A Quantitative Study on the Power Dynamics of the School Principal

A QUANTITATIVE STUDY ON THE POWER DYNAMICS OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL-

TEACHER RELATIONSHIP

TIFFANY LA’NEE BROWN

JINGPING SUN, COMMITTEE CHAIR WENCHAO MA BOB JOHNSON ROXANNE MITCHELL YVETTE BYNUM

A DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Technology Studies In the Graduate School of The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

2021

ABSTRACT

While many of us have learned to recognize the signs/behaviors in personal relationships, abuse in professional workplace relationships has gone largely unexamined. The relationship between the principal, as the boss, and the teacher, as the employee, is an under-researched component of the school workplace community that is important for identifying the behaviors that exist within the “dark side of organizational life” in schools. How do we better prepare teachers for this dark side of the micro-politics of school life? This quantitative study is best described as a survey research study that attempts to examine the relationships between teachers and principals in K-12 public schools. The focus is to examine school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources of the experience of mistreatment by a principal both past and present, how often mistreatment occurs, the intensity of the mistreatment, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables in a randomly selected sample. The principal whose interactions with staff undermine these all-important relationships by creating dissociation between teachers’ self-confidence and their professional self-image is like the captain drilling a hole in his or her boat. No matter how hard you bail, it is always sinking.

DEDICATION

I dedicate my dissertation work to God who without him this journey of my life would not be possible, my beloved parents, Calvin and Janet Pauling for always supporting me, and whose words of encouragement, where the driving force in my life and career that continues to ring in my ears. Throughout my life they have supported my determination to find and realize my potential. I also dedicate this dissertation to my close friends and church family who have supported me throughout the process, even though a pandemic.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God, the Almighty, for His blessings throughout my research journey allowing me to complete the research successfully. I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Jingping Sun, Dr. Bob

Johnson, Dr. Eric Coleman, and Dr. Tom Granoff, for giving me the opportunity to do research and providing invaluable guidance and patience throughout this research process. Their enthusiasm, vision, sincerity and motivation deeply inspired me not to give up. They have taught me the methodology and elements of SPSS to carry out the research and to present the research works as clearly as possible. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under their guidance.

I am extending my thanks to the DeKalb County School District for their willingness to allow me the opportunity to conduct my research in their public schools, as well as their support and kindness during my research process to complete this thesis successfully.

Finally, my thanks go to all the people who have supported me to complete my research directly or indirectly.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….……...ii

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………..iv

LIST OF CHARTS……………………………………………………………………………...viii

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………..ix

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………...... xi

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………...…………1

a. Background and Purpose………………………………………………………………….…1

b. Laws and Politics…………………………………………………………………….………3

c. Purpose and Significance…………………………………………………………...... 8

d. Outline of Remaining Chapters……………………………………………………….……10

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………………………………………………...…………12

a. Mistreatment in the Workplace……………………………………………………………..17

b. Workplace Bullying: Agents Involved……………………………………………………..18

c. The On-Lookers…………………………………………………………………….………21

d. Teacher Mistreatment………………………………………………………………………22

e. The Micro-politics of the School…………………………………………………...………25

f. Importance of This Study…………………………………………………………………...31

METHODOLOGYAND EXPECTED FINDINGS……………………………………………..32

a. Research Design…………………………………………………………………….………33

b. Survey Design……………………………………………………………………………..35

c. Purposeful Sampling………………………………………………………………..……..37

d. Research Study Ethics……………………………………………………………………..38

e. Survey Instrument: Principal Mistreatment of Teachers…………………………………..40

f. Online Survey Administration……………………………………………………..………47

g. Procedure…………………………………………………………………………...……...48

h. Internal Validity…………………………………………………………………………...51

i. External Validity…………………………………………………………………….……..54

j. Significance………………………………………………………………………………...55

k. Limitations & Delimitations………………………………………………………..……..55

l. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..……..55

FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………………..57

a. Descriptive Findings………………………………………………………………..……..58

b. Participant Demographics and Professional Profile………………………………….……60

c. Research Question 1 & Sub-questions a-e…………………………………………….…..67

d. Research Question 2 & Sub-question a …………………………………………………..87

e. Research Question 3………………………………………………………………...... 90

f. Research Question 4………………………………………………………………...... 91

g. Qualitative Results………………………………………………………………...... 95

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION……………………………………………….……….101

a. Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………...... 103

b. Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………...112

c. Implication of Research…………………………………………………………...... 115

d. Implication of Practice………………………………………………………………….....118

e. Implication for Policy Making…………………………………………………………….123

f. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………....125

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………128

APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………….134

vii

LIST OF CHARTS

1. Subject Area or Area of Specialization…………………………………………...... 67

2. Level 3 Principal Mistreatment Behaviors…………………………………………………....81

3. Total Frequency of Mistreatment Behaviors…………………………………...... 82

4. Behaviors That Affected Your Relationship with the Principal………………………………96

5. Principal Mistreatment and Harm to One’s Health……………………………………………97

6. Principal Mistreatment and Teacher Efficacy…………………………………...... 99

7. Principal Mistreatment and Job Satisfaction…………………………………………………100

viii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Age Demographics……………………………………………………………………….61

2. School Level Demographics……………………………………...... 61

3. Table 3 Total Years of Experience in Teaching……………...... 62

4. Gender Demographics………………………………………………...... 62

5. Race Demographics……………………………………………………………………...63

6. Ethnicity Demographics……………………………………………………...... 63

7. Highest Degree Earned Demographics………………………………………………….63

8. Teacher Union Demographics…………………………………………………………..64

9. Number of Full Years Teaching at Current School……………………………………..64

10. Gender of Most Recent Principal………………………………………………………..65

11. Number of Years Working with Most Recent Principal………………………………...65

12. Number of Teachers in School…………………………………………………………..66

13. Population of City Where School is Located…………………………………………....66

14. Percentage of Individual Mistreatment Behaviors Ranked……………………………..70

15. Frequency of Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors…………………………………..72

16. Frequency of Second Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors…………………………..73

17. Frequency of Third Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors…………………………….74

18. Frequency of Fourth Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors…………………………...75

19. Frequency of Fifth Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors……………………………..76

20. Percentage of Teachers Ratings “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors……………………..83

21. Chi-Square Analysis of Gender and “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors………………...85

22. Chi-Square Analysis of Race and “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors…………………...85

23. Chi-Square Analysis of Education and “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors……………...86

24. Ranked Effects of Principal Mistreatment by Percentages of Teachers……………...... 88

25. One-way Analysis Variance Summary Comparison…………………………………….90

26. Ranked Coping Strategies of Principal Mistreatment………………………………...... 91

27. Contributing Factors to Principal………………………...... 92

28. Additional Contributing Factors to Principal Mistreatment………………...... 94

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Micropolitical Leadership Matrix……………………………………………….. 29

2. 2018-2019 DeKalb County School District Region Map……………………….. 51

INTRODUCTION

Background

When I realized I wanted to become a teacher, it was because I felt a calling for teaching kids and seeing them learn. However, college did not prepare me for the politics that dwell within the four walls of our schools. It did not prepare me to deal with difficult colleagues or principals. So I was left wondering what to do when you are being bullied, and even more, what do you do when the bully is your principal. Bullying that occurs between teachers and administration happens in many schools all over the world. It is often not discussed publicly because of repercussions for taking a stance.

Unfortunately, workplace bullying or harassment is not a new phenomenon. There has been federal legislation prohibiting job discrimination since the 1960s. The bullying of teachers is unique in that seemingly routine tasks can be interpreted as workplace harassment. For example, one of the most essential components of evaluating a teacher is classroom observation, which is conducted quarterly at my school. The purpose is to determine whether the teacher is adequately delivering standards-based instruction efficiently and with knowledge and accuracy.

It is important to note, that unless the district or school system has an absolute maximum number of times an evaluator can observe a teacher, classroom observations may be a way for an evaluator to intimidate and scare a teacher. In my case, this was what occurred. I can recall various classroom observations and feedback given by my principal, who is also a former math teacher. The feedback was very belittling, causing me to doubt my ability to teach my students despite seeing an increase in their growth percentiles, as well as their passing rates on

state-mandated assessments. My principal criticizes me whenever she gets a chance, but especially during my summative conferences for things that are petty. It is like she searches for something to criticize. Once I was instructed to meet weekly with the instructional coach, who does not have a mathematics background, to work on my lesson plans. My five-page lesson plan became a15-page paper with pictures that had to be turned in weekly. My teaching friends have observed the principal’s treatment of me and they are as puzzled as I!

My principal created a hostile and toxic work environment, harassed me, sabotaged me, spoke to other teachers about my “issues”, retaliated against me, did not respond to emails or texts, brought me in the office on issues that she allows her “favorite” teachers to get away with, and has made defamatory statements about me. I have tried working with my human resource department to determine any avenues I can utilize to defend myself against these attacks, but have had no success.

These examples by themselves seem innocent. However, an administrator’s motivations may raise the score of being harassed. So, what is the purpose behind these actions? This workplace harassment or bullying may be caused by the administrator’s desire for a teacher to leave the school. One may question why the administrator did not resort to the discipline policies in place that outline the cause for removal. For some administrators, those policies may be too time-consuming and cumbersome to follow. Therefore, it is easier to circumvent the process by making the work environment uncomfortable for the teacher.

A key element of an effective school is an effective principal (Whitaker, 1989). Mackey

(2006) explains that the principal influences the learning environment by articulating the vision and mission of the school. According to Schein (2010), the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture, and that the unique talent of leaders is their ability to

work within the culture. The principal’s leadership role has moved from that of a hierarchical system to that of an interactive one (Smylie & Hart, 1997). It has expanded to that of a facilitator, a collaborative partner, a change agent, an effective communicator, a promoter of a positive school climate, and an instructional leader (Bennis & Goldsmith, 1997; Blasé & Blasé,

2000; Dufour, 2001; King, 2002).

Teachers are highly influential factors in the lives of children within the school environment (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Wright, Horn & Sanders, 1997) and the case can be made that school principals are central figures in schools and their actions can directly shape their schools’ climates (Price, 2012). School reform efforts require that principals and teachers at the school level work together collaboratively to solve educational problems. However, such collaboration is only successful when school principals build trust in their schools. Trust, in turn, serves as a foundation for open, honest, and reflective dialogue to occur (Blasé & Blasé, 2003).

However, what do you do if the trust is broken, as a result of principal mistreatment? If the principal mistreats a teacher, what are the chances of increased incidents of such behavior?

By focusing on the teacher’s perceptions of mistreatment by principals, my research hopes to represent a tentative first step toward the larger goal of discovering the commonality of bullying by administrators in public schools and the effects of these scenarios on job satisfaction and how teachers cope with such mistreatment. While “bullying” and “mistreatment” are distinct terms by definition, they are often used interchangeably in the literature involved and since the form of violence is primarily psychological, it can be made virtually invisible.

However, such unexamined complications can drain the energy of workers and organizations, and it is especially damaging in school settings. Teachers who are mistreated repeatedly by principals may be left unable to provide the best learning environment for students, may not be

given a leadership voice in the organization, and may often be forced to leave their job or even quit teaching altogether.

Laws and Policies

When discussing the policies and laws related to mistreatment by or received by another individual, one must understand that there is a difference between harassment, discrimination, and workplace bullying. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC), harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where: (1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or (2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws, or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

Harassment generally involves a pattern of behavior in the workplace that causes an individual to feel uncomfortable, unaccepted, or intimidated. Jokes, insults, put-downs, intimidation, offensive objects or cartoons, and touching all contribute to harassment. Usually, a single incident, unless it is serious, does not demonstrate a hostile workplace. It is usually repeated behavior from one or more individuals that demonstrate a pattern of harassment.

Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people. Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to: offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name-calling; physical assaults or threats; intimidation; ridicule or mockery; insults or put-downs; offensive objects or pictures; and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

 The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent

of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.

 The victim does not have to be the person harassed but can be anyone affected by

the offensive conduct.

 Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the

victim.

Discrimination generally refers to choices made by an employer based on race, color, age, ancestry, disability, sexual orientation, or another protected category, rather than choices based on capability, talent, experience, or other legitimate factors. A single instance of denying an individual a job or a promotion, or terminating an existing employee, based on one or more of the protected criteria constitutes discrimination.

Dr. Ruth Namie and Heinz Leymann, introduced the term "workplace bullying" to the

U.S. in the popular press in 1998. Their associate, David Yamada, professor of law at Suffolk

University in Boston, wrote the seminal article for the legal community in March, 2000

(Georgetown Law Journal, 2000, vol.88, issue 3, "The Phenomenon of Workplace Bullying and the Need for Status-Blind Hostile Work Environment Protection.” They defined workplace

bullying as "status-blind" interpersonal hostility that is deliberate, repeated and sufficiently severe as to harm the targeted person's health or economic status. Further, it is driven by perpetrators' need to control another individual; often undermining legitimate business interests in the process Workplace bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is abusive conduct that is threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, that causes work interference (sabotage), or verbal abuse.

Despite laws in place for protection from status-based harassment or discrimination by

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Yamada, 2000), many lawmakers do not see the necessity of a status-blind law (i.e., a law that would forbid harassment regardless of whether or not the target is a member of a currently protected class) because they have a difficult time believing that such a condition could exist in our workplaces and that it would be even less likely in schools, which are often not thought of as workplaces, but seen as institutions of learning.

However, according to some reports, teachers are at high risk for workplace mistreatment (Blasé,

Blasé & Du, 2007).

Currently, the state of Georgia does not have any laws that concern bullying in the workplace. At least three states--Utah, Tennessee, and California--have laws specifically on bullying in the workplace. Currently, Utah and Tennessee laws both focus on public employers.

The California law applies to all employers who have more than 50 employees. As of now, none of these three states have created a private right of action. Rather, the laws define the term

“bullying” and create a requirement for training and rulemaking.

Initiatives to implement workplace bullying laws are slow to gain support in the United

States, whereas European countries, such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, are leaders in

legislative attempts focused on diminishing the negative effects of working under a boss who mistreats employees. However, this is changing in the U.S. due in part to the work of several researchers who are centering their policy studies on methods of reducing the negative effects of the unethical treatment of workers on individuals and organizations.

The Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB), a product of the Healthy Workplace Campaign led by Gary Namie, was first drafted by David Yamada in 2001. In part, the HWB defines an abusive work environment, requires proof of resulting health concerns by a licensed professional, plugs the gap in current civil rights protections, provides legal redress for targets, seeks restoration of lost wages, and compels employers to make sure it does not happen again (The

Healthy Workplace Campaign, 2012). Since 2017, the bill has been introduced in 30 states and two territories, and has successfully passed by committee votes or by the passing of a related law in California, Utah, North Dakota, Tennessee, Illinois, Washington, New York, and Connecticut;

HWB passed House floor votes in New York for a study-only bill; passed both houses in Illinois as a Joint Resolution, establishing funding for a 1-year Task Force on Workplace Bullying (The

Healthy Workplace Campaign, 2012); and has passed the Senates of New York and Illinois.

Employers should be aware of the status of an anti-bullying bill in its state. Creating a cause of action for simple bullying could lead to frivolous claims from unhappy employees. The

HWC has built-in certain protections for employers, such as requiring proof of harm from a licensed medical professional and protection for employers that engage in an internal correction.

Although there is currently no federal anti-bullying law, employers should start incorporating anti-bullying into discrimination and sexual harassment policies and training to prepare for the current shift towards anti-bullying laws.

Currently, New York, Connecticut, Florida, and Illinois are among the states with versions of the Healthy Workplace Bill being considered or gaining traction amongst state representatives. Notably, Massachusetts has introduced the current version of the Healthy

Workplace Bill to its state legislature with 57 cosponsors. Georgia has yet to introduce HWB, because there is no Healthy Workplace Bill to selflessly speak on behalf of workers, and sometimes in conjunction with, representatives of the bullied workers in their states.

Yamada (2008) believes that beyond workplace legislation, the burden is on the leader to make changes that assure that ethical concerns are always foremost in the collective minds of the organization. He goes on to state that leaders who send the message that bullying is unacceptable and who establish an open culture based on mutual respect will go a long way toward reducing the chances of a bullying situation. Such a leader is socially intelligent, expressing qualities such as empathy and concern (Yamada, 2008). Practices that preclude such behavior should be a part of organizational policy, and that policy should be presented in employee education programs.

Other than general suggestions for organizations to be aware of the problem and to initiate programs to reduce the chance of bullying situations, there is very little practical advice given in the literature to relieve the stress placed on targets of mistreatment in the workplace.

One notable exception is the report by Vega and Comer (2005) of a “peer listening scheme,” which was implemented by Britain’s postal service, the Royal Mail. Peer listeners were trained as experts who could empathize with those who had been targeted; by implementing this program, the top management sent a signal that bullying would not be tolerated. The suggestion is made that even without such an extensive program. Ann organization could designate a

helper, such as an ombudsman or human resource officer, who would walk the victim through the process of getting support.

In the school setting, such an appointment would need to be legislated since most school districts have small administrative staffs with already overworked employees. If a school principal takes the role of a bully boss, the superintendent may ignore the situation and therefore such a program might not be implemented. Thus legislative action is paramount to solving the problem.

Purpose and Significance

As an educator, having experienced over sixteen years of classroom teaching in a public school setting, I came to the conclusion that next to teacher-student relationships, the most important relationships in a school are the principal-teacher relationships. No matter how prepared, effective, or caring the educator is, if the principal-teacher relationship is perceived as negative, given the resulting negative impact on the teacher, logically the process of educating children will be disrupted to some degree.

Throughout my years in the field of deaf education, I have worked with more than one principal whose actions made me uncomfortable in my job at best and, at worst, made simply being at the school difficult. I have experienced working with principals who demanded personal meetings during my lunchtime, gossiped and lied about me to other staff members, and

I have received text messages and individual or group emails in which I am publicly shamed. I have experienced intentional embarrassment at meetings, the withholding of information necessary for the successful fulfillment of my job duties, impossible workloads, and received apologies from co-workers who have witnessed my experience of mistreatment firsthand, due to the target that was placed on my back. I enjoy working with children, and I loved every other

part of my job; however, the administration made me so uncomfortable that I have thought numerous times, why am I still here? I wish to know more about this problem, as well as how often other teachers in K-12 public schools have experienced mistreatment at the hands of their principals and what steps they took to cope with such experiences.

The purpose of this study is to examine the mistreatment behaviors, perceptions, intensity, and occurrences teachers have experienced from their principals in a randomly selected sample. The necessity of future research into this topic may have major effects on the climates and cultures within K-12 public schools. It is acknowledged that principals who are perceived as abusive may have a different narrative from that of teachers. However, the goal of this study is to uncover the pervasiveness of the problem from the perspective of teachers, as well as to set the stage for possible future research. The people in the school setting who can tell us the most about the perceived mistreatment of teachers are teachers themselves. This study can also serve as a model for educators and principals as a way to increase awareness, while recognizing the importance of this phenomenon, for those who have yet to commit to exploring these issues for themselves.

The primary focus of this dissertation is to examine school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the intensity of the mistreatment, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables. The information gained in this study will provide cross-sectional evidence of the pervasiveness of such scenarios as a next step toward the goal of developing a positive, supportive, and affirming workplace for all of those who work in public education.

Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions and sub-questions:

(1) How are teachers mistreated by their principals?

(a) What are the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their

principals?

(b) What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive?

mistreatment behaviors for the participants?

(d) Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of

frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors?

(e) What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of

various demographic variables?

(2) What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment?

(a) Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from

principal mistreatment?

(3) How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment?

(4) What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment?

Outline of Remaining Chapters

A review of the literature regarding the effects of workplace mistreatment is provided in the following chapter. Chapter three explains the survey research method that will be utilized, where a quantitative methodology is employed to examine the relationships between teachers and principals in K-12 public schools. Chapter four consists of case narratives of the participants, the researcher, quantitative data-analyses of each survey using Qualtrics, and the frequency of reoccurring themes. The primary method of collecting data for this study will be through survey research, a purposeful sampling data collection approach, with the permission of

the participant. Information such as dialogues, documents, stories, personal reflections, and testimonies collected to address research questions for this study will also be included. The confidentiality of participants will be maintained. The teachers that will be participants in the survey will be selected from K-12 DeKalb County School District, in the state of Georgia. The participants will be represented from the following grade levels: elementary, middle, and high school. As the researcher, I am seeking a diverse group of participants that differ in gender, age, ethnicity, and subject area taught. The rationale for such a diverse group is to get various perspectives. Purposeful sampling will be used in selecting participants for this research. The final chapter describes the cross-case observations, findings, implications, recommendations, and directions for future research.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Principal mistreatment of teachers is surely a dark topic, one that has undoubtedly been a part of the legacy of public education in the United States for some time; it is also a problem for which there exists no research base (Blasé & Blasé, 2003). An abundance of “bright side” empirical research exists that focuses on the considerable contribution of exemplary school principals to schools in general and teacher development and student learning in particular. This research is valuable and can be used to drive workplace improvements. It is, however, difficult to implement paths to positive change without research into the types of problems that currently exist. This literature review focuses on the research that has brought attention to the problem of workplace mistreatment as well as the factors that have affected this phenomenon. Workplace settings, in general, will be examined at length, followed by a complete overview of the few research articles specifically focused on schools as workplaces in the United States. Although bosses are not the only perpetrators of negative actions in places of employment, including schools, this discussion will focus on the specific phenomenon of workers who are mistreated by supervisors and more specifically in teacher-principal relationships.

It is important to note the difference between the terms "mistreatment" and "bullying" since both terms will be used in this study. Mistreatment is a general term defined by the person experiencing it. Although mistreatment can occur between any two players in the school setting

(student/student, staff/student, student/staff, and even staff/staff), only those situations with an asymmetric power relationship in which the abuse continues repeatedly over some time can be labeled bullying according to Olweus (1995). Namie (2003) defines workplace bullying as

deliberate, repeated, and sufficiently severe as to harm the targeted person's health or economic status. Further, it is driven by the perpetrator’s need to control another individual, while often undermining their legitimate interests in the process.

Namie’s (2003) definition, as it applies in the workplace, includes a conscious desire to bring harm to the victim and results in intangible injury. Both, Naime and Olweus, describe the harm that is caused by repeated actions over time, usually by someone who has power over the other. Therefore, bullying situations create more harmful scenarios than mistreatment alone since the abuse, inflicted by someone in a higher position of power, occurs repeatedly, whereas mistreatment, whether mild or severe, may only occur once. Another key factor for determining whether or not a given situation represents bullying is the fact that it can be identified by an outside observer, not only from the perspective of the victim.

Although the tendency for bullying may be suspected from the data collected, this study will not be able to distinguish between workplace mistreatment and workplace bullying.

Nevertheless, bullying could be considered a form of mistreatment as a possible explanation for some of the behaviors described due to the normative hierarchical structure of public schools.

Due to the tendency of public schools to maintain a bureaucratic organizational structure with the principal at the top of the power pyramid (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001), as well as the increased pressure placed on the staff by the current educational reform movements, the setting seems ripe for both general workplace mistreatment and more serious bullying scenarios. By comparison, workplaces that have developed empowered organizational structures may produce bullying administrators because of a more horizontal power structure. Envisioning schools with a more horizontal micro-power structure might result in less bullying by administrators and a better chance of developing school cultures that promote anti-bullying sentiment.

Bosses are sometimes called "bullies," "tyrants," or "jerks." However, regardless of how they are described (usually) out of earshot, bosses and others who inflict psychological abuse on their subordinates constitute one of the most common and serious problems facing employees in today's workplace (Yamada, 2000). Estimates of bullied workers in the United States workplace vary from 38 to 90% (Glendinning, 2001). This happens despite laws in place for protection from status-based harassment or discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

(Yamada, 2000). The necessity of a status-blind law is often questioned by those who do not realize the extent of mistreatment of subordinates in workplaces, including schools. However, according to some reports, teachers are at high risk for workplace mistreatment (Blasé, Blasé &

Du, 2007).

Price Spratlen (1995) describes workplace mistreatment in school settings as behavior or situations without sexual or racial connotations, which the recipient perceives to be unwelcome, unwanted, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, or a violation of human rights. Mistreatment can describe a set of behaviors that serve to make the person uncomfortable to some degree and both are defined by the person experiencing the treatment. The range or degree of these uncomfortable situations may range from minor to severe. Additionally, different people may not perceive the same behaviors as mistreatment since it depends on the perspective of the recipient.

Blasé, Blasé, and Du (2007) discuss several other terms that may be used to describe mistreatment behaviors, including abusive supervision, abusive disrespect, and workplace emotional abuse. Cortina (2008) describes general incivility as low-intensity conduct that lacks a clear intent to harm, but violates social norms and injures targeted employees. The proliferation

of incivility in the workplace has very real and very negative consequences for employees, workgroups, and organizations. Incivility would therefore place at the lower end of the mistreatment scale where it is less visible and possibly not as easily witnessed as other forms of mistreatment such as bullying. Interestingly, Cortina (2008) further states that incivility in the workplace may represent a covert form of discrimination of oppressed groups who are protected from more visible forms of discrimination by law.

At the other extreme, Leymann (1990) describes a form of mistreatment that he calls “mobbing” or “psychic terror.” The victim is subjected to systematic stigmatizing resulting in the inability of the person to find employment in his or her field. These terms represent the extremes of mistreatment in which the negative treatment may occur between any two people in the workplace. Namie (2003) describes mistreatment types of relational behavior in three levels according to the amount of disruption to the organization. Consider that workplace incivility, bullying and physical violence lie on a 10-point continuum of organizational disruption. Incivilities range from 1 to 3, while bullying covers mild to severe interference with the accomplishment of legitimate business interests, reflecting scores of 4 to 9. The highest score is reserved for battery and homicide which grind work completely to a halt. (2003). He also considers these three behaviors from the perspective of the individuals affected in each scenario, resulting in mild harm in the case of incivilities, mild or severe harm in the case of bullying, and death in the case of physical violence.

What makes workplace bullying so difficult to research? “Bullying is nearly invisible. It is non-physical and nearly always sub-lethal workplace violence” (Namie, 2003). Workers who are mistreated by their bosses normally keep the information to themselves due to the shame involved and since the form of violence is primarily psychological, it can be made virtually invisible.

Nevertheless, teachers are the key to developing good schools and student achievement.

There must be an understanding of and research conducted to examine why teachers leave and what encourages them to stay.

Effective principals are builders of mutual trust, respect, openness, and positive relationships with their teachers and staff (Blasé & Blasé, 2001; Glickman, Gordon, Ross

Gordon, 2001). Furthermore, principals are developers of positive climates that are demonstrated through collaboration, coaching, reflection, and encouragement (Fullan, 1997).

Thus far, the research has presented findings that present interpersonal communication skills in a positive light. There is much to learn from the dark side of education administration within the context of interpersonal communication.

Keashly (1998) refers to the mistreatment of teachers by principals as emotional abuse.

Emotional abuse entails verbal and nonverbal abuse. Examples of verbal abuse may take many forms: screaming, yelling, angry outbursts, put-downs, lying, threats of job loss, unsolicited criticism of work abilities, dismissing an individual’s thoughts, not returning phone calls, and fostering a master-servant relationship (Harlos & Pinder, 2000).

Nonverbal abuse demonstrated by the principal entails silent treatment, finger-pointing, slamming objects, throwing objects, eye gazing, and dirty looks (Namie & Namie, 2000). This type of behavior that is demonstrated by the principal reduces work effort, increases absenteeism, and induces less commitment on the part of the teacher (Pearson, 2000). Yamada

(2000) reports that psychological effects may occur: stress, depression, loss of sleep, high blood pressure, and digestive problems. He further argues that the behavior of superiors will not get any better with the rise of diversity in the workplace.

Mistreatment can go beyond the emotional abuse described by Keashly. Mobbing is defined by Heinz Leymann (1996) as a type of psychological terror that projects a hostile and unethical communication. This hostile communication, directed systematically toward one individual by one or several persons, occurs due to various reasons, including differences of opinion and belief, envy, and gender discrimination. Mobbing is a serious workplace problem that is harmful to both the victim and the organization for which they work, and frequently results in an inability of the victim to find work in his or her chosen profession. According to the research conducted by Gokce (2006) in educational organizations, teachers are mostly exposed to mobbing behaviors such as interruption, unfair criticisms, and their achievements being looked down upon.

Mistreatment in the Workplace

Bullying in the workplace is far too widespread today, but before we can come to understand it, we must understand that bullying is different from harmless incivility, rudeness, boorishness, teasing, and other well-known forms of interpersonal torment. Bullying is a form of violence, but only rarely involves fighting, battery, or homicide. It is mostly sub-lethal, non- physical violence. As their research data shows, bullying crosses boundaries of gender, race, and organizational rank (Namie, 2003). The founder of the international anti-bullying movement,

Heinz Leymann (1990), a German psychiatrist, established the first Work Trauma clinic in

Sweden in the 1980s and documented the “psychological terrorization” which resulted from what he termed “mobbing.” Andrea Adams, a British journalist, first applied the term “bullying” to such situations in the workplace (Namie, 2003). Drs. Ruth Namie and Gary Namie, co-founders of the website “Workplace Bullying Institute,” popularized the term “workplace bullying” in the

U.S. in 1998. Their website provides support for victims, business organizations, and media,

including research articles and links to information about legislation (Namie & Namie, 2007).

David Yamada, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston, is active in research aimed at placing the worker mistreatment topic in the context of the legal community (Namie, 2003).

Finally, a study by Drs. Jo Blasé and Joseph Blasé in 2002, and their second study with Fengning

Du (2007), has provided the two research studies which focus on the mistreatment of public school teachers. Outside of these two studies, little to no research bases exists into principal mistreatment of teachers (Blasé & Blasé, 2003b).

Workplace Bullying: Agents Involved

There are many similarities between the common schoolyard bullying situation and workplace bullying (Harvey, Heames, Richey, & Leonard, 2006) and therefore it may be recognized that in both situations there are three categories of actors: the bully, the victim, and the on-lookers. Dan Olweus, often referred to as the “father of school bullying research” (Smith,

Pepler & Rigby, 2004), defines school student-to-student bullying as an exposure, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more students (Olweus, 1994). Such an action is an intentional act of injury, such as physical contact, words, gestures, or exclusion from a group, causing discomfort to another individual. Namie (2003), a prominent researcher of general workplace abuse in the United States, defines employee bullying as “status-blind” interpersonal hostility that is deliberate, repeated, and sufficiently severe as to harm the targeted person's health or economic status. It is usually expressed as same-sex harassment that is easily ignored by employer policies and laws. Just as in schoolyard bullying, the action is intentional and unilaterally controlled by the perpetrator (Namie, 2007). Namie uses the term “bully” or

“bullying supervisor” for the boss who commits uncivil behavior in the workplace and prefers the label “target” to refer to the employee in question.

So why do bosses become bullies? Vega and Comer (2005) note that the United States has a large “power distance,” defined as a higher normative acceptance of the hierarchical structure of organizations, a higher expectation of being told what to do on the part of employees, and more privileges for managers. Also, this large power distance normalizes a

“might makes right” philosophy, emphasizing the role of the manager who is given free rein to use force to get the job done (Vega & Comer, 2005). Thus, those organizations with a large power difference and which promote autonomy for the boss may set the stage for workplace mistreatment.

Andrea Adams (as reported by Beasley and Rayner (1997)) states that a good deal of bullying is based on personal envy and is due in many cases to the perception of the boss that he or she does not have the useful or admirable skills or qualities of the victim. On some occasions, such a person may be considered a threat to the bully’s position, authority, or legitimacy. By undermining the target’s ability to take care of business in the office or classroom through exclusion, work overload, impossible time requirements, intimidation tactics, or embarrassment, the result is less self-assurance on the part of the victim, which may eventually affect his or her ability to perform on the job (Beasley & Rayner, 1997). This may in turn diminish the overall perception of the target’s legitimacy by the rest of the organization. From the perspective of the victim, the top four explanations for being targeted are: refusing to be submissive, having more skill at technical jobs, being more popular with other employees, and engaging in whistleblowing activities (Namie, 2007). What makes the situation more vexing is that many times the supervisor who is responsible for the bullying will approach the human resource department

(HR), or in the case of schools, the superintendent, before the target has a chance to complain

(Namie, 2007). This undermines the employee’s ability to receive support because perceptions

are framed in the minds of others before the complaint is filed. Namie (2007) further suggests that the bully aims to make HR an accomplice in the constructive discharge of the targeted employee. By the time the victim finds the courage to approach those who may be able to improve the situation, it is too late. Those in control have already begun to label him or her as a troublemaker. In the specific case of schools, Blasé and Blasé (2003b) organized the bullying behaviors of principals into three levels: indirect or moderate behaviors, direct or escalating behaviors, and direct or severe behaviors. The first level includes discounting teachers’ needs, isolating behaviors, and withholding resources. As the behavior escalates to level two, the principal may sabotage resource materials as well as criticize the teacher both publicly and privately. Level 3 actions may include explosive and nasty behavior, unwarranted reprimands, unfair evaluations, and forcing teachers out of their jobs. Interestingly, in their study, they found that principals were unaware they were causing damage to the teachers by doing such things as not investigating issues before the confrontation. When teachers attempted to speak to the principal about the problem, principals expressed denial, followed then by placing blame on the teacher along with further retaliation.

As tolerance for bullying expands within an individual, a cycle of demoralization begins; the victim may feel unable to combat or even confront the bully. As the victim becomes less and less confident, the bully pushes more and more. This cycle often continues until the victim gives up and resigns (Vega & Comer, 2005). Workplace trauma can be devastating to the targets.

Vega & Comer (2005) state that the abuse of power or position can cause such chronic stress and anxiety that a person gradually loses belief in themselves, suffering physical ill health and mental distress as a result. Stress-related health effects due to workplace incivility include severe anxiety, disrupted sleep patterns, depression, panic attacks, and a simple lack of concentration

(Namie, 2003). Though destructive aggression on the part of the perpetrator carries little risk, the targets of bullying carry a 70% risk of losing their jobs, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Only 13% of perpetrators receive punitive damages (Namie, 2003). Blasé and Blasé (2003b) reported several negative effects on teachers who became targets of principal mistreatment including shock and disorientation, humiliation, injured self-confidence, a feeling of being trapped, fear or anger, corruption and guilt, and less motivation, which might lead to a lack of creativity and overall job underperformance.

There is some disagreement in the literature concerning the effect of gender on the number of victims of workplace mistreatment. Vega and Comer (2005) report that targets are not easily described by gender, although women more readily report abuse than do men.

However, Namie (2003) reports that 80% of bullied people are female. Interestingly, when the target is a woman, she is bullied by another woman 63% of the time whereas men are bullied by men in 62% of the cases, thus the victim is left unable to take advantage of discrimination and harassment laws.

The On-Lookers

When the boss bullies the target, it not only affects the target, but the entire organization.

When other employees witness this behavior, the possible result is reduced risk-taking and less innovation at best, and terror at worst. As a result, only actions known to be acceptable to the boss may be taken, and rewards may be expected only for submission. Not only does this management style stifle creativity, but it also decreases employee joie de vivre in the work itself

(Glendinning, 2001). The fear of becoming the target of the bully boss results in a conspiracy of silence, especially given the possibility of job loss (Beasley & Rayner, 1997). The result is that

co-workers stay quiet, ignoring the situation and thus giving no support to the target, which becomes increasingly isolated.

The public school as an environment presents a special condition due to several factors, including the lack of a human resource department, the isolation of teachers due to the compartmentalized nature of school buildings, and the tendency toward authoritarian leadership.

Also, as Parsons (2005) noted, if adult bullying stains a school, wiping out student bullying is an uphill battle. Logically, there may be an increased risk for student-student bullying when a bullying culture is permitted and sustained by those whose job it is to protect and guide those same students.

Teacher Mistreatment

There is a gap in the literature when it relates to studies on teacher mistreatment. No empirical studies have systematically examined the ‘dark side’ of school leadership, in particular principal mistreatment/abuse of teachers, and the extremely harmful consequences such forms of leadership have on life in schools (Blasé & Blasé, 2002). In a research study by Joseph Blasé and Jo Blasé (2002), using symbolic interactionism as the theoretical framework, empirical data were collected qualitatively to define behavior that teachers considered abusive and to determine the effects of this abuse. A total of 50 teachers, whose names were collected by the use of a snowball sampling technique and who had experienced both significant and long-term (six months to nine years) mistreatment by the school principal, were contacted by telephone several times and asked open-ended questions. The results indicated that abusive principals were behaviorally similar to abusive bosses. In general, there were few opportunities for teachers to resolve the problem, and there was substantial damage to teachers psychologically/emotionally and physically/physiologically, to classroom instruction, to relationships with colleagues, and

school-wide decision making (2002). Furthermore, teachers felt trapped in their job, unable to leave for a variety of reasons such as policies that prohibited transfers, the chance of damaging letters of reference, and the psychological effects of long-term abuse including depression. Early responses to principal mistreatment (e.g., shock, disorientation, confusion, humiliation, self- doubt, and lowered self-esteem) seem to increase the teachers’ vulnerability to additional mistreatment by an abusive principal by reducing her or his ability to cope with such mistreatment. These responses, in conjunction with the collective effects of long-term stress, tend to result in chronic fear and depression (2002). In their second research study, the Blases, teaming with Fengning Du (2007), continued their research by developing a survey to be distributed on the website for the National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse

(www.endteacherabuse.org). Based on the empirical literature of general workplace mistreatment in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations, the survey entitled, “The Principal

Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI)” focused on the effect, intensity, duration, and frequency of behaviors, the coping behaviors of targeted individuals, and other factors, that all contributed to the mistreatment from the point of view of the victim. A total of 172 teachers who self- reported abuse by the school principal responded to the online request for volunteers by filling out the questionnaire. The results showed that the frequency of mistreatment behaviors in school is similar to that in other workplace settings. The researchers also found that passive strategies

(such as avoiding the problem, rationalizing the principal’s behavior, or talking with others) to be the most common behaviors chosen to help resolve the conflict and that half of the teachers would like to leave teaching altogether because of the mistreatment. Teaching was substantively undermined according to 80% of respondents. Teachers reported that their positive knowledge and skills, creativity, popularity with students, parents, and/or colleagues, and speaking up about

topics that were threatening to the principal (such as by disagreeing with administrative policies or advocating on behalf of a student) resulted in mistreatment. Principal mistreatment significantly damaged teachers affectively, cognitively, behaviorally, and physically, and such mistreatment also resulted in considerable adverse effects on classroom teaching (Blasé, Blasé &

Du, 2007).

Berkovich and Eyal (2015) presented a narrative literature review on the emotional side of educational leadership from 1992 to 2012. Their research was specifically focused on peer- refereed articles that included the keywords “effective” and “educational leader” and then excluded those which were not empirical. They describe themes that emerged in the literature, including leaders’ behavior and their effects on followers’ emotions. Of the 10 articles that met their criteria, eight of the articles they placed under the sub-theme of “relationship-oriented behaviors” and two under the sub-theme of “mistreatment behaviors.” Those two studies were the two studies by Blasé and Blasé (2003b) and by Blasé, Blasé, and Du (2007). They explain that emotions are important for understanding educational leaders because they affect the resulting emotions of those with whom they interact. The emotions of followers are negative when unfavorable behaviors are displayed, and positive when favorable leadership behaviors are displayed. They found that the two articles on mistreatment attest to the harmful effects of principals’ abusive behaviors on teachers’ emotions.

“Bullying steals a person's self-esteem; it undermines self-confidence, it leads to sleeplessness, too many trips to the surgery for stress-related conditions, to panic attacks and most particularly to depression; Suicidal thoughts sometimes lead to action” (Beasley & Rayner,

1997). Although this quote was meant to describe bullying in a general work environment, it could just as easily describe the devastating condition of student-student bullying in our schools,

which Harvey, Heames, Richey, & Leonard (2006) state parallels administrator-teacher bullying.

Recently, the topic of schoolyard bullying has entered the national conversation in part due to the suicides of young people who were reported to have been harassed at school. What is the possibility that the schools these youths attended are harboring a culture of bullying in general?

The educational research community has remained passive for too long, exacerbating the abuse that goes unreported, unexamined, and unacknowledged. School reform efforts must begin to unpack the culture of bullying in our schools as well as the academic culture because they go hand in hand. Empirical evidence in this field is sorely lacking and desperately needed to restore civility as an expected norm in our schools. The research into principal mistreatment behaviors toward teachers is an early first step toward discovering the prevalence of workplace bullying in our schools. As Blasé and Blasé (2002) reported, the teachers they contacted strongly believed that the problem of principal mistreatment should be made public, in an attempt to bring light to a problem that has heretofore been ignored by both the academic and the professional educational community in the United States.

The Micro-politics of the School

Where people exist, one can find politics, political behavior, and dynamics. To better understand the role that politics plays in organizations in general, and schools in particular, consideration will be given to a comprehensive framework that explains current theories regarding organizations. Bolman and Deal (2003) provided this framework in their seminal work, “Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.” Bolman and Deal categorize and explain a broad range of theories concerning the operation of organizations.

Throughout the past century, theories have been espoused and research has been conducted to better understand how organizations function. The application of mental models is an effective

strategy to help make sense out of complex organizations. Bolman and Deal (2003) divided these mental models into four categories or frames: 1) structural, 2) human resource, 3) political, and 4) symbolic.

Moore (1993), as cited in Bolman and Deal (2003), noted that organizations are arenas for internal politics as well as “political agents in larger arenas or ecosystems” (Bolman and

Deal, 2003). Schools certainly function within larger systems created by district, state, and federal policymakers. Blasé and Blasé (2002) summarized two decades of study about the politics of schools, and divided it into two discrete subcategories that they referred to as macro- politics and micro-politics in education. Both terms are grounded in similar principles. These terms incorporate ideas of power, coalitions, conflict, negotiation, and values. Macro-politics pertains to the political dynamic external to the school. This includes public and private relationships on the local, state, and national levels. Examples include the relationships that schools have with state and federal departments of education, knowledge of corporations, and political representatives.

Blasé and Blasé (2002) acknowledged that there is no clear consensus on the exact definition of micro-politics in schools, although a great deal has been written about the subject.

While some researchers would limit the concept of micro-politics to the organizational politics that take place only at the most basic levels of school functions, organizational scholars generally recognize this idea as an oversimplification and that micro-politics can take place at any level of an organization (Blasé & Blasé 2002). Much of the research into micro-politics in schools has used the following definition introduced by Blasé in 1991: Micro-politics refers to the use of formal and informal power by individuals and groups to achieve their goals in organizations. In large part political action results from perceived differences between individuals and groups,

coupled with the motivation to use power to influence and/or protect. Although such actions are consciously motivated, any action, consciously motivated, may have “political significance” in a given situation. This definition of micro-politics is in keeping with Bolman and Deal’s (2003) description of the political frame and both Blasé (1993) and Marshall (1991) referred to micro- politics as a synonym for intra-organizational or organizational politics.

Blasé (1998) described how strongly power and politics influence what happens in schools (Blasé & Blasé, 2002), and Bolman and Deal (2003) encouraged managers and leaders to consider the political frame when analyzing their organizations. Schools are complex organizations that are steeped in politics and principals must possess political skills and acumen to effectively manage their schools.

Despite the large number of studies devoted to writing about schools, Stephen J. Ball

(1987) states that there are some areas within the walls of learning, that have been virtually untouched by previous studies (i.e. sanctions, harassment, lack of principal accessibility, and manipulation tactics). In these previous studies, the views and experiences of the actors involved have been rarely sought and taken into account. The studies have failed to come to grips with all that we do not know about schools, in particular an understanding of the micro-politics of school life or what is otherwise known as the ‘dark side of organizational life (Blasé & Blasé, 2002).’

Micro-politics is the strategies that individuals and groups use in a particular organization to gain control of it and achieve their interests. Micro-politics is concerned with power, goal diversity, ideological disputations, conflict, interests, political activity, and control. Until recently, micro- politics has been hidden because it is related to ‘an organizational underworld,’ which it is often difficult to access. Based on the issues touched upon, many teachers would prefer to deny or ignore the existence of this underworld. These issues, which constitute the micro-politics of the

school, are morale, bureaucracy, and blockage in communication, corruption, bribery, favoritism, cliquishness, and oligarchic control.

Micro-politics is the process by which members of an organization exercise power, a major consideration when discussing principal-teacher relationships that are predicated on control. Principals wield power while leading and teachers need to cope with the leadership style exhibited by the principal. Ball (1987) linked the “control” style of school heads (principals) to fatalism and frustration in teachers. Blasé and Anderson (1995) provide a compelling framework for understanding leadership from the perspective of teachers by framing it from a micro- political position. They describe two variables that are crucial to understanding power relationships in schools. Leadership style describes the political strategy of the principal as either open or closed according to whether the school administrator is willing to share power.

Power relations are either in the bureaucratic tradition (power over), human relations tradition

(power through), or in a democracy (power with). Leadership approaches that are based on larger goals may be defined by exchange relationships (transactional) or concerned with end values (transformative). Whereas transactional relationships rely on a kind of marketplace school culture in which material, psychic (e.g. praise), and symbolic (e.g. larger office) goods are exchanged, a transformative leader has a larger vision in mind. A micro-political leadership matrix may be produced using leadership approaches and leadership style as the two axes (see

Figure 1) resulting in four types of leadership.

Authoritarian leaders work from a closed, transactional perspective. Principals in such schools attempt to avoid, disable, or ignore teachers, suppress dialogue, and exercise control through formal structures and the enforcement of policies and rules (Blasé & Anderson, 1995).

Adversarial leaders are also closed in their leadership style. However, they have a more

transformative approach since they have strong ideological commitments. This puts them at odds with the staff that is given no power in the organization. Facilitative leaders are open to the democratic process, but they maintain a transactional relationship with teachers. This is a common leadership style in the human resource tradition in that power may be shared, but with no real commitment to a higher moral standard. Democratic/Empowering leaders are democratic in decision-making and hold a fundamental concern for goals of equity and justice within educational institutions and in the broader communities (Blasé & Anderson, 1995). Keeping in mind that these are pure conceptual models and not rigid types, they are of use in analyzing the political landscape of school leadership and will be considered in light of the data collected for this study.

The micro-political approach of principals affects their relationships with teachers, teachers’ relationships with students and each other, teachers’ classroom performance, and the

school as a whole (Blasé and Anderson, 1995). For example, 71% of teachers with authoritarian principals report the political actions of their principal negatively affected their classroom performance, including lowering their morale and making it difficult for teachers to make decisions they felt appropriate for their classrooms. Teachers report sometimes taking out their frustration on the students. Authoritarian leaders create school climates characterized by distrust, fear, and avoidance. Direct tactics used by authoritative principals to control teachers include using resources, working conditions, opportunities to influence decisions, support, and performance evaluations as sanctions and rewards. Indirect tactics include limiting access to superiors, managing the principal’s approachability, and emphasizing differences in authority between the teachers and principals. In response, teachers report using protective, reactive, and non-threatening strategies to achieve protective goals including avoidance, ingratiation, and rationality (Blasé, 1991). Teachers working with open principals, on the other hand, are less concerned with protective or reactive protective strategies and much more likely to report using diplomacy, visibility, and extra work as political strategies (Blasé and Anderson, 1995).

Nevertheless, understanding micro-politics has become an important part of comprehending leadership and power relations within schools in particular. The Micro-political

Leadership Matrix provides a useful framework for improving the problem of mistreatment behaviors because it is based on empirical evidence collected from teachers themselves.

Framing the behaviors witnessed by leaders is difficult if the future teacher has never experienced the micro-politics of school life, and future administrators can more pragmatically consider, incorporate, and evaluate actions based on this lens.

Importance of This Study

The educational research community has remained passive for too long, worsening the abuse that goes unreported, unexamined, and unacknowledged. School reform efforts must begin to unpack the culture of bullying in our schools as well as the academic culture because they go hand in hand. Empirical evidence in this field is sorely lacking and desperately needed to restore civility as an expected norm in our schools. The research into principal mistreatment behaviors toward teachers is an early first step toward discovering the prevalence of workplace bullying in our schools. As Blasé and Blasé (2002) reported, the teachers they contacted strongly believed that the problem of principal mistreatment should be made public. This research study might crack open the door of hope and eventually change the world of education, by aiming to answer the following research questions and sub-questions: (1) How are teachers mistreated by their principals? (a) What are the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their principals? (b) What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive? (c)

What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors for the participants? (d) Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors? (e) What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of various demographic variables? (2) What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment? (a) Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from principal mistreatment? (3) How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment? (4) What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment?

METHODOLOGY AND EXPECTED FINDINGS

Although research studies on workplace mistreatment have increased internationally over the last several decades, studies in the United States have been slow to follow. Research specifically focused on schools has been even slower to accumulate, with only two national studies reported (Blasé, Blasé & Du, 2007). These studies were exploratory, based on nonprobability samples, which will be a necessary early step in the process of itemizing principal actions that could be interpreted as mistreatment by teachers. My study may be considered quantitative, based on a purposeful sampling approach, which will aim to make statistical assertions about the experiences of K-12 teachers in the DeKalb County School District. The information gained in this study will provide cross-sectional evidence of the pervasiveness of such scenarios as a next step toward the goal of developing a positive, supportive, and affirming workplace for all of those who work in public education. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

1. How are teachers mistreated by their principals?

1a.What are the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their principals?

1b.What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive?

1c.What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment

behaviors for the participants?

1d. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of

frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors?

1e.What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of various

demographic variables?

2. What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment?

2a.Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from

principal mistreatment?

3. How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment?

4. What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment?

This quantitative study is best described as a descriptive survey research study that attempts to examine school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal both past and present, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables in a purposely selected sample. Included in this section is a brief overview of research design followed by sections that focus on purposeful sampling and on-line survey administration, Qualtrics as a method of data collection, statistical analysis, and research ethics as they relate to this research design.

Research Design

Descriptive research is research used to “describe” a situation, subject, behavior, or phenomenon. It is used to answer questions of who, what, when, where, and how associated with a particular research question or problem. Descriptive studies are often characterized as studies that are concerned with finding out “what is.” They attempt to gather quantifiable information that can be used to statistically analyze a target audience or a particular subject. Description

research is used to observe and describe a research subject or problem without influencing or manipulating the variables in any way. These studies are correlational or observational, and not truly experimental. This type of research is conclusive, rather than exploratory. Therefore, descriptive research does not attempt to answer “why” and is not used to discover inferences, make predictions, or establish causal relationships.

Descriptive research is used extensively in social science, psychology, and educational research. It can provide a rich data set that often brings to light new knowledge or awareness that may have otherwise gone unnoticed or encountered. It is particularly useful when it is important to gather information with the disruption of the subjects or when it is not possible to test and measure large numbers of samples. It allows researchers to observe natural behaviors without affecting them in any way.

Only two national studies have been conducted within the United States by Blasé, Blasé &

Du, in 2007. These studies were exploratory, based on non-probability samples, which was a necessary early step in the process of itemizing principal actions that could be interpreted as mistreatment by teachers. My study may be considered descriptive in nature, based on a non- probability sample, which will aspire to make statistical assertions about the experience of K-12 teachers in public schools. I will aim at identifying the major sources and coping skills, by using statistical analysis to examine the relationships between teachers and principals.

It should be noted that since the descriptive research method focuses on describing a situation, a survey research design approach will be used to answer and analyze the research questions without an in-depth attempt to define the concept of “mistreatment” in any quantifiable way. In other words, there will be no attempt to define the specific constructs underlying the general term. Mistreatment is defined according to the perspective of the teacher and would vary

according to the experiences of the teacher. In this case, the survey will depend on the experiences of past teachers in an attempt to find commonality between the teachers who represent the sample.

The study aims to gain more information about the problem rather than focusing on specific attempts at resolving problems in specific educational settings. It also does not aim at encouraging interaction between researcher and participants, nor does it use action research or other purely quantitative methods that might be expected of such a pragmatic research project

(Allender, 1986). It does, on the other hand, represent an early step in the collection of information which may result in future actions to create more humane working conditions for teachers and possibly more effective classroom experiences for students. The “warranted assertiveness” that I strive to attain in this study is a list of principal behaviors experienced by teachers sampled for this study which come close to “something like truth; that is, it approximates the traditional notion of truth” (Noddings, 1995). Such a notion of “truth” will evolve as new studies are completed and new information is incorporated into the old.

Survey Design

Kraemer (1991) identified three distinguishing characteristics of survey research. First, survey research is used to quantitatively describe specific aspects of a given population. These aspects often involve examining the relationships among variables. Second, the data required for survey research are collected from people and are, therefore, subjective. Finally, survey research uses a selected portion of the population from which the findings can later be generalized back to the population.

In survey research, independent and dependent variables are used to define the scope of the study, but cannot be explicitly controlled by the researcher. Before conducting the survey,

the researcher must predicate a model that identifies the expected relationships among these variables. The survey is then constructed to test this model against observations of the phenomena.

In contrast to survey research, a survey is simply a data collection tool for carrying out survey research. Pinsonneault and Kraemer (1993) defined a survey as a “means for gathering information about the characteristics, actions, or opinions of a large group of people.” Surveys can also be used to assess needs, evaluate demands, and examine impacts (Salant & Dillman,

1994). The term survey instrument is often used to distinguish the survey tool from the survey research that it is designed to support. Nevertheless, this survey research study is an early attempt to learn more about teachers’ experiences, both good and bad, as well as the various types of interactions that occurred between K-12 public school teachers and principals.

According to Levy and Lemeshow (1999), survey design involves two steps. First, a sampling plan must be developed. The sampling plan is the methodology that will be used to select the sample from the population. The sampling plan describes the approach that will be used to select the sample, how an adequate sample size will be determined, and the choice of media through which the survey will be administered. Survey media includes telephone and face- to-face interviews, as well as mailed surveys using either postal or electronic mail (Salant &

Dillman, 1994). Second, procedures for obtaining population estimates from the sample data and for estimating the reliability of those population estimates must be established. This process includes the identification of the desired response rate and the preferred level of accuracy for the survey (Salant & Dillman, 1994).

Survey design procedures require inputs from the people who will use the survey data and from those who will conduct the survey. The data users should identify the variables to be

measured, the estimates required, the reliability and validity needed to ensure the usefulness of the estimates, and any resource limitations that may exist about the conduct of the survey (Levy

& Lemeshow, 1999). In this study, I will use a survey as a tool to collect teachers’ opinions about the major sources and the intensity of the experience of mistreatment by their principals both past and present, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables.

Purposeful Sampling

Purposive sampling, also known as judgmental, selective, or subjective sampling, is a type of non-probability sampling technique. Non-probability sampling focuses on sampling techniques where the units that are investigated are based on the judgment of the researcher. In my case, the unit of analysis for my research is teachers. The main goal of purposive sampling is to focus on particular characteristics of a population that are of interest, which will best enable you to answer your research questions.

Maximum variation sampling, also known as heterogeneous sampling, is a purposive sampling technique used to capture a wide range of perspectives relating to the topic or issue that you are interested in studying; that is, maximum variation sampling is a search for variation in perspectives, ranging from those conditions that are view to be typical through to those that are more extreme. By conditions, I mean the units (i.e., people, cases/organizations, events, pieces of data) that are of interest to the researcher. These units may exhibit a wide range of attributes, behaviors, experiences, incidents, qualities, situations, and so forth. The basic principle behind maximum variation sampling is to gain greater insights into a phenomenon by looking at it from

all angles. This can often help the researcher to identify common themes that are evident across the sample.

Like the earlier national studies cited earlier by Blasé, Blasé & Du, 2007, my study as well, will be based on a non-probability sample, which will aim to make statistical assertions about the experiences of K-12 teachers in the DeKalb County School District in the state of

Georgia. DeKalb County School District is Georgia’s third-largest school system. The District encompasses nearly 102,000 students, 137 schools and centers, and 15,500 employees.

The focus of this study is on the unit of study defined as a teacher and their perceptions of principal mistreatment in the state of Georgia in this particular county. The population will include high schools, junior high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools, or combinations thereof serving students K-12, will be included in the sampling frame.

The sampling frame for this study was defined according to the school level, whether elementary, middle/junior high, high school, or any combination of these grade levels, and the number of sample elements chosen from each stratum in proportion to their number in the population. Elementary schools will be defined as any school that contains grade levels that range from 5th grade or lower to no higher than 8th grade. Middle/Junior High schools ranged from no lower than 5th grade to no higher than 9th grade. Senior High schools ranged from no lower than 8th grade to no higher than 12th grade. Schools that contain K-12 or 2-12 were considered separately, as were combination Elementary/Junior High schools (K to 4 through 8) and combination Junior High/Senior High schools (6 to 7 through 12).

Research Study Ethics

Whenever a participant is asked to report on experiences with another person at work, there is an inherent risk. That risk is even greater when the person being evaluated in the study

has the power to hire and fire. With this in mind, safeguards for this study will include the following:

• Letters explaining my purpose and reasoning will be sent to the superintendent and principals of each school in the DeKalb County School District seeking permission to distribute my survey to their teachers.

• Once granted permission, participants will be directed to complete the Qualtrics survey at a site other than their workplace.

• The electronic consent form will be included at the beginning of the Qualtrics survey and stated that the data collected will be used for research.

• Information about the survey will be minimal in the original email with a more direct explanation given on the survey itself so that there will be no need for deception.

• Risks to the participants will be made clear at the start of the survey.

• Every effort will be made to collect information in such a manner that the participants cannot be reasonably identified through the survey collection or by any information collected on the survey. Using Qualtrics “Anonymize Response” choice, all panel information and IP addresses will be removed permanently. This will be applied to all responses and cannot be undone. Also, in the open-ended questions, respondents will be warned that they should not give personal identifying information.

• Both in the original email and the survey, the participants will be notified that they have the choice of not answering any survey question and that they may withdraw from the study at any time.

• Participants will be notified that Qualtrics utilizes a firewall-protected server and it will be stated which members of the research team would have access to the data.

• Information collected will be stored on the Qualtrics website.

• Survey results, always reported in aggregate, will be available to any participant who wishes to see it.

To achieve my desired response rate of twenty to thirty percent, I plan on doing the following: sending potential respondents a short personal message informing them that they will be asked to participate in a survey soon, and sending simple follow-up reminders to non-responders after a few weeks. I will encourage survey completion by describing to participants how their results will benefit them and/or the educational community, the ways in which I will ensure confidentiality, and I will express my appreciation for their time.

Survey Instrument: Principal Mistreatment of Teachers

Mistreatment was operationally defined by the 2007 quantitative research study by

Joseph Blasé, Jo Blasé, and Fengning Du and focused on the behaviors of principals entirely from teachers’ experiences. A convenience sample for that study was employed by offering the

Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI) on the web site of the National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse (www.endteacherabuse.org), which was “based on an exhaustive examination of the empirical and methodological literature on mistreatment/abuse” and their previous qualitative study of principal mistreatment (Blasé & Blasé, 2002, 2003a, b) based on teachers’ experiences. The PMAI (see Appendix) contained sections designed to collect information about the effects of mistreatment, level of harm, behaviors used in attempts to cope, and mistreatment behaviors of principals.

The survey will consist of 18 sets of Likert-style questions on 18 pages, followed by 4 qualitative open-ended questions and 16 demographic questions. Two principal behaviors will be strategically placed on each webpage with the first representing a principal “support” and the

second a principal “mistreatment.” The mistreatment behaviors will be adapted from the

Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (Blasé, Blasé and Du, 2007) and matched with an opposite statement to represent a supportive statement as a method of softening the language.

The survey will take a more general approach to the consideration of mistreatment in the experience of teachers by focusing on both positive and negative treatments of teachers by principals. The section will describe the mistreatment behaviors of principals that will be adapted for the Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) to include an opposite and positive treatment for each mistreatment mentioned in the PMAI. For example, on the original inventory, the principal mistreatment “Makes unreasonable demands” will be changed to “Makes reasonable demands.”

Both comments became a part of the PTI inventory with the positive treatment statement first, followed by the negative statement.

Several other adaptations will be made to the PMAI principal mistreatment behaviors.

The PMAI statements will be shortened and attempts will be made to reduce the statement to describe one principal behavior in each. Also, a new behavior will be added, that of physical intimidation, to align with a teacher’s own possible experience.

Babbie (1990) notes that the order of questions on an inventory can affect the responses as well as the data collection activity. Randomized questions may “strike the respondent as chaotic and worthless” and therefore the items will be organized with the two opposite principal behaviors (support and mistreatment) listed on separate pages. The introduction of each treatment in a positive way (a support behavior) followed immediately with a negative one (a mistreatment behavior) on each page, as well as directions which request that respondents read both, encouraging the participant to consider both options before responding, and thereby not misleading the respondent to consider the principal in a completely positive or negative light.

Demographic data questions will be placed at the end of the questionnaire to avoid the appearance of a dull and routine form that may affect motivation to complete the questionnaire.

The teacher was prompted to answer the treatment couplets while considering her/his current principal given the response options of always, very often, often, sometimes, seldom, or never. After completing all 45 of the paired positive/negative treatments, the survey offered four questions with open text boxes for responses. Those questions include options to discuss the teacher’s relationship with the current principal in more detail, describe past relationships with different principals, describe any information about mistreatment of other teachers which have been witnessed, describe health concerns due to past or present principal mistreatment, and ask for opinions on the principals’ effect on the teachers’ sense of efficacy and job satisfaction.

At the end of the survey, demographic questions were included to obtain information for consideration of gender, age, ethnicity, race, union membership, degree attainment, years of experience (both in general and at the specific workplace), and area of specialization of the teacher, as well as the gender of the principal and the number of years that the teacher worked with the principal. Ethnicity and Race categories follow the guidelines of the 1997 Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) standard classification scheme (Aud, et al., 2012). Contextual considerations will include the approximate number of students in the school, the grade levels represented in the building, and the school district setting (urban, suburban, rural, state school), all as reported by the teacher.

The Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) contains sections designed to collect information about the effects of mistreatment, level of harm, behaviors used in attempts to cope, and mistreatment behaviors of principals. The words of teachers who experience mistreatment at the hands of their principal must be accepted at face value as descriptions of experienced reality.

These experiences are the truth defined by Noddings (1995), and the “warranted assert ability” I strive to attain in this study.

The main focus of this study is on current relationships. However, the teachers will be given the option to choose one or more past principal-teacher relationships on which to report any mistreatment that has been witnessed or experienced as well, in the qualitative portion of the study. Additional open-ended questions were asked about the perceived health effects resulting from principal mistreatment, opinions about the effect of principal mistreatment on school culture (and especially student bullying), and the effect of the principal-teacher relationship on the teacher’s sense of efficacy and job satisfaction. Demographics of the teacher were collected at the end of the survey. Information collected about the principal, as described by the teacher, was limited to gender and an estimated number of years working as a principal with the teacher.

According to Babbie (1990), “the methods for maximizing reliability are pretty straight forward. Ask people only questions they are likely to know the answers to, ask about things relevant to them, and be clear in what you’re asking.” The best person to ask whether a teacher feels mistreated would be a teacher. Since the quantitative survey on which this survey is based will be developed from past qualitative research designed to explore teachers’ concept of mistreatment, there will be a reasonable assumption that the questions are relevant. The items for this study will be streamlined from the original survey to ask about only one behavior at a time, thus clarifying what information is being requested.

For each analysis that was conducted in this study (i.e. Factor Analysis, Descriptive

Statistics: Frequency Analysis, Phi and Cramer’s V, Crosstab Analysis, and Chi Square

Analysis) possessed a specific purpose in aiding to answer each research questions I posed in this study. The determination of Cronbach’s Alpha by item analysis will be considered as a reliability

measure since it indicates how well each item correlates with the construct under consideration

(George & Mallery, 2010). Therefore, factor analysis was used in this study, to explore the underlying factors, which were the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their principals. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that analyzes the relationships between a set of survey items to determine whether the participant’s responses on different subsets of items relate more closely to one another than to other subsets; that is, it is an analysis of the dimensionality among the items (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2008; Leandre et al., 2012;

Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013; Kline, 2016; Bandalos, 2018). Nevertheless, Cronbach’s Alpha measure of internal consistency “reliability” is the best way to determine if multiple Likert questions in a survey/questionnaire that form a scale are reliable.

Frequency analysis was used to determine the teacher’s frequency and intensity of harm based on a specific rating scale. This was determined using this analysis approach. For sub- questions 1d and 1e, as well as research question 2a, Cross-Tabulation and Cramer's V was used as a way of calculating correlation in tables or charts that have more than 2x2 rows and columns.

Phi and Cramer’s V provides a test of statistical significance and also provides information about the strength of the association between two categorical variables. For this study in order to investigate whether gender, race, and education, differ in their moderately harmful levels of frequency and intensity of harm, from specific principal mistreatment behaviors, a crosstabs analysis, and Phi and Cramer’s V test was conducted. All of the analysis tests conducted provided their purpose in finding statistical significance of the variables that were being compared.

It was used as a post-test to determine strengths of association between two categorical variables

(i.e. various participant demographics and levels or frequency of harm), after chi-square, determined the statistical significance.

A One-way ANOVA and Scheffe´ test was used to compare three dependent variables

(i.e. gender, race, and education) with the independent variables of the study, and the effects of from principal mistreatment. The ANOVA and Scheffe test was conducted to determine if teachers of various demographic backgrounds reported different effects from principal mistreatment, looking at the top 15 most frequently reported effects according to the demographic variables: gender, race, and education.

For this study, the teacher was given the PTI, in which they will be prompted to answer the treatment couplets while considering her/his current/past principal given the response options of always, very often, often, sometimes, seldom, or never. After completing all 18 of the paired positive/negative treatments, the survey offered five questions with open text boxes for responses. Those questions include options to discuss the teacher’s relationship with the current principal in more detail, describe past relationships with different principals, describe any information about mistreatment of other teachers which have been witnessed, describe health concerns due to past or present principal mistreatment, and ask for opinions on the principals’ effect on the teachers’ sense of efficacy and job satisfaction. At the end of the survey, demographic questions were included to obtain information for consideration of gender, age, ethnicity, race, union membership, degree attainment, years of experience (both in general and at the specific workplace), and area of specialization of the teacher, as well as the gender of the principal and the number of years that the teacher worked with the principal.

The quantitative part of the survey consisted of statements in the form of principal behaviors. The first statement of each pair was developed as a positive restatement of a principal’s mistreatment behavior that represented a principal’s supportive behavior. The second question was a mistreatment statement to represent a mistreatment action by a principal as described by a teacher. The respondent will be directed to choose a response which best described principal behaviors they have experienced. The principal support and mistreatment responses were originally numbered 1 for “always” and 6 for “never.” The resulting principal mistreatment responses were numbered 1 for “never” and 6 for “always.”

The qualitative or open-ended portion of this survey consisted of 4 qualitative open- ended questions. An attempt will be made to separate each of the mistreatment comments made by each participant according to themes, the number of participants and words, and comments made by the participants. According to their responses, each behavior mentioned will be organized in the specific level of aggression: Level 1 (indirect aggression – moderate), Level 2

(direct aggression – escalating), and Level 3 (direct aggression – severe).

Each level can be further defined as principal mistreatment which includes indirect and moderately aggressive behaviors (e.g., ignoring, insensitivity, stonewalling, nonsupport in confrontations with parents, withholding resources, withholding professional development, withholding and taking credit and favoritism); direct and moderately aggressive behaviors (e.g., spying, sabotaging, destroying teacher aids, stealing, and publicly and privately criticizing); and direct and severely aggressive behaviors (e.g., lying, being explosive and nasty, threatening, writing reprimands, giving poor evaluations, mistreating one’s students, forcing one out of school or teaching job, sexual harassment, and racism).

The findings will be evaluated in this chapter according to the quantitative research questions, as well as the qualitative open-ended questions. This will be followed by a discussion of the limitations and delimitations of the study, a discussion of its strengths, a general discussion, recommendations for future studies, and a conclusion.

Online Survey Administration

With the advent of the Internet and email, new avenues have opened up in surveying.

Rather than mailing a paper survey, a respondent can now be given a hyperlink to a website containing the survey; in an email survey, a questionnaire is sent to a respondent via email, possibly as an attachment. As an alternative or an adjunct to conventional survey modes (e.g., the telephone, mail, and face-to-face interviewing), internet-based surveys offer unique new capabilities. For example, a web survey can relatively simply incorporate multi-media graphics and sound into the survey instrument. Similarly, other features that were once restricted to more expensive interviewer-assisted modes, such as automatic branching and real-time randomization of survey questions and/or answers, can be incorporated into self-administered web (and some email) surveys.

Online (internet) surveys provide a new and evolving method for measuring public opinion on a local, national, and international level. Compared to traditional survey approaches

(e.g., face-to-face, mail, and telephone surveys), online surveys offer the advantages of speed, efficiency, and lower costs in data collection (see Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2008). To serve both consumer marketing and academic interests, various commercial vendors now provide the technical means to collect online survey data from the general public and specific subgroups.

Survey research is a quantitative method with two important characteristics. First, the variables of interest are measured using self-reports. In essence, survey researchers ask their

participants, who are often called respondents in survey research, to report directly on their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about a specified topic. Second, considerable attention is paid to the issue of sampling. Survey research is used “to answer questions that have been raised, to solve problems that have been asked or observed, to assess needs and set goals, to determine whether or not specific objectives have been met, to establish baselines against which future comparisons can be made, to analyze trends across time, and generally, to describe what exists, in what amount, and in what context.” (Isaac & Michael, 1997)

Using Qualtrics as my survey research design eliminates the need for stamps, operatives to open and code envelopes, clerks to enter data into Excel, storage vaults to contain the responses, and a host of other expenses. Qualtrics is a simple-to-use web-based survey tool to conduct survey research, evaluations, and other data collection activities. Even someone with no experience can use this research suite to build surveys, send surveys, and analyze responses, all from any online location, any time they need. The Qualtrics survey tool offers many features and benefits. It is offered free through the University of Alabama, so there is no need to install software. The process is simple and fast, and results are easy to access. There are over 85 question types and templates from which to choose offered in 48 different languages. Online posting allows for a wider audience. Respondents can stop mid-survey and resume later where they left off. There is also a built-in dynamic reporting tool with the ability to export data directly to SPSS, CSV, PDF, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

Procedure

studies reported (Blasé, Blasé & Du, 2007). My study may be considered descriptive, based on a purposeful sample, and aims to make statistical assertions about the experience of K-12 teachers in the DeKalb County School District in the state of Georgia. The decision was made to focus on one state because the majority of legislative decisions that focus on education and which may affect the school as a workplace occur at the state level. Also, the best chance for enacting healthy workplace legislation is at the state level. The information gained in this study provided cross-sectional evidence of the pervasiveness of such scenarios as a next step toward the goal of developing a positive, supportive, and affirming workplace for all of those who work in public education. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions: 1. How are teachers mistreated by their principals? 1a.What are the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their principals? 1b.What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive? 1c.What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors for the participants? 1d. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors? 1e.What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of various demographic variables? 2. What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment? 2a. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from principal mistreatment? 3. How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment? 4. What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment?

This study also aims to identify the factors and perspectives from DeKalb County school teachers who completed the on-line Qualtrics questionnaire, the Principal Treatment Inventory

(PTI), which is a 3-part survey that included the following: the effects of mistreatment, forms of

mistreatment behaviors, and demographic data about yourself and your school (45 multiple choice/text entry questions, 4 open-ended questions, and 16 demographic questions).

A list of those defined as public school teachers in relation to this study was obtained from DeKalb County School District (DCSD) website

(https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/schools-and-centers/), where the public K-12 schools are listed in alphabetical order. It is important to note that each school in the county is divided into seven regions as shown on the DeKalb County School District Region Map (see Figure 2). With there being a total of 137 schools and centers, and 15,500 employees, regions in the DCSD will be selected randomly using the random number generator function in Excel. This allowed me to identify which K-12 schools in DeKalb County to contact. I contacted each public school in the specified region. An email was sent to the principal introducing myself and the purpose of my study, thus requesting permission to access his/her teachers. Once granted permission, an email was then sent to teachers from email addresses obtained from the school websites. Three email reminders after the initial survey invitation were sent to each teacher. This is based on research that would help increase my response rate by 20-30%. Any email addresses that were returned with a failed delivery method were not considered as part of the study.

Figure 2. 2018-2019 DeKalb County School District Region Map

Internal Validity

Internal validity is a way to measure if research is sound (i.e. was the research done right?). It is the consideration of whether the survey gives a valid assessment of what it is 51

purported to measure (Gray, Williamson, Karp, & Dalphin, 2007). Internal validity is related to how many confounding variables one may have in their research study. A confounding variable is simply a threat or an “extra” variable that you did not account for. These threats can ruin an experiment and give you useless results. They can also suggest there is a correlation when in fact there is not. They can even introduce bias. Some potential threats to the internal validity of this study may include participant characteristics (veteran teachers vs novice teachers), instrumentation construction, the interpretation of survey questions, and survey implementation

(how the survey is distributed to teachers), based on the fact that some participants will be more technologically savvy than other participants. Additional threats to the internal validity of this study would be the location of which the survey is completed (i.e. work or home) and instrument decay.

In a perfect world, your experiment would have high internal validity. This would allow you to have high confidence that the results of your experiment are caused by only one independent variable. To improve the internal validity of this study, I increased the randomization of my participants to reduce sample bias, by randomly selecting 4 out of the 7 regions to recruit participants. I developed a more standardized protocol of how my participants would be obtained by first introducing myself to the principal and then eventually contacting each teacher in each school in that specified region. I made sure to obtain information about the participants related to the details of the study. I also made sure there was internal consistency between the research questions and the sub-questions that may have the same focus, such as research questions 1d and 1e. Here it was important to make the distinction clear between the two questions, ensuring the correct data was collected.

To improve internal validity, only the investigator will have access to the raw data. All information about the raw data will be kept in a safe location and will not be released to others.

All personal information provided in the survey will be securely stored through the UA Box, which will also serve as a place to store documents as is recommended by the UA Office of

Information Technology. The Box is a leader in content-management security. It is a robust and sophisticated security suite that includes:

• 99.9% uptime guarantee

• Data encryption using 256-bit SSL

• SSAE 16 Type II

• Safe Harbor Certification

• Role-based access controls

• All data centers include biometric entry authentication and 24/7 armed guards.

• Box Sync’s encrypted authorization token technology keeps user data secure and works seamlessly with existing desktop encryption systems.

Data linked with identifying information provided in the study was handled confidentially. The participants were assigned a code number. The list connecting their code- number will be kept in a locked file, as well as on the UA Box. When the study is completed, and the data has been analyzed, the list will be destroyed within one year of study completion.

Because of the nature of the data, it may be possible to deduce a respondent’s identity; however, there were no attempts to do so, and data were reported in a way that did not identify participants. I will write research articles on this study but participants will be identified only as

“teachers from Region (insert #) from the DeKalb County School District in the state of

Georgia.” Despite these safeguards, there is always the remote possibility of hacking or other security breaches that could compromise confidentiality.

External validity

External validation is an important consideration to this study because the research question seeks to extrapolate the details to the entire population of public school teachers.

External validity is related to generalizing, which is critical to keep in mind. Recall that validity refers to the approximate truth of propositions, inferences, or conclusions. So, external validity refers to the approximate truth of conclusions, which involve generalizations. Put in more pedestrian terms, external validity is the degree to which the conclusions in your study would hold for other persons in other places and at other times. Both the method by which the sample was collected and a comparison of demographics between the sample and the larger population may limit the usefulness of the study to generalize (Babbie, 1990; Gray, Williamson, Karp, &

Dalphin, 2007). The PPS method of choosing the sample “provides for the selection of more clusters, ensures the representation of elements contained in large clusters, and gives each element in the population an equal chance of selection” (Babbie, 1990).

To improve the external validity of this study, I imagined several settings that have members who are more similar to the targeted population for this study or individuals who were less similar. This also holds for times and places. When placing the different contexts in terms of their relative similarities, an implicit theoretical gradient of similarity exists. Once I developed the proximal similarity framework, I was able to generalize, the participants, to that of the targeted population of the study.

To improve the external validity of the study, I used a random selection process, rather than a nonrandom process. Once the schools were selected, as well as the participants, I made

sure to follow-up with each school principal and participants in attempts to keep my survey no- completion rates low based on the importance of the study.

Significance

This study will contribute to the unreported experiences of mistreatment of teachers by those in power. I hope that this research will encourage future principals to examine their reasons for wanting to become educational leaders and how these reasons might affect the staff and students as a whole. Also, pre-service teachers must be made aware of the possibility of mistreatment in the school setting so they can recognize the symptoms and plan accordingly.

Empirical evidence in this field is sorely lacking and is desperately needed to restore civility as an expected norm in our schools. The research into principal mistreatment behaviors toward teachers is an early first step toward discovering the prevalence of workplace bullying in our schools. As Blasé and Blasé (2002) reported, the teachers they contacted “strongly believed that the problem of principal mistreatment should be made public and, as one put it, ‘This study might crack open the door of hope and eventually change the world of education.’”

Limitations & Delimitations

This study is limited to a sample of teachers employed in K-12 public schools in the

DeKalb County School District. The researcher will not be able to observe every participating teacher to ensure that they complete the Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) with fidelity. I, as the researcher, am aware that not all teachers in the public education setting, will participate in the study resulting in an inaccurate sample of the targeted population.

Conclusion

Regrettably, American teachers, individuals who perform one of the most honorable and important jobs in the country, all too often suffer society’s lack of respect, criticism, blame, as

well as the government’s blame for the shortcomings and problems of our schools and society; and lowered self-esteem (Phillips, 1993). The educational research community has remained passive for too long, exacerbating the mistreatment of teachers that goes unreported, unexamined, and unacknowledged. Empirical evidence in this field is sorely lacking and desperately needed. To date, two long-standing avenues of research in education (teacher stress studies and micro-political studies of the school principal-teacher relationship) have produced only a glimpse of how principals misuse power and, specifically, how principals mistreat teachers. Abusive principals, by their mistreatment, intimidate teachers into submission and silence; this in turn requires that teachers make significant professional and ethical compromises.

To some degree, the mistreatment of teachers at the hands of principals is a logical outcome considering the hierarchical nature of K-12 school organizations. This study attempts to shed some light on the inevitable outcome of an unequal power structure and initiates more questions than answers. Since there is such little empirical evidence of the mistreatment of teachers by an administrator in the workplace, and given the goal of schooling with its focus on children, what other associated outcomes may be expected? Does the academic and emotional growth of students in a classroom suffer when a principal mistreats the teacher? Since there are laws in place which require the promotion of a district bullying policy, what are the ways that these laws may be surreptitiously avoided by those districts which harbor a culture of mistreatment? Keeping in mind that teachers touch the lives of students in every race, class, gender, and disability, principals’ treatment of teachers is of utmost concern. Above all, further research is necessary.

FINDINGS

The purpose of this quantitative research study was to examine the mistreatment behaviors, perceptions, intensity, and occurrences teachers have experienced from their principals in a randomly selected sample. The primary focus of this study was to examine school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables within the population of teachers in the DeKalb

County school district in the state of Georgia.

The quantitative methodology with a correlational design was chosen for this study. The quantitative methodology was beneficial in generating numeric measures of the research variables (Thamhain, 2014). The correlational design was suitable for examining the relationships between continuous variables (Mertens, 2015). Therefore, the quantitative methodology with a correlational design was the most appropriate choice for addressing the research questions of this study. The following research questions guided this study:

1. How are teachers mistreated by their principals?

a. What are the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their principals?

b. What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive?

c. What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal

mistreatment behaviors for the participants?

d. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of

frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors?

e. What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of

various demographic variables?

2. What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment?

a. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from

principal mistreatment?

3. How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment?

4. What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment?

The research questions aligned with each variable and were measured by using multiple Likert- type questions in the Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) that was adapted from one section of the

Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI) instrument. Chapter 4 is organized by a discussion of the descriptive statistics of the participant demographics and professional profile, factor analysis, and thematic analysis. Data were analyzed with SPSS 26 for Windows and QDA

Miner Lite. The following provides a discussion of the data preparation.

Descriptive Findings

The researcher used a list of those defined as public school teachers in relation to this study, obtained from the DeKalb County School District (DCSD) website

(https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/schools-and-centers/), where the public K-12 schools are listed in alphabetical order to generate participation among the targeted population. It is important to note that each school in this county is divided into seven regions based on the

DeKalb County School District Region Map (Figure 2). With there being a total of 137 schools

and centers, and 15,500 employees, the teachers within the county were selected randomly using the random number generator function in Excel, which chose 4 out of the 7 regions within this county. The regions that were selected were Region 1, Region, 2, Region 4, and Region 5.

Of the selected regions, 1,838 emails were found available by searching individual school websites; the emails were sent, and delivered. The initial emails were sent to the principals of each school within the selected regions by the researcher, introducing herself and the purpose of the study, and requesting permission to recruit his/her teachers. Once granted permission, an email was sent individually to each teacher using the email addresses obtained from the school website, again introducing myself and the purpose of my study, as well as stating how to access the survey using the given URL address and the password that was located on the University of

Alabama Qualtrics website. Email addresses that were obtained online but were returned with a message that the delivery failed were not considered as part of the response rate. Data were collected from February 6, 2020 to July 10, 2020. After data collection was closed, and the cleaning of the data had taken place, the remaining sample size was that of 266 teachers who voluntarily agreed to participate in the research study.

However, out of the 266 participants, 220 responses from the participants contained missing data, which was noted in the data set as -99 in SPSS. The final sample size consisted of

46 public school teachers from grade levels pre-K to grade 12 who chose to voluntarily participate in the research study and who responded to the 3-part survey that included the following: the effects of mistreatment, forms of mistreatment behaviors, and demographic data about yourself and your school (45 multiple choice/text entry questions, 4 open-ended questions, and 16 demographic questions). Also, categorical variables were created based on the continuous variables to facilitate the interpretation of the descriptive findings.

Participant Demographics and Professional Profile

This section provides a summary of subjects who participated in this study. The sampling frame was defined, according to the type of school, whether elementary, middle/junior high, high school, or any combination of these grade levels. Elementary schools were defined as any that contain grade levels that ranged from 5th grade or lower to no higher than 8th grade.

Middle/Junior High schools ranged from no lower than 5th grade to no higher than 9th grade.

Senior High schools ranged from no lower than 8th grade to no higher than 12th grade. The final data sample for this study included 46 Pre-K-12 teachers from the selected four regions, in the

DeKalb County School District.

The participant profile included fourteen factors: gender, age, marital status, ethnicity, race, union affiliation, highest degree earned, number of years of teaching, number of years teaching at current school, principal’s gender who mistreated you, number of years the principal had been a principal, school level, number of teachers in school, population of the city where the school is located, and what subject or area of specialization. Frequency tables and descriptive statistics were generated from IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 26. The following provides a discussion of the sample demographics. The results of the subject or area of specialization data are presented in tabular format.

The participants’ ages ranged from 29 or younger to 60 or older. Thirteen percent (n = 6) were 60 or older, 30.4% (n = 14) were between the ages of 50 - 59, 30.4% (n = 14) were between the ages of 40 – 49, 19.6% (n = 9) were between the ages of 30 – 39, and 6.5% (n = 3) were age

29 or younger (see Table 1). Forty-five point seven percent (n = 21) taught elementary school;

21.7% (n = 10) taught middle school or junior high; and 32.6% (n = 15) taught senior high school (vocational, alternative, combined jr.-sr. high) (see Table 2).

Table 1 Age Demographics

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 60 or older 6 2.3 13.0 13.0 50-59 14 5.3 30.4 43.5 40-49 14 5.3 30.4 73.9 30-39 9 3.4 19.6 93.5 29 or younger 3 1.1 6.5 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Table 2 School Level Demographics

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid senior high school 15 5.6 32.6 32.6 (vocational, alternative, combined jr.- sr. high) middle or junior high 10 3.8 21.7 54.3 elementary 21 7.9 45.7 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

The largest group of teachers (45.7%, n = 21) had over 20 years of teaching experience. The second-largest group of teachers (34.8%, n =16) had between 10-19 years of experience and the third largest group of teachers (17.4%, n = 8) had between 4-9 years of teaching experience. The

fourth group was the smallest percentage of teachers (2.2%, n = 1), who had 1-3 years of teaching experience (see Table 3).

Table 3 Total Years of Experience in Teaching

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Over 20 21 7.9 45.7 45.7 10-19 16 6.0 34.8 80.4 4-9 8 3.0 17.4 97.8 1-3 1 .4 2.2 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Regarding gender, most respondents (84.8%, n = 39) were females and 15.2% (n

= 7) were males (see Table 4). The three largest ethnicity groups were Caucasians (54.3%, n =

25), African Americans (43.5%, n = 20), and Biracial or Other (2.2%, n = 1) (see Table 5). Also, ethnicity groups were broken up into two groups. Most respondents (91.3%, n = 42) were Not

Hispanic or Latino and (8.7%, n = 4) were Hispanic or Latino Origin (see Table 6).

Table 4 Gender Demographics

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 7 2.6 15.2 15.2 Female 39 14.7 84.8 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 (Missing) 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Table 5 Race Demographics

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Black or African 20 7.5 43.5 43.5 American White 25 9.4 54.3 97.8 Biracial or Other 1 .4 2.2 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Table 6 Ethnicity Demographics

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Hispanic or Latino 4 1.5 8.7 8.7 Origin Not Hispanic or 42 15.8 91.3 100.0 Latino Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

The highest degrees earned by each participant were Bachelors (10.9%, n = 5), Masters

(50.0%, n = 23), Specialist (21.7%, n = 10), and Doctorate (17.4%, n = 8) (see Table 7).

Table 7 Highest Degree Earned Demographics

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Bachelor 5 1.9 10.9 10.9 Master 23 8.6 50.0 60.9 Specialist 10 3.8 21.7 82.6 Doctorate 8 3.0 17.4 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

The membership of each participant in a union were members (37.0%, n = 17), not a member of a union (19.6%, n = 9), and no union available (43.5%, n = 20) (see Table 8). When looking at the number of full years the participants have taught at the current school, (28.3%, n = 13) had between 4 – 9 years, (26.1%, n =12) had between 10 - 19 years, (26.1%, n =12) had between 1 -

3 years, and (10.9%, n = 5) had between 10-19 years (see Table 9).

Table 8 Teacher Union Demographics

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Member of union 17 6.4 37.0 37.0 Not member of 9 3.4 19.6 56.5 union No union available 20 7.5 43.5 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Table 9 Number of Full Years Teaching at Current School

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Over 20 5 1.9 10.9 10.9 10-19 12 4.5 26.1 37.0 4-9 13 4.9 28.3 65.2 1-3 12 4.5 26.1 91.3 less than 1 year 4 1.5 8.7 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

The gender of the principal involved in the participants’ mistreatment was (58.7%, n =

27) females and (41.3%, n = 19) males (see Table 10). When looking at the number of years the

most recent principal has worked with the participant as their principal (39.1%, n = 18) had between 4 – 9 years, (43.5%, n =20) had between 1 - 3 years, and (17.4%, n = 8) had less than 1 year (see Table 11).

Table 10 Gender of Most Recent Principal

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Male 19 7.1 41.3 41.3 Female 27 10.2 58.7 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Table 11 Number of Years Working with Most Recent Principal

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 4-9 18 6.8 39.1 39.1 1-3 20 7.5 43.5 82.6 Less than 1 year 8 3.0 17.4 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

The number of teachers in the school of each participant was (19.6%, n = 9) with 100 or more teachers, (54.3%, n =25) had between 50 – 99 teachers, and (26.1%, n = 12) had between

16 – 49 teachers (see Table 12).

Table 12 Number of Teachers in School

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 100 or more 9 3.4 19.6 19.6 50-99 25 9.4 54.3 73.9 16- 49 12 4.5 26.1 100.0 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Regarding the population of the city in which the participants are located, (6.5%, n = 3) had less than 5,000, (10.9%, n = 5) were between 5,000 – 10,000, (26.1%, n = 12) were between

10,000 – 50, 000 and (56.5%, n = 26) were greater than 50,000 (see Table 13).

Table 13 Population of City Where School is Located

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Less than 5,000 3 1.1 6.5 6.5 5,000-10,000 5 1.9 10.9 17.4 10,000-50,000 12 4.5 26.1 43.5 greater than 26 9.8 56.5 100.0 50,000 Total 46 17.3 100.0 Missing -99 220 82.7 Total 266 100.0

Regarding the subject or area of specialization, the majority of participants (17.4%, n = 8) teach special education and other (P.E., general ed, 1st grade, etc.), (15.2%, n =

7) participants teach English Language Arts, (13.0%, n = 6) participants teach science, (10.9%, n

= 5) participants teach social studies and math, and (6.5%, n = 3) participants teach a foreign language, fine arts, and/or ESOL (see Chart 1).

Chart 1 Subject Area or Area of Specialization

In what subject area or area of specialization

are you currently employed?

20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% SPED SS Sci Math ELA For Fine Other ESOL Lang Arts (Choir,

Band) Percentage Total (n = (n 46) Total Percentage Subjects & Areas of Specialization

Research question 1: How are teachers mistreated by their principals? Five sub- questions were developed to answer the first research question. First, participants were asked to identify the forms of mistreatment they have experienced from their principal. The participants were given 38 mistreatment behaviors from which to choose. Second, participants were asked to rank the levels of harm, by choosing the five most harmful aspects of their principal’s mistreatment. The five-point scale used ranged from “My most harmful item” to “My fifth most harmful item.” Third, participants were asked to identify the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors. The participants were asked how often they were/are subjected to these principal behaviors. The scale ranged from “never” to “daily.” They were also asked how harmful was or is each item for them. This scale ranged from “not at all” to

“very highly.” Fourth, participants were asked if teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment

behaviors. Fifth, the participants were asked to determine what the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of various demographic variables would be.

A correlation matrix showing how each of the 38 items is associated with each of the other questions was first created noting that some of the correlations were high (e.g., + or -.60 or greater) and some were low (i.e., near-zero). In this case, the correlation was significant at the

0.01 level (2-tailed). Factor analysis in SPSS or principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to assess the underlying structure for the 38 items of Part B of the

Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI). These factors are the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their principals. This portion of the PTI was designed to determine the frequency and intensity of specific forms of principal mistreatment behaviors as experienced by the participants of this study. Also, by rating the variables from high to low, a summary of variables called “total frequency of harm” and “total intensity of harm” was determined. Finally, these summary variables were examined for demographic differences.

Percentages of Individual Mistreatment Behaviors in rank order presents findings for the frequency of specific principal mistreatment behaviors (see Table 14). Participants rated the frequency of experience of each mistreatment behavior on a 0-6-point scale: never, once, a few times, several times, monthly, weekly, and daily. The five most frequently occurring forms of principal mistreatment behaviors (in rank order, from the first to fifth) are as follows: stonewalled or failed to respond to me (57.6% of the participants), gave me “the silent treatment”

(57.5%), ignored or snubbed me (57.5%), glared at me (57.3%), and took credit for some of my accomplishments (57.2%). Other high-frequency mistreatment behaviors reported by 40% or more of the participants (in rank order, from sixth to 17th) as follows: (6) unfairly withheld resources I needed (e.g., materials, space, funds), (7) destroyed or removed instructional aids, (8)

mistreated my students, (9) was insensitive to my personal matters (e.g., no empathy or sympathy for illness), (10) sexually harassed me, (11) displayed explosive/nasty behavior toward me (e.g., yelling, pounding fist, slamming, pointing), (12) publicly demeaned, criticized, mocked, belittled, insulted, ridiculed, or humiliated me (e.g., in the front office, during faculty meetings, in my classroom, on the intercom, in the lunchroom, in the hallway, etc.), (13) displayed racist behavior towards me, (14) displayed offensive personal habits and/or unprofessional conduct (e.g., belching, snorting), (15) spied on me (e.g., hanging out by my classroom door, listening on intercom, having other teachers or parents inform on me, (16) prevented me from changing jobs, and (17) favored other teachers (e.g., released favorites from meetings, gave them recognition, attacked those who disagreed with or opposed the favorites).

The five least-frequently occurring mistreatment behaviors were (in rank order, from 34th to

38th) as follows: tried to intimidate me, nitpicked about the time or micromanaged me, attempted to force me out of my job (had me reassigned, had me transferred, terminated me, gave me unwarranted reprimands), and unjustly criticized me (e.g., for my teaching, dress, behavior, pregnancy).

Table 14 Percentages of Individual Mistreatment Behaviors Ranked

Percentage of Individual Rank Mistreatment Behaviors Mistreatment Behaviors 1 Stonewalled or failed to respond to me 57.6 2 Gave me "the silent treatment" 57.5 3 Ignored or snubbed me 57.5 4 Glared at me 57.3 5 Took credit for some of my accomplishments 57.2 6 Unfairly withheld resources I needed 57.2 7 Destroyed or removed instructional aids 57.1 8 Mistreated my students 57.1 9 Was insensitive to my personal matters 57.1 10 Stole from me 57 11 Sexually harassed me 57 12 Displayed explosively/hasty behavior toward me 57 Publicly demeaned, criticized, mocked, belittled, insulted, 13 ridiculed, or humiliated me 57 14 Displayed racist behavior toward me 57 15 Denied approval 57 16 Got other colleagues to undermine my efforts at work 56.9 Displayed offensive personal habits and/or unprofessional 17 conduct 56.9 Undermined or obstructed my efforts to initiate and involve 18 myself in professional development opportunities 56.8 19 Spied on me 56.7 20 Prevented me from changing jobs 56.7 21 Favored other teachers 56.7 Failed to recognized or praise me for work-related 22 achievements 56.6 23 Gossiped about me with teachers, parents, or other people 56.5 24 Failed to support me 56.5 25 Gave me unfair evaluations 56.4 26 Made unreasonable demands 56.3 27 Lied to me or about me 56.3 28 Threatened me or groups of teachers 56.3 Attempted to isolate me or control my interactions with other 29 teachers and colleagues 56.3 Used a "snitch's" (other teacher or students) information to 30 criticize me 56.2 Overloaded me with work and/or overloaded me with trivial 31 work 56.2 32 Used negative terms to label me and my behavior 56.2 33 Solicited others to help in disparaging me 56.2 34 Tried to intimidate me 56.2 35 Nitpicked about the time or micromanaged me 56.1 Attempted to force me out of my job (had me reassigned, had 36 me transferred, terminated me) 56.1 37 Gave me unwarranted reprimands 56.1 38 Unjustly criticized me 56.1

Sub-Question b.: What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive? Participants were asked to rank the levels of harm, by choosing the five most harmful aspects of their principal’s mistreatment from the list of the 38 mistreatment behaviors from

Section B of the PTI. The participants ranked their selection using the five-point scale that ranged from “My most harmful item” to “My fifth most harmful item.” The frequency analysis of the highest level of mistreatment that the teachers had experienced indicates: My most harmful item was Mistreatment Behavior Item #4--insensitive to my personal matters (e.g., no empathy or sympathy for illness) (see Table 15); My second most harmful item was

Mistreatment Behavior Item #32--gave me unwarranted reprimands (see Table 16); My third most harmful item was Mistreatment Behavior Item #11--failed to recognize or praise me for work-related achievements (see Table 17); My fourth most harmful item was Mistreatment

Behavior Item #24--tried to intimidate me (see Table 18); My fifth most harmful item was a tie between Mistreatment Behavior Items #11 and #24 (see Table 19).

Table 15 Frequency of Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid -99 211 79.3 79.3 79.3 0 1 .4 .4 79.7 1 3 1.1 1.1 80.8 4 8 3.0 3.0 83.8 5 2 .8 .8 84.6 7 6 2.3 2.3 86.8 8 2 .8 .8 87.6 9 1 .4 .4 88.0 11 1 .4 .4 88.3 13 1 .4 .4 88.7 19 1 .4 .4 89.1 20 2 .8 .8 89.8 21 1 .4 .4 90.2 22 1 .4 .4 90.6 23 2 .8 .8 91.4 24 2 .8 .8 92.1 25 3 1.1 1.1 93.2 27 1 .4 .4 93.6 28 3 1.1 1.1 94.7 29 2 .8 .8 95.5 30 1 .4 .4 95.9 31 1 .4 .4 96.2 32 3 1.1 1.1 97.4 33 5 1.9 1.9 99.2 35 2 .8 .8 100.0 Total 266 100.0 100.0

Table 16 Frequency of Second Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid -99 211 79.3 79.3 79.3 0 1 .4 .4 79.7 1 3 1.1 1.1 80.8 2 2 .8 .8 81.6 4 2 .8 .8 82.3 5 3 1.1 1.1 83.5 6 3 1.1 1.1 84.6 7 3 1.1 1.1 85.7 8 1 .4 .4 86.1 9 2 .8 .8 86.8 11 4 1.5 1.5 88.3 14 1 .4 .4 88.7 15 1 .4 .4 89.1 16 1 .4 .4 89.5 18 1 .4 .4 89.8 19 1 .4 .4 90.2 20 2 .8 .8 91.0 21 4 1.5 1.5 92.5 22 1 .4 .4 92.9 24 1 .4 .4 93.2 25 3 1.1 1.1 94.4 28 1 .4 .4 94.7 29 1 .4 .4 95.1 31 1 .4 .4 95.5 32 4 1.5 1.5 97.0 33 3 1.1 1.1 98.1 34 1 .4 .4 98.5 35 2 .8 .8 99.2 36 2 .8 .8 100.0 Total 266 100.0 100.0

Table 17 Frequency of Third Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid -99 211 79.3 79.3 79.3 0 1 .4 .4 79.7 1 1 .4 .4 80.1 3 4 1.5 1.5 81.6 4 2 .8 .8 82.3 5 2 .8 .8 83.1 6 2 .8 .8 83.8 7 5 1.9 1.9 85.7 8 1 .4 .4 86.1 9 1 .4 .4 86.5 10 2 .8 .8 87.2 11 5 1.9 1.9 89.1 13 3 1.1 1.1 90.2 15 1 .4 .4 90.6 19 3 1.1 1.1 91.7 20 1 .4 .4 92.1 22 2 .8 .8 92.9 23 1 .4 .4 93.2 24 2 .8 .8 94.0 28 2 .8 .8 94.7 29 1 .4 .4 95.1 30 1 .4 .4 95.5 31 1 .4 .4 95.9 32 3 1.1 1.1 97.0 33 3 1.1 1.1 98.1 34 1 .4 .4 98.5 35 2 .8 .8 99.2 36 1 .4 .4 99.6 38 1 .4 .4 100.0 Total 266 100.0 100.0

Table 18 Frequency of Fourth Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid -99 211 79.3 79.3 79.3 0 1 .4 .4 79.7 1 1 .4 .4 80.1 3 3 1.1 1.1 81.2 4 3 1.1 1.1 82.3 5 4 1.5 1.5 83.8 7 4 1.5 1.5 85.3 8 3 1.1 1.1 86.5 9 1 .4 .4 86.8 10 1 .4 .4 87.2 11 1 .4 .4 87.6 12 1 .4 .4 88.0 13 4 1.5 1.5 89.5 15 1 .4 .4 89.8 19 1 .4 .4 90.2 20 1 .4 .4 90.6 21 2 .8 .8 91.4 22 2 .8 .8 92.1 24 7 2.6 2.6 94.7 25 3 1.1 1.1 95.9 26 1 .4 .4 96.2 28 1 .4 .4 96.6 29 3 1.1 1.1 97.7 31 2 .8 .8 98.5 32 2 .8 .8 99.2 33 1 .4 .4 99.6 36 1 .4 .4 100.0 Total 266 100.0 100.0

Table 19 Frequency of Fifth Most Harmful Mistreatment Behaviors

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid -99 211 79.3 79.3 79.3 0 1 .4 .4 79.7 1 1 .4 .4 80.1 2 2 .8 .8 80.8 3 2 .8 .8 81.6 4 1 .4 .4 82.0 5 3 1.1 1.1 83.1 7 3 1.1 1.1 84.2 9 3 1.1 1.1 85.3 10 3 1.1 1.1 86.5 11 4 1.5 1.5 88.0 12 2 .8 .8 88.7 13 1 .4 .4 89.1 14 2 .8 .8 89.8 15 1 .4 .4 90.2 19 2 .8 .8 91.0 20 1 .4 .4 91.4 21 2 .8 .8 92.1 22 2 .8 .8 92.9 23 1 .4 .4 93.2 24 4 1.5 1.5 94.7 25 1 .4 .4 95.1 26 3 1.1 1.1 96.2 28 1 .4 .4 96.6 29 1 .4 .4 97.0 30 1 .4 .4 97.4 31 1 .4 .4 97.7 32 2 .8 .8 98.5 33 1 .4 .4 98.9 35 2 .8 .8 99.6 39 1 .4 .4 100.0 Total 266 100.0 100.0

The principal behaviors drawn from the data have been organized according to the level of aggression: Level 1 Principal Mistreatment (indirect, moderately aggressive), Level 2

Principal Mistreatment (direct, escalating aggression), and Level 3 Principal Mistreatment

(direct, severely aggressive). It is not suggested that individual Level 1 principal mistreatment

behaviors always produced less harm to teachers when compared to Level 2 or Level 3 behaviors; as one would expect, the degree of harm related to any single aggressive behavior varied from one victimized teacher to another.

Level 1 Principal Mistreatment: Indirect and Moderately Aggressive

Indirect forms of principal mistreatment, as described by teachers in this study, included nonverbal and verbal principal behaviors. This category of principal behaviors was considered generally less abusive as compared to Level 2 and Level 3 behaviors, and this finding is consistent with studies conducted with the general workplace population (e.g., Keashly et al.,

1994; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991). Such behaviors were always a part of a more extensive pattern of mistreatment. Level 1 principal mistreatment behaviors included in this study were:

◆ Discounting teachers’ thoughts, needs, and feelings: Principals ignored and snubbed

teachers, exhibited insensitivity to personal matters (e.g., death in the teacher’s family),

and engaged in stonewalling (e.g., failed to respond to written requests).

◆ Nonsupport of teachers: Abusive principals failed to support teachers in conflicts with

students and/or parents, shamelessly treated teachers unfairly, failed to investigate

problems, blamed teachers for problems, and frequently reprimanded teachers for

problems in the presence of students and/or parents.

◆ Withholding resources and denying opportunities and credit: Principals unfairly

withhold needed instructional resources, deny teachers opportunities for professional

development (e.g., to attend conferences), and took credit for teachers’ accomplishments

(e.g., grant proposals).

◆ Favoritism: Principals routinely rewarded select faculty and punished and/or neglected

other faculty based on race, gender, or area of specialization.

◆ Professional Envy: Some principals mistreated teachers based on their educational

pursuits or achievements, resulting in unfair evaluations.

Level 2 Principal Mistreatment: Direct and Escalating Aggression

This level identifies some of the direct and escalating aggressive forms of mistreatment behaviors analyzed. Level 2 Principal Mistreatment Behaviors that were collected from this study were:

◆ Spying: Principals monitored teachers by situating themselves or another staff member

near classroom doorways, listening in on classes via the intercom, and soliciting the

services of favored teachers and/or parents as informants.

◆ Sabotaging: Principals manipulated other faculty to undermine teacher efforts designed

to benefit students or colleagues (e.g., directed other teachers not to help targeted

teachers).

◆ Stealing: Principals were accused of stealing teacher’s items (e.g., journals, food, and

equipment).

◆ Destroying teachers’ instructional aids: Some principals destroyed instructional aids

(e.g., reading lofts) or ordered them removed from classrooms.

◆ Making unreasonable demands: Principals overloaded teachers with extra work

responsibilities; in several cases, principals forced teachers to do their (the principal’s)

work.

◆ Criticism: Principals routinely and unfairly criticized teachers both privately and

publicly for a wide range of reasons. Such criticism was often associated with strong

negative affect (e.g., yelling, pounding the desk, finger point, and waving in the teacher’s

personal space). Public criticism of teachers can occur in the presence of others in the

front office areas, in hallways, in classrooms, in the lunchroom, and in the school parking

lot.

Level 3 Principal Mistreatment: Direct and Severely Aggressive

The final level is Level 3, Direct, and Severely Aggressive behavior. It is apparent that principals who abuse teachers do so in a variety of verbal and nonverbal ways and that such abuse includes Level 1 (indirect, moderately aggressive) and Level 2 (direct, escalating aggression) Principal Mistreatment Behaviors. As devastating as these levels of mistreatment are for teachers, principal mistreatment includes even more aggressive and severe forms of abuse:

Level 3 Principal Mistreatment Behaviors, glimpses of which have been foreshadowed in Level

2 behaviors. Most Level 3 forms of principal mistreatment that were collected from this study were strongly associated with various forms of deception and included (see Chart 2):

◆ Lying: Principals were accused of blatant lying, such as repeatedly making statements

that conflicted with the teachers’ direct experiences. This form of abuse was commonly

associated with the principal’s nonsupport of teachers in conflict with students and/or

parents and with unfounded criticism, among other things.

◆ Explosive behavior: During face-to-face interaction with teachers, many principals

engaged in loud verbal abuse (e.g., yelling) and negative affect (e.g., pounding fists on a

table).

◆ Threats: Principals directly threatened individuals and groups of teachers to change

students’ grades. Teachers were also threatened for expressing opinions contrary to the

principal’s opinions, and for confronting a principal for his/her abusive conduct.

◆ Unwarranted written reprimands: Some principals write teachers up for almost anything, including conduct toward students, stolen school-issued items, and going into a restricted area, when there was no wrongdoing by the teacher.

◆ Unfair evaluations: In cases where teachers have worked or are currently working in school districts that require that principals complete objective teacher evaluations, this can occur. Abusive principals typically include flagrantly false information on their evaluations.

◆ Mistreating students: Principals who mistreated students engaged in name-calling, racism, and even physical abuse of students, particularly special education students who the principals described as misbehaving.

◆ Forcing teachers out of their jobs: Abusive principals engaged in a variety of unfair actions against teachers such as unilateral reassignments, transfers, and termination.

◆ Preventing teachers from leaving or advancing: Some principals can obstruct a teacher’s attempt to leave a school by failing to forward applications (within a district) and writing negative letters of reference.

◆ Sexual harassment

◆ Racism

Chart 2 Level 3 Principal Mistreatment Behaviors

Sub-Question c. What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors for the participants? For the total frequency of mistreatment behaviors of participants’ frequency ratings for each of the 38 mistreatment behaviors, the researcher determined a “total frequency of mistreatment behavior” score for each participant (i.e. each participant’s “total frequency of mistreatment behavior” score was the sum of his or her raw scores from all 38 items). The highest possible total frequency of mistreatment behavior score was 38 x 6 = 228 points. Total frequency mistreatment behavior scores of 1-38 points were classified as “mildly frequent mistreatment behavior,” 39-114 points as “moderately frequent mistreatment behavior,” 115-152 points as “highly frequent mistreatment behavior,” and 153-

228 points as “severely frequent mistreatment behavior.”

The group mean was 73.25 points; median, 64.5 points; range, 2-174 points; and standard deviation, 31.51 points. The 95% confidence interval for the mean was 64.74 -81.76 points.

Overall, 80.3% of the participants reported mildly frequent mistreatment behavior from the 38 mistreatment behaviors, there was a tie between the reported moderately frequent mistreatment behavior and the highly frequent mistreatment behavior at 8.9%, and 1.7% reported very/severely high frequent mistreatment behavior (see Chart 3).

Chart 3 Total Frequency of Mistreatment Behaviors

Total Frequency of Mistreatment Behaviors 90 80.3 80

70 60 50 40 30

Percent of Teachers of Percent 20 8.9 8.9 10 1.7 0 Mildly Frequent Moderately Highly Frequent Very Highly Frequent Frequent

The intensity of harm of specific mistreatment behaviors

The 38 items in Section B of the PTI were also designed to determine the intensity of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors. Participants were asked to rank the intensity of harm for each mistreatment behavior by checking one of five intensity responses: not at all harmful, mildly harmful, moderately harmful, highly harmful, and very highly harmful. The

responses were assigned values of 0-5 points. The researcher determined the intensity of each mistreatment behavior by computing the percentage of the participants’ rating for each behavior identified as at least “moderately harmful.” Table 20 presents these results. The ten principal mistreatment behaviors that resulted in the most intense that were harmful for teachers (i.e. moderately harmful) were (in rank order) as follows: (1) Ignored or snubbed me (5.6% of the participants); (2) Stonewalled or failed to respond to me (4.9% of the participants); (3) Gave me

"the silent treatment" (4.9% of the participants); (4) Was insensitive to my personal matters

(4.5% of the participants); (5) Failed to recognize or praise me for work-related achievements

(4.5% of the participants); (6) Unjustly criticized me (4.1% of the participants); (7) Favored other teachers (3.8% of the participants); (8) Attempted to isolate me or control my interactions with other teachers and colleagues (3.8% of the participants); (9) Overloaded me with work and/or overloaded me with trivial work (3.4% of the participants); and (10) Nitpicked about time or micromanaged me (3.4% of the participants).

Table 20 Percentage of Teachers Ratings “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors

Percentage of Teachers rated at Rank Mistreatment Behaviors least "Moderately Harmful" 1 Ignored or snubbed me 5.6% 2 Stonewalled or failed to respond to me 4.9% 3 Gave me "the silent treatment" 4.9% 4 Was insensitive to my personal matters 4.5% Failed to recognized or praise me for work-related 5 achievements 4.5% 6 Unjustly criticized me 4.1% 7 Favored other teachers 3.8% Attempted to isolate me or control my interactions with 8 other teachers and colleagues 3.8% Overloaded me with work and/or overloaded me with 9 trivial work 3.4% 10 Nitpicked about the time or micromanaged me 3.4% Note : Tie Scores were broken by percentage of teachers who rated each behavior as “highly harmful” harmful

A total of 28 additional principal mistreatment behaviors were rated at least moderately harmful by over 40% of the study participants. The five principal mistreatment behaviors that resulted in the least intense harm for teachers were (in rank order from 34th to 38th) as follows: took credit for some of my accomplishments, gossiped about me with teachers, parents, or other people, destroying or removing instructional aids, attempted to force me out of my job (had me reassigned, had me transferred, terminated me), and prevented me from changing jobs.

Sub-Question d. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors? To investigate whether teachers of varying gender, racial, and educational backgrounds differ in their perspective of moderately harmful levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors, a crosstabs analysis and Phi and Cramer’s V test were conducted. Table 21 shows the Pearson chi-square results and indicates there is no statistical significance between males and females and the demographic variable of gender on the levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors (x2 = 4.314, df =

4, N = 46, p = .365). Female teachers reported more frequently than males that they experienced principal mistreatment behaviors. In Table 22, teachers who are white reported more frequently than their Black/African American or Biracial counterparts that they have experienced principal mistreatment behaviors which shows a statistically significant result different on the levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors and race (x2 = 28.520, df = 8, N = 46, p = .000). Table 23 shows that teachers with master’s degrees reported more frequently that they experienced principal mistreatment behaviors more frequently. There is no statistical significance between education or highest

degree earned and levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors (x2 = 17.483, df = 12, N = 46, p = .132).

Table 21 Chi-Square Analysis of Gender and “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors

Gender Variable n Males Females x2 p Gender 4.314 .365 Not at all 4 9 Mildly 2 11 Moderately 1 11 Highly 0 6 Very Highly 0 2

Totals 46 7 39

Table 22 Chi-Square Analysis of Race and “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors

Race Variable n Black White Biracial x2 p Race 28.520 .000 Not at all 6 7 0 Mildly 4 9 0 Moderately 4 8 0 Highly 5 1 0 Very Highly 1 0 1

Totals 46 20 25 1

Table 23 Chi-Square Analysis of Education and “Moderately Harmful” Behaviors

Education/Highest Degree Earned Variable n Bachelors Master Specialis Doctorat x2 p t e Education 17.483 .132 Not at all 2 5 2 4 Mildly 0 11 2 0 Moderately 2 4 4 2 Highly 0 3 1 2 Very Highly 1 0 1 0

Totals 46 5 23 10 8

Sub-Question e.: What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of various demographic variables? To determine the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors (i.e. those behaviors rated moderately harmful) for teachers of various demographic variables (gender, age, marital status, and school level), a crosstabs analysis and

Phi and Cramer’s V test were conducted. The Pearson chi-square results indicated the following: there is no statistical significance between males and females and the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors (i.e. those behaviors rated moderately harmful) for teachers of the demographic variable gender (x2 = 19.333, df = 23, N = 46, p = .682); there is no statistical significance between age and the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors (i.e. those behaviors rated moderately harmful) for teachers of the demographic variable age (x2 = 111.797, df = 92, N = 46, p = .079); there is no statistical significance between marital status and the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors (i.e. those behaviors rated moderately harmful) for teachers of the demographic variable marital status (x2 = 62.559, df = 58, N = 46, p = .318); and there is no statistical significance between school level and the most harmful principal

mistreatment behaviors (i.e. those behaviors rated moderately harmful) for teachers of the demographic variable school level (x2 = 60.840, df = 58, N = 46, p = .374).

Research Question 2: What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment? Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from overall combined principal mistreatment? In section A of the PTI, participants were asked to indicate “Yes” or

“No” if in the past 5 years they have experienced any negative effects (i.e., behaviors, feelings, health), professionally or personally, physically or mentally/emotionally, that they felt were related to the mistreatment of their principal. If the participant selected yes, they were to check every item that applied. There were a total of 67 items that were known as psychological- emotional, physical-physiological, work-related, and personal life-family life effects of principal mistreatment.

Effects of principal mistreatment: The ten most frequently reported effects on teachers participating in this survey were (in rank order) as follows: stress (24.1% of participants), maintained silence (21.1% of participants), resentment (19.2% of participants), felt a sense of injustice and moral outrage (18.4% of participants), powerless (16.5% of participants), minimized or withdrew from discretional involvements and feeling of being anxious (tied at

16.2% of participants), lowered self-motivation with classroom teaching (15.8% of the participants), insecurities (15.4%), self-doubt and bitterness (tied at 14.7% of the participants), and withdrew from school-related social events (13.9% of participants) (see Table 24). The least frequently reported effects of principal mistreatment were chronically fearful (4.9% of the participants), use of illegal drugs and body aches (tied at 4.5% of participants), other teachers feared association, disoriented, nightmares (tied at 3.8% of participants), worsened allergies or asthma (3.4% of participants), depression (3.0% of participants), chest pains (2.6% of

participants), and PTSD (0.8% of participants). Concerning teaching, participants were asked,

“Overall, how much did your principal’s mistreatment undermine your effectiveness as a teacher;” 0% of the teachers responded not at all, 6% responded minimally, 8% responded moderately, and 3% responded significantly and severely. In short, 70.3% indicated that principal mistreatment markedly undermined teaching.

Table 24 Ranked Effects of Principal Mistreatment by Percentages of Teachers

Rank Effects Percent of Teachers 1 I experienced stress. 24% 2 I maintained silence as much as possible (e.g., in faculty 21% meetings, committee meetings). 3 I resented my principal’s mistreatment. 19% 4 I felt a sense of injustice and moral outrage. 18% 5 I felt powerless. 17% 6 I minimized or withdrew from discretional involvements 16% (e.g., projects, committee work). 6 I experienced lowered self-motivation with regard to my 16% classroom teaching. 6 I felt anxious. 16% 9 I experienced insecurity. 15% 9 I experienced self-doubt. 15% 9 I felt bitter. 15% 12 I withdrew from school-related social events (faculty and 14% staff luncheons, get-togethers). 12 I felt angry. 14% 12 I cried at work or at home. 14% 15 I wanted to leave teaching altogether. 13% 16 I experienced fear and dread. 12% 16 I felt defeated or broken. 16% 16 I felt helpless. 16% 16 I felt humiliated. 16% 16 I felt outraged. 16% 16 I felt unmotivated. 16% 22 I became resistant or defiant toward my principal. 11% 22 I was less creative, innovative, and less likely to take 11% risks in teaching. 22 I had a diminished sense of professionalism. 11% 22 Teaching became a struggle. 11% 22 I was afraid my reputation would be damaged or my 11% reputation was damaged. 22 I had disrupted sleep. 11% 28 I felt trapped. 10%

29 My self-confidence decreased. 10% 30 I felt cynical or distrustful. 10% 31 I felt I had to suppress my anger at school. 9% 32 My self-esteem decreased. 9% 33 I felt ashamed or embarrassed. 9% 34 I obsessively thought about my principal’s mistreatment. 9% 35 I was chronically tired. 9% 36 I experienced paranoia. 8% 37 I felt forced to use rigid, authoritarian, dated, or 8% ineffective teaching methods. 38 I ignored some professional responsibilities. 8% 39 I felt shocked. 8% 40 I became depressed. 7% 41 My preexisting medical conditions were exacerbated. 7% 42 My relationship with students suffered. 6% 42 I felt isolated. 6% 42 I felt guilty about my diminished performance. 6% 42 I became physically sick. 6% 42 I had panic attacks. 6% 42 My relationship with my spouse/partner suffered. 6% 42 I was unable to function well. 6% 42 I was unable to concentrate. 6% 42 I had a significant weight change (up or down). 6% 51 I became chronically fearful. 5% 51 I began to use or used more drugs (sleeping pills, 5% headache medication, etc.). 51 I felt paralyzed. 5% 51 I felt lonely. 5% 51 I had new body aches (headaches, backaches, etc.). 5% 51 I was absent from work more than usual. 5% 57 Other teachers feared association with me. 4% 57 I felt disoriented. 4% 57 I had nightmares. 4% 60 I felt corrupted. 3% 60 I had worsened allergies or asthma. 3% 60 I was diagnosed with depression. 3% 60 My relationship with my own children suffered. 3% 60 I had chest pains. 3% 65 I was diagnosed with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress 1% Disorder).

One-way ANOVA and Scheffe´ tests was conducted to determine differences in the top

15 most frequently reported effects according to a series of teacher demographic variables: gender, race, and education. Statistically significant differences were found on gender, F(1,44) =

4.435, p = .041; on race F(2,43) = 3.667, p = .034; on education F(3,42) = 3.246, p = .031 (see

Table 25).

Table 25 One-way Analysis Variance Summary Comparison

Sources df SS MS F p Gender Between groups 1 1.053 1.053 4.435 .041 Within groups 44 10.447 .237 Total 45 11.500 Race Between groups 2 1.663 .832 3.667 .034 Within groups 43 9.750 .227 Total 45 11.413 Education Between groups 3 2.099 .700 3.246 .031 Within groups 42 9.053 .216 Total 45 11.152

Research Question 3: How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment? Participants were asked to identify coping strategies they used to deal with a principal’s mistreatment from a list of

37 known strategies. This also showed if they were unable to cope with their jobs at times due to their principal’s mistreatment and whether they wanted to leave their jobs due to their principal’s mistreatment.

The ten most frequently used coping strategies (in rank order from first to tenth) were as follows: (1) Avoid the principal (22.9% of the participants); (2) Talk with others for support and ideas (19.9% of the participants); (3) Endure the principal’s mistreatment (15.0% of the participants); (4) Rationalize the principal’s behavior (14.7% of the participants); (5) Look for the good in the principal (14.3% of the participants); (6) Think positively or accept as part of the job (13.9% of the participants); (7) Meditation, relaxation, religion (12.8% of the participants);

(8) Detach (12.4% of the participants); (9) Ignore the principal (11.3% of the participants); and

(10) Appease the principal and Reading, music, TV (9.0% of the participants) (see Table 26).

Table 26 Ranked Coping Strategies of Principal Mistreatment

Rank Coping Strategies Percentage of Teachers 1 Avoid the principal 22.9% 2 Talk with others for support and ideas 19.9% 3 Endure the principal’s mistreatment 15.0% 4 Rationalize the principal’s behavior 14.7% 5 Look for good in the principal 14.3% 6 Think positively or accept as part of the job 13.9% 7 Meditation, relaxation, religion 12.8% 8 Detach 12.4% 9 Ignore the principal 11.3% 10 Appease the principal 9.0%

The five least frequently used coping strategies (in rank order from 33rd to 37th) were as follows: (33) Deny that something bad is happening to me (3.0% of the participants); (34) Defy the principal’s order, Threaten the principal, and File a complaint with the school districts (3.0% of the participants); (35) Have colleagues speak to the principal, Drugs, and File a complaint with the union (2.0% of the participants); (36) Sex (1.1% of the participants); and (37) Threaten the principal (e.g., with complaint, exposure) (1.0% of the participants). A considerable number of the participants (21.8%, participants) indicated that they would leave their job for another because of the harm caused by their principal’s mistreatment.

Research Question 4: What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment? From a list of ten factors empirically linked to mistreatment, participants identified factors they believed contributed to principals’ mistreatment of them.

Overall, the factors contributing to principals’ mistreatment were, in rank order, as follows: the politics at school (14.3% of the participants); teacher’s age (5.3% of the participants); teacher’s

gender (4.9% of the participants); teacher’s race (4.5% of the participants); teacher’s ethnicity

(2.3% of the participants); teacher’s political beliefs (1.9% of the participants); teacher’s health, illness, or disability (1.5%); teacher’s religion (1.1% of the participants); teacher’s sexual orientation (4% of the participants); and teacher’s affiliation with a union or an association (4% of the participants) (see Table 27).

Table 27 Contributing Factors to Principal Mistreatment

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid The politics at the school 38 14.3 14.3 100.0 Age 14 5.3 5.3 100.0 Gender 13 4.9 4.9 100.0 Race 12 4.5 4.5 100.0 Ethnic Group 6 2.3 2.3 100.0 Political Beliefs 5 1.9 1.9 100.0 Health, Illness, or 4 1.5 1.5 100.0 Disability Religion 3 1.1 1.1 100.0 Sexual Orientation 1 .4 .4 100.0 Union Affiliation 1 .4 .4 100.0

Total 266 100.0 100.0

Analysis of the qualitative data for this question revealed several themes, which would be considered additional, contributing factors to their mistreatment behavior by their principal.

Most frequently, teachers reported that principals mistreated them because of: personal characteristics, such as superior knowledge or skill, being well-liked and respected by students and/or parents and/or colleagues, being creative and innovative, and being a “threat” to principals; a disagreement with principal’s actions or policies; and one’s confidence or stature, outspokenness, assertiveness, and advocating on behalf of the students, staff, and community.

Less frequently, teachers indicated that the following contributed to their mistreatment: the

amount of time present at the school, chronic illnesses, and understanding of a specific area of a disability.

Analysis of additional contributing factors stated by the participants that may have contributed to the principal’s mistreatment was sorted into five themes, with direct-quote statements attributed to each theme listed (see Table 28):

Table 28 Additional Contributing Factors to Principal Mistreatment

The Assertive Teacher a. Being outspoken on initiatives I see as unfair or ill-informed or overall ineffective. b. Speaking up/asking questions/not being silent. c. I challenged unprofessional behavior. d. Bring items to the table that needed attention. e. I advocated to improve things about the school for the betterment of students and staff, and she was determined to have a "perfect school" f. Looking at school with no problems. g. Because I am well known in the county. h. Minimally - My stature & boldness makes it hard for me to be a total pushover. I will give some resistance. i. My confidence in my ability as a teacher is based on my knowledge base and experience. I have 4 degrees and over 30 years’ experience. j. Being assertive.

The Proactive Teacher a. Nothing that I know of; maybe the perception of my suggestions and/or ideas as an attempt to control something. b. I regularly check in with my parents and have basic classroom management. c. Decisions I made for my children, who are also students at the school, such as, opting my kid out of the end of year testing. d. Refusing to allow my students to participate in another student's misbehavior.

Teacher Illnesses a. I allowed it. I never spoke up for myself. b. Not my best year of teaching. c. Sick every day. d. Illness due to stress. A Controlling Principal a. She’s just a tyrant and has to be involved in everything for the entire school. Not just me. b. Takes advantages of my double certification.

Miscellaneous a. “I think none of the above. I think she is a person who got promoted and wanted it forever and then didn't want to do the work required. Once she got the promotion. It has nothing to do with me. But the kids and the community ultimately” b. Higher-order teaching at a failing school. c. Being an outsider. d. I am a male with long hair and a beard.

Qualitative Results

Included in this section are the results of the 4 open-ended qualitative questions.

Question 1: Admittedly, it is difficult to clearly define all behaviors that describe those which may affect your relationship with principals. Please add any further information you feel compelled to discuss. Feel free to write as much as you wish about whatever is on your mind as it relates to this survey. You may also wish to include information about personal mistreatment by past principals and the mistreatment of other teachers that you have witnessed as well as mistreatment by your current principal.

Of the 46 participants who answered the first open-ended question, 28% described lack of teacher support with classrooms and resources; 18.2% described the feelings of being underutilized regardless of the number of years of experience; 12.7% described unfair/unjust reprimands; 10.4% described the hush tactics or intimidation they experienced; 5.7% described several situations in which they received unfair teacher evaluations; 5.3% described their principal as narcissistic, racist, misogynistic, or sexist. Less than 3% of the participants described the controlling nature they experienced, job reassignments, passive-aggressive communication tactics, professional envy, or an unwillingness of their principal to accept criticism (See Chart 4).

Chart 4 Behaviors That Affected Your Relationship with the Principal

Question 2: Workplace mistreatment can cause harm to your health in the form of stress

(which affects cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, immunological, daily, and auto-immune systems), emotional or psychological distress, social status concerns such as isolation, and economic harm such as loss of or the choice to leave a job. Has mistreatment at the hands of your most recent principal or past principal(s) caused harm to you in any of these ways?

Based on the frequency of the 46 participants who responded to this question, 51.5% reported harm to their health due to stressful conditions with the principal and 45.5% reported emotional or psychological distress caused harm to their health, as a result of their principal’s mistreatment

towards them and the environment of the school as a whole. Only 3% of the participants reported social status concerns such as isolation (see Chart 5).

Chart 5 Principal Mistreatment and Harm to One’s Health

Beyond the information presented, which covers the general health concerns, the participants continued to discuss mistreatment in open question 2, including themes of control, public humiliation, intimidation, unfair evaluations, withholding resources, unfair treatment, lack of support, gossip, use of criticism from others, attempts to force out of job, and general mistreatment.

Question 3: How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your sense of how effective you are as a teacher?

Bandura (1994) defined self-efficacy as people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. An individual’s concept of self-efficacy played an important role in how the individual processed actions and events and how those actions and events impacted the individual’s behavior (Bandura, 1977). Bandura (1977) further stated that an individual who possessed a strong sense of self-efficacy overcame difficulties and achieved goals more easily.

Based on the data collected from the 46 participants who responded to this question,

37.8% believe that their relationship with the principal did not affect daily their sense of self- efficacy. However, 27% experienced a deflated sense of confidence; 13.5% felt incompetent;

8.1% of the participants felt a sense of creativity limitations and a desire to escape the environment; 5.4% of the participants overcompensated to protect their relationships with their principals (see Chart 6).

Chart 6 Principal Mistreatment and Teacher Efficacy

Question 4: How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your job satisfaction? Of the 46 participants who responded to this question, 46.2% were ready to transfer to a different school or had already interviewed for a new position; 23.1% were ready to quit or just simply hated going to work on a daily basis; and 7.7% felt as if they were not valued so they saw no point in applying themselves, in and out of the classroom (see Chart 7).

Chart 7 Principal Mistreatment and Job Satisfaction

In this section, the results and the themes that emerged from the qualitative answers continued with themes derived from the quantitative questions and resulted in several new themes. Also, a variety of health concerns that resulted from principal mistreatment behaviors were mentioned, and the majority of teachers linked job satisfaction and their sense of efficacy to their relationships with principals. In the next chapter, the results will be analyzed so that future research may be considered and a conclusion will be drawn.

100

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

School administrators and school boards have spent considerable time and energy addressing student bullying in K-12 schools, and rightfully so; however, less attention has been directed toward the issue of workplace bullying among school personnel in K-12 schools. All states now have laws (and/or require school districts to adopt policies) to prevent and resolve verbal, physical, and/or cyberbullying directed towards children in schools (U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, 2018). This has served to heighten awareness of the devastating effects bullying has on children and the importance of proactively addressing it in schools.

Student bullying, however, is not the only form of bullying that takes place in schools. "Bullying can occur anywhere in a school and can be perpetrated by anyone in that school. Bullies can be students or adults" (Parsons, 2005). Understanding the nature and extent of adult bullying in K-

12 schools is somewhat challenging as there is relatively little research directly on point, as opposed to the more general body of research on workplace bullying.

One study in particular revealed the devastating consequences of adult bullying in the K-

12 workplace. Gibbs (2007) interviewed teachers who had a strong commitment to and passion for teaching to determine the aftermath of workplace bullying on their teaching ability, as well as their ability to locate another position if fired or if they had left their position voluntarily. Gibbs

(2007) concluded that bullying of teachers by teachers left the target with a sense of powerlessness, high levels of stress, negative impacts on job performance, and long-term emotional effects. Targets indicated a lack of administrative support after they reported the bullying, sabotage, and manipulative behavior by the bully, jealously of the target from the bully,

101

verbal and non-verbal abuse, and the bullying teacher’s desire for power and control.

Therefore, this dissertation has attempted to fill the research gap, by adding to the body of research by examining a more recent sample of teachers.

The purpose of the quantitative research study was to examine the mistreatment behaviors, perceptions, intensity, and occurrences K-12 public education teachers have experienced from their principals in a randomly selected sample. With there being a total of 137 schools and centers, and 15,500 employees, the teachers within the county were selected randomly using the random number generator function in Excel which chose 4 out of the 7 regions within this county. The regions that were selected were Region 1, Region, 2, Region 4, and Region 5. A list of teachers defined as public school teachers was obtained from the DeKalb

County School District (DCSD) website (https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/schools-and- centers/), where the public K-12 schools are listed in alphabetical order to generate participation among the targeted population. Email addresses for the participants were obtained from the school websites. After initial emails were sent to the principal with an explanation of the intent of my research and access to teachers was granted, teachers were sent an email explanation with introductory information and asked to click on the Qualtrics link provided to take the survey.

There were 46 teachers who responded to the portions of the quantitative and qualitative questions of the survey.

The primary focus of this study was to examine school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables. The survey consisted of 45 multiple choice/text entry questions, 4 qualitative open-

102

ended questions, and 16 demographic questions. The mistreatment behaviors were adapted from the Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (Blasé, Blasé, and Du, 2007) and were matched with an opposite statement to represent a supportive statement as a method of softening the language.

The 4 open-ended questions were evaluated by different means, according to the question. In the first question, which requested more information about principal mistreatment behaviors personally experienced or witnessed, themes were discovered related to the closed question set. Themes were also found in the second question, which asked about health problems resulting in mistreatment behaviors by principals. Question 3 was written to dig deeper into the thoughts the teacher had regarding the relationship between the teacher and the principal and its effect on their self-efficacy. The last question asked whether the teacher- principal relationship affected the teacher’s job satisfaction. For each question, themes were discovered based on the participants’ responses.

Summary of Findings

This quantitative correlational study was designed as previously stated, was to examine school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables in a randomly selected sample. The results of the analysis revealed a statistically significant correlations between the difference on the levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors and race (x2 =

28.520, df = 8, N = 46, p = .000). The findings from the results provided research, practical, and policy making implications regarding mistreatment of teachers by principals. The practical implications of this study offered new insight into mistreatment behaviors by the principal in K-

103

12 public schools and how it affected teachers in one specific school district in the state of

Georgia.

The principal investigator found that the most harmful mistreatment behaviors were insensitive to one’s personal matters (e.g. no empathy or sympathy for illness. Most of the intensity levels of harm reported from principal mistreatment were that of a Level 3: Directive and Severely Aggressive type of behavior, such as, unfair and unjust reprimands, unfair evaluations, job reassignments, racism, and misogynistic behaviors. This study surveyed how teachers are mistreated by their principal, the effects of principal mistreatment, coping skills of principal mistreatment and contributing factors that may have led to principal mistreatment among teachers working in the K-12 public education system in a Georgia. The sample of teachers (n = 46) from this study indicated that they were being mistreated by their principal.

Previous studies established that bullying behaviors in the workplace are the primary reasons for stress and depression (Loerbroks et al., 2015; Ortega et al., 2011).

The percentages of individual mistreatment behaviors by the principals of the participants were developed in rank order from highest to lowest with the frequency of the specific principal mistreatment behaviors. Examining the percentages makes it clear that the teachers in this sample have experienced principal mistreatment, as the construct is defined in this study, to varying degrees. The research into principal mistreatment behaviors toward teachers is an early first step toward discovering the prevalence of workplace bullying in our schools. As Blasé and

Blasé (2002) reported, the teachers they contacted “strongly believed that the problem of principal mistreatment should be made public and, as one put it, ‘This study might crack open the door of hope and eventually change the world of education.’” However, few studies

104

conducted explored workplace bullying and teachers’ stress and depression (Bianchi et al., 2015;

Fahie & Devine, 2014; Jayanthi, Thirunavukarasu, & Rajkumar, 2015; Wang, Lai, et al., 2015).

Sub-research question (b): What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive? discussed the levels of harm and mistreatment behaviors were separated according to the three levels discussed in the Blasé and Blasé (2002) study and ranked using a five-point scale that ranged from “My most harmful item” to “My fifth most harmful item.” Levels 2 and 3 behaviors were consistent with former studies conducted with the general workplace population and will aid in narrowing the gap in the literature on this topic.

Sub-research question (c): What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors for the participants? From my perspective, those who reported mistreatment behaviors that occurred moderately frequently were categorized into Level 1 and

Level 2 type mistreatment behaviors. The respondents who reported total frequencies of mildly or highly frequent mistreatment behaviors were categorized into Level 2 and Level 3 type mistreatment behaviors. The 1.7% of teachers who reported very highly frequent mistreatment behaviors were categorized into Level 3, being the most severe as discussed by Blasé and Blasé

(2002). This information extended what we know about mistreatment in the workplace.

The Chi Square statistic is commonly used for testing relationships between categorical variables. The Chi-Square statistic is most commonly used to evaluate Tests of Independence when using a cross tabulation (also known as a bivariate table). Cross tabulation presents the distributions of two categorical variables simultaneously, with the intersections of the categories of the variables appearing in the cells of the table. Phi and Cramer’s V provides a test of statistical significance and also provides information about the strength of the association between two categorical variables. For this study in order to investigate whether gender, race,

105

and education differ on whether gender, race, and education, differ in their moderately harmful levels of frequency and intensity of harm, from specific principal mistreatment behaviors, a crosstabs analysis, and Phi and Cramer’s V test was conducted. Sub-research question (d): Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors? After performing a cross-tab analysis and Phi Cramer’s V test, no statistical significance was discovered when comparing gender and education or the highest degree obtained with mistreatment behaviors. However, there was a statistical significance when comparing race and principal mistreatment behaviors.

This is because there was a p-value was 0.00, which was less than the chosen significance level of 0.05, it was concluded that there was an association between race and mistreatment behaviors.

The majority of the participants that participated in this study were white and are employed in a county that is 54% black, with a demographic student breakdown of 64%.

Sub-research question (e): Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors? After performing a cross-tab analysis and Phi Cramer’s V test, no statistical significance was discovered when determining the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of the following demographic variables: gender, age, and school level.

It should be noted that not all teachers may recognize these mistreatment behaviors as a form of mistreatment. For example, some teachers may think that the lack of materials is out of the principal’s control. They might believe that although there is not enough paper available, and the principal enforces the limitations on the use of paper, the principal is limited in resources by situations out of his or her hands due to budgetary constraints. Therefore, it is not considered a type of mistreatment, or even a lack of support from the perspective of some teachers. It must

106

also be kept in mind that the mistreatment statements were adapted from a group of self- identified mistreated teachers and that the teachers in this study were not asked to identify principal mistreatment behaviors according to their definitions.

The findings of Part B of the Principal Treatment Inventory confirmed that teachers are mistreated by their principals in various frequencies and intensities as well as in varying levels of harm. It is worth discussing these interesting new results revealed by cross-tabulation of how demographic variables played a role in the frequency and intensity of harm from specific mistreatment behaviors.

When analyzing the perceived effects of principal mistreatment, ANOVA was used to analyze the participants’ responses. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical technique that is used to check if the means of two or more groups are significantly different from each other.

ANOVA checks the impact of one or more factors by comparing the means of different samples.

This study reported the top ten most frequently reported effects of principal mistreatment, followed by the least frequently reported effects of principal mistreatment. A One-way ANOVA and Scheffe´ test was used to compare three dependent variables (i.e. gender, race, and education) with the independent variables of the study, the effects of from principal mistreatment. It was found that there was a statistically significant difference between the reported effects and the following variables: gender, race, and education.

Beyond the concern of the effect of the principal’s treatment of teachers, Ingersoll (2001) reported that in the 1980’s there was a prediction of teacher shortages due to more students and retiring teachers resulting in the initiation of efforts to recruit more teachers. However, his research showed that although teacher retirements are indeed increasing, the overall amount of turnover accounted for by retirement is relatively minor when compared to that associated with

107

other factors, such as teacher job dissatisfaction and teachers pursuing better jobs or other careers. The data show that, in particular, inadequate support from the school administration, student discipline problems, limited faculty input into school decision-making, and to a lesser extent, low salaries, are all associated with higher rates of turnover, after controlling for the characteristics of both teachers and schools.

He likened the teacher shortage problem to that of a “revolving door,” implying that increasing the supply of teachers alone would not resolve the problem. There must also be a solution to the organizational concerns that cause teachers to want to leave their jobs for reasons other than simply retirement. Lack of principal support and mistreatment are important factors being ignored in research today.

The findings of Part A of the Principal Treatment Inventory: Effects of Mistreatment confirmed that teachers are affected by the mistreatment of their principals, be it professionally, personally, physically, or mentally/emotionally. It is important to note that participants from various demographic backgrounds report having been affected by principal mistreatment; however, these are findings that are new to the body of research.

From the results, it is noticeable that teachers resorted to various coping strategies to counteract principal mistreatment. The top three coping strategies stated by the participants were: avoiding the principal (22.9%), talk with others for support and ideas (19.9%), and endure the principal’s mistreatment (15.0%).

The teaching profession is a stressful career that affects the actions, decision-making, and general job satisfaction of those engaged in it (McGrath et al. (1989)). The results of previous studies show that among elementary teachers, those coping effectively with stress prefer to use active methods rather than passive. On the other hand, those elementary teachers who burnout

108

from stress often can no longer be involved in enjoyable activities and have their anger at this very situation compound the distress. Furthermore, teachers who work in low-stress environments engage in more extensive activities than those in a stressful atmosphere. The emphasis, therefore, on the teachers’ internal locus of control was recommended to help in reducing the negative effects of stress (McGrath, et al., 1989). Teachers’ stress can be better managed through school rules and administrative support and a strong team approach by members of staff towards the development of well-rounded students. Previous research suggests that teachers’ collective efficacy could have a substantial, desirable effect on job contentment, yet there are very few studies examining teachers’ collective efficacy and workplace stress

(Klassen, 2010). The findings of #8 on Part A of the Principal Treatment Inventory confirmed that teachers cope or handle principal’s mistreatment in a variety of ways. It is worth discussing the frequency of specific coping strategies that occurred more frequently than others, but the list of strategies given could be expanded upon given the current time that when a global pandemic has almost rewritten teachers' job descriptions. Many teachers are doing more than they ever were before, and it is taking a toll on their mental health in addition to the mistreatment that may still be occurring.

The contributing factors to principals’ mistreatment were gender, race, ethnic group, age, religion, political beliefs, health, illness or disability, sexual orientation, union affiliation, politics of the school, and additional behaviors not listed. The top 3 factors stated by the participants of this study were first the politics of the school, the age of the teacher, and the gender of the teacher. Principal mistreatment is typically viewed as an interactive phenomenon; that is, a function of the relationships among the abuser, the abused, and a myriad of organizational factors (e.g., policies, norms, expectations, pressures, professional ethics, and codes of conduct).

109

Specifically, teacher educators should help teachers build knowledge about how such factors contribute to the problem of abuse.

When compared to the study by Jo and Joseph Blasé (2002), and another by the Blases along with Fengning Du (2007), the findings of this study are in accordance with results reported on factors that contributed to principal mistreatment. It is important to note that the results were based on a list that could be expanded upon to discuss factors that are not listed (i.e. professional envy or passive-aggressive communication) or presented as an open-ended question.

The analysis of the educators’ descriptions provided insight into the relational and organizational foundations of workplace bullying: the relational powerless and those whose situational and contextual characteristics do not fit in are vulnerable to bullying. They are subjected to verbal abuse and threats. The powerless are publicly and privately humiliated, disrespected, socially isolated, and discriminated against by those who are more powerful. The relentless bullying of educators results in escalating apathy and disempowerment, to the detriment of their professional and private wellbeing. Bullying is likely to occur in schools where organizational chaos reigns. Such schools are characterized by incompetent, unprincipled, abusive leadership and a lack of accountability, fairness, and transparency.

However, employers are often reluctant to recognize, correct, or prevent workplace bullying when it falls short of illegal harassment (Namie, 2003). Targets often feel victimized a second time by the lack of organizational policies and legal statutes addressing such abuse

(Meglich-Sespico, Faley, & Knapp, 2007). The results of this study demonstrate the need for improvement in the climate of the K-12 workplace. It is past time to develop workplace bullying policies and procedures. Policymakers need to look to existing policies (e.g., Winchester MEA,

2013; Healthy Workplace Bill, 2011), adopt and approve a district policy and local procedures,

110

and enforce these policies to help prevent and resolve adult bullying. Fostering a healthy, safe work environment is the responsibility of employers and their representatives.

The cry for help and protection by the teachers has been heard through these survey results and findings. Action needs to be taken and be effective to reduce principal mistreatment in the school district. School leaders must address the mistreatment and emotional toll it has on teachers, as well as how principal mistreatment affects workplace performance if principal mistreatment is allowed to continue. As one anonymous survey respondent commented, "I am considering leaving the profession because treatment like this is not right and not helpful in our main purpose of providing an education to our students." There is a cost to the students and the school when teachers leave or cannot be recruited to teach or sub in their classrooms due to persistent, unaddressed principal mistreatment.

Learning about teacher abuse and the effects of principal mistreatment, as it was so vividly described and documented, again serves as a portal to understanding what we, as researchers, need to do to have good schools. Not only to delineate the anguish of the mistreated teachers but also to point out one’s moral duty to eliminate such behaviors, by graphically illustrating how it has turned dedicated teachers into harmful elements in the lives of our children.

Schools operate on the love of the kids, the subject, the work, the hope, and the possibilities, the smiles of satisfaction, the looks of appreciation, and the little things that keep teachers and students and leaders going. The principal whose interactions with staff undermine this all-important source of energy by creating dissociation between teachers’ self-confidence and their professional self-image is like the captain drilling a hole in his or her ship. No matter how hard you bail, it will always keep sinking. Leaders who cause teachers emotional damage

111

would be wise to reconsider the cost-effectiveness, if nothing else, of disintegrating a teacher’s self, a precariously balanced entity that is already overtaxed. Leaders who are sensitive to teachers’ needs for congruity and emotional understanding in their professional relationship with their leaders can provide invaluable support and catalyze creativity, which can exponentially benefit the whole school environment or community (Beaty, 2000).

Limitations of the Study

To begin, it is important to make clear what can and cannot be stated from this research. One cannot say that public school teachers in Georgia are being mistreated widely and systematically from the results of this study. The only statement that can be made is that the teachers who were contacted agreed that they personally have experienced some of the principal behaviors identified as mistreatment by past research.

The representativeness of my sample and the limitations that was associated with it was as follows: out of the 266 participants, 220 responses from the participants contained missing data. I believe this was due to the current state of the world due to a global pandemic. Teachers are now facing formidable challenges, whether educating students in masked-up, socially distant classrooms or virtually, from computer screens while delivering state-mandated instructional standards or while still trying to meet the demands from the administration. Many teachers during this time became overwhelmed with various questions like, what will we do if the schools close for months? How can I shift to online learning if we’re closing tomorrow, or even in a few hours? How will special education students be cared for, and IEPs administered? What about children who have no internet access? From these questions and more, the teachers were unable to complete and finish the survey.

112

The final sample size consisted of 46 public school teachers who chose to voluntarily participate in the research study from grade levels pre-K to grade 12 who responded to the 3 part survey that included the following: the effects of mistreatment, forms of mistreatment behaviors, and demographic data about yourself and your school (45 multiple choice/text entry questions, 4 open-ended questions, and 16 demographic questions). Also, categorical variables were created based on the continuous variables to facilitate the interpretation of the descriptive findings. The total number of participants was 46 K-12 public school teachers as previously mentioned.

Majority of the participants in the study were female. The age range for majority of the participants was between 40-59. The ethnicity of the participants was majority white. Most of the participants were not affiliated with a teacher union or association. The school level of the participants that appeared the most for this study was elementary school teachers. Most of the participants have over 20 years of teaching experience. The highest degree that was earned by most of the participants was a Masters Degree.

Caution must be taken whenever a sample is taken from a population and used to evaluate said population. Sampling error, which refers to the difference between the statistics obtained from a sample and the comparable population statistics, is unavoidable since the only way to obtain an exact result is to give the survey to the entire population and to have a 100% response rate (Gray, Williamson, Karp & Dalphin, 2007). One way to reduce sampling error is to choose a large enough sample. Although the sample of participants who submitted quantitative results was 46, a larger sample would have produced less sampling error. Since the topic under consideration is underrepresented in the literature, the results are nevertheless of interest. Nevertheless, if the topic of the research or the population being sampled is of great

113

interest and if it has not been studied before, it is quite possible that even a study based on a small sample (and, consequently, of relatively low accuracy) will be of general interest.

Bias refers to non-sampling errors, or those factors other than sampling errors that may cause distorted results (Gray, Williamson, Karp & Dalphin, 2007). For example, self-selection bias refers to the fact that there may be similar attributes of those teachers who responded to the survey than those who did not, which would cause the results to differ from the population. If, for example, the teachers who responded to the email by filling out the survey had more available time on their hands than those who did not, and if this was because the teachers were educational veterans with many years of successful lesson plans under their belts, they may have had more experiences with principal mistreatment over the years and this could skew the results toward a higher percent of mistreatment. There is no way to determine this; however, a larger sample size would have helped ease the concern. Also, although it could be argued that all teachers in Georgia are required to use a computer in their jobs, some are more technological savvy than others and it could be argued that another method of response, such as by interviews, should have been presented to make sure that, that part of the population was included in the sample.

Survey research presents its own set of unique research limitations, one of which is in the construction of the survey itself. It is never possible to know neither how the participants interpreted the survey questions nor whether they had similar situations in mind as the other participants. Also, since teachers in this sample were asked sets of both closed and opened- ended questions about their relationships with principals, one set may have biased another. By asking the closed questions first, and by pointing out that the questions were taken from the literature on principal mistreatment, an indirect conceptualization of “principal mistreatment”

114

was presented to the participants. For example, evidence is seen in the comments about the lack of principal support in the open-ended questions although the question specifically requested information about principal mistreatment. This bias was unavoidable since the researcher wanted to know how often the mistreatment as defined by Blasé, Blasé and Du (2007) was experienced by a random sample of teachers. Therefore, the open-ended responses may have been affected by the principal behaviors described in the Likert style questions. Although a definition of mistreatment was not included as part of the survey, it was made clear in the introductory

Qualtrics letter that the study is based in the mistreatment literature so it makes sense that they would assume that the statements described mistreatment behaviors on the part of the principal and answer the qualitative answer accordingly.

Implication for Research

I argue that since education is foundational to the future of this country and teachers are the building blocks (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006) the results of this study are pivotal to the future success of K-12 schooling. Principals, by way of their leadership style, directly influence the culture of the school, which in turn affects teachers’ sense of job satisfaction and efficacy (Price,

2012). One might easily conceptualize how the relationships between principals and teachers affect teacher retention. Teachers who feel satisfied with their jobs are less likely to look for employment elsewhere (Ingersoll, 2001). Also, as teachers experience positive relationships with their principals, their sense of efficacy is enhanced. Principals have the ability to improve teacher perceptions overall by simply attending to fundamental components inherent in quality relationships. As teachers begin to feel better about themselves and what their collective missions are as a result of significant interactions with their principals, they become more effective in the classroom (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006).

115

My main interest in this research was to examine from a random sample of school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables in a randomly selected sample.

The quantitative questions in this survey asked the teachers specifically about the experience they had during the past five years. The qualitative questions did not specify a year, but opened the discussion to any principal behavior experienced by the respondent. Therefore, the qualitative responses cannot be used to compare the data specifically oriented to one school year; however, the open-ended questions did confirm that these behaviors are being experienced by teachers providing a general type of triangulation demonstrating a type of reliability. That is, by triangulating the quantitative and qualitative data received by those respondents who were identified as experiencing the most mistreatment and the least, the study was strengthened by

“seeking convergence and corroboration of results from different methods and designs studying the same phenomenon” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

This research study is one of only a few on the topic of school principal mistreatment of teachers, which contributes to the limited basic knowledge of a rapidly emerging area of workplace mistreatment/abuse as well as to the field of educational leadership. Much more research is needed to understand this deeply disturbing phenomenon, one that has devastating effects on teachers emotionally, physically, personally, and professionally, and one that significantly affects classroom teaching and learning as a whole. More research is needed to understand the variables that were investigated in this study, such as school principal

116

mistreatment behaviors, teacher coping responses, and effects on teachers, teaching, and learning.

Useful research could focus on such “contextual” factors that contribute to the mistreatment problem. Case studies of schools and school districts using multiple research protocols would be a valuable addition to the limited body of research available on this topic.

Also, a large-scale survey study would be important to understanding the degree (i.e. frequency and prevalence) to which teachers are mistreated nationally and internationally; this is particularly important because teaching is considered a “high risk” profession for mistreatment.

It should be mentioned that, because of the political sensitivity of this topic, school districts will be reluctant to grant permission to study principal mistreatment; consequently, researchers may be required to draw samples from outside sources (e.g., NEA, AFT, other national teachers’ associations).

Researchers in the field of educational leadership and administration have ignored the study of the dark side of school leadership (Blasé and Blasé, 2003a; Hodgkinson, 1991;

Kimbrough, 1985; Starratt, 1991). As previously mentioned, abusive leadership is a phenomenon in its own right, influenced by a host of individual, interpersonal, group, and organizational factors; it is not simply the absence of effective leadership (Ashforth, 1994). Moreover, continued failure to study this issue of school leadership will sustain incomplete, naive, and even false understandings of school leadership and its effects on teachers and schools (Hodgkinson,

1991). This failure will allow the problem to continue without challenge or hope of improvement. In the end, prospective and practicing school administrators will not have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to address the problem in a viable and constructive manner, as individuals and as a profession.

117

The mistreatment of teachers at the hands of principals is, to some degree, a logical outcome considering the hierarchical nature of K-12 school organizations. This study sheds light on an inevitable outcome of an unequal power structure and the unfortunate and possibly disastrous situations that have not have been widely acknowledged. Although the sample of teachers collected for this study was small in number, the participants did report experiencing principal mistreatment behaviors, and their responses initiate more questions. We must remember, even in these times of uncertainty, that teachers touch the lives of students in every race, class, gender, and disability; principals’ fair and supportive treatment of teachers is vital to ensure every child can achieve their unlimited ability of success with the help and guidance of a teacher who cares about their vocation.

Implication for Practice

The literature is lacking in documentation of the mistreatment of teachers by principals.

There are many studies which consider what principals are doing right in their relationships with teachers, but Blasé and Blasé (2007) “published the first and only study of school principal mistreatment of teachers in the world.” Also, the methodology of my study takes this a step further in that a random sampling procedure was used so that some degree of generalization was possible. Using teachers in school district in the State of Georgia as a unit of study may make the results useful in policy generalization since traditionally the states create an “educational culture” of sorts by creating laws which govern public schools and by acting as an interface with pertinent legislation of the federal government.

My study underscores the worst type of relationship between teachers and principals which results in teachers who are stressed and feel less than positive about their own abilities and more likely to look for employment elsewhere. The most successful teachers may be the ones

118

inspired by the beautiful relationships developed with their principals, motivating them to do their very best (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006).

In light of my study, it is important to consider the effect of negative relationships between the teacher and principal when researching teacher retention, as well as teacher workplace satisfaction: When positive climates and cultures of family exist on school campuses across this great land of ours, synergy occurs, productivity increases, and students excel.

Programs and systems are not the measure of success. Committed and dedicated individuals within systems—engaged in healthy and systemic collaboration as a result of established relationships—that operate said programs are the true measure of success (Edgerson & Kritsonis,

2006).

Some may suggest that just because a teacher perceives that mistreatment has occurred does not necessarily confirm that mistreatment has occurred. This not only presumes there is only one reality that we must work to define, but also from a Deweyan pragmatic perspective it subordinates the teacher’s experience to that of others. Whether or not an outside observer judges an action to be abusive, if the teacher experiences it as such is the only fact that affects that person’s life. It is this perception that will affect the subjective attitudes of teachers in their day-to-day teaching, their relationships with students, their relationships with principals, their senses of efficacy and their notions of job satisfaction.

New teachers are also affected by negative principal-teacher relationships, even if they are not personally involved. Pogodzinski, Youngs, Frank & Belman (2012) found the probability that a novice teacher reports a desire to remain teaching within her school is reduced when she perceives the quality of relations between teachers and administrators as poor. To the

119

extent that it is important to retain teachers no matter how much experience they have, the principal-teacher relationship is an important factor.

Teachers’ perceptions are an important consideration in research. Not only should teachers’ perceptions be considered in relation to their experiences of outcomes related to wellbeing and motivation, but their perceptions of school-based contextual variables are also important in shaping their experiences. (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012) Therefore, teachers’ perceptions of principal behaviors lend further strength to the usefulness of this study for future research.

The principal is in the best position to affect the culture of a school, as well as the climate of a school, due to the micro-politics of most school organizations (Blasé & Anderson, 1995).

Thus, it may be inferred that since the principal is in a key position to influence the development of school culture, the relationship of the principal with the teacher may prove to be a facile lens for researchers to unveil the true nature of a given school. Beyond conjecture, the possible association of school culture, principal-teacher relationships, and student bullying is a topic for future research.

This study has recognized principal mistreatment as a prevalent problem throughout the K-12 public education system in the schools located in a school district in the state of

Georgia. Therefore, it is increasingly important for teachers to be educated about the symptoms and effects of principal mistreatment to prevent this phenomenon effectively. Furthermore, it is very important for the public education system to realize that mistreatment by the principal may lead to absenteeism and a high staff turnover (Berry, Lelchook, & Clark, 2012; Hogh, Hoel, &

Carneiro, 2011; Reknes et al., 2014). Literature on this topic highlights the implications of poor psychosocial work environments, organizational disorder, role conflict, and poor

120

management. All these can create an environment in which mistreatment behaviors thrive; however, by encouraging diversity and inspiring and motivating teachers, administrators can help to foster a culture to combat workplace bullying (Mostert & Cunniff, 2012).

Nica, Manole and Briscariu (2016) believed that workplace bullying as a stressor and work- related depression tend to have unintended consequences on employees’ performance.

This study surveyed teachers working in a K-12 public school district in the state of

Georgia, examining the perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables in a randomly selected sample. The teachers in the survey reported their experiences of such mistreatment by their principal within the last five years. Mistreatment behaviors by the principal in the K-12 public schools had a resulted in the effects of stress (24.1 percent of participants), maintaining of silence (21.1 percent of participants), resentment towards the principal (19.2 percent of participants), felt a sense of injustice and moral outrage (18.4 percent of participants), powerless (16.5 percent of participants), minimized or withdrew from discretional involvements and feeling of being anxious (tied at 16.2 percent of participants), lowered self-motivation with classroom teaching

(15.8 percent of the participants), insecurities (15.4 percent), self-doubt and bitterness (tied at

14.7 percent of the participants), and withdrew from school-related social events (13.9 percent of participants), were reported among teachers who participated in this study who work in the

DeKalb County school district. To help solve this problem, principals would need to realize that principal mistreatment is a common problem that needs to be addressed by having the necessary policies, strategies, and preventions in place to assist teachers both new and old.

121

Combined with the results of this study, a great need exists for additional support for teachers working in the K-12 public schools. To reduce these mistreatment behaviors in public school, principal mistreatment interventions programs, transparency (e.g. issues related to mistreatment behaviors should be handled and not swept under the rug), accountability (e.g. mistreatment behaviors will have negative consequences for the perpetrator), capacity (e.g. to motivate and control employees’ behavior through rules, policies, and regulations), and training should be put in place to assist teachers (Aleass & Megdadi, 2014; Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez,

2006).The results of this study filled the gap in research regarding the relationship between the principal and teacher, and the mistreatment behaviors that can occur by the principal in K-12 Georgia public schools. This research study added empirical evidence to the scholarly literature as it relates to mistreatment behaviors by their principal among K-12 teachers. K-12 public education school districts and administrators should consider these quantitative findings as they make decisions regarding their K-12 teachers.

Most importantly, principals and teachers need to acknowledge that mistreatment behaviors can occur. Given the extra pressures placed on principals and teachers with today’s reality of accountability, stress is a given and decisions may lead to actions that are less than optimal. These topics need to be discussed with future teachers and principals so they are no longer a “dirty secret” but an acknowledged concern that must be faced. Blasé and Anderson

(1995) provide perspectives on principal leadership based on empirical data collected from teachers which does not sugarcoat the narrative of real principals in real schools, including the best and the worst scenarios. Future teachers who are exposed to this type of information can discuss, consider, and prepare for their future careers by better understanding the micro-politics of schools as organizations. Principals who do the same will be able to better judge their actions,

122

as well as acknowledge the concerns if witnessed in a co-worker. The first step is the acknowledgment that there is a problem.

Implication for Policy Making

Every child in every community deserves excellent, effective principals, and assistant principals. Georgia developed the Leader Keys Effectiveness System (LKES) to provide leaders with more meaningful feedback and support so they can achieve the goal of increasing the effective teaching practices of teachers and increasing academic learning and achievement for all students. Georgia believes that students have the greatest chance to succeed when teachers receive support from highly effective and knowledgeable school leaders. However, LKES will provide a window into the principal-teacher relationship in K-12 public schools. Ongoing feedback and targeted professional development help leaders meet the changing needs of their schools.

However, there is no platform within LKES or in the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System

(TKES) evaluation process, where teachers can provide input on the teacher-principal relationship. This needs to change and become part of the LKES evaluation process. This policy will need to be clearly defined by informing teachers of the reporting regulations, which will enable teachers to report principal mistreatment anonymously and confidentially. LKES will then be able to better provide principals with meaningful information about how their practice impacts teacher performance and student learning. Thus allowing LKES to as a whole to acknowledge the central role of school leaders and provide opportunities to refine their practice to continually and effectively meet the needs of all teachers and students. In addition

Professional Learning opportunities should be implemented to educate new and veteran teachers on the signs, symptoms, and coping skills of principal mistreatment.

123

School districts leaders and administrators are legally responsible for the safety and wellbeing of their teachers and, therefore, programs should be in place. This study revealed there was a significant, correlation between principal mistreatment and teachers’ race. As discovered in this and prior studies, bullying in the workplace plays a part in teachers’ mental health.

Einarsen et al., (2018) believed that by implementing an interpersonal conflict program, it can play an important role in preventing isolated conflict episodes from escalating into persistent bullying. As a result, the implementation of a conflict resolution program may be a way of assisting the principal and individual teacher. With a strong conflict resolution program, teachers will feel that they can seek support and advice from other colleagues and administration during difficult situations.

Self-help and self-initiative programs that are directed to individual teachers can be vital in workplace relationships between teachers and principals. If the workplace offers professional development training and programs related to the workplace, stress management, and coping strategies, teachers should take advantage of them to gain important information. Several programs have been established to provide information and support to assist in stress reduction and emotional regulation. However, funding and administration may be different from school district to school district and may not be available at all. Nevertheless, teachers should take advantage of the programs available, to deal with stress or other effects they have or are currently experiencing due to mistreatment by their principal.

Even though teachers may have limited power to change policies and administrative procedures, they could make changes to themselves to reduce the exposure to principal mistreatment, stress, and other effects of such mistreatment. A positive attitude, resilience, optimism, hope, hardiness, and self-esteem could help teachers improve their experiences with

124

effects of mistreatment due to dealing with negative behaviors (Morris, Messal, & Meriac,

2013). Information about the effects with mistreatment behaviors in the workplace can also be found at your Employee Assistance Programs (EPA). Eating a healthy diet, regularly exercising, and getting adequate sleep can help alleviate stress at work, while participating in yoga and mindfulness meditations can also be of some assistance (Budhraja, 2008; Gold et al., 2010;

Mulvaney, 2014). Teachers can also form support groups as a way of supporting each other while waiting for the bullying behaviors in the workplace to be addressed.

Conclusion

As a pragmatic study, it is important to consider what action needs to be taken next to ameliorate a very difficult situation for some teachers that is indicated by the results of this study. It may be inferred from this study that there are teachers in the State of Georgia who are affected emotionally and physically by uncomfortable and even miserable workplace conditions due to principal behaviors. Consideration will be given to higher education curriculum for teachers and principals, as well as future research.

The findings in this study provided insight and found a need for future research and practice. This study examined school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables in a randomly selected sample. The findings from this study may help federal, state, local government, school districts, and administrators to create, provide, and implement policies that regulate mistreatment by the principal, because it is clear that mistreatment by the principal does occur in public schools in the regions of this school district as reported by the participants in this study.

125

It is clear to me that the only reason I felt comfortable doing this research is because I conduct the research in which I am currently employed public. There are those who guessed that my career would be at risk because of conducting research on principal mistreatment. This is the uninformed viewpoint which this study seeks to upend. We have to speak up on such injustices that affect so many.

There are highly supportive principals of whom teachers sing high praise, and there are those principals who are not supportive, doing little to support the educational process. Then there are those principals whose stories remain in locked closets due to the fear that teachers have of standing up in a system which gives them little power to fight back. Standing up for oneself is unheeding in a system that gives principals the power to hire, fire, and write recommendations which will be taken seriously by another principal who is not ready to acknowledge the possibility of an abusive cohort.

Furthermore, discussions which seek to develop learning communities, empowered teachers and projects which are designed to support and retain teachers cannot be taken seriously in districts which harbor abusive principals. Pragmatically, it does not matter whether the principal believes that abuse occurred; if the teacher feels mistreated, there is less chance that lines of communication will be open and a good chance that the teacher will close the classroom door rather than be caught on the administrative radar.

My hope is that educators will feel fearless, empowered, and inspired to let their voices ring as loudly as the bells that begin and end school each day. It is time to focus on school culture and create school systems that will nurture educators and allow them to grow and thrive in supportive environments because our future depends on it. Education has always been a field of employment set apart from all others, brimming with passionate teachers and principals who

126

love their profession and their students. It is time for us to become a balm of peace in the schoolhouse and put an end to cruel adult bullying behaviors.

127

REFERENCES

Aleassa, H. M., & Megdadi, O. D. (2014). Workplace bullying and unethical behaviors: A mediating model. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 157-169. DOI:10.5539/ijbm.v9n3p157.

Allender, J. S. (1986). Educational research: A personal and social process. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 173-193.

Attewell, P., & Rule, J. B. (1991). Survey and other methodologies applied to IT impact research: Experiences from a comparative study of business computing. Paper presented at The Information Systems Research Challenge: Survey Research Methods.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., and Zhang, J. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to Lead: A Workbook on Becoming a Leader. Perseus Books: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2015). Educational leaders and emotions: An international review of empirical evidence 1992-2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 129-167.

Beasley, J., & Rayner, C. (1997). Bullying at work (after Andrea Adams). Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 177-180.

Berry, C. M., Lelchook, A. M., & Clark, M. A. (2012). A meta‐analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 678-699. DOI: 10.1002/job.778.

128

Blasé and Blasé, J. (1991). The micropolitical perspective: A brief overview. Politics of Education Bulletin, 17(4), 1-2.

Blasé, J., & Anderson, G. L. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Blasé, J.J. (1988). The politics of favoritism: A qualitative analysis of teachers' perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly. 24(2), 152-177.

Blasé, J, and Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers perceptions on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Education Administration, 38(2), 130-141

Blasé, J., and Blasé, J. (2000). Principal’s perspective on shared governance leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 10(10), 9-35.

Blasé, J., Blasé, J. (2001). Empowering teachers. (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Blasé, J., and Blasé, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 671-72.

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2003a). Breaking the silence: Overcoming the problem of principal mistreatment of teachers (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2003b). The phenomenology of principal mistreatment: Teacher's perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 367-422.

Blasé, J., Blasé, J. & Du, F. (2007). The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 263-301.

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. (3rd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Budhraja, J. (2008). Causes of stress among insurance employees: An empirical study. ICFAI Journal of Management Research, 7(10), 7-17.

Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75.

Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Rørvik, E., Lande, Å. B., & Nielsen, M. B. (2018). Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: A moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(3), 549-570. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207-219.

129

Fullan, M, (1997). What’s worth fighting for in the principal ship? New York: Teachers College Press.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows: Step by step (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Glendinning, P. M. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 269-286.

Gökçe, A. T. (2005). İş yerinde incinme: Özel ve resmi ilköğretim okulu öğretmen ve yöneticileri üzerinde yapılan bir araştırma. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Ankara University, The Institute of Educational Sciences Ankara.

Gold, E., Smith, A., Hopper, I., Herne, D., Tansey, G., & Hulland, C. (2010). Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) for primary school teachers. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 19(2), 184-189. DOI:10.1007/s10826-009-9344-0.

Gray, P. S., Williamson, J. B., Karp, D. A., & Dalphin, J. R. (2007). The research imagination: An introduction to qualitative and quantitative methods. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Harlos, K. P. & Pinder, C. C. (2000). Emotion and injustice in the workplace. In S. Fineman (Ed). Emotion in organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., & Lopez, S. H. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power: Workplace bullying in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 382−416. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0730888406292885.

Hogh, A., Hoel, H., & Carneiro, I. G. (2011). Bullying and employee turnover among healthcare workers: A three‐wave prospective study. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(6), 742-751. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2834.2011.01264.x.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral sciences. (3rd Ed.). San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

130

Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117.

Leslie, L. L. (1972). Are high response rates essential to valid surveys? Social Science Research, 1(3), 323-334.

Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and victims, 5(2), 119-126.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology. 5, (2), pp. 165–184.

Loerbroks, A., Weigl, M., Li, J., Glaser, J., Degen, C., & Angerer, P. (2015). Workplace bullying and depressive symptoms: A prospective study among junior physicians in Germany. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 78(2), 168-172. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.10.008.

Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers' job satisfaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39-47.

Marshall, C. & Scriber et al, J. (1991). “It’s all political:” Inquiry into the micro-politics of education. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 347-355.

Morris, M. L., Messal, C. B., & Meriac, J. P. (2013). Core self‐evaluation and goal orientation: Understanding work stress. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(1), 35-62. DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21151

Mulvaney, M. A. (2014). Leave programs/time off and work-stress family employee benefits programs, organizational commitment, and self-efficacy among municipal employees. Public Personnel Management, 43(4), 459-489. DOI: 10.1177/0091026014529661.

Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim your dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal, 68(2), 1-6.

Namie, G. (2007). The challenge of workplace bullying. Employment Relations Today, 34(2), 4351.

Namie, R., & Namie, G. (2007). Workplace bullying institute. Retrieved February 1, 2018, from http://www.workplacebullying.org/

Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

131

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171-1190.

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(6), 196-200.

Ortega, A., Christensen, K. B., Hogh, A., Rugulies, R., & Borg, V. (2011). One-year prospective study on the effect of workplace bullying on long-term sickness absence. Journal of Nursing Management, 19, 752-759. DOI:10.1111/j.1365- 2834.2010. 01179.x.

Parsons, L. (2005). Bullied teacher, bullied student: How to recognize the bullying culture in your school and what to do about it. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.

Pearson, C. (2000). Workplace incivility study. Chapel-Hill: University of North Carolina

Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1993). Survey research methodology in management information systems: An assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 75-105.

Reknes, I., Pallesen, S., Magerøy, N., Moen, B. E., Bjorvatn, B., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Exposure to bullying behaviors as a predictor of mental health problems among Norwegian nurses: Results from the prospective SUSSH-survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(3), 479-487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.06.017.

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Smith, P. K., Pepler, D. J., & Rigby, K. (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Smylie, M.A., & Hart, A. W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Ed). Handbook of Research on Educational Administration: A Project of the American Educational Research Association. (pp. 421). San Francisco, California: Josey-Bass, Inc.

Spratlen, L. P. (1995). Interpersonal conflict which includes mistreatment in a university workplace. Violence and victims, 10(4), 285-297.

Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1), 101-109.

132

Yamada, D. (2000). The phenomenon of "workplace bullying" and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protection. The Georgetown Law Journal, 88, 475-537.

Yamada, D. (2008). Workplace bulling and ethical leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(2). Retrieved from: http://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol1/iss2/5

133

APPENDIX

Instrument Permission Request Letter

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am a doctoral student from the University of Alabama writing my dissertation titled Identifying the Effects of an American Epidemic in Schools: Mobbing and the Principal-Teacher Relationship, under the direction of my dissertation committee chaired by Dr. Jingping Sun who can be reached at [email protected].

I would like your permission to use the Principal Mistreatment of Teachers survey/questionnaire instrument in my research study found on the National Association for Prevention of Teacher Abuse (NAPTA) website. I would like to use, adapt, print, and upload your survey to Qualtrics under the following conditions: ● I will use the surveys only for my research study and will not sell or use it with any compensated or curriculum development activities. ● I will include the copyright statement on all copies of the instrument. ● I will send a copy of my completed research study to your attention upon completion of the study if requested. If these are acceptable terms and conditions, please indicate so by replying to me through e-mail: [email protected]

Sincerely,

Doctoral Candidate Tiffany L. Brown

134

Survey Instrument Principal Mistreatment of Teachers

Part A. Effects of Mistreatment: Professional and personal data. This section asks about the effects of mistreatment. For this very personal information, your anonymity is guaranteed! (RQ 2 & 3)

1. During the past 5 years, have you experienced any negative effects (behaviors, feelings, health), professionally or personally, physically or mentally/emotionally, that you feel are related to mistreatment by your principal?

If yes, check every item that applies. As a result of my principal’s mistreatment: 2. I minimized or withdrew from discretional involvements (e.g., projects, committee work). 3. I maintained silence as much as possible (e.g., in faculty meetings, committee meetings). 4. Other teachers feared association with me. 5. I withdrew from school-related social events (faculty and staff luncheons, get-togethers). 6. I became resistant or defiant toward my principal. 7. I experienced stress. 8. I experienced paranoia. 9. I experienced insecurity. 10. I experienced fear and dread. 11. I experienced self-doubt. 12. I experienced lowered self-motivation with regard to my classroom teaching. 13. My relationship with students suffered. 14. I felt forced to use rigid, authoritarian, dated, or ineffective teaching methods. 15. I was less creative, innovative, and less likely to take risks in teaching. 16. I ignored some professional responsibilities. 17. I had a diminished sense of professionalism. 18. Teaching became a struggle. 19. I resented my principal’s mistreatment. 20. I became chronically fearful. 21. I was afraid my reputation would be damaged or my reputation was damaged. 22. I felt I had to suppress my anger at school. 23. I felt anxious. 24. I felt bitter. 25. I began to use or used more drugs (sleeping pills, headache medication, etc.). 26. I felt angry. 27. I felt a sense of injustice and moral outrage. 28. I felt defeated or broken.

135

29. I felt powerless. 30. I felt helpless. 31. I felt paralyzed. 32. I felt humiliated. 33. I felt trapped. 34. I felt disoriented. 35. I felt isolated. 36. I felt lonely. 37. I felt shocked. 38. I felt outraged. 39. My self-esteem decreased. 40. My self-confidence decreased. 41. I felt unmotivated. 42. I felt ashamed or embarrassed. 43. I felt corrupted. 44. I felt guilty about my diminished performance. 45. I became depressed. 46. I cried at work or at home. 47. My preexisting medical conditions were exacerbated. 48. I wanted to leave teaching altogether. 49. I obsessively thought about my principal’s mistreatment. 50. I became physically sick. 51. I had disrupted sleep. 52. I had nightmares. 53. I was chronically tired. 54. I had new body aches (headaches, backaches, etc.). 55. I had worsened allergies or asthma. 56. I had panic attacks. 57. I was diagnosed with depression. 58. My relationship with my spouse/partner suffered. 59. My relationship with my own children suffered. 60. I was unable to function well. 61. I was unable to concentrate. 62. I had a significant weight change (up or down). 63. I had chest pains. 64. I was absent from work more than usual. 65. I felt cynical or distrustful. 66. I was diagnosed with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). 67. Other (hair loss, hypertension, heart problems, etc...Please specify.)

136

1b. Did you seek medical or psychological treatment for any of the above? (RQ4)

2. For each of these items, please rate your level of harm resulting from your principal’s mistreatment by checking the appropriate box. (RQ1)

3. Approximately what percentage of your total life harm or injury (psychological, emotional, physical, work, personal life) do you feel has resulted from your principal’s mistreatment? (RQ2)

4. Do you feel that you experience more harm than most other teachers in your school as a result of your principal’s mistreatment? (RQ1)

6. Would you leave your job for another because of the harm caused by your principal’s mistreatment? (RQ4)

7. How many teachers were typically mistreated by your principal? (RQ1)

8. Please check any of the following behaviors you have used in attempts to cope with or handle your principal’s mistreatment. (RQ4)

1. Look for good in the principal 2. Rationalize the principal’s behavior 3. Think positively or accept as part of my job 4. Endure the principal’s mistreatment 5. Appease the principal 137

6. Avoid the principal 7. Ignore the principal 8. Deny that something bad is happening to me 9. Detach 10. Talk with others for support and ideas 11. Have colleagues speak to the principal 12. Report to a union official or association representative 13. Physical activity or sports 14. Meditation, relaxation, religion 15. Hobby 16. Reading, music, TV 17. Time management, reorganizing 18. Switch to something rewarding, positive 19. Do something special for myself 20. Leave area, walk, hide 21. Sex 22. Alcohol 23. Drugs 24. Therapy or counseling 25. Medical treatment 26. Confront the principal 27. Assert myself with the principal 28. Defy the principal’s orders 29. Threaten the principal (e.g., with complaint, exposure) 30. Speak to higher-ups 31. File a complaint with the school district 32. File a complaint with the union 33. Be absent from work 34. Transfer 35. Quit my job 36. Consult an attorney 37. File a legal complaint

Part B. Mistreatment Behaviors: This section determines which forms of mistreatment occur most frequently and which forms of mistreatment are most problematic for you. (RQ1)

Please evaluate the following items: A. How often were/are you subjected to these principal behaviors? never - once - a few times - several times - monthly - weekly - daily

138

B. How harmful was/is each item for you? not at all - mildly - moderately - highly - very highly

1. Ignored or snubbed me. 2. Glared at me. 3. Gave me "the silent treatment". 4. Was insensitive to my personal matters (e.g., no empathy or sympathy for illness). 5. Stonewalled or failed to respond to me. 6. Attempted to isolate me or control my interactions with other teachers and colleagues. 7. Failed to support me (i.e., abandoned me) in difficult interactions with students and/or parents. 8. Unfairly withheld resources I needed (e.g., materials, space, funds.) 9. Denied approval (e.g., projects, planning time, use of telephone, field trips, conferences, workshops.) 10. Undermined or obstructed my efforts to initiate and involve myself in professional development opportunities (e.g., workshops, conferences.) 11. Failed to recognize or praise me for work-related achievements. 12. Took credit for some of my accomplishments. 13. Favored other teachers (e.g., released favorites from meetings, gave them recognition, attacked those who disagreed with or opposed the favorites.) 14. Displayed offensive personal habits and/or unprofessional conduct (e.g., belching, snorting.) 15. Spied on me (e.g., hanging out by me classroom door, listening on intercom, having other teachers or parents inform on me.) 16. Got other colleagues to undermine my efforts at work.) 17. Stole from me (e.g., took designated school funds, personal or instructional items.) 18. Destroyed or removed instructional aids. 19. Made unreasonable demands. 20. Nitpicked about the time or micromanaged me. 21. Overloaded me with work and/or over-loaded me with trivial work. 22. Unjustly criticized me (e.g., for my teaching, dress, behavior, pregnancy.) 23. Used negative terms to label me and my behavior (e.g., accused me of being "negative", or being a "troublemaker".) 24. Tried to intimidate me. 25. Used a "snitch's" (other teacher or students) information to criticize me. 26. Gossiped about me with teachers, parents, or other people. 27. Solicited others to help in disparaging me. 28. Publicly demeaned, criticized, mocked, belittled, insulted, ridiculed, or humiliated me (e.g., in the front office, during faculty meetings, in my classroom, on the intercom, in the lunchroom, in the hallway, etc.)

139

29. Lied to me or about me. 30. Displayed explosive/nasty behavior toward me (e.g., yelling, pounding fist, slamming, pointing.) 31. Threatened me or groups of teachers (e.g., to coerce me to change a grade, for giving negative information to a review committee, for dress, for having to miss a meeting.) 32. Gave me unwarranted reprimands. 33. Gave me unfair evaluations. 34. Mistreated my students. 35. Attempted to force me out of my job (had me reassigned, had me transferred, terminated me.) 36. Prevented me from changing jobs. 37. Sexually harassed me. 38. Displayed racist behavior toward me.

39. Other (specify):

40. Other (specify):

41. Other (specify): 42. From the list of treatments/behaviors from section B (below), please choose the five most harmful aspects of your principal’s treatment and indicate them below. Simply place the number of the item in the blank. If any of your top five items do not appear in the list, please write what it is in the blank. (RQ1)

140

141

42. For how long did the mistreatment continue? (RQ1)

43. Overall, how much did your principal’s mistreatment undermine your effectiveness as a teacher? (RQ1)

44. Which of the following factors do you think may have contributed to your principal’s mistreatment? (RQ 3 & 5)

142

Qualitative Questions

DIRECTIONS: The following four questions, each on a separate page, are open ended. Please write as much or as little as you would like on each of them. Keep in mind that you always have the option of not answering at all. Also keep in mind that you may not wish to give any personal information which will link you to this survey. Please make it clear in your answer if you are discussing your most recent principal or if you are discussing principals in past work experiences.

Question 1: Admittedly, it is difficult to clearly define all behaviors which describe those which may affect your relationship with principals. Please add any further information you feel compelled to discuss. Feel free to write as much as you wish about whatever is on your mind as it relates to this survey. You may also wish to include information about personal mistreatment by past principals and the mistreatment of other teachers that you have witnessed as well as mistreatment by your current principal.

Question 2: Workplace mistreatment can cause harm to your health in the form of stress (which affects cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, immunological and auto-immune systems), emotional or psychological distress, social status concerns such as isolation, and economic harm such as loss of or the choice to leave a job. Has mistreatment at the hands of your most recent principal or past principal(s) caused harm to you in any of these ways?

Question 3: How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your sense of how effective you are as a teacher?

Question 4: How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your job satisfaction?

143

Part C. Demographic Data: Finally, we would like to know a little about you and your school so we can see how different people in different settings relate to being mistreated by a principal. (Please check the appropriate box.)

144

Project Title: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY ON THE POWER DYNAMICS OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL-TEACHER RELATIONSHIP

Consent Form to Teachers Prior to Participation

Please read this informed consent carefully before you decide to participate in the study.

Consent Form Key Information: You are being asked to be in a research study. This study is called “A Quantitative Study on the Power Dynamics of the School Principal-Teacher Relationship.” This study is being done by Tiffany Brown. She is a doctoral candidate at the University of Alabama. Ms. Brown’s scholarly interests include the examination of K-12 public schools as workplaces and how the organizational climate affects teachers.

Purpose of the research study: The purpose of the study is to examine the mistreatment behaviors, perceptions, intensity, and occurrences teachers have experienced from their principals from a randomly selected sample of K-12 public school teachers. The investigator will analyze the perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables.

Research Questions of the study: This survey design research study is quantitative, based on a purposeful sampling approach, which will aim to make statistical assertions about the experiences of K-12 teachers in a public school setting. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

1. How are teachers mistreated by their principals? a. What are the forms of mistreatment teachers experienced from their principals? b. What levels of harm from principal mistreatment do teachers perceive? c. What are the frequencies and intensities of harm of specific principal mistreatment behaviors for the participants? d. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds perceive different levels of frequency and intensity of harm from specific principal mistreatment behaviors? e. What are the most harmful principal mistreatment behaviors for teachers of various demographic variables? 2. What are the perceived effects of principal mistreatment? a. Do teachers of various demographic backgrounds report different effects from principal mistreatment? 3. How do teachers cope with principal mistreatment? 4. What are teachers’ perceptions of factors that contribute to principal mistreatment?

145

What is this study about? What is the investigator trying to learn? Principal mistreatment of teachers is surely a dark topic, one that has undoubtedly been a part of the legacy of public education in the United States for some time; it is also a problem for which there exists no research base (Blasé and Blasé, 2003). The mistreatment of teachers is contingent on a multitude of internal and external, individual, and political factors (e.g., motivations, courage, patience, district, and state regulations, and resources.) Blasé and Blasé (2003) would argue that the call for educational reform and accountability becomes even more deliberate, the job of principal will become more complex, challenging, political, and stressful; this, in turn, may provide an even more fertile ground for the emergence of abusive conduct on the part of the principals. The purpose of this study is to collect information from teachers about their mistreatment by principals in the State of Georgia in the DeKalb County School District by inventorying a sample of public K-12 teachers. This data will be examined by looking at the various perspectives and viewpoints of K-12 teachers in hopes to better understand how teachers have perceived their past or present teacher/principal relationships in public schools. This may be considered an attempt to reinforce the core beliefs of the DeKalb County Schools by supporting and affirming that staff efficacy and excellence in the workplace is for all of their employees.

Why is this study important or useful? This study will shed light on unfortunate and disastrous experiences and situations that occur between the principal and the teacher, the “dark side” of leadership which has not been widely acknowledged in K-12 public schools.

What will this study add to the body of knowledge? This study will assist in uncovering the pervasiveness of the problem from the perspective of teachers, as well as to set the stage for possible future research. The people in the school setting who can tell us the most about the perceived mistreatment of teachers are teachers themselves.

What are the procedures of this study? A list of those defined as public school teachers in relation to this study will be obtained from the DeKalb County School District website (https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/schools-and-centers/), where the public K-12 schools are listed in alphabetical order. It is important to note that each school in the county is divided into seven regions based on the DeKalb County School District Region Map. With there being a total of 137 schools and centers, and 15,500 employees, teachers within the county will be selected randomly using the random number generator function in Excel. Once the random numbers for regions are selected an email will be sent to the principal introducing myself and the purpose of my study, thus requesting permission to access his/her teachers. Once granted permission an email will be sent to teachers from email addresses obtained from the school website introducing myself and the purpose of my email, as well as stating how to access the link to the survey on the University of Alabama Qualtrics website. Three email reminders after the initial survey invitation will be sent to each teacher. This is based on research that would help increase my response rate by 20% --30%. Any email addresses that are returned with a failed delivery method will not be considered as part of the study.

How many people will be in this study? The investigator hopes to obtain survey responses from 8-10 teachers in 80 K-12 public schools. This study will serve as a tentative first step toward the larger goal of discovering the commonalities and effects of mistreatment by principals in K-12 public schools from, the DeKalb County schools in Georgia within the next three months. This will involve surveying about 80-150 teachers from these schools. 146

What will I be asked to do in this study? If you agree to be in this study, it is recommended that you complete this survey on your cell phone or a non-school computer. You will be asked to do the following things: ● You will begin the study by using the link to the survey provided to you by the investigator on the initial email that was sent to you. ● You will be presented with an electronic consent form located on the first page of the survey, where you are to select your response. ● You will then participate in a 5-25 minute 3 part survey that includes the following: the effects of mistreatment, forms of mistreatment behaviors, and demographic data about yourself and your school (45 multiple choice/text entry questions, 4 open-ended questions, and 16 demographic questions). The time may vary depending on whether you choose to answer the four open-ended questions.

No information provided will connect your identity with your responses. It is important to keep in mind that you are free to decline to answer any question that makes you uncomfortable for any reason. It is important that you understand that you may refuse to participate or discontinue the survey at any time without penalty. The data collected will be used as a part of a doctoral dissertation and may be published in an academic journal as well as presented in conferences.

How much time will I spend being in this study? The survey will require about 5-25 minutes of your time. The time may vary depending on whether you choose to answer the four open- ended questions.

What are the risks (dangers or harms to me if I am in this study? Risks are minimal for involvement in this study. This means that potential harm/risk is not greater than that encountered in everyday life or during routine physical or psychological examinations. However, you may feel emotionally uneasy when asked to describe the relationship and experiences you have endured with your principal. Although I do not expect any harm to come upon any participants due to the electronic malfunction of the computer, it is possible though extremely rare and uncommon.

What are the benefits (good things) that may happen if I am in this study? There are no direct benefits to you as the participant for participating in this research study. The only likely benefit may be feelings of altruism.

What are the risks and benefits that may happen if I am in this study? There is minimal risk, no direct benefit to participants. This means that potential harm/risk is not greater than that encountered in everyday life or during routine physical or psychological examinations and the only likely benefit to the participant may be feelings of altruism.

How will my confidentiality be protected? Only the investigator will have access to the raw data. All information about the raw data will be kept in a safe location and will not be released to others. All personal information provided in the survey will be securely stored through the UA box which will also serve as a place to store documents as is recommended by the UA Office

147

of Information Technology. The box is a leader in content-management security. It is robust and sophisticated security suite includes: • 99.9% uptime guarantee • Data encryption using 256-bit SSL • SSAE 16 Type II • Safe Harbor Certification • Role-based access controls • All data centers include biometric entry authentication and 24/7 armed guards. • Box Sync’s encrypted authorization token technology keeps user data secure and works seamlessly with existing desktop encryption systems

Despite these safeguards, there is always the remote possibility of hacking or other security breaches that could compromise confidentiality. The information that you provide in the study will be handled confidentially. You will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your code-number will be kept in a locked file. As well as on UA Box. When the study is complete, and the data has been analyzed, this list will be destroyed within one year of study completion. Because of the nature of the data, it may be possible to deduce your identity; however, there will be no attempt to do so and your data will be reported in a way that will not identify you. I will write research articles on this study but, participants will be identified only as “teachers from Region (insert #) from the DeKalb County School District in the state of Georgia.”

Data linked with identifying information: The information that you provide in the study will be handled confidentially. You will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your code- number will be kept in a locked file. As well as on UA Box. When the study is complete, and the data has been analyzed, this list will be destroyed within one year of study completion. Because of the nature of the data, it may be possible to deduce your identity; however, there will be no attempt to do so and your data will be reported in a way that will not identify you. I will write research articles on this study but, participants will be identified only as “teachers from Region (insert #) from the DeKalb County School District in the state of Georgia.” Despite these safeguards, there is always the remote possibility of hacking or other security breaches that could compromise confidentiality.

What are the alternatives to being in this study? Do I have other choices? The only alternative is not to participate. What are my rights as a participant in this study? Your participation in the study is completely voluntary.

Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

How to withdraw from the study: If you want to withdraw from the study, please close your Internet browser. There is no penalty for withdrawing. If you would like to withdraw after your responses have been submitted, please contact Tiffany Brown at 770-490-6464, or by email at [email protected].

148

Compensation/Reimbursement: You will receive no payment for participating in the study.

Using data beyond this study: The investigator would like to make the information collected in this study available to other investigators after the study is completed. Your information will be stored, used, and shared for future research studies, including but not limited to the focus on the relationships among abusive principals’ personalities, preparation, and school contexts. Studies of school district office personnel and boards of educations’ perspectives of the mistreatment problem could also be a valuable focus for future research studies. Investigators of future studies will not ask your permission for each new study. However, the information you provided will be combined with the information provided by others to create a large data set. Your name and other information that could potentially identify you will not be connected to the information shared with other investigators nor will they attempt to identify you.

If you have questions about the study or need to report a study-related issue please contact:

Name of Principal Investigator: Tiffany Brown Title: A Quantitative Study on the Power Dynamics of the School Principal-Teacher Relationship Department Name: ELPTS Telephone: 770-490-6464 Email address: [email protected]

Faculty Advisor’s Name: Dr. Jingping Sun Department Name: ELPTS Telephone: 205-826-6830 Email address: [email protected]

If you have questions about your rights as a participant in a research study, would like to make suggestions or file complaints and concerns about the research study, please contact: Ms. Tanta Myles, the University of Alabama Research Compliance Officer at (205)-348-8461 or toll-free at 1-877-820-3066. You may also ask questions, make suggestions, or file complaints and concerns through the IRB Outreach Website at http://ovpred.ua.edu/research- compliance/prco/. You may email the Office for Research Compliance at [email protected].

Agreement: I agree to participate in the study of teacher/principal relationships. I understand my participation is voluntary and that my name will not be associated with my responses. By agreeing to participate I acknowledge that I am 18 years or older.

• I agree to participate in the research study described above.

€ I do not agree to participate in the research study described above.

149

Signature of Research Participant Date

______Print Name of Research Participant

Signature of Investigator or other Person Obtaining Consent Date

______Print Name of Investigator or other Person Obtaining Consent

References: Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2003a). Breaking the silence: Overcoming the problem of principal mistreatment of teachers (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

150

January 18, 2020

Dear Sir/Madam:

My name is Tiffany Brown, and I am a doctoral student at The University of Alabama. I am conducting a Quantitative Study on the Power Dynamics of the School Principal-Teacher Relationship under the supervision of my dissertation committee chair Dr. Jingping Sun who can be reached at [email protected]. The University of Alabama has given me the approval to approach schools for my research. A copy of their approval is contained with this letter. I invite you to consider taking part in this research.

Introduction

The goal of this study is to collect information about the relationships between principals and K- 12 public school teachers. The Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) is adapted from The Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI) developed by Joseph Blasé and Jo Blasé from the University of Georgia and Fengning Du from the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California. I wish to learn more about the mistreatment of teachers by principals in the State of Georgia in DeKalb County by inventorying a sample of public K-12 teachers. This data may then be statistically generalized to the population of teachers in DeKalb County so that the overall teacher/principal relationships in the state may be considered in an attempt to make DeKalb County Schools a more positive, supportive, and affirming workplace for all.

Purpose/Aims of the Research

The purpose of the study is to examine the mistreatment behaviors, perceptions, intensity, and occurrences teachers have experienced from their principals in a randomly selected sample. The primary focus of this study is to examine school teachers’ perceptions of the major sources and intensity of the experience of mistreatment by a principal, how often mistreatment occurs, the effects of mistreatment, the identification of teachers’ coping skills of such mistreatment, and the determination if perceptions of mistreatment vary by demographic variables.

Significance of the Research

This study will shed light on unfortunate and disastrous experiences and situations that occur between the principal and the teacher, the “dark side” of leadership which has not been widely acknowledged in K-12 public schools. This study will also assist in uncovering the pervasiveness of the problem from the perspective of teachers, as well as to set the stage for possible future research. The people in the school setting who can tell us the most about the perceived mistreatment of teachers are teachers themselves.

151

Benefits of the Research

There is minimal risk, no direct benefit to participants. This means that potential harm/risk is not greater than that encountered in everyday life or during routine physical or psychological examinations and the only likely benefit to the participant may be feelings of altruism.

Research Plan and Method

A list of those defined as public school teachers in relation to this study will be obtained from the DeKalb County School District website (https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/schools-and-centers/), where the public K-12 schools are listed in alphabetical order. It is important to note that each school in the county is divided into seven regions based on the DeKalb County School District Region Map. With there being a total of 137 schools and centers, and 15,500 employees, teachers within the county will be selected randomly using the random number generator function in Excel. Once the random numbers for regions are selected an email will be sent to the principal introducing myself and the purpose of my study, thus requesting permission to access his/her teachers. Once granted permission an email will be then sent to teachers from email addresses obtained from the school website introducing myself and the purpose of my email, as well as stating how to access the link to the survey on the University of Alabama Qualtrics website. Three email reminders after the initial survey invitation will be sent to each teacher. This is based on research that would help increase my response rate by 20% -30%. Any email addresses that are returned with a failed delivery method will not be considered as part of the study.

School Involvement

Once I have received your consent to approach learners to participate in the study, I will •Arrange for informed consent to be obtained from the participants via email.

If the participant agrees to be in this study they will be asked to do the following things: • Participate in a 5-25 minute survey •Take a 3 part survey including the following: the effects of mistreatment, forms of mistreatment behaviors, and demographic data about the participant and the school of the participant. • No information collected that will connect identity with responses

It is important to keep in mind that the participant is free to decline to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable for any reason. It is important that they understand that they may refuse to participate or discontinue the survey at any time without penalty. The data will be used as a part of a doctoral dissertation and may be published in an academic journal as well as presented in conferences.

152

All data obtained from participants will be kept confidential and will only be reported in an aggregated format (by reporting only combined results and never reporting individual information). All questionnaire results will be concealed, and no one other than the researchers listed below will have access to them.

If you have questions about the study or need to report a study-related issue please contact:

Faculty Advisor’s Name: Dr. Jingping Sun Department Name: ELPTS Telephone: 205-826-6830 Email address: [email protected]

Invitation to Participate If you would like your school to participate in this research after reading this information, please indicate your preference via email.

If these are acceptable terms and conditions, please indicate so by replying to me through e-mail: [email protected]

______I give permission to you to conduct the action research project described above.

______I do not give permission to you to conduct the action research project described above.

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,

Doctoral Candidate Tiffany L. Brown

153

Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) (Note: The following email was sent to participants as a follow-up #1.)

Dear Public K-12 Teacher,

Within the last few days, you should have received an email like the one below in which you were asked to take part in a research study to improve the working conditions of teachers. As a reminder, the DeKalb County School District (DCSD) Research Review Board, as well as the superintendent and principal of your school has granted approval to conduct this research in your school. If you have opted out or have already taken the survey, I apologize for sending another email, however, due to security reasons, there is no way for me to tell who has or has not replied.

As of today, the link to access the survey has been delivered to randomly chosen participants. In order to have statistically significant findings, I am hoping to receive a 20%-30% response rate with the ultimate goal of shedding light on the unfortunate and unfortunate experiences and situations that occur between the principal and the teacher, the “dark side” of leadership which has not been widely acknowledged in K-12 public schools. As teacher evaluations and teacher retention become more commonly under the purview of legislators and the country, this study and studies like it become imperative to bring difficult work conditions experienced by teachers to the attention of the public.

IF you did take the survey, thank you so much for your participation.

IF you did not take the survey, please reconsider. It would take a small amount of your time, and doing so could make a difference.

Please feel free to email me directly if you have questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Tiffany Brown Doctoral Candidate, University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Alabama

Password: teacher Follow this link to the Survey: Click here to take the survey. Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://universityofalabama.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8e76i4VqbdunalL

154

Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) (Note: The following email was sent to participants as a follow-up #2.)

Dear Public K-12 Teacher,

Within the last few weeks, you should have received an email like the one below in which you were asked to take part in a research study to improve the working conditions of teachers. As a reminder, the DeKalb County School District (DCSD) Research Review Board, as well as the superintendent and principal of your school has granted approval for me to conduct this research in your school. If you have opted out or have already taken the survey, I apologize for sending another email, however, due to security reasons, there is no way for me to tell who has or has not replied.

As of today, the link to access the survey has been delivered to randomly chosen participants. In order to have statistically significant findings, I am hoping to receive 20%-30% response rate with the ultimate goal of shedding light on the unfortunate and unfortunate experiences and situations that occur between the principal and the teacher, the “dark side” of leadership which has not been widely acknowledged in K-12 public schools. As teacher evaluations and teacher retention become more commonly under the purview of legislators and the country, this study and studies like it become imperative to bring difficult work conditions experienced by teachers to the attention of the public.

IF you did take the survey, thank you so much for your participation.

IF you did not take the survey, please reconsider. It would take a small amount of your time, and doing so could make a difference.

Please feel free to email me directly if you have questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Tiffany Brown Doctoral Candidate, University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Alabama

155

Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) (Note: The following email was sent to participants as a follow-up #3.)

Dear Public K-12 Teacher,

Within the last month, you should have received an email like the one below in which you were asked to take part in a research study with the goal of improving working conditions of teachers. As a reminder, the DeKalb County School District (DCSD) Research Review Board, as well as the superintendent and principal of your school have me granted approval to conduct this research in your school. If you have opted out or have already taken the survey, I apologize for sending another email, however due to security reasons there is no way for me to tell who has or has not replied.

IF you did take the survey, thank you so much for your participation.

IF you did not take the survey, please reconsider. It would take a small amount of your time, and doing so could make a difference.

Please feel free to email me directly if you have questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Tiffany Brown Doctoral Candidate, University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Alabama

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163