
Female 66 23.5

Ethnicity (N = 279)
African American 1 0.4
American Indian 2 0.7
Asian 3 1.1
Caucasian 256 91.8
Hispanic 17 6.1

Age in years (N = 280)
29 or younger 1 0.4
30-39 7 2.5
40-49 35 12.5
50-59 198 70.7
60-69 39 13.9
70 or older 0 0.0

Education (N = 280)
Bachelor’s degree 7 2.5
Master’s degree 145 51.8
Doctoral degree 128 45.7

Years to Retirement (N = 281)
0 to 2 57 20.3
3 to 4 57 20.3
5 to 6 59 21.0
7 to 8 34 12.1
9 to 10 28 10.0
11 or more 46 16.4

Caucasian (91.8%). The most common age range was 50 to 59 years (70.7% of the
sample), with only one superintendent 29 or younger and none over 69 years old.
Most of the respondents had a master’s degree (51.8%), while a large minority had
a doctorate (45.7%). Most of the respondents (61.3%) anticipated retiring within 6

47
years, a clear indication of the severity of the coming crisis of superintendent
shortages in the state of California.
Table 2 reports information on the participants’ work-related experiences.
The most common range of teaching experience was 6 to 9 years (40.2%), although
there were also substantial percentages with 1 to 5 years (18.5%) or 10 to 14 year
(21.7%) of teaching experience. In terms of administrative experience, the most
common range was 25 years or more (30.1%), followed by 20 to 24 years (25.0%).
Comparing the years of teaching experience with the years of administrative
experience reveals that the superintendents in this sample were far more experi-
enced administratively than as teachers. Most of the respondents were relatively
new to the superintendency, with the most common categories 0 to 5 years
(39.6%), followed by 6 to 9 years (25.9%). The respondents indicated a small
amount of experience in business, law, the military, or nonprofit organizations,
with the most common responses being either 1 to 5 years (46.2%) or none at all
(35.2%).
Table 3 presents background information related to preparation for the
current superintendency. In terms of the career path to the current superintendency,
almost all (94.7%) of the respondents indicated that they had been teachers, and
86.1% indicated that they had been school principals. Over half of the sample also
indicated that they had been assistant principal, vice principal, or dean (53.7%), or
had been an assistant or deputy superintendent (52.0%). In terms of the level of site
administration, most of the respondents indicated that they had administrative
experience with younger student groups, with the most common responses being
kindergarten to fifth or sixth grade (66.5%) or sixth through eighth grade (60.1%).
The areas of expertise possessed prior to the superintendency consisted primarily of

48
Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Participants’ Experience

Characteristic and category f %

Years of teaching experience (N = 276)
0 7 2.5
1-5 51 18.5
6-9 111 40.2
10-14 60 21.7
15-19 25 9.1
20-24 10 3.6
25 or more 12 4.3

Years of administrative experience (N = 276)
0 0 0.0
1-5 10 3.6
6-9 21 7.6
10-14 40 14.5
15-19 53 19.2
20-24 69 25.0
25 or more 83 30.1

Years of superintendent experience (N = 278)
0-5 110 39.6
6-9 72 25.9
10-14 54 19.4
15-19 23 8.3
20-24 11 4.0
25 or more 8 2.9

Years of business, law, military,
or nonprofit experience (N = 273)
0 96 35.2
1-5 126 46.2
6-9 25 9.2
10-14 12 4.4
15-19 8 2.9
20-24 4 1.5
25 or more 2 0.7

curriculum (64.4%), administrative operations (34.9%), human resources (33.8%),
and student services (32.7%). Participation in superintendent training programs was

49
Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Preparation for Current Superin-
tendency

Characteristic and category f %

Career path to superintendency (N = 281)
Teacher 266 94.7
Principal 242 86.1
Military 26 9.3
Department Chair/Curriculum Lead 81 28.8
Assistant Principal/Vice Principal/Dean 151 53.7
Assistant or Deputy Superintendent 146 52.0
Coordinator 60 21.4
Director 110 39.1
Noneducation/Business 39 13.9
Other 45 16.0

Levels of site administration (N = 281)
Kindergarten to grades 5/6 187 66.5
Grades 6/7/8 169 60.1
Grades 9-12 115 40.9
Adult education 16 5.7
None 17 6.0

Presuperintendency areas of expertise (N = 281)
Curriculum 181 64.4
Research 38 13.5
Human resources 95 33.8
Business (financial) 51 18.1
Student services 92 32.7
Administration (operations) 98 34.9
Area or grade-level division 45 16.0
Not applicable 29 10.3
Other 40 14.2

Training programs for superintendency (N = 281)
ACSA Superintendent Academy 112 39.9
ACSA Superintendents Symposium 117 41.6
Broad Foundation Academy 3 1.1
AASA Training 11 3.9
Higher Education Ed.D./Ph.D. Program 116 41.3
Harvard Superintendent Academy 5 1.8
Other 78 27.8

50
Table 3 (continued)

Characteristic and category f %

Total number of districts served as superintendent (N = 280)
1 170 60.7
2 73 26.1
3 26 9.3
4 8 2.9
5 2 0.7
6 or more 1 0.4

Where hired in first superintendency (N = 279)
Inside the district/organization 121 43.4
Outside the district/organization 158 56.6

Note. ACSA = Association of California School Administrators, AASA =
American Association of School Administrators.

relatively low, with 41.6% participating in the ACSA Superintendent’s Sym-
posium, 41.3% participating in higher education Ed.D/Ph.D. programs, and 39.9%
participating in the ACSA Superintendent Academy. The majority (60.7%) of the
respondents had served as superintendent of only one school district. Slightly more
than half (56.6%) of the respondents indicated that they had been hired from out-
side the district or organization for their first superintendency.
Table 4 contains a description of the survey sample in terms of the charac-
teristics of the current superintendency. Most (66.5%) of the respondents indicated
that they had been hired from outside the district or organization. The most
common number of years in the current position of superintendent was 6 or more
(40.6%). The district ADA tended to be small, with the most common response
being the category 0 to 999 (28.1%), followed by 1,000 to 2,499 (18.0%). Just
under half (49.1%) of the respondents indicated that their district was rural,

51

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics for Characteristics of Current Superintendency

Characteristic and category f %

Where hired for current superintendency (N = 272)
Inside the district/organization 91 33.5
Outside the district/organization 181 66.5

Number of years in current superintendency (N = 281)
1 41 14.6
2 35 12.5
3 39 13.9
4 32 11.4
5 20 7.1
6 or more 114 40.6

District average daily attendance (ADA; N = 278)
0 to 999 78 28.1
1,000 to 2,499 50 18.0
2,500 to 4,999 47 16.9
5,000 to 9,999 44 15.8
10,000 to 14,999 19 6.8
15,000 to 19,999 8 2.9
20,000 to 49,999 25 9.0
50,000 or more 7 2.5

District type (N = 279)
Rural 137 49.1
Suburban 112 40.1
Urban 30 10.8

Percentage of Limited English
Proficiency students (N = 280)
10 or less 88 31.4
11 to 25 83 29.6
26 to 40 59 21.1
41 to 50 13 4.6
51 to 65 17 6.1
66 to 89 18 6.4
90 or more 2 0.7

52
while only 10.8% indicated that they worked in an urban district. The percentage of
students with limited English proficiency tended to be small (10% or less; 31.4% of
the sample) or moderate (11% to 25%; 29.6% of the sample).
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, Do superintendents agree that the first 90 days
are important to a successful superintendency? The idea that the entry period is a
vital component for new leaders was substantiated in the literature, specifically the
works of Watkins (2003) and Kotter (1998). Results from both the surveys and
interviews confirmed that superintendents agreed that this initial period is crucial.
When the survey respondents were directly asked how important the entry period
was for a successful superintendency, 97.8% indicated that it was either essential
(63.3%) or important (32.4%), with only 2.2% indicating that it was only somewhat
useful or not important. All of the interviewed superintendents indicated that the
initial period of the superintendency was very important. One stated “I think your
first 90 days are critical,” one stated that “people need to know who you are and
what you believe,” and one stated that the first 90 days were “absolutely”
important. Clearly, there was agreement by interviewees and survey respondents
that the initial period of a superintendency was very important to a successful
superintendency.
Survey
The categories of responses related to the first research question were
derived from the work of Watkins (2003). The summary statistics for the responses
to these questions are contained in Table 5. Watkins’s STaRS model focused on the
current status of the organization to which leaders enter. The type of status

53
Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Research Question 1

Survey item f %

Q25. Overall state of the school district (N = 281)
Start-up 96 37.8
Turnaround 130 46.3
Realignment 122 43.4
Sustaining success 88 31.3

Q26. How important is the entry period for a
successful superintendency? (N = 275)
Not applicable or important 6 2.2
Somewhat useful 6 2.2
Important 89 32.4
Essential 174 63.3

Q27.1. How important are interactions with other
superintendents/mentors/colleagues? (N = 277)
Not applicable or important 22 7.9
Somewhat useful 62 22.4
Important 88 31.8
Essential 105 37.9

Q27.2. How important are interactions with
bargaining units (employee groups)? (N = 279)
Not applicable or important 14 5.0
Somewhat useful 45 16.1
Important 138 49.5
Essential 82 29.4

Q27.3. How important are interactions with
the board of education? (N = 278)
Not applicable or important 1 .4
Somewhat useful 6 2.2
Important 33 11.9
Essential 238 85.6

Q27.4. How important are interactions with
the community/local government? (N = 280)
Not applicable or important 23 8.2
Somewhat useful 94 33.6
Important 118 42.1
Essential 45 16.1

54
Table 5 (continued)

Survey item f %

Q27.5. How important are interactions with
the district leadership team? (N = 279)
Not applicable or important 14 5.0
Somewhat useful 24 8.6
Important 78 28.0
Essential 163 58.4

Q27.6. How important are interactions with
the media? (N = 273)
Not applicable or important 66 24.2
Somewhat useful 112 41.0
Important 79 28.9
Essential 16 5.9

Q27.7. How important are interactions with
parent groups/PTA/school site council? (N = 277)
Not applicable or important 18 6.5
Somewhat useful 64 23.1
Important 126 45.5
Essential 69 24.9

Note. PTA = Parent Teacher Association.

(turnaround, startup, realignment, or sustaining success) will determine the
objectives of a leader in transition. The respondents indicated that, when they
began their superintendency, the school district was either in a state of “turn-
around” (46.3%), indicating that changes were needed that district employees knew
needed to be made, or “realignment” (43.4%), indicating that changes were needed
that district employees did not feel needed to be made. Less than one third (31.3%)
of the respondents indicated that they merely needed to sustain success.
When asked how important the entry period was for a successful superin-
tendency, almost two thirds (63.3%) indicated that it was essential and 32.4%

55
indicated that it was important. Only 2.2% indicated that it was somewhat useful or
not important. Respondents were asked how important interactions were with
various groups of stakeholders. An important component of the entry phase is the
culture of the organization. Watkins (2003) found that diagnosing the situation
allows for new leaders to understand challenges and opportunities. Bolman and
Deal (1997) offered four frames (symbolic, human resource, structural, and politi-
cal) as a means for evaluating an organization and its dynamics. Carl Cohen
(personal communication, July 2004) stated, “It’s more about, what is this com-
munity all about? What is this organization all about? And what is the political
context of this organization?”
The group with whom interactions were rated as most important was the
board of education (with 85.6% of respondents indicating that these interactions
were essential), followed by the district leadership team (with 58.4% indicating that
these interactions were essential). Interactions with the media were rated as least
important (with only 5.9% indicating that these interactions were essential),
followed by interactions with the community or local government (with only 16.1%
indicating that these interactions were essential).
Interviews
Superintendent A clearly agreed that the first 90 days of the
superintendency were very important.
I think your first 90 days are critical, not that you have an opportunity to be
successful but you have a million opportunities to fail and to fail miserably.
The first impressions that you make with people, how you set your manage-
ment style. People test you right away. You have to have determination,
courage, foresight. You have to know when to act fast and when not to act
fast. You really set, I think, the tenor of your leadership both with your
board and in the district. I think it is important to be highly visible in the
district which was a little difficult considering my actual first 90 days began

56
over summer, so our schools were not in session. When school started, I
made every effort to be at the school sites. I was an hour in the rain direct-
ing traffic this morning in support. So, yes, I think they are absolutely
critical.
Superintendent A elaborated on the reasons the first 90 days were so important:
(a) set the parameters of leadership, (b) develop a leadership team, (c) set the tone
of the relationship with the board in terms of communication, (d) “make sure
people understand you are the boss but you want input and it’s not acceptable not to
tell you difficult things.”
Superintendent B stated that the first 90 days were important for a success-
ful superintendency.
People need to know who you are and what you believe, and I don’t think it
matters that you are coming from the inside to be a superintendent or new to
the district and being an outsider coming in. People need to know what you
believe. You are a little bit handicapped from the inside, as people already
have this picture of you in your role. I was the “business guy.” I was the
guy co-coordinating all the cuts to the budget right before filling the super-
intendency; there was a perception that “Paul is really focused on money,”
which was true. That was my responsibility and that was the task I had been
given. But I either really very quickly established that this business is about
education, it is not about business and I am an educator who happened to be
in school business, not a business man who happened to be in education. I
needed to get that across in a big hurry and have it be genuine that people
understand that. That was critical, number one from an overall district point
of view. The second thing is, the board needs to know how serious you are
about what you are doing and you have to be able to show them in your first
few board meetings an intercommunication with them that you know what
is going on, you can handle the job, they made the right decision, you are
their guide. I think that is critical because, if the thing goes sideways right
away, it is hard to recover. . . . I think getting to know the board on a differ-
ent level than you know them as an assistant, or if you are brand new, not
knowing them at all. I think that is a huge challenge and you need to spend
time nurturing that relationship.
Superintendent C agreed that the first 90 days of a superintendency were
critical.
Absolutely. I think you really set the tone for what is going to happen in
your tenure there in the first 90 days.

57
I think there are two or three major things that you have to do. I think the
first thing is you have to have a concrete understanding—even if the pro-
cess is not there—you have to have a concrete understanding with the board
about what your relationship is going to be and how your role is going to be
carried out and how their roles are going to be carried out. . . .I think the
second thing that has to happen is, in the first 90 days, you have to get
around to all the major players, both inside in the organization first and also
in the broader perspective in the community. You have to get around, make
yourself known to them. My perception is that you don’t really need to talk
to them so much as you need to listen so that you can scan the environment
and have a sense of, if what your research told you before you got the job
jives with what you are finding out now that you do have the job. And then
the third thing, I think, is beginning to establish your levels of expectation
and your style so that you can demonstrate that in some very visible ways to
people in symbolic types of activities, making sure that you are present at
kids’ events, making sure that you are present at important community
events, making sure that you are beginning the process of showing that you
are not only the leader, but a piece of this whole thing. So, I think all of
those things are incredibly important in the first 90 days.
The results of the interviews collaborated with the results of the survey.
When asked, “Is the first 90 days important to a successful superintendency?” most
of the respondents agreed that the 90-day period is important to a successful tenure.
It is important to note that only 6 of the superintendents responding to the survey
stated that the first 90 days were important to a successful superintendency and 6
stated that it was somewhat useful to the success of a superintendent’s tenure.
It is interesting to note that, while some superintendents viewed the first 90
days as an opportunity to experience early success, some viewed it as an oppor-
tunity to avoid “land mines” (Kerrins & Cushing, 2001). Superintendent D stressed
the need to enter carefully without disrupting the current culture unduly: “Some
superintendents make a big mistake when they try to flip over everything when
they come in.” Researching and knowing where an organization is within the entry
plan was clearly seen as an opportunity to avoid “land mines.”

58
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, Have new superintendents entered their district
with a formal or informal plan, what is the time horizon of that plan, and what
strategies or conceptual frameworks formed the basis of their plans? From the
review of literature, common elements of entry plans were identified as useful for
superintendents, business leaders, and CEOs. This analysis shed light on multiple
conceptual frameworks (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Collins, 2001; Fullan, 2001;
Kotter, 1998; Watkins, 2003) that demonstrated commonality. Triangulation was
achieved by aligning the interview guide to the frameworks and then by comparing
those commonalities to the results of the electronic survey.
Jentz and Wofford (1982) offered a comprehensive definition of entry that
can be used to compare the findings of the survey and interviews: a planned set of
interviews, feedback sessions, and school and community visits through which
1. The new boss and members of the organization get to know each other as
fully as possible in a brief period of time outside the day-to-day context of
crisis and problem solving;
2. The organization and its new boss examine key issues in the organiza-
tion’s past, in order to “make sense” of how such issues are handled and to
identify the norms which affect how the organization functions in the
present or may function in the future.
3. the new boss and members of the organization identify tasks to be done,
and rank these in order of priority. (pp. 88-89)
The new “boss” establishes how these tasks will be accomplished, after a process
of consultation with individuals and, later, the organization as a whole.
It is important to distinguish between formal and informal entry plans. The
interrater matrix (appendix C) describes a fully implemented or utilized entry plan
as one that was communicated and approved by the school board within 90 or 100

59
days. An informal entry plan is described as one that is not written and not
communicated to the school board.
In terms of whether there was a formal or informal plan, 57.3% of the
survey respondents indicated that had had a long-range strategic plan (57.3%),
although only 36.4% indicated that it was in written form. Of the interviewees who
had had a formal plan, few had it in written form. Given the high educational level
of the survey respondents (with 97.5% having a graduate degree), it is somewhat
surprising that more did not have a written entry plan.
One of the interviewees who did not have a specific plan indicated that,
rather than having a specific plan, “My major goal was to establish myself with the
board as a leader of the school district,” while another indicated that he was more
oriented toward an evaluation process to assess the needs of the district than to
arrive on the scene with a plan in place.
Survey
Table 6 contains statistics for the survey responses related to the second
research question. When researching entry to the superintendency, the means of
preparation arose as a possible identifier of early success (AASA, 1993; Fuller et
al., 2003; Holloway, 2001). When asked whether their professional development
activities had prepared them in terms of their relationships with the board, only
8.1% responded prepared me well, 23.9% indicated that their professional develop-
ment activities had prepared them, but most said that they were only adequately
prepared (30.9%) or not prepared (37.1%). When asked whether their professional
development activities had prepared them for community relations, 15.2% reported
that they had been well prepared, compared to 12.2% who reported that their

60
Table 6

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Research Question 2

Survey item f %

Q22.1. Professional development prepared me
for board-superintendent relations (N = 272)
Did not prepare me 101 37.1
Adequately prepared me 84 30.9
Prepared me 65 23.9
Prepared me well 22 8.1

Q22.5. Professional development prepared me
for community relations (N = 270)
Did not prepare me 33 12.2
Adequately prepared me 103 38.1
Prepared me 93 34.4
Prepared me well 41 15.2

Q22.6. Professional development prepared me
for coalition building/setting common goals (N = 271)
Did not prepare me 41 15.1
Adequately prepared me 98 36.2
Prepared me 85 31.4
Prepared me well 47 17.3

Q22.7. Professional development prepared me
for entry plan creation (N = 261)
Did not prepare me 127 48.7
Adequately prepared me 78 29.9
Prepared me 37 14.2
Prepared me well 19 7.3

Q23. Strongest leadership area prior to obtaining
first superintendency (N = 247)
Collective bargaining/personnel management/
evaluation 37 15.0
Community relations 33 13.4
Facilities management/safe schools 19 7.7
Fiscal leadership/budget 22 8.9
Organizational leadership 45 18.2
Superintendent-board relations 32 13.0
Assessment and accountability /achievement/
instructional leadership 59 23.9

61
Table 6 (continued)

Survey item f %

Q24. Importance of each activity in preparing for
superintendency (essential; N = 281)
Analyze district budget 130 46.3
Analyze student achievement data 97 34.5
Attend board meetings 68 24.2
Determine collective bargaining status/atmosphere 75 26.7
Talk with colleagues 100 35.6
Talk with stakeholder groups 66 23.5
Use search firm to obtain information 37 13.2
Use the interview process to determine “fit” 97 34.5

Q27. Importance of interacting with each group
(essential; N = 281)
Superintendents/mentors/colleagues 105 37.4
Bargaining units 82 29.2
Board of education 238 84.7
Community/local government 45 16.0
District leadership team 163 58.0
Media 16 5.7
Parent groups/PTA/school site council 69 24.6

Q28.1. Did your evaluation of current district situation
and the concept of “fit” play a major role in pursuing
your current superintendency? (yes; N = 272) 240 88.2

Q28.2. Did you have an entry strategy for your current
superintendency? (yes; N = 271) 214 79.0

Q28.3. Was your strategy presented to the board prior
to your first day on the job? (yes; N = 258) 110 42.6

Q28.4. Were you asked or directed by the board
to create an entry or transition plan? (yes; N = 271) 35 12.9

Q28.5. Was the entry plan/strategy written? (yes; N = 247) 90 36.4

Q28.6. Is your personal vision for education reflected
in the strategy plan? (yes; N = 232) 199 85.8

Q28.7. Were you directly asked by the board to accomplish
specific goals during your entry period? (yes; N = 271) 157 57.9

Q28.9. Did you have a long-range strategic strategy
when entering? (yes; N = 274) 157 57.3

62
Table 6 (continued)

Survey item f %

Q28.10. Did you bring in people from outside of the
district with you upon entering? (yes; N = 276) 50 18.1

Q29. Items addressed in the entry strategy (yes)
Board/superintendent relations (N = 275) 242 88.0
Community relations (N = 272) 230 84.6
Fiscal operations (N = 273) 236 86.4
Labor relations/collective bargaining (N = 274) 200 73.0
Media relations (N = 273) 102 37.4
Parent groups/PTA/school site council (N = 269) 160 59.5
Pre-existing district conditions (N = 272) 239 87.9
School bond/facilities issues/schools (N = 273) 155 56.8
Strategic planning (N = 267) 143 53.6
Student achievement/assessment/accountability
(N = 271) 218 80.4
Vision creation (N = 271) 197 72.7

Note. PTA = Parent Teacher Association.

professional development activities had not prepared them. The remainder of the
respondents reported that they had been either adequately prepared (38.1%) or
prepared (34.4%). In terms of whether their professional development activities had
prepared them for coalition building or setting common goals, approximately equal
percentages reported that the activities had not prepared them (15.1%) or had
prepared them well (17.3%). When asked whether their professional development
activities had prepared them to create an entry plan, almost half (48.7%) reported
that their development activities had not prepared them, the highest percentage in
this portion of the survey. In summary, respondents reported that their professional
development activities had been most relevant for coalition building/setting
common goals and least relevant for creating an entry plan.

63
Respondents were asked to rate their strongest leadership areas prior to
obtaining their first superintendency. Of the areas assessed, the leadership area
rated as the greatest strength was assessment and accountability/achievement/
instructional leadership, followed by organizational leadership (18.2%), collective
bargaining (15.0%), community relations (13.4%), and superintendent-board
relations (13.0%). The weakest areas of leadership were fiscal leadership (8.9%)
and facilities management/safe schools (7.7%).
A series of activities was provided to respondents and they were asked to
rate how important each was in preparing for the superintendency. Of those areas
covered, analyzing the district budget was regarded as essential by 46.3% of the
respondents, the highest percentage of any area. Also rated as essential by a large
percentage of respondents were talking with colleagues (35.6%), analyzing student
achievement data (34.5%), and using the interview process to determine “fit”
(34.5%). Areas that were infrequently rated as essential were talking with stake-
holder groups (23.5%) and using a search firm to obtain information (13.2%).
Respondents were provided a list of seven potential stakeholder groups and
asked to mark the importance of interactions with each group. Interacting with the
board of education was by far the highest rated group, with 84.7% indicating that
this was essential. Superintendent/board relations are a key component of early
success (Czaja & Harman, 1997; Fuller et al., 2003; Harvey, 2003). Interacting
with the district leadership team was rated as important, with 58.0% indicating that
it was essential. Conversely, respondents indicated that interacting with the com-
munity and local government (16.0%) and the media (5.7%) was not essential.
Respondents were asked a series of yes/no questions about specific aspects
of the initial period of the superintendency. Almost all (88.2%) reported that an

64
evaluation of the district and the “fit” between the superintendent and the district
played a major role in pursuing the current position. A high percentage (85.8%)
reported that their personal vision for education was reflected in the entry plan and
that they did have an entry strategy for the current superintendency (79.0%). About
one half of the respondents indicated that they had been asked by the board to
accomplish specific goals during the entry period (57.9%), that they did have a
long-range strategic plan (57.3%), or that they had presented their strategy to the
board before their first day on the job (42.6%). Lesser percentages of respondents
indicated that their entry plan was in written form (36.4%), that they brought
people in to the district with them upon entering (18.1%), or that they had been
directly asked by the board to create an entry or transition plan (12.9%).
In the final set of questions relevant to the second research question
respondents were asked to address the specific items contained in their entry plan.
The items most commonly contained in the entry plan were board-superintendent
relations (88.0%), preexisting conditions (87.9%), fiscal operations (86.4%),
community relations (84.6%), and student achievement/assessment and accounta-
bility (80.4%). The items least likely to be contained in the entry plan were media
relations (37.4%), strategic planning (53.6%), school bond/facilities issues/schools
(56.8%), and parent groups/PTA/school site council (59.5%).
Interviews
Superintendent A stated that he had had a formal plan for his entry period;
immediately upon knowing that he had received the superintendent position, he
“sat down and . . . outlined immediately my two goals and what I wanted to happen
in each area.”

65
I did not do a written plan but I did do specifically a set of goals that I
presented to the board almost immediately upon being hired. They were
focused on two areas. One was academic achievement, one was community
relations.
Subsequent statements indicated that this was a long-term plan, as he stated that
these two goals would be his focus “probably . . . as long as I’m superintendent.”
Superintendent B stated that he had not had a specific plan for his entry
period. At the time of his appointment he was still serving as an assistant superin-
tendent for business and facilities and thought, “I’m going to be the superintendent
and in my spare time, be the business facilities person and so I needed to write
down the things I really needed to do” but this was done primarily for the assistant
superintendent duties. “As a superintendent, my major goal was to establish myself
with the board as a leader of the school district. That was my major goal and make
sure the staff sees me as that leader.”
Superintendent C stated that he had not had an entry plan. However, he
discussed the process used in the initial stages of his superintendency.
The first thing I did was talk to people who had been here a long time, who
knew the community, who were part of the scene both inside and outside.
Some of the people you want to get to know inside are not necessarily the
people who hold positions. There are people who have great influence.
They have great personal power but they are not necessarily people who are
in a position that you would expect them to be particularly powerful. So,
seeking those people out—that informal power structure, particularly if you
are going to work well inside the organization, you need to understand that
and find out who those people are.
So, despite not having a specific entry plan, Superintendent C had made a
conscious effort to evaluate the system to determine how he could be effective.
Rather than having a specific set of substantive goals that he wanted to attain, he
had had a specific procedure in mind for how to determine what those goals should
be.

66
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, What strategies and conceptual frameworks
have superintendents found to be the most successful in their first 90 days, and with
hindsight what would they have done differently? The survey respondents indicated
that the most important areas of emphasis were board-superintendent relations and
fiscal operations. Survey respondents also indicated that political leadership was
more important than human resources, structural, or symbolic leadership. Bolman
and Deal (1997) described four frameworks for organizational leadership (struc-
tural, human resource, political, symbolic) and noted that these four frameworks are
critical to the culture and climate of a school district. The authors also noted that
many successful leaders utilize a combination of frameworks to complete their
leadership foundation. In the current study the survey respondents and the inter-
viewees indicated that political leadership was the most difficult aspect to manage
(37.0%), while the least important was structural leadership effort (21.7%). Given
the conflicting goals of many classes of stakeholders, this is not surprising.
Fuller et al. (2003) indicated that current training leaves superintendents
wholly unprepared for the political realities of the superintendency. Both the survey
respondents and the interviewees in the current study clearly emphasized the
importance of the politics of their positions and further indicated that they had not
been entirely prepared to deal with these political aspects. Training programs
should increase the emphasis on the political components of the superintendent
position. Given that only 2.5% of the superintendents who completed the survey
did not have a graduate degree, it would probably be adequate for training related
to the political components of a superintendency to be provided at the graduate
level. It would also be important for those with direct experience as a

67
superintendent to be responsible for this component of training. At the very least,
such persons should be invited to speak in an appropriate course. Providing first-
hand real-world examples of situations in which the political components of the job
were particularly relevant would seem to be the most appropriate manner of prepar-
ing future superintendents for these issues.
Dr. C. Fred Workman (personal communication, 2004), in referring to the
political aspect of the superintendent stated,
I think if I had to identify the most important thing, is to know what you
believe as a superintendent before you take the job. That implies that you
will give some serious thought to what you believe. You will have
developed a philosophy. If you don’t have one don’t do this job. If you
don’t have strong beliefs, if you’re a floater or one of those people who
vacillates in the wind, don’t become a superintendent. You talk about the
lifespan of superintendents, at one time it was 18 months, at one time it was
24 months. I submit to you the reason more of them perish is because they
don’t know what they believe and they get caught in a political crossfire
that’s going on outside. Therefore, how can handle the political pressure of
the job if you don’t know where you stand and what you believe in?
When asked what they would do differently if beginning a new superin-
tendency, survey respondents indicated that relationships/communication, budget
issues, and needs assessments would be priorities. The three superintendents
interviewed by the current research tended to agree with the survey respondents.
Specifically, one focused on communication and the political aspects of the job,
one described the “political realities” in detail, and one focused on listening.
Survey
Table 7 presents a summary of the responses to the survey items related to
this research question. Initially, respondents rated the importance of 10 areas
encountered during their entry period. The area most frequently rated as most
important was board-superintendent relations (53.7%), followed by fiscal

68
Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Related to Research Question 3

Survey item f %

Q30. Importance of each area during the entry period
(most important; N = 281)
Board/superintendent relations 151 53.7
Community relations 12 4.3
Fiscal operations 59 21.0
Labor relations/collective bargaining 28 10.0
Parent groups/PTA/school site council 8 2.8
Preexisting district conditions 49 17.4
School bond/facilities issues/schools 30 10.7
Strategic planning) 15 5.3
Student achievement/assessment and accountability 47 16.7
Vision creation 30 10.7

Q32. Most important leadership effort area during
entry period (N = 281)
Human resources 82 29.2
Political 104 37.0
Structural 61 21.7
Symbolic 85 30.2

Q33. Which of the following factors currently most impact
your ability to be an effective superintendent?
(most important; N = 281)
Accountability 46 16.4
Board relations 101 35.9
Collective bargaining 36 12.8
Fiscal resources 95 33.8
Job demands 48 17.1
State/federal mandates 47 16.7

69
Table 7 (continued)

Survey item f %

Q34. To what extent does each of the following factors
affect the superintendency today? (major issue; N = 281)
Board members elected with single political objective 113 40.2
Superintendent-board relations 183 65.1
Collective bargaining agreements 148 52.7
Compensation package for superintendents 27 9.6
Demand for assessment and accountability 122 43.4
Financial resources for districts 206 73.3
Job stress 102 36.3
Lack of local control due to state/federal mandates 79 28.1
Nonportable pensions 15 5.3
Political forces from local, state, or federal levels 57 20.3
Shortage of qualified applicants for superintendency 57 20.3
Short-term contracts for superintendents 43 15.3
Facilities/modernization/safe schools 56 19.9

Q35. Leadership areas of strength (N = 281)
Collective bargaining/personnel management/
evaluation of staff 32 11.4
Community relations 46 16.4
Facilities management/safe schools 17 6.0
Fiscal leadership/budget 44 15.7
Organizational leadership 100 35.6
School board relations 75 26.7
Assessment and accountability/student
achievement/instructional leadership 56 19.9

Q36. Leadership focus currently (N = 281)
Human resources 82 29.2
Political 104 37.0
Structural 61 21.7
Symbolic 85 30.2

operations (21.0%), preexisting district conditions (17.4%), and student achieve-
ment/assessment and accountability (16.7%). The items least frequently rated as
most important were parent groups/PTA/school site council (2.8%), community
relations (4.3%), and strategic planning (5.3%).

70
Survey question 31 was an open-ended question presented as a follow-up to
the question described above. Respondents were asked to list any other areas of
focus in the entry period that were not specified in question 30. Sixty-six superin-
tendents provided a response to this question. The most common category of
response to this question consisted of focus areas related to trust or the need to
repair relationships, constituting 24.6% of all responses. Examples of common
responses were “building trust,” “rebuilding trust within the organization,” “regain
the confidence of the community,” and “remove toxin from the environment,”
“ending a ‘civil war,’” and “fixing internal struggles among senior staff.”
In talking about building relationships and trust Superintendent F stated, “I
would say the human resource is the most critical because without relationships,
trust, and respect you really can’t have forward progress. People really have to have
a good sense that they trust you.”
The second most common response category was related to staffing and
personnel issues, which constituted 23.1% of all responses. For example, one
superintendent stated that a focus was “replacing certain key administrators whom I
encouraged to resign,” while two others noted that staff morale was a key focus
area. Additional responses in this category included “the organization of the district
cabinet,” “administrative reorganization,” “getting the right people on the bus” and
“building a strong leadership team.”
First at the top levels of your organization, you absolutely must have the
discipline not to hire until you find the right people. The single most harm-
ful step you can take in a journey from good to great is to put the wrong
people in key positions. Second, widen your definition of “right people” to
focus more on the character attributes of the person and less on the special-
ized knowledge. People can learn skills and acquire knowledge, but they
cannot learn essential character traits that make them right for your
organization. (Collins, 2001, pp. 216-217)

71
Dr. C. Fred Workman (personal communication, July 2004), in talking
about “getting the right people on the bus” and building a strong leadership team
stated,
When we came to [district], the first thing I had to do was assess the
situation. Mike was the only person that I kept on the centralized office
staff, so the first thing I did was ask the business manager, who had been
there about a year, a candid question. I said, “How are we doing?” And he
said, “Are you sure you want this job?” That was the only honest question
that I had in my first 10 days. So from my perspective some of the things
that I had to do was prepare for the first March 15th date. I pink slipped
every administrator in the district because in my initial contacts with people
I went to their school sites and the principals were unavailable, the schools
were unattractive, they were run down. I knew when I looked at those
schools why that district had the reputation that it did.
The third broad category of responses related to fiscal issues, constituting
12.3% of all responses. Key fiscal issues were “fiscal solvency, labor unrest,”
“technology upgrades,” and “we were broke, schools were in need of repair.” Other
responses not easily classifiable related to diversity issues, unification or decentral-
ization, and problems associated with board micromanagement, among other
things.
Respondents rated six factors as having or not having impact on their ability
to be an effective superintendent. Of the areas assessed, board relations were most
frequently rated as most important (35.9%), followed by fiscal resources (33.8%).
Collective bargaining (12.8%), accountability (16.4%), state/federal mandates
(16.7%), and job demands (17.1%) were less frequently rated as most important.
Respondents were asked which of 13 factors currently affected their super-
intendency. Of these, the financial resources of the district was rated as a major
factor most frequently (73.3%). Also frequently rated as a major factor were board-
superintendent relations (65.1%), collective bargaining agreements (52.7%),
demands for assessment and accountability (43.4%), and board members who were

72
elected with a single political objective (40.2%). The areas least likely to be rated
as a major factor were nonportable pensions (5.3%) and compensation packages for
superintendents (9.6%).
In terms of the areas of leadership strength currently possessed by the
respondents, the areas most frequently ranked as most important were organiza-
tional leadership (35.6%), school board relations (26.7%), and assessment and
accountability/student achievement/instructional leadership (19.9%). The areas
least rated as most important were facilities management/safe schools (6.0%) and
collective bargaining/personnel management/evaluation of staff (11.4%).
Of the four broad areas of leadership focus in the current superintendency
(human resources, political, structural, and symbolic), political leadership focus
was rated highest most often (37.0%), followed by symbolic (30.2%), human
resources (29.2%), and structural (21.7%).
An open-ended survey item gave respondents the opportunity to reflect on
the following question: “If you were to enter a new district tomorrow, what would
be the key elements of your entry strategy?” One hundred ninety-one superintend-
ents provided a response. Three common themes emerged: (a) relationships/
communication, (b) budget issues, and (c) needs assessments. By far the largest
group of responses related to establishing good relationships with stakeholders,
which constituted 30.9% of the responses. These responses typically involved
either communication with the board (e.g., “to ensure that the board and superin-
tendent had the same goals and vision,” “understand the expectations of the board”)
or communication with other stakeholders (such as community members, students,
and parents). Budget issues also composed a large percentage (18.3%) of the
responses to this question (e.g., “understanding their budget,” “review fiscal

73
solvency,” and “make sure the district is fiscally responsible”). Finally, a large per-
centage of the responses (18.3%) to this question related to gathering information
or performing a needs assessment. Representative responses in this category
included “assess situation, identify key players,” “analysis of the needs of the
district both short and long term,” and “diagnose current condition and identify
three top priorities that would build consensus among all constituents.”
Interviews
In terms of the strategies and frameworks that Superintendent A stated was
successful in his first 90 days, two areas were prominent. First, he said that com-
munication was important to establish the nature of the relationships with other
stakeholders. For example, he stated, “I’m direct with individual members [of the
board]” and “They are clearly my bosses as a group.” In terms of interactions with
individuals not on the board, Superintendent A stated, “I think it is important really
to, in a sense, posture yourself as the leader of the school district.” Through open
communication, then, he had clearly established the roles of the board, the superin-
tendent, and others in the school district. There was a clear hierarchy established by
Superintendent A’s directness and “posturing,” and this had been successful.
Second, he stated that he had been successful politically (i.e., “I have operated in a
political environment”) by “setting very specific, clear goals” and “being highly
visible, making clear, decisive decisions, asking for a lot of input.” In summary,
Superintendent A indicated that open and honest communication to establish
relationships and attending to the political aspects of the job had been successful
tools in the first 90 days of his superintendency.

74
Superintendent B had success in altering his viewpoints about how political
the position of superintendent was.
There are political realities out there that you need to take care of. I think
for brand new superintendents, you need to understand that you live and
work in a political construct and there is nothing that is not political. There
is no decision you make that does not have some political ramification,
whether it is the desire of a board member or opposing desires of board
members on the same subject—how you handle those things and what you
do and what you say and what you don’t say and what information you give
and what information you share individually and what information you
share in public and what information you put in writing and what informa-
tion you don’t put in writing.
He also instituted specific procedures that he found to be successful, including a
daily update provided to the board members.
Every day, I do an update about what is going on . . . as much as I can. They
have no surprises and they really appreciate that. I try to make it no more
than a page unless I have a confidential issue that I attach a second page and
because those communiqués are public record, they are not confidential.
That has really helped me with them in establishing that I am on top of
things. I know what is going on in this whole district. With the staff, the
administrative team, I try to be as visible as I can and be out to the school
sites right away, talk to them about their results, their issues, what they
needed, where they are headed.
It also appears that Superintendent B adjusted his level of personal sensitivity.
I’ll tell you what I pray for and that is really [important is] to have a thick
skin. You are going to hear a lot of stuff, most of it not directly, most of it
indirectly. You have to really be able to put things into a perspective and
see a bigger picture on almost every issue that comes to you.
Superintendent C noted that the best strategy he had found to be successful
was to listen. “You have to make yourself personally available to people and you
listen. Listening is the most effective strategy.” Listening was described by Super-
intendent C as an “incredibly valuable for you to begin to calibrate what is going on
in the organization.” His strategy, overall, appeared to be more fluid and responsive
than that of the other two interviewees. Whereas Superintendents A and B had
specific goals and ideas about what needed to be done in their superintendencies,

75
Superintendent C seemed to be more interested in facilitating the changes that were
regarded by others as important.
Preparation
Cooper, Fusarelli, and Carella (2000) called for more training for incoming
superintendents. The authors noted that typical university preparation programs use
outdated models of leadership and management that emphasize stress control,
order, quality, and efficiency. Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) noted that training
programs required large-scale changes to prepare future superintendents. Caruso
(2004) and Eadie and Houston (2003) recommended that training programs empha-
size developing board policies, while Northhouse (2004) recommended training in
how to create a vision, solve problems, and make decisions. Hoyle et al. (2005)
stressed training in using the most current research, alternative instructional strate-
gies, and long-term program development. Thus, while there was some inconsist-
ency in the types of changes needed, there was little doubt that superintendent
training could be improved.
Many participants in the current study had had specific training for their
superintendency, including the ACSA Superintendent Academy and the Superin-
tendent Symposium. Nevertheless, these superintendents indicated that they were
not well prepared for their position. Specifically, 37.1% stated that they were not
prepared for developing board-superintendent relationships, 12.2% stated that they
were not prepared for community relationships, 15.1% stated that they were not
prepared for coalition building, and 48.7% stated that they were not prepared for
entry plan creation.

76
Conclusions
First, there was a high level of agreement among survey respondents and
interviewees that the first 90 days of the superintendency were crucial for success.
As is the case in many situations, first impressions count, and superintendent candi-
dates should be aware of this fact. Performing a needs assessment, establishing
relationships with key stakeholders, and exhibiting one’s goals and preferences
appeared to be the most important reasons for the importance of the first 90 days.
Second, most of the interviewees and survey respondents had not developed
a specific entry plan. However, this may not be a bad thing; the interviewees
indicated that developing a plan should be done based on the specific situation that
the incoming superintendent experiences. Having a specific, substantive plan in
place before talking with all of the relevant stakeholders and becoming familiar
with the state of the district may be detrimental. In fact, two of the interviewees
indicated that they considered a needs assessment to be an entry plan, albeit an
informal one.
Third, it was clear that there is an opportunity for improvement in superin-
tendent training programs. The political aspects of a superintendency, especially the
importance of board-superintendent relationships, was an area for which the inter-
viewees indicated that they were unprepared. This was also the case for the survey
respondents, despite the fact that most of the sample had obtained a graduate
degree. This may be at least partially due to the fact that the graduate degrees were
not necessarily in the area of education administration. In fact, many superintend-
ents do not obtain such degrees, so it is perhaps not surprising that they did not
have specific training for the political and relationship aspects of the position.

77
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into strategies that superin-
tendents use during the entry period in a new district. Specifically, the study sought
to determine whether superintendents agreed that the 90-day period is important
and the extent to which they had utilized formal or informal entry plans, along with
how those plans might impact the entry of a new superintendent. The study identi-
fied commonalities among superintendents’ actions during the entry period to a
new district.
This study was a collaborative effort by 10 doctoral students at the
University of Southern California. The qualitative study aspect involved one-on-
one interviews with 20 current California superintendents. The quantitative study
aspect involved an electronic survey distributed to 772 current superintendents
through a partnership with ACSA. The study used a mixed-methods approach,
using both qualitative and quantitative research to triangulate findings with the
literature review reported in chapter 2. The assumptions, delimitations, or limita-
tions had no effect on the findings of the study.
Conclusions
The findings from the study included the following:
1. The entry period is significant in the success of a new superintendent.
2. Formal and informal entry plans existed.
3. Political leadership was the most difficult aspect to manage and the area
in which most superintendents spent their time.

78
4. Interviewing and listening were the predominant tools used during the
entry period.
Although little research is available on the subject of the school superin-
tendent, much has been written on the subject of leaders, leadership, and CEOs in
private industry. The results of the study identified five areas that require future
research. In addition, the demands of the superintendency, including student
accountability in achievement, federal and state standards, limited resources, and a
challenging public, make the position of superintendent difficult for recruitment
and challenging to achieve success.
Significance of the Entry Period
The entry period is significant in the success of a new superintendent. In
agreement with the saying, “You only get one shot to make a first impression,”
such is the entry period. This is a new leader’s opportunity to build coalitions,
establish political agendas, secure early wins, and establish a sense of urgency
based on the district’s needs.
The survey respondents and interviewees consistently indicated that the
initial period of the superintendency was very important to later success. Watkins
(2003) indicated that setting realistic short-term goals (such as fixing strained
relationships, updating the meeting structure, or addressing physical space prob-
lems) that could result in “early wins” was important to a successful superintend-
ency. While the respondents did not usually have a plan in place with which to
begin their superintendency, they stressed the importance of assessing the current
level of functioning and specific problems of the district, which is a type of an
informal plan. That is, despite the fact that most of the superintendents did not have

79
a specific set of substantive goals in place when they began their superintendency,
they had the goal of assessing the needs of the district.
Watkins (2003) indicated that assessing and understanding the current state
of the organization was important and recommended using the STaRS model for
this purpose. The STaRS model allows an incoming superintendent to characterize
the initial environment in the district as a (a) start-up, (b) turnaround, (c) realign-
ment, or (d) sustaining success. Utilizing the STaRS model should allow the new
superintendent to diagnosis the organization and develop effective plans. Respond-
ents in the current study indicated that each of these four states was frequently
observed (with each environment marked by over 30% of the survey respondents).
Thus, incoming superintendents should be prepared to recognize and deal with each
of the four states of the organization. Further research is needed in this area to
determine how the superintendents should develop entry plan strategies.
Entry Plans
Almost all of the survey respondents and interviewees indicated that the
initial period of the superintendency was very important. However, only a small
majority of the survey respondents indicated that they had had a plan in place for
the first 90 days. Watkins (2003) indicated that most of the failures in a new
leadership role can be attributed to the early period of the position and that having
an appropriate entry plan was important. Given these facts, one of the conclusions
that can be drawn from the results of the study is that incoming superintendents
should develop a plan. Unfortunately, the survey results indicated that 48.7% of the
sample had not felt prepared to develop such a plan, although 76% of them had
entered their new position with an entry strategy. This equates to what is referred to

80
as an informal entry plan. An informal entry plan would indicate that the plan
was not written, submitted to constituents, approved by the board, or contained
elements such as short- or long-term goals or vision. Question 28 of the survey
asked superintendents whether their school boards had directed them to create an
entry plan; 83% respond negatively. This is a possible explanation of why the study
revealed such a low number of formal entry plans that were written with specific
strategies and vision and then shared with stakeholders.
Another possible explanation for the lack of formal entry plans is the need
for improved training of future leaders. Cooper et al. (2000) called for more train-
ing for incoming superintendents. The authors noted that typical university prepara-
tion programs used outdated models of leadership and management that empha-
sized stress control, order, quality, and efficiency. Goodman and Zimmerman
(2000) also noted that training programs required large-scale changes to prepare
future superintendents, while Northhouse (2004) recommended training in how to
create a vision, solve problems, and make decisions. Hoyle et al. (2005) stressed
training in using the most current research, alternative instructional strategies, and
long-term program development. Thus, while there is some inconsistency in the
types of changes needed, there is little doubt that superintendent training could be
improved.
Many participants in the current study had had some specific training for
their superintendency, including the ACSA Superintendent Academy and the
Superintendent Symposium. Nevertheless, these superintendents indicated that they
had not been well prepared for their position. Specifically, 37.1% stated that they
had not been prepared for developing board-superintendent relationships, 12.2%
stated that they had not been prepared for community relationships, 15.1% stated

81
that they had not been prepared for coalition building, and 48.7% stated that had
not been prepared for entry plan creation. If new superintendents are not prepared
to develop formal entry plans, could informal plans put a new leader at risk?
Actually, whether a plan is formally written and shared with constituents or con-
sists only of a list of bullets or ideas in the new leader’s mind, there are risks.
The challenge coming out of a national search process is always difficult for
superintendents because the temptation is to make promises about what you
are going to do to improve student achievement. I was reading an article
today about Tony Amado, the new superintendent in New Orleans. Tony,
who sees himself as a hands-on instructional leader, made some extra-
ordinary promises about gains that would be made in his first year on the
New Orleans, Louisiana state accountability test. He fell short on all of
these promises, and a whole list of other things going on, so the reaction of
the community starts to be, “Ok, why did you make all these promises? Did
you really do your home work on what you could do here or are you just a
good interviewer? Are you someone who knows what to tell a school board
about what can be accomplished?” The reason I am emphasizing this is that
I was mentored by a person in the late ’80s who said that in this business
you want to always underpromise and overdeliver. He added that, in writing
a 90-day transition plan, you want it to be clear, you want to focus on a
number of key issues that you feel are important and need to be addressed,
as opposed to addressing everything. Never overpromise. (Carl Cohen,
superintendent, personal communication, 2004)
Political Arena
Bolman and Deal (1997) described four frameworks for organizational
leadership (structural, human resource, political, symbolic) and noted that these
four frameworks are critical to the culture and climate of a school district. The
authors noted that many successful leaders utilize a combination of frameworks to
complete their leadership foundation. In the current study the survey respondents
and interviewees indicated that political leadership was the most difficult aspect to
manage. Because the political arena is in a constant mode of change, a new superin-
tendent should recognize the value of getting the right people “on the bus” when

82
hiring the right transition team, the importance of early wins, creating a common
vision, and building coalitions within relationships.
Fuller et al. (2003) indicated that current training leaves superintendents
unprepared for the political realities of the superintendency. Both the survey
respondents and interviewees in the current study clearly emphasized the import-
ance of the politics of their positions and indicated that they had not been fully
prepared to deal with these political aspects. Training programs should increase the
emphasis on the political components of the superintendent position. Given that
only 2.5% of the superintendents who completed the survey did not have a graduate
degree, it would probably be adequate for training related to the political compon-
ents of a superintendency to be provided at the graduate level. It would be import-
ant for those who had direct experience as a superintendent to be responsible for
this component of training. At the very least, such persons should be invited to
speak in an appropriate course. Providing first-hand, real-world examples of
situations in which the political components of the position were particularly
relevant would seem to be the most appropriate manner of preparing future
superintendents to deal with these issues.
Interviewing and Listening
Interviewed superintendents expressed the importance of interviewing and
listening as a major component of the entry period. Through interviewing and
listening a new superintendent can identify the culture of the organization, identify
key players and stakeholders, identify underlying issues, learn the history of the
organization, gain insight into early wins, determine what is being done well and
what is not being done well, build coalitions, and (probably most important) gain

83
credibility and establish authority. According to Neff and Citrin (2005),
communication skills are among the most important attributes of effective
leadership.
One fanciful notion of communication in a company is that of the leader
who comes down, Moses-like, from Mount Sinai and delivers divine truth
and wisdom. This may work for you if you have indeed been given the Two
Tablets. For most of us working with more earthly tools, however, com-
munication is better thought of as a continuous give and take, an ongoing
conversation in which ideas are explored, assimilated and adapted before
being locked in. This is a process of listening and learning, of absorbing and
synthesizing data, then sharing the results. (pp. 202-203)
Covey (2004), writing about empathetic listening said, “Seek[ing] first to
understand involves a very deep shift in paradigm. We typically seek first to be
understood. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with
intent to reply” ( p. 239). Superintendents in this study expressed the need to listen
to stakeholders with an open mind in an effort to identify the culture of the
organization and gain insight into its political dynamics.
Participating superintendents had utilized a variety of tools in the process of
interviewing stakeholders, including one-on-one interviews, group interviews, town
hall meetings, and surveys or questionnaires. Stakeholders whom they had inter-
viewed included community members, parents and students, school board mem-
bers, and unions of classified and certificated school staff. It is clear from the find-
ings of the study that superintendents in the entry period used interviewing and
listening as tools to prepare themselves for tenure after the entry period.
Leadership Shortage
According to the survey, 70% of the superintendents were in the age range
50 to 59 years and 14% were in the age range 60 to 69 years. It is realistic to
assume that at least 70% of the current superintendents in California will be retiring

84
by the year 2010. The need for future leadership is clear, and the need for future
superintendents is at a crisis. While universities are addressing the pressing need
for professional leaders in the superintendency, it is within reach to select, train,
and support school superintendents by using a coherent model that is grounded in
national standards and presents an understanding of the complex demands of the
position (Holloway, 2001).
It is important to note that not only superintendents are facing retirement; so
are many assistant superintendents, directors, and principals who are in the same
age groups. This compounds the crisis and adds to the shortage of leaders at all
educational levels.
Preparation
Cooper et al. (2000) called for more training for incoming superintendents.
The authors noted that typical university preparation programs use outdated models
of leadership and management that emphasize stress control, order, quality, and
efficiency. Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) noted that training programs required
large-scale changes to prepare future superintendents. Caruso (2004) and Eadie and
Houston (2003) recommended that training programs emphasize developing board
policies, and Northhouse (2004) recommended training in how to create a vision,
solve problems, and make decisions. Hoyle et al. (2005) stressed training in using
the most current research, alternative instructional strategies, and long-term pro-
gram development. Thus, while there is some inconsistency in the types of changes
needed, there is little doubt that superintendent training could be improved.
In the current study, many individuals did have some specific training for
their superintendency, including the ACSA superintendent academy and

85
superintendent symposium. Nevertheless, the superintendents in the current study
tended to feel that they had not been well prepared for their position. Specifically,
37.1% stated that they had not been prepared for developing board-superintendent
relationships, 12.2% stated that they had not been prepared for community relation-
ships, 15.1% stated that they had not been prepared for coalition building, and
48.7% stated that they had not been prepared for entry plan creation.
Implications
Current Superintendents
The political aspect inherent to the superintendency is the greatest challenge
facing current superintendents. As the demands for accountability at the local, state,
and federal levels continue to put pressure on schools and their leaders, how will
current superintendents deal with the onslaught of public inquiry? The current
school board-superintendent relationship creates a difficult compromise between
the superintendent and the vision of the school board and the ongoing battle for
local control by stakeholders. The challenge is that superintendents lack preparation
for political demands and pressures. There is a need for significant study in the area
of school board-superintendent relations and their possible role in the entry period.
The current study found that the majority of responding superintendents had
had an entry plan, although most had had an informal plan with a wide variety of
strategies. The study identified some effective components of an entry plan. This
clearly identifies an area of further study to determine which components are
necessary for a successful entry plan.
The impending leadership crisis due to retirement of current superintendents
and lack of leadership candidates to replace them is a nationwide challenge. How

86
do districts meet their current and impending leadership needs and at the same time
use current superintendents to mentor future leaders? It is necessary to develop,
improve, and update current training programs to include practicing superintend-
ents in an effort to incorporate their knowledge base in training future superintend-
ents. Responding superintendents expressed that the timing of this study was
important enough to continue to discuss the need for identifying and training future
leaders.
Future Superintendents
If today’s challenges are enough to discourage future superintendents from
this position, then tomorrow’s leaders will likely face even greater challenges. This
study has sought to identify the process and strategies that new superintendents can
utilize in developing an entry plan. This step during the entry period of a new
leadership role can mean the difference between failure and a successful tenure for
future superintendents.
Currently, there are not enough programs designed to assist aspiring super-
intendents in the development of entry plans. The programs that address this critical
need are limited to out-of-state organizations, academies, and foundations. The
success of future superintendents depends on the development of training programs
that address the entry period, including entry plans, and that follow a model
grounded in national standards. While colleges and universities are currently
carrying the majority of the burden to prepare future superintendents, it is apparent
from the study that they are not addressing the current needs of superintendents.
Also it is important to note that the current models are not meeting the unique
needs of individual school districts in their search for future leaders.

87
There is a crisis facing the superintendency. Nearly half of California’s
present superintendents will be retired by the year 2010. This brings into question
the need for future superintendents. Will there be mentors and training programs
coherent to a set of national standards to produce future superintendents in time to
avert a national crisis? Future superintendents will face the challenges and
pressures not only from outside political forces but also from the possibility of
dramatic turnover at all levels of leadership in their own organizations.
This study has brought to light issues that will impact future superintendents
and require additional research. The entry period to a new superintendency is
critical. Training and preparation are key in producing future superintendents who
possess the skills and strategies to handle the challenges that future superintendents
will face.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings of the current study, several recommendations are
made for future research in this area. First, given the substantial differences among
the 20 interviewees in terms of their approaches and experiences in the first 90 days
of their superintendency, a qualitative study involving a larger number of superin-
tendents would be helpful. While there were some common themes (e.g., the
importance of the political aspects of the job), it was difficult to determine how
general the interviewee responses were due to the fact that there were only 20
interviewees. A larger sample size for the qualitative portion of a similar study
would provide increased generalizability.
Second, the current study included only superintendents in California.
While there are certainly some similarities among superintendents from other parts

88
of the country, there are just as certainly differences. California is the most popu-
lous state and the third-largest state, it has a high proportion of urban residents, and
it has a high proportion of minority residents. The role and duties of superintend-
ents in states that do not share these characteristics may be substantially different
from those in California. Therefore, replication of the current study with samples of
superintendents in other states or other parts of the country would be of interest.
Third, the goals of the current study did not include an examination of
differences between superintendents based on either the characteristics of the
schools or the characteristics of the individual superintendents. It would be interest-
ing to examine differences among superintendents based on school characteristics
such as size, minority representation, student-teacher ratios, funding levels, aca-
demic performance, and so forth. It would also be of interest to examine differences
based on superintendent gender, age, experience, and race, among other things. As
noted, examining such differences was not one of the goals of the current study, but
identifying such differences could elucidate the role of the superintendent.
Fourth, it would be interesting to perform a longitudinal study in this area.
A study that could track changes in superintendent attitudes and areas of focus from
before the superintendency began, through the initial period, and through an
extended term could provide important information about changes in perceptions of
these persons. This could allow for a more accurate description of what superin-
tendents consider to be effective and ineffective strategies and a more accurate
description of their initial plans due to the removal of potential bias due to the
retrospective nature of the information collected in the current study.
Fifth, it would be beneficial to have a more direct assessment of the
theoretical models of Bolman and Deal (1997), Watkins (2003), and Kotter (1998).

89
As noted in chapter 2, the four leadership frames of structure, human resource,
political, and symbolic leadership formed the primary theoretical framework for the
current study. Survey respondents and interviewees were asked about these four
frames. However, it is possible that many of the participants were unfamiliar with
the model and therefore their responses may have been inaccurate. A thorough
description of each frame prior to asking participants to assess the importance or
relevance of each frame might have produced different results. Future studies could
provide such a description to ensure more accurate results.

90
REFERENCES
American Association of School Administrators. (1993). Professional standards
for the superintendency. Retrieved June 23, 2004, from http://www
.geneonet.com/MRSD/AASA_Superintendent_professional_standards.htm
Bazeley, P. (1999). The bricoleur with a computer: Piecing together qualitative and
quantitative data. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 279-287.
Best, J., & Kahn, J. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Broad Center for Superintendents. (2004). Entry plan for an incoming superinten-
dent. Los Angeles: Broad Center for the Management of School Systems.
Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.broadcenter.org
Butts, R. E., & Cremin, L. A. (1953). A history of education in American culture.
New York: Henry Holt.
Campbell, R., Fleming, T., Newell, J., & Bennion, J. (1987). A history of thought
and practice in educational administration. New York: Teacher’s College
Press.
Carter, G., & Cunningham, W. (1997). The American school superintendent:
Leading in an age of pressure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Caruso, N. (2004). Bringing out the best board behavior. School Administrator,
2(61), 6.
Collins, J. (2001). Getting from good to great. New York: Harper Collins.
Colorado Association of School Executives. (2003). The view from inside: A
candid look at today’s school superintendent—2003 Colorado School Su-
perintendent Study. Denver: Author.
Conley, D. (2003). Who governs our schools? Changing roles and responsibilities.
New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L. D., & Carella, V. A. (2000). Career crisis in the school
superintendency? The results of a national survey. Arlington, VA: Ameri-
can Association of School Administrators.

91
Cottrell, D. (2005). 12 Choices . . . that lead to your success. Dallas, TX: Corner-
Stone Leadership Institute.
Covey, S. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Czaja, M., & Harman, M. J. (1997). Excessive school district superintendent turn-
over: An explorative study in Texas. International Electronics Journal for
Leadership in Learning, 1(6). Retrieved August 2, 2004, from http://www.
ucalgary.ca/~iejll
Eadie, D., & Houston, P. (2003). Ingredients for a board savvy relationship. The
School Administrator [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 18, 2004, from
http://www.aasa, org/publications/2003_02/colEadie.html
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A.
(2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th

ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Glanz, J. (2002). Finding your leadership style: A guide for educators. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory: Strate-
gies for qualitative research. Chicago: Adeline
Glass, T. (2001). The superintendent crisis: A review by search consultants. Re-
trieved August 25, 2004, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/28/25/
2825.htm
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodman, R., & Zimmerman, W. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations
for 21st-century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and
teamwork for high student achievement. New England School Development
Council Newsletter [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 10, 2004, from
http://www.nesdec.org/newletter/newsletter.html
Griffiths, D. (1966). The school superintendent. New York: Center for Applied
Research in Education.
Hansot, E., & Tyack, D. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in
America, 1820-1980. New York: Basic Books.

92
Harvey, J. (2003). The urban superintendent: Creating great schools while surviv-
ing on the job. Orlando, FL: Council of Great City Schools.
Hodgkinson, H. L., & Montenegro, X. (1999). Endangered species: New AASA
study identifies characteristics of school superintendents. Education, Re-
search & Politics [Electronic version]. Retrieved August 28, 2004, from
http://www.aera.net/gov/archive/r049901.htm
Holloway, J. (2001). Setting standards for the school superintendent. Educational
Leadership, 58(5). Retrieved May 27, 2004, from http://www.ascd.org/
publications/ed_lead/200102/holloway.html
Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as
CEO: Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: AASA &
Corwin Press.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Re-
structuring school district leadership (Report of the Task Force on School
District Leadership). Washington, DC: School Leadership for the 21st
Century Initiative.
Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in edu-
cational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192-212.
Jentz, B., & Wofford, J. (1982). Entry: The hiring, start-up, and supervision of ad-
ministrators. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superin-
tendency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Jones, H. K. (2007). Top 10 books: Edition 14. The Achiever Newsletter [Electronic
version]. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://www.achievemax.com/
05articles/top10books14.htm
Keller, B. (1999,November 10). In Washington state, a welcoming hand for women
chiefs. Education Week, 19, 11-26.
Kerrins, J. C., & Cushing, K. S. (2001). The classic mistakes of new superinten-
dents. The School Administrator [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 18,
2004, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2001_02/kerrins.htm
Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education: A source book for the
leadership and management of educational institutions (4th edition). New
York: Harper and Row.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1998). Winning at change. Leader to Leader, 10, 27-33. Retrieved
July 15, 2004, from http://www.pfdp.org/leaderbooks/121/Fall98/
Kotter.html

93
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mendez, T. (2003, October 21). School boards: Democratic ideal or troubled
anachronism? Christian Science Monitor [Electronic version]. Retrieved
May 5, 2004, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1021/p12s01-legn.html
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in educa-
tion (2nd ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Merrow, J. (2004, August 8). Can D.C.’s search make the grade? The Washington
Post [electronic version]. Retrieved March 18, 2004, from http://pqasb
.Pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/67587661.html?dids=67587611:67
Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). User’s guide to qualitative methods. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Lead-
ers for America’s schools. Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational
Administration.
National School Boards Association. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st
century. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Neely, R. O., Berube, W., & Wilson, J. (2002). The entry plan: A systematic tran-
sition to a new superintendency. School Administrator, 59(9), 28-29.
Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J. M. (2005). You’re in charge–Now what? The 8-point plan.
New York: Crown Business
Northhouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York:
Sage.
Pipho, C. (2000). Governing the American dream of universal public education:
Education in a new era. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Qualis Research Associates. (1998). Ethnograph (Version 5.0) [Computer soft-
ware]. Denver, CO: Author.
Townley, A. (1992). An introduction to school administration. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt.
Trigg, R. L. (1997). The art of successful leadership. Thrust for Educational Lead-
ership, 27(3), 8-11.

94
Usdan, M., McCloud, B., Podmostko, M., & Cuban L. (2001). Leadership for stu-
dent learning: Restructuring school district leadership. Institute for Educa-
tional Leadership [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 18, 2004, from
http://www.iel.org
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders
at all levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

95
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE

ENTRY PLANS FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCY
SUPERINTENDENT’S VIEWS IN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Thank you for participating in this important research of the superintendency in
California. The Association of California School Administrators is teaming with a
group of University of Southern California doctoral candidates to investigate the
components of entry plans to the superintendency. California has over 1,000 su-
perintendents, and represents 1 of every 10 superintendents in the nation. This
study is designed to look at the components of entry plans and transition ap-
proaches that lead to a successful entry into superintendency. Your participation in
this survey will greatly help us understand the characteristics of entry plans and
transition plans and possibly provide a framework for use by superintendents now
and in the future. USC and ACSA will be using the results of this survey to help
identify the areas of focus for the superintendency today, and in the next few years.
We greatly appreciate your overwhelming support and ability to take time from
your schedule to contribute your views. We need your voice heard and encourage
every superintendent to respond.

This 12- 13-question survey is estimated to take less than 15-20 minutes to com-
plete. Your responses will be anonymous, and you may choose to not answer any
individual question. We appreciate your time in advancing the study of the critical
component of leadership and the superintendency in California. The partnership
between ACSA and USC, with your significant participation should create essential
information about the superintendency in California. Should you have any ques-
tions about the survey or be interested in receiving a copy of the final results, you
may contact the research team at assessment@mail.rowland.k12.ca.us.

96

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Gender: Male Ë Female Ë

Primary American Indian Ë Asian Ë African American Ë
Ethnicity: Hispanic Ë Filipino Ë Caucasian Ë

Age Range: 0 – 29 Ë 30 – 39 Ë 40 – 49 Ë 50 – 59 Ë 60 – 69
Ë 70+ Ë

Education
Level: Bachelor’s Degree Ë Masters/MBA Ë Ed.D/Ph.D Ë

Years of Work Experience:
Teaching: 0 – 5 Ë 6 – 9 Ë 10 – 14 Ë 15 – 19 Ë 20 – 24
Ë 25+ Ë
Administration: 0 – 5 Ë 6 – 9 Ë 10 – 14 Ë 15 – 19 Ë 20 – 24
Ë 25+ Ë
Superintendency: 0 – 5 Ë 6 – 9 Ë 10 – 14 Ë 15 – 19 Ë 20 – 24
Ë 25+ Ë
Business/Law: 0– 5 Ë 6 – 9 Ë 10 – 14 Ë 15 – 19 Ë 20 – 24
Ë 25+ Ë
Military: 0 – 5 Ë 6 – 9 Ë 10 – 14 Ë 15 – 19 Ë 20 – 24
Ë 25+ Ë
Non-Profit: 0 – 5 Ë 6 – 9 Ë 10 – 14 Ë 15 – 19 Ë 20 – 24
Ë 25+ Ë

Career Path (prior to superintendency)– mark all that apply
Teacher Ë Department Chair/Curriculum lead Ë Coordinator Ë
Principal Ë Assistant/Vice Principal/Dean Ë Director Ë
Military Ë Assistant/Deputy Superintendent Ë Non-Education Ë
Business Ë Other Ë please list ________________________________

Site Administration – at which levels did you serve as a site administrator (mark all
that apply)
Elementary K – 5(6) Ë Middle/Intermediate (6)7 – 8 Ë High 9 – 12 Ë
Adult Ë

97
Prior to becoming superintendent, which areas of expertise did you serve as an
administrator, Assistant/Deputy Superintendent, or non-education business
executive (mark all that apply):

Curriculum Ë Human Resources Ë Business (financial) Ë
Research Ë Student Services Ë Admin (operations) Ë
Area or Grade level Division Ë
Other Ë please list ________________________________

Please mark any training programs that you were involved in specifically to prepare
for the superintendency (mark all that apply)

Broad Foundation Academy Ë ACSA Superintendent Academy
ËCALSA Program Ë
AASA Training Ë Higher Education Ed.D/ Ph.D Program Ë
Harvard Superintendent Academy Ë Other Ë Please list _______________

98

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

In how many districts have you served as superintendent?
1 Ë 2 Ë 3 Ë 4 Ë 5 Ë 6 or more Ë

In your first superintendency, were you hired from
Inside the district/organization Ë Outside the district/organization Ë

In your current superintendency, were you hired from
Inside the district/organization Ë Outside the district/organization Ë

How many years have you served in your current superintendency?
1 Ë 2 Ë 3 Ë 4 Ë 5 Ë 6 or more Ë

Current District ADA:
0 – 999 Ë 1,000 – 2,499 Ë 2,500 – 4,999 Ë 5,000 – 9,999 Ë
10,000 – 14,999 Ë 15,000 – 19,999 Ë 20,000 – 49,000 Ë 50,000 + Ë

District Type: Rural Ë Suburban Ë Urban Ë

Limited English Proficient Student Population (mark the percentage of students
identified as LEP):
0 – 10 % Ë 11 – 25% Ë 26 – 40 % Ë 41 – 50% Ë 51 – 65% Ë
66 – 89% Ë 90%+ Ë

In how many years do you plan to retire?
Years: 0 – 2 Ë 3 – 4 Ë 5 – 6 Ë 7 – 8 Ë 9 – 10 Ë 11+ Ë

99
PREPARATION FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCY
This series of questions focuses upon the different training and preparation programs, universities,
and institutes you may have attended or participated in prior to obtaining your first superintendency.
Please answer the questions thinking back to how well you felt you were prepared then and not
based upon today.
# 1 Did Not
Prepare
Me
Adequately
Prepared
Me
Prepared
Me
Well
Prepared
Me
Rate overall how well the training programs you
engaged in prepared you for entry into your first
superintendency.

Evaluate how well the training programs you participated in prepared your for entry into your first
superintendency in the leadership and skill areas of:
Board-Superintendent Relations
Budget Management
Change Management
Collective Bargaining/Personnel Management
Community Relations
Coalition Building/Setting Common Goals
Entry Plan Creation
Instructional Leadership
Negotiating your superintendent’s contract
Strategic Planning
Vision Creation

#2 Rank at least the top 3
from most (1) to least
(7) important
Prior to attaining your first superintendency please rank at least the top 3 leadership areas of strength
based upon the training you received:
Collective Bargaining/Personnel Management
Community Relations
Facilities Management
Fiscal Leadership/Budget
Organizational Leadership
School Board Relations
Student Achievement/Instructional Leadership

100

YOUR CURRENT SUPERINTENDENCY: Before the first day on the job
This series of questions concerns the activities and planning that you engaged in to assess the
district situation prior to entry into your current superintendency.

#3 Not
Applicable
Somewhat
Useful
Important Essential
Define how useful each of the following activities were in helping you determine the district situation
prior to entry into your first superintendency (mark not applicable to any category that did not apply
to your activities prior to your entry into first superintendency)
Analyze District Budget
Analyze Student Achievement data
Attend Board Meetings
Determine Collective Bargaining
status/atmosphere

Study media reports on the district
Talk with colleagues
Talk with stakeholder groups
Use Search Firm to obtain information
Use the interview process to determine
“fit”

#4 Whole
District
Mark any for
specific division
or area
Based upon your pre-entry assessment which of the following
descriptions best defined your current district prior to your entry as
superintendent? If different divisions or schools within the district
were in other areas check any that apply in the right column.

Realignment (make changes in division and schools that felt they
had no
need to change)

Start-up (create a new district structure where none had been)
Sustaining success (maintain the successful programs of your
predecessor)

Turnaround (make changes in divisions and schools that knew
there needed
to be a change)

101
YOUR CURRENT SUPERINTENDENCY: Your entry or transition plan
This series of questions concerns the transition planning and activities that you engaged in during
your entry period into your current superintendency.

#5 Not
Applicable
or
Important
Somewhat
Useful /
Important
Important Essential
How important is the entry period (such as the
first 90 days) for a successful
superintendency?

Rate the importance of your interaction with each of the groups or categories below in creating your
entry or transition plan to your current superintendency:
Assistance of other superintendents /
mentors

Bargaining Units (Employee Groups)
Board of Education
Community/Local Government
District Leadership Team
Media
Parent Groups/PTA
Superintendent living in district boundaries

#6 Yes No
Please answer the following set of items regarding your entry to your current district
Did your evaluation of current district situation and the concept of “fit” play a major
role in pursuing your current superintendency?

Did you have an entry plan for your current superintendency?
Was your plan created and presented prior to your first day on the job?
Were you asked or directed by the board to create an entry or transition plan?
Was the entry plan written?
Is your personal vision for education reflected in the entry plan?
Was the entry plan board approved?
Were you specifically or directly asked by the board to accomplish specific goals
during the entry period?

Did you have a long-range strategic plan when entering?
Did you bring in people from outside of the district with you upon entering?
Were the following elements addressed in your entry plan:
Board/Superintendent Relations
Community Relations
Fiscal Operations/Budget
Labor Relations/Collective Bargaining
Media Relations
Parent Groups/PTA
Pre-existing District Conditions
School Bond/Facilities Issues
Strategic Planning
Student Achievement
Vision Creation
Other (please list)

102

#7

Rank at least 1 – 3
high (1) to low (12)
Rank the top 3 areas of focus during your entry period in your current superintendency:
Board/Superintendent Relations
Community Relations
Fiscal Operations/Budget
Labor Relations/Collective Bargaining
Media Relations
Parent Groups/PTA
Pre-existing District Conditions
School Bond/Facilities Issues
Strategic Planning
Student Achievement
Vision Creation
Other (please list)

#8 Force Rank from
most to least
important 1 - 4
Which best describes your leadership efforts or focus during the entry period of
your current superintendency? Rank highest (1) to lowest (4)

Human Resources (empowerment and support personnel)
Political (local, internal, board, community relations)
Structural (organizational changes, operations, policy)
Symbolic (Outward displays, vision, motivating others)

103
THE SUPERINTENDENCY: Your opinions on your leadership today and the factors
affecting the superintendency today.

This series of questions focuses on the issues that affect the superintendency today. These questions
ask about different factors that may inhibit the role of the superintendent, and possibly affect the
type of candidates for this position in the future. In addition, several questions are designed to
reflect the possible changes in focus and leadership within current superintendents since their entry
period.

#9 Rank most (1) to
least impact (6)
Which of the following factors currently most impact your ability to be an effective superintendent?
Accountability
Board Relations
Collective Bargaining
Fiscal Resources
Job Demands (time)
State/Federal Mandates

#10 Not an
Issue
Slight
Issue
Moder
ate
Issue
Major
Issue
In your opinion, to what extent does each of the following factors affect the superintendency today?
Board members elected with a single political objective
Board Relations
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Compensation package
Demand for Accountability
Financial Resources for Districts
Job Stress
Lack of Local Control due to State/Federal Mandates
Non-portable pensions
Political forces
Shortage of qualified applicants to the superintendency
Short-term contracts

#11 Rank at least the top 3 from
most (1) to least (7) important
At this point in your career, please rank at least your top 3 leadership areas of strength:
Collective Bargaining/Personnel Management
Community Relations
Facilities Management
Fiscal Leadership/Budget
Organizational Leadership
School Board Relations
Student Achievement/Instructional Leadership

104

#12 Force Rank from
most to least
important 1 - 4
Which best describes your leadership efforts or focus of your current
superintendency? Rank highest (1) to lowest (4)

Human Resources (empowerment and support personnel)
Political (local, internal, board, community relations)
Structural (organizational changes, operations, policy)
Symbolic (Outward displays, vision, motivating others)

#13
If you were to enter a new district tomorrow, what would be the key elements of your entry plan?

The survey is complete. Thank you for your time to add to the profession. Your answers are critical
in helping to design and determine the training and support needs of the superintendency. Results
from this survey will be included in the dissertations for the superintendent entry plan group at the
University of Southern California before the end of this school year. In addition, ACSA will be
collaborating and supporting the researchers in the creation of several reports and articles regarding
these results.

By the 2004 research cohort, University of Southern California.

105
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF THE SUPERINTENDENCY
INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. How did you prepare yourself for the transition to superintendent?
· What professional development program or academies did you
attend?
· What was your career path leading to the superintendency?

2. Do you believe that the first 90 days are important to a successful
superintendency?
· What do you believe is the role of the superintendent during the first
90 days?
· What were your main goals/focus during your first 90 days?
· What were your greatest challenges or conflicts during your first 90
days?
· What was the relationship between you and your Board during the
first 90 days?
· What relationship does the entry plan have to long term goals and
directions of the district?
· What leadership frame–political, symbolic, structural or human
resource–is most useful to a superintendent in the first 90 days?

3. Did you enter your district with an entry/transition plan and what was the
time frame of that plan? Was this plan widely articulated and
disseminated with key stakeholders?
· Was the plan formally created or implemented informally? May I
have a copy of your entry/transition plan?
· What steps did you take to assess the district prior to entry?
· What was the climate of the district upon your entry? (Using
Watkins models—startup, turnaround, realignment or sustaining
success)
· Were there any pre-existing conditions present in the district that
factored in the type of entry plan you created and/or implemented?
· Were there parts of the transition plan that may not have been
widely disseminated? Why or why not?
· Did you have a long-term plan in mind when developing your entry
plan?

106
4. What strategies did you find to be the most successful in your first 90 days?
· What actions did you take to establish your authority and credibility
during your first 90 days?
· What early “wins” did you target and achieve during your first 90
days?
· Did you establish a transition team? Who were members of this
team, and how were they selected?
· Who did you rely on or depend upon in your first 90 days? Did you
bring outside people with you or rely upon people from within the
organization? (Did anyone serve as your mentor during your first
90 days?)
· What did you do to establish relationships with your various
stakeholders and bargaining units?
· What traits/qualities/characteristics are needed by a superintendent
to be a successful in their first 90 days?

By the 2004 research cohort, University of Southern California.

107
APPENDIX C
INTERRATER MATRIX

108

By the 2004 research cohort, University of Southern California.

Asset Metadata

Creator Roughton, Gary J. (author)

Core Title The first 90 days: securing early success in the superintendency

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/09/2007

Defense Date 10/22/2007

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

Tag 90 days,OAI-PMH Harvest,Success,superintendency

Language English

Advisor Price, Scott (committee chair), David D. Marsh (committee member), Lawrence O. Picus (committee member)

Creator Email groughton@valverde.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m915

Unique identifier UC1226616

Identifier etd-Roughton-20071109 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-590386 (legacy record id),usctheses-m915 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Roughton-20071109.pdf

Dmrecord 590386

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Roughton, Gary J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to gain greater insight into the first 90 days of the superintendency, to verify whether this period of transition is important to the success of superintendents, and to understand the value that superintendents assign to the time frame. The study was designed to identify whether superintendents used formal and/or informal entry plans and whether these plans provided a significant aid to superintendents in the transition period. The study focused on identifying strategies, plans, and conceptual frameworks that were used in the first 90 days by successful superintendents. Included in this purpose was to discover those mistakes that superintendents reported that they may have made so that these lessons could be communicated to persons who might assume the post of a new superintendency.