School Culture: Exploring Its Relationship with Mental Models and Leadership Behaviors in Schools Doreen Agatha Duncan

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 School Culture: Exploring Its Relationship with Mental Models and Leadership Behaviors in Schools Doreen Agatha Duncan

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

SCHOOL CULTURE: EXPLORING ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH MENTAL MODELS

AND LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS IN SCHOOLS

DOREEN AGATHA DUNCAN

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2004

______Dale W. Lick Professor Directing Dissertation

______Richard Tate Outside Committee Member

______Fanchon Funk Committee Member

______Peter Easton Committee Member

______Laura Hassler Committee Member

Approved:

______Carolyn D. Herrington, Chairperson, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. This dissertation is dedicated to

My teacher, Katherine Alice Taylor

To the memory of

My grandmother, Rachael Duncan

My mother, Leonora Casey

and Eileen Thompson for giving me the opportunity to pursue my educational goals.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My profound gratitude is due first and foremost to God, my Father, Jesus, my

Savior, and the Holy Spirit for giving me unconditional love, guidance, protection, patience and wisdom to complete this tremendous task. Words cannot express my heartfelt appreciation to all those who have contributed in assisting me in this journey.

I would like to thank my major professor Dr. Dale W. Lick for his unswerving

efforts in encouraging me to pursue excellence, and for his support and guidance

throughout this process. Special thanks to Dr. Tate for his assistance and advice on

statistical methods. Sincere gratitude to my other committee members: Dr. Fanchon

“Fancy” Funk, Dr. Peter Easton, and Dr. Laura Hassler for all their assistance and

contributions in preparing me through the rigors of coursework.

My eternal gratitude is due to Katherine Taylor for her spiritual, moral, and

financial support in providing me true friendship and encouragement to overcome the

obstacles during tough times. Your prayers proved to make the difference.

Many thanks are extended to Dr. Judith Irvin for her considerable input during the initial

stages of my program of study. I would like to send a warm thank you to Brenda Kearse

for her assistance during the data collection process. I wish to express my deep gratitude

to all the principals and assistant principals who participated in this study.

iv Finally, to my family and friends, especially, my little sister, Millicent Boone and her husband Michael, Mr. Jimmie Robinson and his wife, the late Mary Robinson, for their love and support. I appreciate all those who have in many ways made this journey an unforgettable life learning experience in helping to propel me towards my destiny.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... x List of Figures ...... xii Abstract …………………………………………………… xiii

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Statement of the Problem...... 9 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions...... 10 Research Questions...... 11 Significance of the Study...... 12 Limitations of the Study...... 12 Definitions of Terms...... 13 Summary...... 14

2. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 15

Effective Schools...... 16 School Culture...... 18 Connections to School Culture...... 24 Culture and Mental Models...... 24 Culture and Leadership Behaviors...... 24 Shaping School Culture...... 26 Culture and Change...... 27 Mental Model Theory...... 29 Action Science...... 31 Strategies for Working with Mental Models...... 32 Balancing Inquiry and Advocacy...... 32 The Ladder of Inference...... 32

vi The Five Thinking Styles...... 33 Organizational Theory...... 37 The Learning Organization...... 38 Building a Learning Organization...... 39 Learning...... 40 The Five Disciplines...... 42 Personal Mastery...... 42 Mental Models...... 43 Shared Vision...... 45 Team Learning...... 46 Systems Thinking...... 47 Leadership Theory...... 48 Senge’s Model...... 48 Leader as Designer...... 48 Leader as Steward...... 49 Leader as Teacher...... 49 Bolman and Deal Model...... 49 Effectiveness as Managers and Leaders... 52 Leadership Behaviors...... 54 Gender...... 55 Assistant Principals...... 56 Related Empirical Research...... 59 Research Related to School Culture...... 59 Research Related to Mental Models...... 61 Research Related to Leadership Behaviors... 65

3. METHODOLOGY...... 70

Data Source...... 71 Procedures to Gather Data...... 71 Steps in Gathering Information from Data...... 72 Variables……………………………….. 73 Instrumentation...... 75 Validity and Reliability of Whole School Effectiveness Survey ...... 77 Characteristics of Thinking Styles...... 79

vii Validity and Reliability of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire...... 79 Dimensions of Leadership Behaviors………………… 80 Validity and Reliability of Leadership Orientations Survey...... 80

Data Analysis...... 82 Research Questions 1 and 2...... 83 Research Questions 3 and 4...... 83 Research Question 5...... 84 Research Question 6...... 84

Conclusion...... 84

4. RESULTS OF THE DATA…………………………………….. 86

Demographic Data Analysis…………………………… 87

Findings for Research Questions……………………….. 90 Research Question 1……………………………. 90 Research Question 2…………………………….. 92 Research Question 3……………………………. 93 Research Question 4……………………………. 96 Research Question 5……………………………. 101 Research Question 6……………………………. 101

Summary of Findings……………………………………... 108 Other Findings…………………………………………….. 111 Major Findings……………………………………………. 113

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS… 117

Discussion of the Conclusions…………………………… 117 Conclusions for Education………………………………. 123 Limitations of Study……………………………………… 126 Conclusions for Education………………………………. 126 Implications for Schools…………………………………. 126 Recommendations for Future Research………………… 129

APPENDIX A: Permission from School District...... 131 APPENDIX B: Cover Letter...... …………………. 133 APPENDIX C: Demographic Data Sheet ...... ……………. 135 APPENDIX D: Inquiry Mode Questionnaire ...... ….. 137 APPENDIX E: Leadership Orientations Survey…………………… 142 viii APPENDIX F: Whole School Effectiveness Survey…………… 147 APPENDIX G: Letter to InQ Publisher……………………….. 150 APPENDIX H: Permission to use Leadership Orientations Self-Survey………………………………………………………. 152 APPENDIX I: Human Subjects Review Committee…………. 154 APPENDIX I: Summary of In Q Responses…………………. 156

REFERENCES……………………………………………………. 158

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ………………………………… 168

xi LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Summary of Definitions on Culture...... 23

2.2 Metaphors for Mental Models...... 35

2.3 Bolman and Deal Four-Frame Model...... 51

2.4 Researchers’ Leadership Theories and Metaphors...... 54

2.5 Summary of Selected Research on Organizational (School) Culture...... 67

2.6 Summary of Selected Research on Mental Models...... 68

2.7 Summary of Selected Research on Leadership Behaviors...... 69

4.1 Comparison of Schools Responding and Targeted Sample………. 88

4.2 Comparison of Responses and targeted Sample……………….. 88

4.3 Descriptive Statistics for Mental Models…………………….. 90

4.4 Bivariate Correlation Matrix for Mental Models and Current School Culture………………………………………… 92

4.5 Bivariate Correlations of Four-Frames of Leadership Behaviors Current School Culture…………………………………………. 93

4.6 Characteristics of School Culture and Demographic Variables…. 95

4.7 Results for the Charateristics of Current School Culture and School Levels………………………………………………… 95

4.8 Results Summary of the Unique Effects Variables on Current School Culture…………………………………………. 96

4.9 Correlation Matrix of the Four-Frames of Leadership Behavior… 98

x 4.10 Significant Correlations of the Dimensions of Leadership Behaviors………………………………………………………… 99

4.11 Results Summary for Four-Frames of Leadership Behavior and Demographic Variables……………………………………………. 99

4.12 Results Summary of the Unique Effect of Each Independent Variable on Human Resource Leadership Behavior…………… 100

4.13 Two - Way ANOVA for Synthesist Mental Model………….. 102

4.14 Two-Way ANOVA for Idealist Mental Model……………….. 102

4.15 Table of means for Idealist Mental Model……………………. 103

4.16 Two-Way ANOVA for Pragmatist Mental Model……………… 104

4.17 Two – Way ANOVA for Analyst Mental Model………………... 104

4.18 Two – Way ANOVA for Realist mental Model………………… 105

4.19 Table of Means for Realist Mental Model ………….………….. 105

4.20 Descriptive Statistics of School Level, Position and Gender………..107

4.21 Correlations for Effectiveness of Manager and Leader……….. 108

5.1 Summary of Conclusions for School Administrators…………. 124

5.2 Summary of Conclusions for Research Study…………………. 125

xi LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Schein’s Three Levels of Culture...... 21

2.2 Model of Organizational Focus...... 38

2.3 School Culture, Mental Models, and Leadership Behaviors And Their Characteristics...... 55

xii ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among variables reflecting the cultures, mental models or thinking styles, and leadership behaviors for elementary, middle, and senior high schools. This study explored the characteristics of thinking styles and leadership behaviors as they related to school culture. It was important to find out how these constructs, differ depending on school level, gender, position and years of experience. The three constructs were school culture, mental models or thinking styles and leadership behaviors of school administrators. School administrators studied consisted of both female and male principals and assistant principals from K-12 schools in Riverhills County (a pseudonym). This research design was a quantitative correlational study. The Pearson Product – Moment, multiple regression analyses, and a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), were used to examine the research questions to determine the relationships between the dependent and independent variables. Instead of the usual alpha level of a = .05 that is recommended for educational research, the decision was made to control for the family- wise error rate and to set a more rigorous level of significance for alpha (a = .01). The survey instruments utilized to measure the constructs of mental models, leadership behaviors and current school culture were: the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire (Bramson-Harrison, 1982), the Leadership Orientations Self-Survey (Bolman & Deal, 1991), and results of the Whole School Effectiveness Survey (Riverhills County School). For the two primary questions: relationships were found between school culture and mental models, but they were not of statistical significance; relationships between school culture and the four frames of leadership behaviors were not of significance. There were four secondary questions to further explain the relationships of the three constructs. Bivariate correlations and multiple regression analyses showed statistically significant relationships between the four frame and dimensions of leadership behaviors and demographic variables. Characteristics of current school culture had statistically significant inverse relationships with gender of school administrators. School level one (elementary schools) had statistically significant relationships with all the characteristics xiii of current school culture (assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms and values). A two-way ANOVA was used to show differences between gender and position as indicated by the thinking styles of school administrators. Statistically significant differences were found between the ‘idealist’ and ‘realist’ mental models for female and male school administrators. Finally, effectiveness as manager and leader were found to be statistically significant with the four frames of leadership behaviors (i.e., structural, human resource, political and symbolic).

xiv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The constructs of school culture, mental models (thinking styles), and leader behaviors from a theoretical framework, will be discussed in this chapter. The primary focus of this study was applying the filter of mental models to explore school (organizational) culture’s influence on leadership behavior. “A mental model is an internally held construct which helps people to understand the world in which we live” (Szabo & Fuchs, 1998). Because mental models shape how an individual acts, an exploration was made to determine how leadership behaviors are the reflection of mental models and how such behaviors are the manifestation of an organization’s culture (Huggett, 1999; Senge, 1994). This chapter explains what the study attempted to achieve, why the study was necessary and the significance of the research. Widespread efforts have been undertaken to improve schooling after the publication of A Nation at Risk, 1983 (Hallinger, Murphy & Hausman, 1992). The report stated that the United States did not provide its population with a good enough education to be competitive in a global marketplace. Since this report, educational reform has been the driving force for school improvement efforts or change. These change efforts have taken the appearance of “school reform,” “restructuring,” “effective schools,” or “learning schools.” Any type of school reform requires school administrators to change their mental models and re-think. It was critical to examine the current thinking styles of school administrators to determine why school leaders may have to change their paradigms and have open minds to bring about effective school reform. Related to this idea, Covey (1989, p. 31) stated that “if you want incremental improvements, work on people’s behaviors and attitudes. But if you want significant improvements, work on people’s paradigms (mental models).” The most important factor to any type of reform or improvement, then, will be for school administrators to modify their thinking styles. Developing a new style of thinking will help leaders to reshape the culture and influence leadership behaviors. As

1 educators, school administrators may “spend their careers developing, testing, scrutinizing, and refining their mental models of how their particular area of education works” (Szabo & Fuchs, 1998). Therefore, school culture, mental models (thinking styles), and leadership behaviors are all important factors when considering school reform efforts. Mental models drive behaviors and because they are often left unarticulated, it may be difficult in explaining behaviors (Szabo & Fuchs, 1998). Limitations of the study are mentioned in this section, along with the vocabulary to explain the terminology utilized. Finally, a brief summary culminates this chapter. Organizational Culture What is the importance of organizational culture for people working in school organizations? Organizational culture provides the basis for school administrators’ decisions on what is the right and wrong way of doing things. The word “organization” is used to refer to a school individually or as a system. Researchers (Subramaniam & Ashkanasy, 2001) in their study dealing with the impact of managers’ perceptions of their organizational culture, stated that writers such as Connor and Becker (1994) and Dose (1997), found perceptions of organizational culture existing in the workplace to be key determinants of managers’ work attitudes, and thus provide an important framework for understanding managers’ decisions and behaviors at work. Although culture has long been assumed to have an important influence on an individual’s affective reactions to organizational life (Harris & Mossholder, 1996), few researchers have made systematic attempts at exploring the influences of organizational culture on people in the organization (Goodman, Zammuto, & Gifford, 2001). Despite the popularity of the concept of organizational culture, Schein (1996) recently noted the relative scarcity of research that explores this key concept. In particular, the relationships among the areas of organizational culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors have been overlooked. Culture was used, predominantly, to understand the underlying values, beliefs, assumptions, and behaviors of the organization. Schein (1992) stipulated that one might argue that organizations have cultures or that organizations are cultures. Contradictory to this argument, Meek (1988) proposed, “treating culture as something that the organization is rather than treating it as a variable that can be manipulated by

2 management (that is, something the organization has) will create obvious research and political implications.” Others who treat culture as something that an organization has, as cited in Meek (1988), included Cummings & Schmidt, 1972; Schwartz & Davis, 1981; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; and Peters & Waterman, 1982. The premise of this study was based on the concept that organizations have cultures. In spite of Meek’s disagreement with the theoretical construct of culture, based on social interactions of individuals, this study will not attempt to manipulate culture but to observe the existing behaviors that form the basis for the way in which things are done at different school levels. In defining “culture,” it is viewed from an organizational perspective according to Schein (1992), “as the enduring assumptions, values and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization that operate unconsciously and define an organization’s view of itself and its environment.” Prominent change expert Daryl Conner (1992, p. 164) describes culture as “reflecting the interrelationship of shared beliefs, behaviors, and assumptions that are acquired over time by members of an organization.” It is commonly related to the shared value system of an organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Culture does not remain static but can change within organizations or schools. The type of culture that the school has will depend primarily on the leadership of school administrators. Principals can shape the culture by being willing to make the necessary changes before asking teachers or staff to undertake any change efforts (Picucci, Brownson, & Kahlert, 2002). The espoused values of the culture include the strategies, goals and philosophies of the school. The activities and everyday routines practiced by school administrators and teachers are consistent with the theory-in-use or how things are done. Aligning espoused value (i.e., what is thought and said to be true) with theory-in- use (i.e., how things are actually done) should be the objective of every school. It will be important to find out if students and teachers are thriving in the current school culture, since the quality of learning and instruction defines the theory-in-use. Is the school culture healthy or unhealthy? A healthy school, or organizational culture, as Hitt (1996) proposed, has congruency between the espoused values and the daily behaviors of the members. The alignment of goals and practices of a school reveal the relationship that

3 exists between the desired representation of the goals and the current reality. This alignment reflects the effectiveness of the school or doing the right things (Hitt, 1996). According to McCay (2001), principals must be willing to change their own thinking and practices before they can lead others in implementing the dynamic challenges of school reform. School administrators have a challenging task of creating the type of atmosphere that is conducive to student achievement. According to Green (2000) the school cannot rise above the level of how school leaders think. “Leaders who can learn how to rethink and challenge their reality will own their performance. Student learning cannot move forward unless school leaders rethink the thinking behind their efforts” (p.35). Having a school culture that promotes student achievement and learning is critical at every school level. Hallinger and Leithwood (1996) stated that the closest that researchers in educational administration have come to employing a cultural construct for analytical purposes is the exploration of organizational cultures as contexts for leadership. Principals and assistant principals have a critical role in creating or shaping school culture by reinforcing the underlying values of a school (Kuck, 2000). They can become aware of the culture (Barth, 2002), and reinvigorate the culture of their schools (Deal & Kennedy 1999, as cited in Kuck, 2000). Educational reform initiatives are becoming more comprehensive broad- based efforts to include all stakeholders. The new reforms include “effective schools,” and “learning schools.” The Effective School Movement was based on the research of Edmonds, Bookover, and Lezotte that supported the idea that schools have the resources that are necessary to ensure learning for all students (Lezotte, 2003; Rossow & Warner, 2000). Research conducted on existing effective schools in poverty stricken neighborhoods was done to observe the common characteristics that resulted in their success. In 1982, Ronald Edmonds, formally identified seven “correlates” of effective schools. Correlates are the characteristics that are present in all schools where students learn, and because these characteristics correlate with student success, hence the term “correlates.” Correlates are critical because they are the leading indicators in a school that represent achieving high and equitable levels of student learning. The School District of

4 Riverhills County (a pseudonym) added two correlates, professional development and school culture, to Edmond’s seven for a total of nine. The rationale for including professional development was the need to provide instruction for teachers and principals that were not punitive but relevant to increase motivation for attending staff development training. The correlate of school culture was added to create a more student and family friendly environment in the public schools. The nine correlates are: 1. Instructional leadership 2. Clear and focused mission 3. Climate of high expectations 4. Frequent monitoring of student progress 5. Opportunity to learn and student time on task 6. Safe and orderly environment 7. Positive home-school relations 8. Professional development 9. School culture The nine correlates for effective schools can be utilized for school improvement planning as they provide a comprehensive framework to distinguish, classify, and resolve the problems that schools and school districts frequently face. In this study, culture will be measured using the results of the 2002-2003 school year Whole School Effectiveness Survey (WSES) for “Instructional and Professional Staff” for Riverhills County, which includes eight of the above nine correlates, excluding professional development. School culture refers to all the correlates that are responsive and supportive of the needs of the students, parents, and community. In particular, eight correlates will be utilized to incorporate all the aspects of school culture. Since there are no items on the survey that measure professional development, it seems prudent to omit that correlate from the study. Educational theorists are beginning to recognize the similarities between schools and businesses. Empirical research related to corporate America indicates that there is a growing trend to study organizational culture. Organizational culture can be a powerful conceptual tool, but it can also be misused to remedy the social reality of organizational life (Meek, 1988). “Learning schools,” reflect the new reform initiatives, which are based

5 on Senge’s learning organization that was originally created for business enterprises to develop an environment for learning through change efforts. “It is becoming clear that schools can be re-created, made vital, and sustainably renewed not by fiat or command, and not by regulations, but by taking a learning orientation” (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000, p. 5). Mental Models The 1983 Carnegie Commission issued A Nation At Risk report on the dire condition of public education describe it as being mediocre at best. This has inspired the movements on school reform, restructuring, and school improvement. Most schools are primarily concerned with school improvement, and principals having this as a goal will do whatever it take to make their schools more successful. It will be important for principals to understand their mental models (thinking styles) and how their particular style will impact their behaviors and affect in shaping the school culture. “Culture reflects the aggregation of individual mental models and in turn influences the types of mental models that individuals have” (Lindsay, 2000). Lindsay also states that culture and mental models are connected together in a system that is continually emerging. According to Snyder, Acker-Hocevar, and Snyder (2000, p. 179), “culture is the internal reflector of disparate or unified mental models and mirrors the overall health and productivity of the organizations.” The theoretical framework of mental models, organizational culture, and leadership behaviors will be discussed at length in the literature review section. Schools are often characterized by isolation with little teacher collaboration, and by fragmentation as depicted by lack of curricular integration. In fact, if school administrators believe that team learning or collaboration is not important, this type of thinking will exemplify the type of mental models that exists within the school culture. Teachers, for example, will become more concerned about what is being taught in their individual classroom instead of working with other teachers in accomplishing the overall goal or mission of the school. School administrators have developed over the years a mindset of how they might perceive the world and others around them. This mindset is the result of thinking processes or mental models which influence their actions and behaviors. Individuals tend

6 to behave in accordance with their perceptions whether these perceptions are right or wrong. Because of this, it will be advantageous for principals and assistant principals to examine their current thinking styles and evaluate if these have inhibited the school from moving to the next level in performance and student achievement. The manner in which school administrators act or behave is their theory-in-use, reflecting their deeper mental models, whereas what they say is their espoused theory (Senge, 1990a). Peter Senge (1994) defined mental models as “the images, assumptions, and stories that we carry in our minds, that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (p. 235). Mental models are the underlying beliefs that influence the way people behave, while culture is perceived in a broader context, as the aggregation of mental models within an organization. Mental models will be used to apply to individuals and groups of individuals. In this study, the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire will be used to measure the thinking styles; these styles will be described as synthesists, idealists, pragmatists, analysts, and realists. Leadership Behaviors The theoretical framework for the constructs of culture and mental models has established a connection between culture and mental models relating to individual members as well as the group. Similarly, there appears to be a connection between culture, mental models and leadership behaviors. How students and teachers behave within the school will signify the type of culture that exists. When leaders try to change the culture, they will find that they cannot initiate change on their own but must have broad- based support of stakeholders. “Effective leaders spur change by taking risks themselves and by encouraging people to challenge their mental models about how things work and what is feasible” (Policy Brief, 1999). If the culture is nurturing and supporting, it is a consequence of leadership behavior. It was Huggett (1999) who expressed that behavior is a manifestation of an organization’s culture. Originating from the new reform movement that underscored the importance of being effective, the visionary leader is one who “embraces a learning culture, recognizes and reflects on the challenges of change in the organization” (Rossow & Warner, 2000, p.11). Visionary leadership is one theory that supports instructional leadership. For example, in a school, the instructional leader is a principal who can: shape the mission of

7 the school, establish a climate that communicates a significance of purpose and respect for the members of the school community, lead by example, and communicate the mission to stakeholders (Cuban, 1988). The study of leadership has spawned theories over the years that have built upon successive eras, to expand and delineate the work of the previous era in support of the principal as an instructional leader (Rossow & Warner, 2000). Leadership behaviors can have many dimensions but research is replete with the concepts of the role of the leader; examples include the leader as a designer, as a steward, and as a teacher (Senge, 1990b). The style of leadership behavior of school administrators was examined in this study through Bolman and Deal’s (1997) Four-Frame Model involving structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames. The eight dimensions of these four frames are: analytical, organized; supportive, participative; powerful, adroit; and inspirational, charismatic. According to Bolman and Deal (1992), the structural frame emphasizes rationality and policies, whereas the human resource frame accentuates the interactions between individual and organization needs. The political frame stresses conflict among different groups, while the symbolic frame views the world as chaotic in which facts are understood through social contexts rather than through objectivity. Dever (1977) combined the two theoretical frames of Senge with Bolman and Deal; the following comparisons were observed. The leader as designer corresponds to the structural leader; whereas the leader as a steward is closely allied to the symbolic frame of leadership; and the leader as teacher is identical to the human resource leadership model. The political frame does not have a corresponding match, and this study will add one other metaphor to Senge’s three, and call it the leader as a collaborator. Collaborative leadership is rooted in the concept of collective or generative learning and communicating across different communities (schools or within a school organization) to develop partnerships; vis-à-vis, a principal can work with parents and the community to develop support for student transitions from one level to the next (Senge, et al., 2000). According to Rubin (2002), “effective collaborative leaders are clear on the goal they aim to achieve and succeed by learning to see that goal through the eyes of those they lead” (p. xi).

8 Study Overview To reiterate, there has been a paucity of research on school culture (Harris & Mossholder, 1996; Schein, 1996), mental models, and leadership behaviors as a method of investigation in empirical studies. Only one or two of the constructs have been researched, either alone or in combination with other variables. By focusing on the three different school levels of elementary, middle, and high schools, this study will add to the empirical and theoretical literature, and attempt to help in closing the existing gap. The theoretical framework of mental models, school culture, and leadership behaviors will be discussed at length in the literature review. The study examined the school culture and compared and contrasted the existing cultures in (a) elementary, (b) middle, and (c) senior high schools. It attempted to examine the current realities that exist in the mental models or the different styles of thinking of school administrators in elementary, middle, and high schools. Current school culture and leadership behaviors also were explored according to position, gender, and years of experience of school administrators. Statement of the Problem What mental models and leadership behaviors that principals and assistant principals employ depend largely on the existing school culture. The problem addressed in this study was to determine significant relationships between current school culture and school administrators’ mental models and leadership behaviors. The primary overarching problem was to determine what connections school culture has with mental models, which in turn have an impact on leadership behaviors. Secondary problems were to: (a) determine the relationships among the three constructs and how they may vary depending on the leadership orientations of school administrators by gender, position, and years of experience, and (b) gain insight into how school culture may impact gender, position and schools at the elementary, middle and senior high levels. According to Lindsay (2000) school culture is an aggregation of individual mental models, that is, the combined mental models of school leaders and teachers ultimately create a school culture. The specific school culture created is contingent on the assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms and values of the members of that particular school. For example, if the principal and assistant principal subscribe to a particular

9 conviction such as high student achievement for all students, then the individual mental models of the principal and assistant principal become part of the collective mental models or culture of that school, when teachers and students are encouraged to have similar thinking styles, or mental models. This culture is supported by the behaviors of school leaders and teachers to accomplish the goal of high student achievement and to align it with the school’s goals, philosophies and strategies. Schools today are faced with high expectations but have limited resources to meet them. The mandate for the No Child Left Behind policy is accountability that requires implementation of some concept of change or school reform. Similarly, the high stakes testing of Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) has created much anxiety for school administrators.. The Effective School Movement emphasizes the importance of building school culture to ensure success. School culture is a crucial component in understanding how schools operate and the missions and goals that are implicit in the assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms, and values of the school organization (Leithwood, Aitken, & Jantzi, 2001). The problem is that school administrators are faced daily with operating within this culture and have to make important decisions to solve immediate problems. Their ability to make decisions and solve problems is based on their thinking styles (mental models) and their leadership behaviors. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among variables reflecting school culture, mental models or thinking styles, and leadership behaviors of school administrators. The secondary purpose was to investigate how these constructs varied in terms of leadership behaviors as they related to the gender, position and years of experience of school administrators. A tertiary purpose was to distinguish the characteristics of current school culture as they related to gender, position and school levels of school administrators at the elementary, middle and senior high schools. School administrators in this study consisted of both male and female principals and assistant principals from K-12 schools in Riverhills County.

10 The research questions for this study are: A. Primary Questions 1. How do the mental models of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? 2. How do the leadership behaviors of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? B. Secondary Questions 3. How does the current school culture relate to gender, position and schools in which principals and assistant principals serve? What are the unique effects of gender, position and school level on each of the school culture variables? 4. How do the dimensions of leadership behavior of principals and assistant principals relate to their gender, position and years of experience? What are the unique effects of gender, position and years of experience on each of the four frames of leadership behaviors? 5. What are the differences between female and male principals and assistant principals as indicated by their thinking styles (mental models)? 6. What is the overall perceived level of effectiveness as managers or leaders and behavior orientations of principals and assistant principals? For the large number of analyses to be conducted in this study, consideration has been given to inflation of error rate. According to Tate (1998, p. 124), “the inflation of error rate can become quite serious as the size of the family rate increases.” Instead of the usual alpha level of a =. 05 that is recommended for educational research, the decision was to set a more stringent level of significance for (a = .01), to control for the family-wise error rate. The researcher selected the preceding research questions based on research supporting mental models (Huang, 1993; Lindsay, 2000; Raybould, 2000); leadership behaviors (Bolman & Deal, 1992; East, 1981); school culture (Fiore, 1999; Linzy, 1990; Shaw, 1990); gender of school administrators (Andrews & Basom, 1990; Eagley, Karau, & Johnson, 1992); and position of school administrators (Hausman, Nebeker, McCreary, & Donaldson, 2002).

Significance of the Study First, this study is intended to add to the empirical and theoretical literature in an attempt to understand the three constructs of school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors as they relate to schools at the elementary, middle, and senior high levels. Second, since this study is the first study of its kind to explore relationships among current school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors, the primary objective is to provide information as a contribution to the field of education. School administrators may be able to utilize the findings to appreciate better why their mental models should be changed and how their leadership style may be enhanced when developing a school culture that supports school reform efforts. Third, it is the first reported research study to demonstrate the relationship between the dimensions of leadership behaviors and demographic variables. Finally, school administrators, school districts, educational practitioners and policy makers may utilize the results of this study for the purpose of decision-making. In support of this philosophy to embrace reform, McCay (2001) stated that “before principals can take on the dynamic challenges of school reform, they must be willing to change their own thinking and practices as they lead others in implementing reforms.” In schools, principals have to be cognizant of whether their thinking styles are affecting their performance, and be prepared to make the necessary changes in how they think, before they can convince teachers or staff to consider any type of reform. A change in principals’ mental models and behaviors may significantly affect school performance. Similarly, “if there aren’t fundamental shifts in how people think and interact as well as how they explore new ideas, then all the reorganizing fads, and strategies in the world won’t add up to much” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 20). Limitations of Study 1. The study was limited to a single school district, and findings may not be generalized to other elementary, middle or high schools, or to all school districts within the state of Florida.

12 2. The present study was not casual-comparative, and therefore, does not establish a cause-effect relationship, since that can only be done in experimental research (Gay & Airasian, 2000, p. 352). 3. Thinking styles (mental models) and leadership behaviors of school administrators in this study may not be reflective of school administrators in other school districts. 4. The present study was not designed to be predictive, and any results obtained should be viewed in light of this knowledge. 5. Other variables besides school culture might be associated with mental models and leadership behaviors of school administrators, therefore, other predictor variables of gender, position, and years of experience, were included in an attempt to help explain the relationships. Definition of Terms School administrators: Consist of female and male principals and assistant principals of K-12 schools in Riverhills County School District. Effective Schools: Schools in which students learn and achieve at a high level and where the dimensions of school effectiveness are practiced. Correlates: Correlates are the characteristics that are present in schools where students learn. School (organizational) culture: School culture refers to the correlates that are responsive and supportive of the needs of the students, parents, and community. For this study, these include the elements of the Whole School Effectiveness survey that describes the assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms, and values of the people in the school. School Climate: The way people perceive or feel about the school and its culture. It is those facets of a school that shape the attitudes and behaviors of staff and students toward instruction and learning (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998). Norms: Taken-for-granted standards, traditions, rituals, or habits in the school. Values: Things that individuals claim guide their actions (and are somewhat difficult to identify). They are the basis for strategies, goals, and philosophies. Beliefs: What people hold to be true or false in the school.

13 Assumptions: Unconscious values that are deeply embedded (and the most difficult to explicate). They are what people take for granted in the school. Behaviors: Observable actions of how people operate during daily activities in the school environment. Mental Models: The practice of any of the five styles, or combinations of thinking styles which are: synthesists, idealist, pragmatists, analysts, and realists. Leadership Behaviors: The types of behaviors of leaders displayed on a regular basis to solve problems. These behaviors may include supportive, participative, analytical, organized, powerful, adroit, inspirational, and charismatic (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Summary This chapter focused on the constructs of school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors. School culture (Schein, 1992; Leithwood, Aitken, & Jantzi, 2001) was described as assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms and values of the people in the school. Mental models are the thinking styles of how people gather information to make decisions and are used to influence how people see the world, either as synthesists, idealists, pragmatists, analysts, or realists. Leadership behaviors, as used in this study, are related to the Four-Frame Model of Bolman and Deal consisting of the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames. A statement of the problem described the problem and who benefited from the study. The purpose of the study and research questions explained what the study would attempt to achieve. The significance of the study explained the reason it was necessary to conduct research in this area. The chapter concluded with limitations of the study and a glossary of vocabulary terms to clarify the terminology utilized in the study.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review has been organized into five major categories, namely: effective schools, school (organizational) culture, mental model theory and Senge’s five disciplines, leadership theory and leadership behaviors, and related empirical research for the three constructs of school (organizational) culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors of the present study. It includes examples of theoretical and empirical studies relating to these three constructs. The first section explores the effective school model that is associated with educational reform. The correlates or nine dimensions of effective schools contain the components of school culture that identify learning and instruction within the school. The second section examines culture from social and organizational perspectives. It describes three perspectives of culture: beliefs, behaviors, and assumptions (Conner, 1992); and artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions (Schein, 1992). An explanation of culture as it relates to mental models, its influence on leadership, and how leaders can shape it, are discussed. Culture and change conclude this segment.

The third section focuses on the theory of mental models. The assumption that there is a theory-in-use behind every action is referred to as Action Science and originated from the effort of John Dewey and Kurt Lewin (Argyris, Putman, & Smith, 1985). The work of educational theorists, Argyris and Schon, which expanded on the concept of action science to create the techniques of reflection and inquiry, is central to the mental models theory. Senge’s (1990a) organizational theory and the development of the concept of a “learning organization” are discussed, as are his five disciplines (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and system thinking), which represent the theoretical framework of the learning organization.

15 The fourth section deals with leadership theory characterizing the metaphoric description of a leader. Senge’s model above is compared to the Bolman and Deal’s (1997) Four-Frames Model. Effectiveness as managers and leaders, which are components of the previous mentioned model are given some elaboration including the importance of instructional and collaborative leadership. This section also emphasizes leadership behaviors with examples of several empirical studies, culminating with the role of the assistant principal.

The final section discusses the empirical research that supports the constructs of school (organizational) culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors. Gender issues and information regarding school levels are also covered within the findings of several studies.

Effective Schools The Equal Educational Opportunity Survey that James Coleman conducted in 1966 reported the condition of education in America. The report stated that the school was not a determinant factor in predicting student achievement. Socioeconomic status (SES) of the student’s parents was the strongest variable accounting for a student’s level of achievement (Rossow & Warner, 2000).

The Effective School Movement was started in response to this indictment of public education. This controversial report sparked a movement that prompted research by Edmonds, Bookover, and Lezotte that supported the idea that schools must have the resources that are necessary to ensure student learning. Research conducted on existing effective schools was done to observe the common characteristics that resulted in their success. In 1982, Ronald Edmonds, then Director of the Center for Urban Studies at Harvard University, formally identified seven correlates of effective schools (Association for Effective Schools, Inc., 2003). The correlates are critical because they are the leading indicators of schools that achieve high and equitable levels of student learning. The School District of Riverhills County added two additional correlates, relating to professional development and school culture, for a total of nine.

16 The nine correlates are:

1. Instructional leadership: A principal who effectively and persistently communicates the mission of the school to all stakeholders. The instructional leadership concept can also include assistant principals and teachers because schools are complex systems with more than one leader. 2. Clear and focused mission: There must be a clear mission articulated to all stakeholders that align student learning with the school mission. There must also be a balance between higher-learning skills and the prerequisite basic skills. 3. Safe and orderly environment: The school environment is free from undesirable behaviors and emphasizes more desirable behaviors. The school climate is tolerant and conducive to teaching and learning. 4. Climate of high expectations: The staff has high expectations of students obtaining mastery of the essential curriculum. Teachers implement additional teaching strategies to guarantee that all students achieve mastery. 5. Frequent monitoring of student progress: The use of technology to frequently measure and monitor individual pupil progress and the success of the curriculum as a whole. 6. Positive home-school relations: The school’s basic mission is communicated to parents who play a role in supporting and helping to achieve it. There must be an authentic partnership between the school and home. 7. Opportunity to learn and student time on task: Teachers are asked to stress the mission of the school and become more skilled at interdisciplinary approaches to the curriculum and engaging students actively in learning. 8. Staff/Professional Development: Professional development for all faculty and staff supports the instructional program. 9. School culture: The school’s culture is responsive to and supports the needs of the students, parents, and community.

17 The nine correlates for effective schools provide a comprehensive framework for school improvement planning since they distinguish, classify, and resolve the problems that schools and school districts frequently face. School Culture One of the most important aspects of any organization is its culture. When a person enters a school, there is a certain “feel” or character of the school and its people’s behavior, the culture. Schein (1992, p. 12) formally defined group or organizational culture as:

A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptations and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

In other words, culture is “the enduring assumptions, values and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic ‘taken-for-granted’ fashion an organization’s views of itself and its environment” Schein, (1992).

Linzy (1990, p.15) described organizational culture as the personality of the organization. Just as individual behavior and personality are evident, the same can be said in describing the characteristics of an organization and the behaviors of the people or leaders as they operate within the system.

The literature does not provide a universal definition of culture, but many; other definitions have been extracted from the plethora of literature on organizational or school culture. Deal and Peterson (1991, p.7) conveyed school culture as “the character of a school as it reflects deep patterns of values, beliefs, and traditions that have been formed over the course of its history.” As cited in Hallinger and Leithwood (1998), Kluckhorn and Kroeberg regard culture as “patterns of behaviors that are acquired and transmitted by symbols over time, which become generally shared within a group and are communicated to new members of the group in order to serve as a cognitive guide or blueprint for future actions.”

18 Other examples of definitions are presented to show the similarities or differences that have been observed for the construct of culture. Mitchell and Yates (2002) defined culture as “the set of values, beliefs, and understandings shared by an organization’s employees.” A more succinct definition is given by Deal and Kennedy as cited in Johnson, Snyder, & Anderson, (1996) as “an understanding of ‘the way we do things around here’ and is distinguished by shared beliefs and visions, rituals and ceremonies, and networks of communication.” Barth (2002) argued that a school’s culture is a complex pattern of norms, attitude, beliefs, behaviors, values, ceremonies, traditions and myths that are deeply ingrained in the very core of the organization.

There are three dimensions of organizational culture which refer to the degree to which the phenomenon is visible to observers and are discussed as follows. Conner (1992) mentioned three dimensions of organizational culture: beliefs, behaviors, and assumptions. Schein (1992) identified three levels of cultures as artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions. Conner (1992, p. 164) stated that, “organizational culture reflects the interrelationship of shared beliefs, behaviors, and assumptions that are acquired over time by members of an organization.” Beliefs are what people hold to be true or false in the organization. They consist of expectations and integrated values that constitute the framework for shaping the environment. Behaviors are observable actions or how people operate during daily activities in an organization. Assumptions are what people believe or how they develop patterns of behaviors based on an unconscious rationale. If these beliefs and behavior patterns are successful over time, they become routine or unconscious acts.

According to Schein (1992, p.17), artifacts are hard to decipher or understand and include all visible phenomena, such as, the visible behavior of the group or individual, and organizational daily processes into which such behaviors is made routine. The following explanation by Schein (1992) describes artifacts as those products of the groups that are visible and observed.

Espoused values are strategies, goals, and philosophies that Argyris and Schon (1996) postulated to be “theories of action” which are espoused theory and theory-in-use.

19 Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) looked from a perspective that human beings design their actions. Argyris (1992) insisted that individuals develop theories of effective action for any given situation. Theory-in-use has four governing values, which consist of: (a) striving to have unilateral control, (b) minimizing losing and maximizing winning,

Predicting what people will say in a variety of situations by what they actually do is an example of espoused theory and theory-in-use. Espoused values must be in alignment with the underlying assumptions of the school or organization, and articulated into a philosophy that connects the group into operating with a core mission.

Theories of action, according to Argyris (1992), deal with paradoxes that reveal the discrepancy between what individuals espouse and what they actually produce or do. These theories of action are steeped in understanding human nature. Argyris (1992) further explained, “All theories of human nature are based upon a thesis of rationality or alignment with beliefs is a rational act of human beings. However, rationality becomes a complex issue when the theory-in-use is counter to the espoused theory.

Basic assumptions are the ultimate source of values and action that are so deeply embedded within a group and are the most difficult to change. Schein (1992, p.23) discusses the ramifications of confronting or debating basic assumptions. He stated this concept of “shared basic assumptions that make up the culture can be found at both the individual or group level.”

In relation to culture, basic assumptions define “what people pay attention to, what things mean, how to react emotionally to what is going on, and what actions to take in various kinds of situations” (Schein, 1992, p. 22). A model of Schein’s three levels of culture is depicted in the Figure 2.1.

Artifacts Visible organizational structures and processes (Hard to decipher)

Espoused Values Strategies, goals, philosophies (Espoused justifications)

Unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, Basic Underlying perceptions thoughts, and feelings Assumptions (Ultimate source of values and action)

Figure 2.1 Levels of Culture

In looking at culture as the missing concept in organizational studies, Schein (1996) advocated, “culture viewed as such taken-for-granted, shared, tacit ways of perceiving, thinking, and reacting, was one of the most powerful and stable forces operating in organizations.” Schein emphatically embraced the idea of ethnographic observations instead of questionnaires to measure culture.

Schein (1999) stipulated that cultural assumptions could be detected through groups and not individuals. Since school culture has such a pervasive effect on organizational performance, a survey developed to gain insight into this concept seemed appropriate (Gruenert, 2000). Basic underlying assumptions are “unconscious, taken-for granted beliefs perceptions, thoughts, and feelings” (Buch, & Wetzel, 2001). Thus, creating a new organizational culture will require cultural alignment of basic underlying assumptions and espoused values. In their book Making Schools Smarter, Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi (2001) stipulated that organizational culture was “the implicit source of direction or school purposes found in the norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions shared by members of the

21 organization” (p. 65). The school purposes or directions consist of the school’s missions and goals. Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi (2001) emphasized that the mission and goals “may be mutually supportive, unrelated, or actually in conflict depending on the form and content of the culture.” According to Leithwood, et al., (2001), culture contains three areas of school or district’s responsibility discernible in an organization’s functioning by: (a) the manner in which an organization conducts its daily business, (b) its response to specific proposals for change, and (c) its influence more generally on the nature and type of organizational learning that occurs. It is important to research culture, because the ambiance of a school can be the determining factor in how students perform, and how that tone effects the perceptions and attitudes of teachers and staff who are employed in that school. Principals and assistant principals alike should be concerned about academic achievement and teacher effectiveness, especially in this time of accountability and high stakes testing. Showing the relationships among the cultural correlates, thinking styles, and leadership behaviors may prove invaluable to school administrators.

Most of the definitions have identified common traits of culture: shared values, beliefs, behaviors, and assumptions. The concept of culture is abstract in nature, but for the purpose of this study, culture will be characterized by all the correlates that are responsive and supportive of the needs of the students, parents, and community. It is “the implicit source of direction or school purposes found in the norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions shared by members of the organization” Leithwood et al., (2001, p. 65). For this study, this includes the elements of the Whole School Effectiveness survey that describes the assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms, and values of the people in the school. The construct of school culture, for this study, was measured in terms of observable behavior within the school environment describing those activities necessary for operations on a day-to-day basis. Specifically, the consistency of the espoused theory and theory-in-use that reflected if the culture of the school is effective. Table 2.1 summarizes the definitions of culture found in the literature.

22 Table 2.1

Summary of Definitions on Culture

Researchers Definitions

Barth, 2002 Complex patterns of norms, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, values, ceremonies, traditions, and myths

Conner, 1992 Interrelationships of shared beliefs, behaviors, and assumptions

Deal & Kennedy, as cited Shared beliefs and visions, rituals a in Johnson, Snyder, ceremonies, and network of & Anderson, 1996 communication

Deal & Peterson, 1991 Character of school reflected in values, beliefs, and traditions

Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998 Framework for attitudes and behaviors toward instruction and learning

Kluckhorn & Krueger, as cited Acquired patterns of behavior in Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998 symbols

Leithwood, Aitken & Jantzi, 2001 Implicit school purposes found in shared norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions

Linzy, 1990 Personality of the organization

Mitchell & Yates, 2002 Set of shared values, beliefs, and understanding

Schein, 1992 Shared basic assumptions, values, and beliefs

23 Theoretical research has supported the connections between culture and mental models, likewise, between culture and leadership behaviors. There has been some relationship among these constructs; discussions of these associations are presented in the following sections.

Connections with School Culture

Culture and Mental Models How does culture connect to mental models? Mental models are tacit, and because they exist below the level of awareness, they are often untested and unexamined (Senge, 1994). Culture is elusive by nature, but it permeates the entire existence of an organization and provides distinctive character. Most of the internal characteristics in an organization evolve as a reflection of its culture and vice-versa (Goodman, Zammuto, & Gifford, 2001). Administrators must understand the culture sufficiently to appreciate the “taken- for-granted” basic assumptions held by the members of the group or school organization (Lakomski, 2001). Because mental models and culture are often difficult to observe directly, an understanding of the concepts of mental models and culture will prove useful in this study. The concept of culture has a profound impact on shaping an organization, yet due to the abstract nature of the concept, it is often overlooked in change efforts. Organizational culture is one of the most powerful aspects of an organization. A change in mental models is necessary for leaders to operate efficiently and effectively, according to Green (2000). A key leadership skill is the understanding of how to bring about school change. It is noted that effective leaders initiate change by being risk takers themselves and encouraging people to challenge their mental models about how things work and what is feasible (Policy Brief, 1999).

Culture and Leadership

School culture is the definitive aspect of how people operate within the school setting. Not only is it important to recognize the enduring impact of culture, but also it is critical to examine what other factors may appear to influence culture.

Leaders are influential in creating school culture. But leaders alone cannot make a culture strong. Teachers are able to help shape the school culture as well (Saphier &

24 King, 1985). Nonetheless, without effective leadership, culture will not be transformed or sustain the realities of school improvement or change.

Saphier and King (1985), in their article, Good Seeds Grow in Strong Cultures, suggested twelve (12) norms of school culture: collegiality; experimentation; high expectations; trust and confidence; tangible support; reaching out to the knowledge bases; appreciation and recognition; caring, celebration, and humor; involvement in decision making; protection of what’s important; traditions; and honest, open communication. Saphier and King (1985) stated that there would be significant, continuous, and widespread improvements in instruction if certain school norms were strong.

In examining culture from a leadership perspective, Schein (1992) believed that cultural changes begin when leaders impose their own values and assumptions on a group. Continuing this discussion, Schein felt if the group accepts these taken-for-granted assumptions, then they define for future members what are acceptable characteristics of a leader. By adopting this practice, the culture has now emerged as a defining factor for leadership.

School leaders have the unique ability to understand and work with culture, because it is difficult to understand either culture or leadership in isolation. In fact, Schein (1992) put it succinctly when he stated that leaders create and change cultures, while managers and administrators live in them. He felt that there is a conceptual intertwining of leadership and culture, as there are two sides of the same coin. In an interview with Sparks (2001), Senge expressed his belief that really profound change can’t be imposed: it has to be nurtured. This means that a school district cannot impose top-down solutions to be simultaneously and uniformly accepted by all schools. It will take individuals who are passionate and innovative to make changes gradually.

Whether a culture is strong or weak will determine the impact that it will have on individual and group performance. A strong culture provides cohesiveness for individual and group effective performance, and helps to reinforce the organization’s strategies (Mitchell & Yates, 2002). A strong culture means that there is agreement with internalized values of the school or organization; however, it is difficult to change strong cultures. To be effective, school leaders need to nurture and build on the cultural norms

25 that contribute to growth. A strong culture is essential for the impetus of school improvement or change efforts (Saphier & King, 1985; Mitchell & Yates, 2002).

Shaping School Culture School culture has been associated with many variables, in particular, the role of leadership. The principal as the leader of the school can influence its culture. This section discusses leaders shaping the culture. Sometimes the leadership dictates the culture, but in other situations, the culture molds the leaders as previously stated. Fiore (1999) argued that if leaders are responsible for shaping the direction of school culture, then there should be a clear and articulated vision that embodies core values and purposes. School culture, according to Deal and Peterson (1999) is a powerful phenomenon and key factor in determining possible school improvement. Every school has a unique culture that permeates the school environment. School or organizational culture can be either healthy or unhealthy. A healthy school culture has congruency between the organization’s espoused values and the daily behaviors of the members (Hitt, 1996); builds support among peers and prevent fear of ridicule (Kuck, 2000); has visible leaders (Fiore, 1999); exhibits strong leadership in building these cultures (Picucci, Brownson, Kahlert, & Sobel, 2002); and creates a collaborative culture, which has been identified as an effective context for student and teacher learning (Gruenert, 2000). By contrast, an unhealthy school culture lacks congruence between what is said and what is done (Hitt, 1996); tends to beget at-risk students (Barth, 2002); and stifles the growth of good seeds (Saphier & King, 1985). Administrators have to spend time intentionally fully developing a school culture, to prepare for significant change. Patterson (2000) mentioned that to sustain and support organizational change requires four steps: (a) developing a series of belief statements, (b) determining their implications, (c) putting the implications into practice, and (d) revisiting the beliefs statements and implications regularly to ensure the culture is being preserved and renewed. Goldring (2002) has suggested six key traits of school culture.

1. Shared vision: The vision of a school is a powerful picture for the future generated by all members. This trait also includes leadership with a strong organizational quality, such as shared leadership

26 2. Traditions: Traditions make the values and assumptions of a school visible through actions, metaphor, symbols, rituals, and ceremonies. 3. Collaboration: When members of an organization work together to accomplish a task, they demonstrate collaboration. 4. Shared decision-making: Decision-making has been described as the moral fiber of culture. Both formal and informal decisions made by a group translate the values of the group into actions 5. Innovation: Innovation is demonstrated when a new element is introduced into a group for its benefit. This trait also includes dealing with change, which challenges the existing assumptions and beliefs of the culture, and introduces uncertainty. 6. Communication: A culture expresses itself through communication. This includes the emotions of its members. Communication patterns exist internally between staff members and externally to parents and stakeholders. Culture and Change Fullan (2001) in his book Leading in a Culture of Change identified five components of leadership that are “independent but mutual reinforcing forces for positive change” (p.3). They are: moral purpose, understanding the change process, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence making.

In his book, The Dance of Change, Senge (1999) emphasizes that the leader is responsible for effective change. He highlights six key steps in any change process. First, there must be an investment in the need for change. Second, an atmosphere that encourages real personal learning and developing learning capabilities must be created. The third step is personal investment and an upward spiral of results. Fourth, there must be enthusiasm and willingness to commit. The fifth step is the institutionalization of change practices, and, finally, step six, measured results. In order to promote lasting change in the work culture (work habits and mental models), the principal must approach change from a systems perspective, as opposed to a fragmented unit perspective.

In an interview with Dennis Sparks (2001), and from his newest book, Senge imparted his perception of why change is so challenging for schools. Referring to his

27 newest book, Schools That Learn, Senge (2000, p. 19), stated that “every organization is a product of how its members think and interact, and that the fundamental nature of reality is relationships, not things.” Senge continued to say that innovators are necessary for seeing opportunities in the same social realities, while others believe that nothing can be changed except what has been done in the past. Most schools are still operating and organized within the obsolete industrial age model. Senge suggested that the basic assumptions about schools are: (a) specialists, who maintain control, run schools, (b) knowledge is inherently fragmented, (c) schools communicate “the truth,” and (d) learning is primarily individualistic and competition accelerates learning.

If consideration is given to any change efforts or reform process, there is one thing that school leaders must keep in mind: “Change is dynamic and real change comes hard” (Sammon, 2000). Principals must have open minds to create a culture of successful change. The openness to change (Klecker, & Loadman, 1999) must be strong enough for principals and assistant principals to take drastic measures in order to achieve that goal. This change can be individual, as well as organizational.

Change does not occur if leaders refuse to recognize that they cannot accomplish change on their own. Shared ethical values are fundamental aspects of school culture. Change is accomplished through another dimension known as spirituality. In discussing this attribute, Turner (1999) stated that spirituality is becoming more a part of a mainstream society. The writer defined spirituality as “ an awareness of the ‘more than meets the eye’ in our daily lives.” It introduces the humanistic view and creates a win- win situation for both the employees and the organization, as Turner (1999) emphasized. The writer argued that leaders must examine their own values and behaviors to begin the process of change, and they must have the courage to make it happen because people within the organization need to change since organizations do not transform themselves.

Although this study did not examine the process of change in the culture, it will be advantageous to provide information from the literature that supports change in school culture. When school leaders focus on the school culture, consideration must be given to substantive change, which has the potential to increase student achievement over time in ways that keep students in school (Patterson, 2000).

Mental Model Theory The mind is its own place and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. John Milton The root of the mental models theory is in cognitive psychology. In his book, The Nature of Explanation, Kenneth Craik (1943, p.82) recognized the application of ‘working models’ of particular phenomenon in an individual’s mind. Craik suggested that the mind constructs “small-scale models” of reality that it uses to anticipate events (Craik, 1943, p. 61). Mental models can be constructed from perception, imagination, or the comprehension of discourse. An individual’s mental model is an integral part of who that person is. The beliefs of an individual and the organizational culture shape that individual’s behaviors and actions. Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994, p. 235) articulated that “mental models are the images, assumptions, and stories which individuals carry in their minds of themselves, other people, institutions, and every aspect of the world.” Mental models theory is closely related to organizational learning, in that, one’s faulty mental models considerably impact one’s actions. Leadership behaviors are the reflective acts of mental models. Mental models can be complex theories or simple generalizations, such as “business leaders are unethical” (Senge, 1992). If a person believes that most business leaders are unethical, then that person would react differently than if he or she felt that business leaders were ethical. This explains why mental models, or the way an individual thinks, shape a person’s actions and behaviors. Behaviors are a reflection of what is in the mind, and when mental models are left unarticulated, there is difficulty in explaining one’s behavior. Mental models powerfully affect what a person does because of that person’s perception or worldview. That is the reason why two individuals may observe the same incident and interpret it differently based on their perceptions and mental models.

29 Johnson-Laird (1983, p. 397), a cognitive psychologist, believed that “mental models emerged as theoretical entities from his attempt to make sense of inferences, both explicit and implicit.” He postulated that “our perception of the world is merely a model of the world.” The construct of mental models often has been used in association with computer technology and other instructional design systems. It has been used as a metaphor for describing the mental activities that humans develop to describe a computer’s operation and structure. Jonassen (2001) defined mental models as “the conceptual and operational representations that humans develop while interacting with complex systems.” Major research that studied mental models concentrated on cognitive processes of the mind. Rogers and Rutherford (1992)), as cited in Rogers, Rutherford and Bibby (1992), stated that research in mental models dealt specifically with mental process relating to an individual doing problem solving mentally. Perceptions of what constitutes mental models are varied. Liebig (2003) explained “mental models are psychological representations of reality which people carry in their minds”; they not only govern how individuals think, but how they take action. Other definitions include Cain (2000) who stated that mental models “provide a framework for mental processes to determine how we think and act.” Other metaphors to describe mental models are paradigms, which Covey (1989) explains “are powerful lenses through which we view the world”; Barker (1990) describes as “a set of written or unwritten rules and regulations that establishes or defines boundaries and tells us how to behave inside the boundaries in order to be successful”; and Stanwick (1996) relates as “a cognitive map and schemata.” Relating to the Stanwick metaphor, for example, to change one’s thinking consists of adjusting the cognitive maps and schemata about the organization, and what happens in it. A cognitive map consists of concepts and an understanding of the relationships to and in the organization, whereas, schemata is an abstract structure in thought used in relation to real world phenomena. The human brain becomes very selective in the type of stimuli it chooses to focus on, because it is not capable of processing all the stimuli received from the environment. “Mental models are highly idiosyncratic,” according to (Szabo, & Fuchs, 1998). “A mental model is an inefficient device one uses to make sense out of a chaotic universe.”

30 Green (2000, p. 65) expounds that without the use of mental models, one becomes dysfunctional, and that no two persons would interpret the same experience in a similar manner. Cognitive psychology has been the foundation of understanding mental models or thinking styles. Of particular interest is how mental models are categorized as structural and functional. The structural identification of mental models describes how it works, whereas, the functional representation explains how mental models can be used. Education today is based on mental models of how teachers should teach and how students should learn. Educational theories have adopted the structural perspective of how mental models work, that is, the superior brain structure of one group over another. In essence, many theories have developed over the years with regards to the education of poor students and wealthy children, and the comparison of students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. Joyner in (Senge et al., 2000) believes the “bell-curve” mentality, shows that many educators are operating out of the deficit perspective when teaching poor children. This style of thinking influences educators to have low expectations for some students and high expectation for other students. School administrators, who are aware of the prevailing mental models regarding instruction and student learning, can encourage teacher training or staff development to counteract the negative stereotypes based on assumptions and beliefs. Since mental models are active, they influence behaviors. School leaders will act in a particular manner when responding to a situation, depending on their mental models. Mental models are limiting and may impede learning. For this reason, many organizations have adopted certain strategies to assist individuals in gaining awareness of their mental models and developing new ways of thinking. School administrators can adopt these strategies to assist them in creating new mental models. Action Science

Action science is based on the traditional work of John Dewey and Kurt Lewin (Argyris, Putman, & Smith, 1985). It was established on the assumption that there is a logical mental process or “theory-in-use” behind every action (Senge et al., 2000). Action science is concerned with studying social systems and changing them. The school is a social system, and for change to be initiated in that system, leaders must be receptive

31 to the concept of change (Klecker, & Loadman, 1999). Theorists and educators Chris Argyris and Donald Schon developed the skills of reflection and inquiry, which are elements of the mental models that introduce school administrators to change in thinking and behavior within the school setting.

The techniques for learning skills central to mental models are reflection and inquiry. Reflection refers to becoming aware of our mental models and broadening our thinking processes. Inquiry, on the other hand, is holding conversations to openly share views and learn about other people’s assumptions. These two techniques were an outgrowth of action science. In studying social systems, action science is the milieu for understanding learning and developing techniques for working with mental models. Strategies for Working with Mental Models

Balancing Inquiry and Advocacy

In mental models, the key to balancing inquiry (i.e., inquiring into others thinking and reasoning) and advocacy (i.e., making one’s thinking and reasoning more visible to others) is to develop a variety of relevant skills. Ross and Roberts (1994) described that when balancing inquiry and advocacy, it is necessary to present reasoning and thinking and encourage a challenge in these areas.

The authors warned of the dysfunctional forms of both advocacy and inquiry in an organization. For example, a person can skew the process of inquiry by relentlessly interrogating another person without caring for the person being questioned. Advocacy can take the form of an inquisition if the advocate dictates his or her point of view, while refusing to make his or her reasoning process visible. The authors warned that “politicking” or pretending to balance advocacy and inquiry while refusing to learn is one of the most destructive forms of communication. These strategies are important aspects of working with mental model. Another strategy, the ladder of inference, will also be taken into consideration.

The Ladder of Inference

Our beliefs and assumptions are based on the conclusions from what we observe. The ladder of inference, as Chris Argyris (1994) described, is a common mental pathway

32 of increasing abstraction, often leading to the detection of misguided beliefs. Interpretation of other people’s behavior may be due largely to our faulty assumptions of the situation, and is based on these assumptions: (a) our beliefs are the truth, (b) the truth is obvious, (c) our beliefs are based on real data, and (d) the data we select is the real data (Ross, 1994, p. 242).

When a principal jumps to quick conclusions or makes leaps of abstraction in his/her thinking, that principal has climbed the ladder of inference, a metaphor that describes abstractions that often lead to misguided beliefs. For example, the principal is addressing some concerns regarding students’ achievement on the FCAT at a faculty meeting. When a fifth grade teacher appears distracted and uninterested in the information, the principal may immediately conclude that the teacher is being disrespectful by ignoring her. In those few minutes, the principal has climbed the ladder of inference by making faulty assumptions based on her observation.

As a way of improving communication, the principal can examine her own thinking and reasoning through reflection, because past experiences help to shape one’s attitudes and perceptions. Thus, by becoming reflective, the principal has an idea of what is motivating her leaps of abstraction. For example, if the principal can remember being in a similar situation, she will be able to relate to the experience and communicate openly with the teacher to find out the reason for her behavior, thereby clearing up any misunderstandings. This strategy is using the ladder of inference. Ross (1994) suggested that a person can improve communication through reflection, and, by using the ladder of inference, become more conscious of his/her thinking and reasoning, as well as inquiring about others’ thinking and reasoning.

Although mental models consist of assumptions and are usually tacit, or exist below the level of awareness (Fisher, 2001; Senge et al., 1994, p. 236), they are generally implicit, but can be examined or tested to represent implicit assumptions that shape behaviors (Cain, 2000; Johnson-Laird, 1983; Szabo and Fuchs, 1998). Mental models force individuals to constantly reflect and clarify their way of thinking. This reflection can be evident by the behaviors demonstrated and are congruent with individuals’ mental models or theories-in-use.

33 This study will not attempt to delve into deeply ingrained assumptions, but instead seek to examine the underlying assumptions in the style of thinking that principals and assistant principals engage in. These styles of thinking are: synthesist, idealist, pragmatist, analyst, and realist. The Five Thinking Styles The five thinking styles are meant to discover the predominant styles of thinking for school administrators. The work of Churchman (1971) recognized these five traditions of inquiry; they were basic to Western philosophy and attributed to Hegel (synthesist mode), Kant (idealist mode), Singer (pragmatist mode), Leibniz (analyst mode), and Locke (realist mode), according to Kienholz and Hritzuk (1986, pp. 824-825). A prominent, related instrument, the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire (InQ) examines how individuals approach problem solving and decision-making. The InQ attempts to assess the individual’s relative standing on each of the five thinking styles, labeled as synthesist, idealist, pragmatist, analyst, and realist (Bruvold, Parlette, Bramson, & Bramson, 1983; DeLisi, & Danielson, 2003), and are discussed below. 1. Synthesist: This individual is an integrator who delights in finding relationships in things that have no apparent connection. In a group discussion, this individual may likely champion an opposite point of view. 2. Idealist: Takes a broad, holistic view of things, and tends to be future- oriented. An individual with this style of thinking looks at the “big picture” and dislikes details. 3. Pragmatist: Likes to take action and get things done. This individual takes a “whatever works” approach to problem solving and is often flexible and adaptive. 4. Analyst: Tends to be logical, structured, and prescriptive. This individual believes that there is one best method for doing things. 5. Realist: Takes an empirical view and is task-oriented. A realist’s mental models are acquired from observation and personal experience. DeLisi and Danielson (2003) conducted a study that involved assessing the thinking styles of mid-level information technology (IT) executives from the United States. The purpose of the study was to understand the implication of IT professionals

34 seen as analytical, and to explore whether the pragmatist thinking style was complimentary with this group. A previous research in 1998 of chief executive officers (CEO) conducted by the authors, DeLisi and Danielson and an associate, stated that CEOs did not think that executives possess the interpersonal and synthesis skills to be successful so they developed the Information Technology Leadership Program (ITLP). DeLisi and Danielson (2003) gathered data from a total of 339 subjects from three major groups consisting of: individuals who participated in the ITLP workshop, senior level IT executives, and other volunteers from a conference. The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire was used to assess the thinking styles of this group as synthesist, idealist, pragmatist, analyst, and realist. The data were analyzed to show the peaks and valleys of the five thinking styles of the sample using descriptive statistics. The peaks were the predominant styles that emerged, whereas, the valleys represented flat profiles. Flat profiles means that there is no preference shown for any specific style. People with flat profiles tend to be adaptable but are not inclined to be leaders (Goodbrand, 2003). Results of the DeLisi and Danielson (2003) study indicated that the majority of the sample peaked at the idealist and pragmatist styles, more than expected, and a higher percentage had valleys in the analyst thinking styles. There were significantly low scores in the analyst thinking styles for the information technology executives, who instead, showed significantly higher scores in the idealist-pragmatic thinking styles. Metaphors are often utilized to describe mental models, reflecting researchers’ different ways of defining mental models, as shown in Table 2.2..

35 Table 2.2

Metaphors for Mental Models

Metaphors Researchers Set of written or unwritten Barker, 1990 rules and regulations

Provide a framework for mental Cain, 2000 processes to determine how we think and act

Paradigms Covey, 1989

Small-scale models Craik, 1943

An inefficient device one uses Green, 2000 to make sense of a chaotic world

Psychological representations Liebig, 2003 of reality

Theoretical entities to make sense Johnson-Laird, 1983 of explicit and implicit inferences

Conceptual and operational Jonassen, 2001 representations

Cognitive processes of the mind Rogers and Rutherford, as cited in Rogers, Rutherford, and Bibby, 1992

Images, assumptions, and stories Senge, Kleiner, Roberts,Ross, which individuals use to understand and Smith, 1994 every aspect of the world.

A cognitive map and schemata Stanwick, 1996

36 Organizational Theory Organizational development was recognized in the early 1900’s with the “scientific management” of Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol, and the “bureaucratic theory” of Max Weber. Weber’s model emphasized a single leader with almost unrestrictive power. His bureaucratic model consisted of several crucial features that focused on rationality and efficiency: (a) a fixed division of labor, (b) an hierarchy of offices, (c) a set of rules governing performance, (d) separation of personal from official property and rights, (e) technical qualifications for selecting personnel, and (f) employment as primary occupation and long-term career (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Information technology became a critical issue in the 1950’s as the focus was shifted to the workers. Peter Drucker (1964) was influential in discussing the turbulence of the organizational environment and introduced the concept of performance-based management necessary to create effective workers. In more recent times, Peter Senge (1990a) popularized the concept of a learning organization. The learning organization represents organizational change, from a new perspective, by emphasizing investment in the human capital rather than the corporate capital. Within the learning organization, there is the potential for people to share a common vision and mission in an effort to achieve a greater capacity. The learning organization is a process and set of life skills that are necessary for guidance on an individual or organizational level to realize success in personal as well as professional undertakings. These three different theories of the organization emphasize the concepts of efficiency, effectiveness, and learning, three significant characteristics of all organizations. A model of the development of organizational focus is depicted in Figure 2.2 below adapted from Appelbaum and Reichart (1997).

The Learning Organization

The Performance Peter Senge Based Organization

Peter Drucker The Bureaucratic Organization

Max Weber

1900 1950 2000

Figure 2.2 Model of Organizational Focus

The Learning Organization The learning organization comes from seminal work of Argyris and Schon (1978, 1996). In his book, The Fifth Discipline (1990, p. 3), Peter Senge further explained learning organizations as “organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.” Gephart, Marsick, and Van Buren, (1996) insisted, “an organization that has an enhanced capacity to learn, adapt, and change, is a learning organization.” Senge, in an interview with O’Neil (1995), explained that the principals he knew who had the greatest impact in attempting to make their schools more of a learning organization viewed their jobs as creating an environment where teachers can continually learn. Senge continued to articulate that innovative schools have committed teachers working in concert with a principal who has a particular view of his or her job. The phrase “learning organization” is sometimes used as substitution for “learning community.” However, when a school is classified as a learning community, it may also

38 mean that either the students participate in service learning with the community, or when people from the community are invited as guest speakers to enhance curricular activities and learning opportunities for students. In his dissertation, Wyckoff (1998) studied schools as learning organizations, and defined a learning community as “a professional community of learners where educators share learning and act on their learning” (p. 13). Other writers agreed that a learning community requires collaboration on the part of school administrators and teachers to improve the school climate (Taylor, 2002; Gideon, 2002).

Building a Learning Organization

What does it take to build a learning organization? Senge (1992) in an article titled Learning to Alter Mental Models felt that for an organization to alter mental models it first had to redefine real learning as the capability and capacity to achieve goals. Real learning, Senge argues, involves thinking and doing what will enhance capacity for learning, challenge mental models, and create a passion to succeed. According to Lick and Kaufman (2000), capacity is the willingness and ability for effective action necessary for learning. To change mental models is to essentially experience a personal paradigm shift. The real impact of change in school culture would be how the culture of the organization influences mental models and the way individuals think about the organization. At the individual level, a change in mental models may affect a change in the culture of the organization. Since mental models and culture consist of the beliefs and values that can mobilize the organization to action, “these same values and beliefs can be a liability if they are inconsistent with the organization’s and individual’s needs” (Mitchell, & Yates, 2002). According to Schein (1999), “to change an organization’s culture is to change the basic attributes that members have developed over the years of their career.” The author continues to say, “that’s why cultures resist change, because resistance is a natural response when one’s values and assumptions are aggressively attacked.”

Barth (2002) insisted that all school cultures are resistant to change. It is because of this resistance that school improvement or change efforts from internal or external

39 forces are usually ineffective. Conner (1992) argued that when a person believes that the challenges they confront differ significantly from their capabilities it creates disruption and a loss of the psychological equilibrium. Conner continued to state that, “resistance to change is a natural reaction to anything causing this kind of disruption or loss of equilibrium” (p. 126). Changing an organizational culture means changing the learning processes of the organization, that pushes the organization to go beyond its current reality (Lakomski 2001). School leaders must be challenged to shape the culture by changing the way things are done, both internally and externally. Leaders should have some level of control over the environment even in times of instability. Schein (1992, p.364) believes, “A learning culture must contain a core shared assumption that the environmental context in which the organization exists is to some degree manageable.”

Learning

Learning becomes a primary aspect in understanding the key components of building the learning organization. Learning can provide a vehicle to challenge the status quo and has the ability to spark a change in the traditional way of conducting business. Argyris (1992) insisted, “Learning is defined as occurring under two conditions. First, learning occurs when an organization achieves what is intended; that is, there is a match between its design for action and the actuality or outcome. Second, learning occurs when a mismatch between intentions and outcomes is identified and it is corrected, that is, a mismatch is turned into a match” (p. 8). What type of learning is taking place within the organization or inside the individual depends on the type of organization and the individual’s connection to the organization. Kim (1993) proposed that individual learning is increasing one’s capacity to take effective action, and organizational learning is defined as increasing an organization’s capacity to take effective action. The author argued that an organization does not learn without the shared mental models of the group, but it can learn independent of any specific individual. Research has shown that there are three orientations of learning that are evident: individual (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Kim, 1993; Raybould, 2000), team or group (Kim

40 1993, Raybould, 2000, Senge, 1990; Silins & Mulford, 2002) and organizational (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Johnston & Caldwell, 2001; Silins & Mulford, 2002). Other types of learning that further describe the individual, team, or organization, are single-loop, double-loop, adaptive, and generative learning. Single-loop is instrumental learning that changes strategies of actions within an existing paradigm (Argyris & Schon 1996; Keating, Robinson, & Clemson, 1996). Double-loop, however, is “learning that results in a change in the values of theory-in-use, as well as in its strategies and assumptions” as Argyris and Schon (1996, p.21) articulated. In a review of the empirical and theoretical literature on learning, Yeo (2002) discovered that the two approaches in the literature were the behavioural (sic) learning approach and the cognitive learning approach. Behavioral learning is comparative to adaptive learning, whereas cognitive learning relates to generative learning. According to Malhotra (1996), adaptive learning is a basic skill used for survival in any organization. It focuses on solving problem in the present without examining the appropriateness of current learning behaviors. The model of generative learning integrated several areas of cognitive psychology, including cognitive development, human learning, human abilities and information processing (Wittrock, 1974). Generative learning requires school administrators to be able “to see their own thinking and behaviors as they really are rather than they wish they were” (Herasymowych, 1996). It assists individuals to become more proactive and creative when dealing with people or situations. Generative learning is synonymous with double loop learning (e.g. Hitt, 1996). In an empirical study, the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) conducted a survey in 1995 where 94% of respondents agreed that it is important to build a learning organization (Gephart, Marsick, & Van Buren, 1996). The Learning Organization Assessment Framework was a tool that ASTD researchers developed. The framework identifies three levels or orientations of learning, individual, team or group, and organizational. This was the instrument used for data collection from international experts on the three levels of learning with the behaviors and characteristics that exemplify a learning organization.

41 ASTD suggested some essential features of the learning organization from Peter Senge’s framework: • Continuous learning at the systems level. Principals share their learning by transferring and integrating learning into organizational routines and actions. • Knowledge generation and sharing. Principals make certain that knowledge is easily accessible to all persons. • Critical, systemic thinking. Principals are encouraged to change their ways of thinking critically and use productive reasoning skills systematically in order to identify assumptions. • A culture of learning. Learning and creativity are rewarded, supported, and promoted through various performance systems from the top down. • A spirit of flexibility and experimentation. People are encouraged to be innovative and take risks. • People-centered. A learning organization provides a caring community. The Five Disciplines The five disciplines necessary for Peter Senge’s learning organization include, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. Personal Mastery The discipline of personal mastery focuses on an individual continually clarifying and deepening one’s personal vision, of focusing one’s energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. “Personal mastery applies to individual learning, and contributes to organizational learning since organizations cannot learn until their members begin to learn” (Cain, 2000). As individuals examine their personal goals and have a vision of “what might be” from “what is,” this produces creative tension that motivates individuals to change and to see current reality more clearly. Personal mastery is essential because, “before someone can provide leadership for others they must possess a clear personal vision for themselves and they must be clear in their own mind about what are the fundamental beliefs that drive that vision” (Bamburg, 2001).

42 Personal mastery has three fundamental criteria; the first is having a personal vision, which is a very specific and measurable end-goal. Because most people have goals and objectives and no sense of real vision, personal vision offers them a purpose. It is the focus of an individual’s ultimate desires. More difficult than personal vision is holding creative tension on one’s espoused theory and theory-in-use. When there is incongruity between what individuals say they believe and what their behavior suggests otherwise, it creates tension. The two types of tension created when there is a gap between “current reality” and an “individual’s vision” are referred to as emotional and creative tension. Cognitive dissonance is a result of the emotional tension, between what an individual “desires to do,” and what that person is “actually doing.” Creative tension motivates the individual to either abandon the espoused theory or change the behavior. This means vision either pulls reality up, or reality pulls vision downward. Truly creative people will use the gap between espoused theory and theory-in-use to generate energy as a source of personal growth. Commitment to the truth is the final element of personal mastery. It is a relentless willingness to expose the ways individuals limit and deceive themselves from seeing things as they really are. It requires looking at their espoused value and facing the truth about current reality, and avoids making compromises or rationalizations as to why they are that way. In summary, personal mastery is significant in assisting organizations to become learning organizations. School leaders who have developed the capacity of personal mastery will have less difficulty in aligning the espoused value of the culture with the theory-in-use. Mental Models Mental models consist of an individual reflecting on, continually clarifying and improving one’s internal pictures of the world, and seeing how they shape one’s decisions and actions. Mental models start with turning the mirror inward to bring to the surface assumptions that must be held to rigorous scrutiny. It includes the ability to expose one’s thinking effectively to be influenced by others. Argyris (as cited in Senge, 1990a) suggested “that although people do not always behave congruently with their espoused theories (i.e., what they say), they do behave congruently with their theories-in-

43 use (i.e., their mental models)” (p.175). Generating new mental models can occur only when an individual links imagination with action. Two key aspects of mental models from the literature, as Chapman and Ferfolja (2001), reported are first, the strong influence of mental models on behavior based on past experiences, and second, mental models are developed within the context of group learning. Self-talk and mental imagery have been suggested in several studies as strategies for improving leadership mental models. Psychology has studied how the mind works, and in the past 20 years, as cited in Neck and Barnard (1996), one of the most significant result is that “individuals can choose the way they think,” according to (Seligman, 1991). This theory proposes two contrasting patterns of thinking as: opportunity thinking and obstacle thinking. When a leader focuses on constructive ways of solving complex problems, he or she is an opportunity thinker. An obstacle thinker, by contrast, will think of reasons to withdraw or quit challenging situations. To engage in less dysfunctional thinking, three suggestions were given: (a) internal dialogue or self-talk, (b) mental images or visualizations, and (c) beliefs and assumptions for school administrators to produce more successful mental and physical activities (Neck & Barnard, 1996). Since mental models are active, they influence behaviors. School leaders will act in a particular manner when responding to a situation, depending on their mental models. Principals and assistant principals are required to use mental models to process information and make decisions based on the information that is obtained from their perceptions of their worldview and surrounding environment (Kim, 1993: Senge, 1990). Often the lens through which the world is viewed is distorted, vague, or incomplete. In summary, mental models are the most powerful of the five disciplines in creating a learning organization. In The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994) believe that mental models offer the highest power for change, but school leaders who are interested in building a learning organization may find that starting with this discipline is the most difficult. The focal point or leverage for change might be initiated with changing mental models instead of the culture. Goldring (2002) supports the position that any change effort should start with changing mental models as opposed to first attempting the enormous task of changing the culture.

44 Shared Vision Shared vision is building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images of the future that the members of the group seek to create, and the principles and guiding practices by which they hope to get there. “The practice of shared vision involves the skills that unearth pictures of the future that foster genuine commitment and enrollment rather than compliance” (Fullerton, 2002). Shared vision means that the school vision must be created not just by the school administrator but also through interaction with all stakeholders. Building a shared vision is preceded by a personal vision that the school administrators may have of their goals, values, and mission. These in turn are shared with other members of the organization, and hopefully ultimately extend into a common vision for the school. Risk taking and a chance to experiment are fostered through the discipline of shared vision. Learning organizations cannot exist without shared vision (Senge, 1990, p. 209). A vision is a picture of the future that the individual seeks to create. The four characteristics necessary for building shared vision are: (a) vision, (b) values, (c) purpose or mission, and (d) goals. A shared vision gives shape and direction to the organization’s future because of its tangible and immediate quality (Senge et al., 1994). Values are made visible by the behavior of the members of the organization. It tells how the people in the organization expect to travel to their destination. “When values are made a central part of the organization’s shared vision effort, and put out in full view, they become like a figurehead on a ship: a guiding symbol of the behavior that will help people move toward the vision.” (Senge et al., 1994, p.302). Purpose or mission, what the vision is intended to accomplish: “represents the fundamental reason for the organization’s existence” (Senge et al., 1994, p. 302). The final component for shared vision is goals or milestones the organization expects to reach within a reasonable time. “Goals represent what people commit themselves to do, often within a few months” (Senge et al., 1994, p. 302). In summary, building shared vision is accomplished with individuals coming together to expose, examine, and modify their mental models. Building a sense of commitment in a group gives a sense of purpose to the group, and consistency in all daily activities. Learning is necessary in building a shared vision as members of the group,

45 according to Senge (1990) to “expose their way of thinking, give up deeply held views, and recognize personal and organizational shortcoming.” Team Learning The discipline of team learning involves mastering the practices of dialogue and discussion. It consists of transforming conversational and collective thinking skills so that groups of people can reliably develop intelligence and ability greater than the sum of the individual member’s talent. This is referred to as synergy, which Covey (1989), described as the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is important for members to suspend their assumptions and adopt an attitude of thinking together and working collaboratively. In team learning, working together creates synergy. Lick (2003) reiterates that for change creation, steps must be taken to build intentional and proactive commitment and effort of group members by creating a strong, effective synergistic group. The learning team characteristics include: (a) synergy, (b) co-mentoring, (c) learning resources, (d) integration and creation, (e) application and shared practice, and (f) evaluation and assessment (Lick, 2003). Team learning builds on the discipline of developing shared vision, and personal mastery (Senge, 1990). Although working on a shared vision and developing personal mastery is recommended, learning as a team is vital for the alignment and development of the creative capacity toward results that group members truly desire. Within the learning organization, team learning is the most challenging discipline—intellectually, emotionally, socially, and spiritually (see Senge et al., 1994, p. 355). There are three critical dimensions of team learning within an organization. “First, there is the need to think insightfully about complete issues.” It requires tapping into the combined intelligence of the group instead of depending on the intellect of one individual. “Second, there is the need for innovative, coordinated action.” The third dimension consists of the role of team members on other teams. Within the school setting, dialogue can be facilitated with teams collaborating with each other. In contrast, discussion “is a conversational form that promotes fragmentation.” However, Ross (1994) suggested that in skillful discussion, participants

46 develop a repertoire of techniques for seeing how the components of their situation fit together. It is merely making a choice (p. 354). In summary, team learning entails not only skillful discussion, but also dialogue that provide an opportunity to invite exploration and critique of one’s assumptions by balancing advocacy and inquiry, an essential strategy of the mental models discipline. There must also be team alignment with the shared vision and collaboration among group members. The last discipline, systems thinking, reinforces the other disciplines and it is discussed below. Systems Thinking Systems thinking is the cornerstone of Senge’s (1990) five disciplines that are essential for the learning organization. Systems thinking is a way of thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems. The school is considered a social system or an organizational system. School administrators must understand how the school organization works and the connections that exist to provide feedback that reinforce or counteract each other. School administrators who are concerned with progress will encourage systems thinking that is open to change, to outside influences, and to interactions with other dynamic systems in the organization. When a school is open to growth, change, and renewal over time, it is considered a dynamic system. The following elements are important in planning, designing, and making decisions (Wilson, 2001): (a) everything in the system is related, (b) there is never one right answer, (c) cause and effect are not linked in the same time and space, (d) low student performance will ultimately affect the overall school grade, and (e) things tend to get worse before they get better. Every single person in the system is important. Due to the dynamic nature of systems, every action by each individual will have an effect on the final results or outcome. For example, a teacher’s decision not to provide quality education to all students will ultimately affect the school success and student achievement. In summary, even though the learning organization is considered an ideal vision for school or business, leaders must be aware that building a learning organization it is a process and not an end product in itself. Learning must be a continuous ongoing process within the organization. A difficult situation that might be encountered in attempting to

47 implement this concept is for school leaders to realize that “individuals often have different mental models, levels of personal mastery, and systems thinking, so there is no guarantee of team learning and shared vision” (Wonocott, 2000). Leadership Theory

How leaders behave when confronted with difficult problems is a testament of the type of leadership style or orientation that they have adopted over the years through the learning process. Research findings of the Effective Schools Movement believe that no one is more important to the culture of the school than the principal (Andrews & Basom, 1990). There is no common definition of leadership. Leadership “can also be viewed as a relationship within a process of getting things done” (Cuban, 1988, p. 191). In Leadership is an Art, Max DePree (1989) shared that his book forces the readers to view leader-as-steward in terms of relationships. Traditional views of leadership as managers or “as special people who set the direction, make the key decisions, and energizes the troops, are rooted in an individualistic and nonsystemic worldview” (Senge, 1990, p. 340) is changing. The new view of leadership in a learning organization is that of taking on the roles of designer, steward, and teacher. It is the leader’s responsibility for building -- creating and nurturing -- an organization that is continually learning. Senge’s Model

Leader as Designer This ship-related metaphor pertains to the leader as a designer of a ship as the most important role. Designing the governing ideas of vision, core values, and purpose or mission by which people will live, is the primary task of designing an organization. Senge (1990) emphasized, “The design work of leaders includes designing an organization’s policies, strategies, and systems”(p. 342). He continued to articulate that policies and strategies, “in order to be effectively implemented must be easy to understand and have employee agreement.” School leaders must be responsible for designing an organization that is conducive to learning, since the purpose of school is to provide a quality education for all students.

48 Leader as Steward The leader as a steward is synonymous with servant leader. In his article, The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations, Senge (1990b) says that “the servant leader is servant first... it begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve first.” Senge means that school leaders as stewards involve commitment and must accept the responsibility to share the vision with everyone to ensure that everyone knows why the organization exists. Within the school setting, the leader must have a new vision put into practice, while aligning that vision with the day-to-day activities. This means more than paying lip service to the belief that “all children can learn,” by including everyone in the school as learners (Bamburg, 2001). Leader as Teacher The leader as a teacher does not suggest an authoritarian leader whose job is to teach other people how to achieve their vision. In education, it means school administrators must be committed to fostering learning for all, that is, for teachers as well as students. When people bring to the surface their mental models, this according to Senge (1990) will “have a significant influence on how people perceive problems and opportunities, identify courses of actions, and make choices.” The school leaders have the responsibility of creating opportunities for teachers to acquire information through current research and to engage teachers in finding solutions to occurring problems. In a learning organization, leaders tend to focus primarily on the purpose and the systematic structure to influence teachers’ view of reality. Similarly, school leaders need to create a culture that encourages teachers to take risk in a safe nurturing environment that eliminates the fear of failure (Bamburg, 2001; Senge, 2001). Bolman and Deal Model In viewing leadership behavior from an organizational perspective, the Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame Model describes the characteristics of the different types of leadership orientations. The frames are structural, human resource, political, and symbolic, and their dimensions are described below. 1. Structural leaders: System thinkers who are data driven, concerned about student scores, value accountability, and solve organizational problems with new policies and rules or through restructuring. Dimensions:

49 a. Analytic: Think clearly and logically; approach problems with facts and attend to detail. b. Organized: Develop clear goals and policies; hold people accountable for results. 2. Human resource leaders: Value relationships and feelings. Their strength lies in seeking to lead others through facilitation and empowerment. Dimensions: a. Supportive: Concerned about the feelings of others; supportive and responsive. b. Participative: Foster participation and involvement; listens and are open to new ideas. 3. Political leaders: Are skillful negotiators and advocates whose time is spent primarily in networking, creating coalitions, and building a power base. Dimensions: a. Powerful: Persuasive, high ability to mobilize people and resources; effective at building alliances and support. b. Adroit: Politically sensitive and skillful; skillful negotiators in the face of conflict and opposition. 4. Symbolic leaders: Pay diligent attention to myth, ritual, ceremony, stories, and other symbolic forms in the organization. Dimensions: a. Inspirational: Inspire others to loyalty and enthusiasm; communicate a strong sense of vision. b. Charismatic: Imaginative, creative, emphasize culture and values; model organizational aspiration. A summary of the Bolman and Deal model is represented in Table 2.3.

50 Table 2.3

Bolman and Deal Four-Frame Model

Frame

Structural Human Political Symbolic Resource Metaphor for Factory or Family Jungle Carnival, Organization Machine temple, theater

Central Rules, roles, Needs, skills, Power, Culture, Concepts goals, relationships conflict, meaning, policies, competition, metaphor, technology, organizational ritual, environment politics ceremonies, stories, heroes Image of Social Empowerment Advocacy Inspiration Leadership architecture Basic Attune Align Develop Create faith, Leadership structure to organizational agenda and beauty, Challenge task, and human power base meaning technology, needs environment

In combining the two theoretical frames of Senge with Bolman and Deal, the following comparisons were observed. The leader as designer corresponds to the structural leader; whereas the leader as a steward is closely allied to the symbolic frame of leadership; and the leader as teacher is identical to the human resource leadership model (Dever, 1997). The political frame does not have a corresponding match, and this study would like to add one other metaphor to Senge’s three, and call it the leader as a collaborator. The leader as a collaborator must possess the ability to initiate and operate within the political framework without exerting undue influential power. His or her goal is to recognize people and encourage groups to articulate needs and mobilize. This is done without coercive power, but with a sense of control of resources by providing guidance to the access and distribution of these resources. It entails working together with different people, as a means of networking and fulfilling the vision of the organization.

51 Effectiveness as Managers and Leaders Other examples of leadership include the ever-ensuing debate over the differences between managers and leaders. This misunderstanding according to Maxwell (2002, p. 64) is that “leaders influence people to follow, while managers focus on maintaining systems and processes.” Leadership in an organization is often associated with managerial functions. The principals as managers will take pride in running their schools effectively. Managers are “responsive to the needs of their teachers, even to the point of being protective,” according to Rossow and Warner, (2000). Within the school setting, the principals as managers may feel uncomfortable delegating, but when given that opportunity, they tend to monitor teachers instead of allowing them the freedom to work independently. Argyris (1992) contended that organizational researchers and practitioners considered change in behaviors essential to effectiveness. Leadership effectiveness is defined as “a multifaceted construct that is embodied in nine dimensions: support, motivation, functionality, power, delegation, planning, decision-making, problem solving, and team building” (Aguinis & Adams, 1998). The principals as leaders represent the role that is primarily connected to how efficient or effective principals perform in this position. The difference between efficiency and effectiveness is demonstrated in whether principals are operating in a survival mode or delineating their duties in a successful manner. According to Maxwell (2002, p. 41), “efficiency is the foundation for survival; by contrast, effectiveness is the foundation for success.” Educational reform has emphasized the need for effective leadership. An important characteristic trait of effective school leaders is the ability to provide strong instructional leadership,” (Policy Publication, 2003; Policy Brief, 1999). The primary task of the instructional leader is not only to provide instruction to teachers, but also to equip teachers with the necessary skills and training they require to perform their jobs better. The role of the principal as an instructional leader is an integral part of the Whole School Effectiveness survey that will be used in this study. Instructional leadership means “understanding curriculum, instruction, and student learning and using research and evaluation data to improve the system” (Rossow & Warner, 2000, p. 30). According

52 to Ubben and Hughes (1997), “effective instructional leadership requires a complex set of relationships between principals and their beliefs and the surrounding environment of the school.” Also taken into consideration are the values and past experiences of school administrators. The instructional leader is a principal who can: shape the mission of the school, establish a culture that communicates a significance of purpose and respect for the members of the school community, lead by example, and communicate the mission to all stakeholders (Cuban, 1988). Smith and Andrews (1989), as cited in Andrews and Basom (1990), declared that instructional leadership is “behavior that is highly connected to positive growth in academic performance.” The principal displays instructional leadership behavior by: (a) interacting with teachers, (b) being a resource provider, (c) acting as an instructional resource, (d) sharing communication, and (e) having a visible presence. In recent years, collaborative leadership has been identified as possessing the characteristic of a shared purpose or leading from the center. These leaders work together, build teams, and create networks (Lashway, 1996). This type of leadership styles is incorporated to attach further importance to the concept of leader as a collaborator. Many learning schools are now beginning to identify the benefits of collaboration, therefore, effective principals or assistant principals must possess the ability to collaborate with their internal and external stakeholders, through communication and community building. Clift, Veal, Holland, Johnson, and McCarthy (1995) defined collaboration as “an agreement to work toward a common goal. In explaining the defining roles and skills necessary for the leader as a collaborator, review of the literature was compulsory. .” The literature review supported the concept of leader as a collaborator as discussed in this study. Collaborative leadership is defined as set of skills needed for leading people to accomplish both individual and collective goals (Rubin, 2002; Williams, 2001). Leadership theory revealed the numerous metaphors various researchers utilized to perceived leaders. The following table is a summary of researchers’ leadership theories and metaphors.

53 Table 2.4

Researchers’ Leadership Theories and Metaphors

Researchers Metaphors

Senge, 1990 Leader as: Designer, Steward, and Teacher

Bolman & Deal, 1997 Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic leaders.

Clift, Veal, Holland, Collaborative Leadership Johnson, & McCarthy, 1995 Rubin, 2002 Williams, 2001

Cuban, 1988 Instructional Leadership Smith & Andrews, 1989 as cited in Andrew & Basom, 1990 Ubben & Hughes, 1997

Leadership Behaviors

John B. Watson, an American psychologist who was influential in the 1920s and 1930s, and B. F. Skinner, another American psychologist who had a tremendous impact on education in the 1950s and 1960s, developed behaviorism theories. Behaviorism theory in adult learning loosely encompasses the work of such people as Thorndike, Tolman, Guthrie, and Hull (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). What characterizes these investigators is their underlying assumptions about the process of learning such as: (a) observable behavior rather than internal thought processes is the focus of study; (b) the environment shapes behaviors, and what one learns is determined by the elements in the environment, not by the individual learner; and (c) the principles of contiguity and reinforcement are central to explaining the learning process, according to Grippen & Peters (1984), as cited in Merriam & Caffarella (1999).

54 Leadership style is a significant factor in defining the culture of the school. Goldman (1998) stipulated that deep-seated values and beliefs are the determining factors about how people learn. If the principal does not practice collaboration or openness with teachers and students, it will be reflected in the culture of the school. He asserted that intended and unintended consequences are inevitable when leaders look to the school to reflect their beliefs. Leaders are encouraged to examine both the practice and values that determine practice with the intention of being prepared to rethink their leadership. Gender Females are typically considered less effective as decision makers. However, research suggest otherwise. In a meta-analysis, Eagley, Karau, and Johnson (1992) compared the leadership styles of male and female school principals. A total of 50 studies were examined to determine if there was a difference in leadership styles based on gender. The leadership styles explored were: (a) interpersonally oriented, (b) task oriented, and (c) democratic versus autocratic.

Results of the studies reflected that, in general, female principals scored somewhat higher than male principals on measures of task-oriented styles, but there was less evidence of a gender difference on measures of interpersonally-oriented style. The aspect of democratic versus autocratic was highly in favor of female principals adopting a more democratic or participatory style and a less autocratic style than male principals.

Bolman and Deal (1992) examined the relationship between management and leadership for school administrators in the United States and Singapore. Two general hypotheses guided the research. The first hypothesis looked at both manager and leader’s capacity to reframe. This ability was considered vital to the issue of success as either a manager or leader. The second hypothesis stated that leadership is contextual.

The sample for the study was comprised of 50 school principals from Broward County in Florida, 90 school administrators from Beaverton, Oregon, and 274 school administrators from Singapore. There were three questions to explore how well the four frames: captured thinking, were related to effectiveness, and how context, culture, and gender influenced success patterns. The four frames or categories used were the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frame.

55 Results suggested that for a principal to be effective as both a leader and manager, it was crucial to have the ability to use multiple frames. Structural orientation had a high relationship with being effective as a manager. Bolman and Deal (1992) found that in the area of managerial effectiveness, the symbolic frame is more strongly associated to principals than any other type of administrator. The findings from the symbolic frame were selected because it is closely associated with organizational culture. One aspect of the symbolic frame that was low for administrators from both countries was, “Sees beyond current realities to create new opportunities.” Positive predictors were significant in the human resource and political frames in determining success as both leader and manager.

Discussing the gender issue, Bolman and Deal (1992) concluded that consistent with other research, female principals perform as well or better than their male counterparts. This can be interpreted as women are capable of high performance on the job, so the under-representation of women in school administration is not a function of their inability to be effective leaders. Differences in performance expectations for men and women may not produce comparable results according to the study. It was also revealed that differences were found in how men and women were judged by American school administrators. Men were judged on their ability to be warm and participative, whereas, women were evaluated on their ability to be organized and rational. Assistant Principals While the principal of the school remains in the community limelight, it is often the assistant principal who interacts more with students (see Hausman, Nebeker, McCreary, and Donaldson, 2002). A recent study reviewed the literature relating to the multiple dimensions of the work lives of assistant principals. The assistant principal is on a different level of the authority structure than the principal. The working relationship that the assistant principal has with teachers is key to the role. There are usually some obstacles that assistant principals encounter when relating to other teachers with respect to conflicts regarding discipline of students and support of teachers. Assistant principals find satisfaction in curricular activities with

56 teachers, working with other assistants, and fostering a relationship with the principal (Hartzell et al., 1995 as cited in Hausman, Nebeker, McCreary, and Donaldson 2002). Job satisfaction of the assistant principal considered several factors including social needs. Social needs depended on the school level at which assistant principals worked. Elementary school assistant principals perceived less deficiency in social needs than secondary school assistant principals. The role that assistant principals fulfilled determined the level of their social needs, autonomy, and self-actualization. The study further revealed that assistant principals felt that principals provided significant assistance with regards to teaming, advising, support, and allowing flexibility for site-based policies. In summary, the above literature review has served the objective of supporting the constructs to be studied. The learning organization and its five disciplines were the theoretical framework for discussing the implications of mental models and learning. Empirical and theoretical research suggested that learning could be individual, collective, or organizational. Single-loop and double-loop learning that originated from the theory of action science have emphasized the importance of double-loop or generative learning. Theories of action deals with the discrepancy between what people espouse and what they actually do. It acts as a barometer to measure the fluctuating activity between what a person or organization believes in and what it actually does or practices. Espoused theory and theory-in-use have come together as a connecting theme throughout much of the literature review. Consistent with the theory of mental models, culture, and leadership behavior, espoused value and theory-in-use provide the connecting thread that has served to link the three constructs theoretically. Emerging also from the literature review is the notion that leaders influence culture and behaviors and are the reflection of mental models that, in turn, influence how a person behaves. Mental models can apply to an individual or groups of individuals, while culture reflects the aggregation of mental models. The model below summarizes the characteristics of school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors as they relate to individuals and groups. It depicts the constructs of school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors on a continuum to define the function of each construct. This continuum shows how the three constructs are

57 arranged from “individual” at one end to “group” at the opposite extremity with “individual or group” representing a point in this range. Behaviors in this model are positioned on the individual edge, with mental models characterized as both individual and group, and culture characterized as a group. There is an overlap of the three constructs because mental models can be collective school culture referring to how groups of people think or can describe how an individual thinks. Leadership behaviors are the reflective actions of mental models, that is, they represent how an individual is thinking by his/her observable overt actions. *THEORIES-In-ACTION

SCHOOL CULTURE

Shared assumptions, behaviors, GROUP

beliefs, norms, values

(Espoused Values)

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS MENTAL MODELS

Assumptions, (Reflective images, values, ti ) beliefs INDIVIDUAL (Theories-in-use)

INDIVIDUAL or GROUP

*Theories-in-Action are the espoused theory (what people believe) and theories-in-use (what people do), including reflective actions to describe each construct Figure 2.3 School Culture, Mental Models, and Leadership Behaviors And Their Characteristics

58 Leadership theory has provided certain characteristics or traits to describe a leader. Ideal leaders will be school administrators who demonstrate all or many of the leadership behavior theories and metaphors that have been discussed in this study. The connections between the constructs have been supported in the theoretical review of literature. For example, mental models and culture, leadership behaviors and organizational culture, mental models and learning concepts have been included in one or several of the empirical research efforts that are related to this study. Related Empirical Research As a foundation for the present study, empirical research has been selected from studies relating to school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors; these provide understanding and support for exploring the interrelationships of these three constructs. The sections below describe the research that is relevant to these constructs and their interrelationships. Research Related to School Culture Fiore (1999) conducted recent research in 261 elementary schools in Illinois and Indiana to examine the principal’s role in school culture. The data were collected through interviews that the researcher conducted with teachers. A positive school culture means that there is high student achievement, improved morale and a sense of connectedness. A negative school culture is implied and can be identified by low student achievement, low morale and a lack of cohesiveness. The investigation showed that the principal is the primary contact to generate and maintain a positive school culture.

For example, schools that had positive cultures had principals who placed much value on being highly visible to all stakeholders during the course of the day. On the other hand, principals of schools with negative cultures placed more emphasis on paperwork than on having visibility as a priority. Teachers from schools with positive school cultures were more appreciative of the principal’s visibility and recognized the impact this had on student achievement and the overall cohesiveness in the environment.

Fiore (1999) explained that there is increasing research that supports how creating and sustaining positive school cultures consistently increase student achievement and promote morale among all stakeholders. Fiore concluded that by encouraging principals

59 to understand the need to operate as learning communities, which are “rich in student achievement, staff morale, and cultures replete with positive, welcoming feelings.” The above research showed the impact of a positive school culture on student achievement and staff morale. Empirical support of this nature is important to learn how positive school cultures are related to leadership behaviors. The following study describes further the relationship between organizational cultures and principals’ leadership behaviors. Shaw (1990) conducted a study on the organizational cultures and principals’ leadership behaviors in three academically dissimilar middle schools. The criteria for selecting the three middle schools were based on student scores from the annual Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) and the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills Test (TEAMS) for seventh graders in mathematics, reading, and writing. The study used qualitative and quantitative methods to collect the data. In-depth interviews and two survey instruments, The School Culture Survey and the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-XII provided data for triangulation. Administrators, teachers, some parents, and students were participants in the study. Findings of the study revealed that there were differences in the culture of the three dissimilar schools and in the leadership behaviors of those schools. The Albert Middle School is an academically high achieving school, whereas the Charles Middle School is an academically low achieving school, and the Bobb Middle School is an academically high achieving school that is on the decline. The study found that “The culture and principals’ leadership behaviors of the lower-achieving school focused on maintaining the instructional program according to the tradition, on a lecture-based instructional mode, and on self-preservation.” In the higher-achieving schools, more focus was placed on meeting the individual needs of both students and teachers. The culture in these two schools was based on creating and maintaining a warm, caring, and supportive environment conducive to teaching and learning, and making every effort to achieve success. Implications of this study suggest the significant impact that the organizational culture and the principal’s leadership behaviors have on the lives of teachers and students on a daily basis.

60 Linzy (1990) conducted a comparative study of the relationships between school organizational climate, the independent variable, and student achievement, the dependent variable. In this research, climate appears to have the same connotation as culture; therefore, culture will be used to refer to those same characteristics in the study. Students were selected from fifth, seventh, and ninth grades in a North Florida school district. Ten schools were selected from a total of twenty-three schools, and were ranked high or low depending on scores from the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS).

Organizational climate (culture) was defined in the study as “a general administrative climate created by the policies and practices of administrators which influence the performance of all subordinate levels to a greater or lesser extent” (Linzy, 1990, p. 78). The “Profile of a School” (POS) questionnaire was the instrument used to assess school culture with groups of principals, teachers, students, and parents responding to the appropriate form of the survey.

The results of the study were significant in the seventh grade regarding relationships of school culture and student achievement in high achieving seventh grade students. The study also found that high academic achievement was not dependent upon a particular style of leadership. The study revealed that principals had a higher perception of their leadership style than teachers and students’ perceptions. For the students in fifth, seventh, and ninth grades, findings showed that teacher, principal and student leadership were necessary for high academic achievement. Finally, culture was not a unique characteristic of high achieving schools according to the principals and teachers of the elementary, middle, or high schools studied.

In regards to this study, the above is empirical research that supports how important organizational culture is for student achievement, at the different school levels. Research Related to Mental Models

Huang (1993) studied selected Chinese and North American adult graduate students to compare their cognitive styles, cognitive profiles, and thinking styles. The purpose of his study had several other components: comparing the findings of the study with other cognitive profile research; determining whether there were relationships

61 between and among the variables of cognitive styles, cognitive profiles, thinking styles and selected demographic variables.

The study used the seven cognitive styles that Letteri (1982) developed for success in educational institutions as: field dependence versus field independence; scanning; breadth of categorization; cognitive complexity; reflectivity versus impulsivity; sharpening versus leveling; and tolerance versus intolerance for ambiguous information (Huang, 1993, p. 17). These cognitive styles were later placed into three cognitive profiles after years of study and were classified as Type 1, students as usually high academic achievers, Type 2, average or middle of the road student performance and Type 3, associated with low academic performance. According to Huang (1993), researchers Letteri and Kuntz (1982) further established that the majority of their subjects (80%) were comprised of Type 2 people, whereas, Types 1 and 3 people made up 10% each. Thinking styles in the study included the five inquiry modes (synthesist, idealist, pragmatist, analyst, realist) developed by Harrison and Bramson (1982).

Subjects for the study were Chinese and North American graduate students at the University of Wyoming. The students’ age range was from 25 to 46 years, and students were selected from three major fields of natural science, social science/humanities, and engineering. The population for this research was not homogeneous in study areas, therefore, the population was divided into subpopulations or strata to select the sample of 150 students (75 Chinese, and 75 North Americans) using a stratified sampling design.

Data were collected using the seven cognitive styles, the Cognitive Profile tests, and the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire to assess thinking styles. Data were analyzed using SPSS and MINITAB/PC computer packages to explore relationships between and among cognitive styles, cognitive profiles, and thinking styles. The findings revealed that the near curvilinear distribution of the sample for Cognitive profiles of Types I, II, and III, were consistent with previous studies, but subjects of Huang’s (1993) study were more reflective. Results for the cognitive styles revealed relationships between country, gender, age, major and several of the cognitive styles.

Findings for thinking styles indicated a relationship between country difference and the pragmatist thinking style, between major and idealist, analyst, and realist thinking

62 styles. Negative relationships were found among several thinking styles. For example, the synthesist thinking style was negatively related to the pragmatist, analyst, and realist thinking styles. The idealist was negatively related to the pragmatist, analyst, and realist style of thinking; this means that a strong idealist subject is unlikely to choose pragmatist, analyst, or realist thinking styles as his/her favorite styles (p. 150). There was another negative relationship found between the pragmatist and analyst thinking styles. A positive relationship was inferred between the synthesist and idealist thinking styles. Further findings showed an interaction between the country difference and the gender difference on the idealist thinking style.

Implications of this research showed that the results of the study contributed to the body of knowledge and theory, but cannot, however, be generalized to other institutions in the United States. The researcher suggested that the research was the first of is kind and the findings of the study could provide information to educational psychologists, educators, and instructors about the cognitive styles, cognitive profiles, and thinking styles of North American and Chinese students in higher education.

Raybould (2000) extended the link between individual and organizational learning, which Kim (1993) initiated in his study, and included the concept of collective learning, to understand shared mental models. The research was conducted in an elementary school, located in an upper middle class residential neighborhood, and selected because of its use of technology. The purpose of the study was to explore the individual and shared mental models (knowledge, assumptions, beliefs, norms, values, and emotions) used in responding to the organizational change of integrating instructional technology within the curriculum.

The study used qualitative research methods that consisted of observations of eleven teachers, semi-structured interviews of six teachers, concept mapping, and documents. The researcher implemented two types of frameworks to sensitize her to the concepts of learning and mental models in the study to assist in data gathering. First, two concepts of learning were recognized: operational and conceptual, and two types of shared mental models consisting of routines and frameworks. Secondly, it was realized that mental models are often implicit and members of the organization may be unaware

63 of the individual and collective assumptions, norms, and values that they possess. Mental models were described based on observations, documents, and interviews to make sense of events.

Results of the study showed that it was possible to transition learning processes between individual and organizational learning. “Collective learning that referred to the learning processes along the continuum of individual and organizational learning involved more than one person but could not be aggregated to the organizational level” (p. 123). Findings showed that mental models varied among the subject teachers with regards to teaching and learning and instructional technology. The study also identified the variables that impacted the changes made with technology in the school that included consistency between words and deed, predictability, information distribution, modification of routine, and a shift in perspective. Implications for future research to explicate mental models suggested recording conversations for detailed analysis of the information for context and meaning.

Lindsay (2000) studied culture, mental models, and national prosperity. The goal of the study was to identify critical issues that would allow the researcher to focus on fostering a broadly shared vision for the nation. From a 1992 national survey, aimed at improving the competitiveness of developing countries’ industries, a series of surveys were developed to determine the mental models people had about wealth creation. Approximately 400 government and business leaders in Colombia were administered the survey. Five major cities in Colombia were selected because initial findings showed there were conspicuous differences between leaders in different cities.

He believed that it was useful to apply mental models to the task of understanding cultures. In studying the cities with the highest and lowest per capita income, the data suggested a “significant relationship between mindset of a region and its degree of economic success.” There appears to be a connection between mental models and culture (society). Mental models apply to individuals and groups of individuals as the study emphasized, whereas the culture reflected the accumulation of mental models and, in turn, influenced the type of mental models individuals have.

64 Findings of the study revealed that it was what individual leaders thought about wealth creation, and not culture, that influenced the quality of their decisions. It was the mental models of the leaders or aggregation of beliefs relating to wealth creation, social capital, and action orientation that accounted for the differences. Lindsay concluded that changing mental models should be the focus for any change efforts, since this approach can be effective and since any attempt to change societal culture is a much greater task.

Research Related to Leadership Behaviors

Ibrahim (1985) studied instructional leadership behaviors of high school principals, department heads and other administrative staff (assistant principals, curriculum and/or instructional specialists or coordinators, and guidance counselors) as perceived by selected teachers and principals in Florida schools. Criteria for school selection was determined by mean student scores in the 90% or above range on the Florida State Student Assessment Test (SSAT). The sample consisted of 170 potential schools, 95 principals and 184 teachers obtained from the 1984 edition of the Florida Education Directory. The dimension of instructional leadership was the focus of this study. A survey instrument referred to as the Instructional Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (ILBDQ) was specifically developed to seek out the perceptions of principals and teachers in effective high schools. Results of the study indicated that, “the role of principal is perceived by both teachers and principals in effective schools as the major source of instructional leadership” (p. 91). Principals rated their instructional leadership higher than teachers. Department heads were viewed as being more accessible for discussion and assistance, but were not considered as the primary instructional leaders. Principals’ perception of other instructional staff as instructional leaders was lower than their perceptions of themselves but higher than that for department heads. Findings of this research will be relevant to this study as it will provide insights of teachers’ perceptions of the principals and assistant principals in relation to the school culture from their responses on the Whole School Effectiveness survey. Hausman, Nebeker, McCreary, and Donaldson (2002) surveyed 125 assistant principals in the public and private schools in Maine to determine how assistant principals allocate their time, the success they found in specific roles and activities, and

65 the relationship between perceived success and quality of work life ratings. Data was collected from a survey distributed in May 1997, to assistant principals of all public and approved private K-12 schools. Data were analyzed using SPSS database by the Center for Educational Research at the University of Maine. The study used descriptive and multivariate statistics to explore how the patterns of involvement relate to work life. Results of the study showed that (a) assistant principals in Maine spent a majority of their time in student management, (b) assistant principals felt successful in the tasks they did well, for example, student management, and (c) the majority of assistant principals described their work life in positive ways. Hausman et al., (2002) indicated that their findings were consistent with prior research that revealed how assistant principals spent their time on certain tasks depended on gender. It was revealed that female assistant principals spent more time than their male counterpart on instructional leadership, professional development, personnel management, and public relation activities. In leadership roles, males acted in a more structured, directive, and autocratic manner, while females tend to have a more personalized, democratic, and participative style. The study supported the notion that female and male leaders have different experiences and perceptions of the world. The findings of the research gave insight into the role of the assistant principal, the minimal amount of time spent on instructional leadership, professional development, and being prepared to assume the role of becoming a principal. These findings will be helpful to this study in exploring the different leadership styles, and thinking styles of male and female assistant principals.

Summaries of empirical research efforts are shown in Table 2.5, Table 2.6 and

Table 2.7.

Table 2.5

Summary of Selected Research on Organizational (School) Culture

Researchers Constructs Samples Methods Objectives Findings Fiore, 1999 School culture 261 Qualitative: To improve Principal visibility elementary interviews school created a positive schools with teachers culture school culture and through had impact on principal student achievement visibility and staff morale Linzy, 1990 School culture Ten North Quantitative: To compare Significant results Florida questionnaire relationships regarding schools of of school relationship of 5th, 7th, and culture and school culture and 9th graders student student achievement achievement in high achieving 7th at the graders. elementary, In the high achieving middle, and schools, students high school appeared to be levels. successful regardless of the culture and leadership behaviors. Shaw, 1990 Organizational Three Qualitative: To examine Culture and (school) middle In-depth principals’ leadership behaviors culture, and schools interviews leadership in the two high leadership Quantitative: behaviors in achieving schools behaviors 2 surveys three focused on creating a academically warm, supportive dissimilar environment good schools. for teaching and learning.

67 Table 2.6 Summary of Selected Research on Mental Models

Researchers Constructs Samples Methods Objectives Findings Huang, 1993 Cognitive 150 Chinese Qualitative: To compare Cognitive styles styles, and North interviews selected showed cognitive American Quantitative: Chinese and relationship profiles, and adult questionnaire North between country, thinking graduate American gender, age, and styles students graduate major. students and Cognitive profiles explore were consistent relationships with other styles. between Thinking styles cognitive indicated processes and relationship other between country demographic difference and the variables. pragmatist thinking style. Lindsay, Culture, 400 Quantitative: To identify It was mental 2000 mental government surveys critical issues models, not models, and and business that focused culture that national leaders on a broadly accounted for the prosperity shared vision differences in for the nation how leaders thought about wealth creation Raybould, Mental An Qualitative: To explore It is possible to 2000 models, and elementary observations, the individual transition learning learning school semi- shared mental processes concepts structured models used between interviews, in responding individual and concept to the organizational mapping, and organizational learning. documents change Collective processes. learning could not be aggregated to the organizational level.

68 Table 2.7

Summary of Selected Research on Leadership Behaviors

Researchers Constructs Samples Methods Objectives Findings

Hausman, Leadership 125 Quantitative: To determine Assistant Nebeker, behaviors assistant survey how assistant principals in McCreary, principals principals Maine spent a & K-12 spent their majority of their Donaldson, time, their time in student 2002 functions and management, success in and felt activities. successful in performing this task. Ibrahim, Instructional 94 Quantitative; To study Teachers and 1985 leadership principals, questionnaire instructional principals behaviors 184 leadership perceive the role teachers behaviors of as principal high school important for principals, effective schools department and a major heads and source of other instructional administrative leadership. staff

The study of mental models have dealt with many issues relating to team performance or shared mental models (Banks, & Millward, 2000; Langan-Fox, Code, & Langfield-Smith, 2000) as a distributed cognitive process, or as techniques, methods, and analytic approaches. Unfortunately, even through a thorough and comprehensive research, there exists little information on relationships between school (organizational) culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among variables reflecting school culture, mental models or thinking styles, and leadership behaviors of school administrators. The secondary purpose was to investigate how these constructs varied in terms of leadership behaviors as they related to the gender, position and years of experience of school administrators. A tertiary purpose was to distinguish the characteristics of current school culture as they related to gender, position and school levels of school administrators at the elementary, middle and senior high schools. School administrators in this study consisted of both male and female principals and assistant principals from K-12 schools in Riverhills County. The research questions for this study are: A. Primary Questions 1. How do the mental models of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? 2. How do the leadership behaviors of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? B. Secondary Questions 3. How does the current school culture relate to gender, position and schools in which principals and assistant principals serve? What are the unique effects of gender, position and school level on each of the school culture variables? 4. How do the dimensions of leadership behavior of principals and assistant principals relate to their gender, position and years of experience? What are the unique effects of gender, position and years of experience on each of the four frames of leadership behaviors? 5. What are the differences between female and male principals and assistant principals as indicated by their thinking styles (mental models)? 6. What is the overall perceived level of effectiveness as managers or leaders and behavior orientations of principals and assistant principals?

Data Source The target population was a large urban school district in Florida. The population consisted of principals and assistant principals from grades K-12. Special Centers, schools under construction, pre-K Centers, and charter schools were not included in the study. To facilitate the process of obtaining information, the researcher obtained a list of all the K-12 schools, principals and assistant principals within the district. Information was gathered from other sources such as the schools’ websites, and from the School Board Digest for recent administrative appointments and transfers and to verify correct placement of school administrators. A targeted sample of approximately 400 school administrators was chosen to participate in the study. The population consisted of 107 principals at the elementary level, 37 at the middle school level, and 22 principals at the high school level. Assistant principals at the elementary level were 95, whereas middle school had 75, and there were 64 at the high school level. School administrators were separated into distinctive subgroups accordingly: a) levels of schools – elementary, middle, and high schools, b) position, c) years of experience, and d) gender. Procedures to Gather Data The researcher contacted the supervisor of Assessment and Accountability in the district. Submission of a Research Proposal Request form was a pre-requisite for obtaining approval before conducting any type of research in the district. The researcher gained permission to conduct the study in the school district (see Appendix A). A cover letter was sent to school administrators and included a description of the study to be conducted, the dates and other pertinent information, its potential long-term importance to schools and to school reform, the benefits of the study to the participants (Appendix B). The cover letter ensured confidentiality and anonymity, verified legitimacy of the study, and provided the name and contact number of the researcher and major professor. A demographic sheet accompanied the cover letter for the purpose of gathering further information so as to ascertain (a) school level, (b) position, (c) years of experience, and (d) gender; see Appendix C.

71 The packet containing the cover letter, approval letter from the district, a demographic sheet, and two paper and pencil questionnaires were mailed to 400 participants. A self-addressed stamped envelope was included in the packet to enhance the response rate. Surveys were mailed to principals first, after an initial contact by e-mail to alert them about the packet that they would receive. About a week later, the same procedure was used in contacting assistant principals before the packet was mailed to them. Each group was given three to four weeks to complete and return the questionnaires. Participants in the study were requested to complete the demographic data sheet; see Appendix C, the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire (InQ; Appendix D), and the Leadership Orientations Self-Survey; see Appendix E. After a period of four weeks, phone calls and e-mails were sent to randomly selected non-respondents. As an incentive, the researcher agreed to send a summary of the findings to all participants. Steps in Gathering Information from Data School Levels Surveys were sent to most elementary principals, except those principals who had been newly appointed or who had been with the current school for less than one year. This was done because the results of the 2002-2003 Whole School Effectiveness Survey were regarded as the assessment of school culture; see Appendix F. A purposive sample was used to select the 107 elementary schools. There were 37 middle schools selected and 22 senior high schools were chosen for the study. Principals at all levels and assistant principals at elementary schools were a purposive sample, while assistant principals at the middle and senior high schools were randomly selected. The next step was to look at the responses from each school level. The number of elementary schools responding was 42 out of 107 (39.3%). Middle schools responding were 24 out of 37 (64.9%), whereas, senior high school had a response rate of 45.5% or 10 out of 22. Middle schools had the highest response rate followed by the senior high schools, but elementary schools had the lowest number of schools responding to the surveys. A total of 76 different schools participated in the study out of the 166 schools that were targeted giving a school return rate of 45.8%. There were multiple responses for four elementary schools, five middle schools and five schools at the senior high level.

72 This means that there were more individual responses in this study than the number of schools with participants. The targeted sample of school administrators was separated into principals and assistant principals. The following step was to gather the responses from school administrators at the different school levels to obtain pertinent information from the data. There were 46 responses from elementary schools, 29 respondents from middle school and 17 replies from senior high schools for a total of 92 participants. Response rates for the survey instruments used to assess thinking styles (mental models) and leadership behaviors varied. Of the 92 respondents there were 84 participants who returned the completed surveys for both instruments, and eight participants who returned only the Leadership Orientations Self-Survey. The validity and reliability of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire and Leadership Orientations Self-Survey will be discussed later. In the ensuing paragraphs a review of the literature on variables will help to explain the rationale for inclusion of the demographic variables in the study. Variables The variables of gender, years of experience, position, and school levels were used in this study to investigate the relationships among the constructs of school culture, thinking styles (mental models) and leadership behaviors. Gender, years of experience, positions, and school levels were variables that had been the focus of many studies and national reports. Women were underrepresented in leadership positions particularly as public school principals. The National Center for Education Statistics (1993-1994; 1999-2000) reports that in 1993-1994 male principals accounted for 65% with female principals comprising 35% of that data. However, the data for the 1999-2000 school year revealed a slight decrease in male principalship to 56% and a slight increase of female principals to 44%. According to the 1996 report from the U.S. Department of Education, the number of male principals far exceeds female principals, who represented 35% (Reiss, Young, & Jury, 1999). This compilation of data strongly suggests that there is a tendency within the educational system to appoint more males to the principal position. Similarly, Hallinger and Leithwood (1998) recognized the accumulating body of research that showed an association between principal leadership and gender (Adkinson,

73 1981; Glasman, 1984; Gross & Trask, 1976); and gender differences of principals in school restructuring efforts (Klecker & Loadman, 1999). Research showed that on average male elementary principals were less involved in instructional leadership than their female counterpart. According to Andrews and Basom (1990), female elementary principals spent 38.4% of their time on instructional leadership activities, compared to 21.8% from male elementary principals. It is important to use gender as a variable to determine if this situation is prevalent in a specific school district. Years of experience from the data revealed that in 1993-1994 the average for males was 10.3 years compared to 5.6 years for females. This information showed a slight change for the 1999-2000 school year with 10.6 years and 6.9 years for males and females principals, respectively. In a 1998 longitudinal study of elementary and middle school principals commissioned by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the study looked at several variables, among them the number of years of experience as a principal. Doud and Keller (1998) reported that over the past decade the median number of years of experience was 11 years for principals. Years of experience appear to impact the particular leadership style of principals as Bolman and Deal (1991) inferred in their study of principals and administrators. With regards to prior teaching experience before entering the position as a principal, females tended to have spent more time (15.2 years) in teaching compared to their male counterpart (13.1 years). Hierarchy or position is quite different for the principal and assistant principal as they are at “different levels of the organization’s authority structure” (Hausman, Nebeker, McCreary, & Donaldson, 2002). Perceptions of the roles and functions of principals and assistant principals rely primarily on the openness of the communication between both individuals, and if either or both are considered to be relationship-oriented or task-oriented. Both principals and assistant principals may have faulty perceptions by discerning themselves to be relationship- oriented, when in fact they are perceived by the other group to be task-oriented, thus creating a gap in perceptions. It is the principal who is head of this hierarchy in which Graham and Messner (1998) described as the most difficult middle management position in America.

74 The NCES report provided results for school type at the elementary and secondary levels, as well as a category for combined schools. It showed that elementary schools were 72% of the schools or three times the number of secondary schools in the nation, whereas combined schools only represented approximately 4% of the total. Demographics variables have been used extensively in research to either report descriptive information or their relationships with other constructs. For example, in a study relating to the level of success ratings of school leaders, Sparks and Lipka (1962), as cited in Zelvys (2003), the conclusions affirmed that demographic variables, such as gender, age, years of teaching experience were not contributing factors. Although this also has been the case with demographic variables relating to other constructs, such studies contribute to the present study to aid in the exploration of these variables in relation to school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors. Based on a review of the literature and after examining several relevant questionnaires, the measurement instruments discussed below were selected for school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors because their categories best represented the constructs identified in the study. Instrumentation

Two questionnaires were completed by paper and pencil. The survey instruments included the: (a) Whole School Effectiveness Survey, (b) Inquiry Mode Questionnaire, and (c) Leadership Orientations Survey (self-rating). The Whole School Effectiveness Survey was administered by the school district and used a Likert scale with responses: A strongly agree, B agree, C disagree, D strongly disagree, and E not applicable NA. There were 58 items (items numbered 3 to 60) that the school district analyzed, with five items; numbers 61 to 65 that concentrated on Controlled Choice Plans for the district. The school district administered the survey during April of the 2002-2003 school year. All instructional and support personnel were required to take the survey. Along with the survey and score sheet, a memo was included with directions for the completion and return of the survey to the school district. The Riverhills County Schools administered, relative to school culture, the Whole School Effectiveness Survey (WSES) for the “Instructional and Professional Staff 2002- 2003.” The school (organizational) culture in this study refers to those correlates in this

75 survey that are responsive and supportive of the needs of the students, parents, and community, including the eight correlates below. Labels were used to identify each correlate. According to Stenner (1978) in his description of construct labels, he “referred to them as not themselves constructs.” He further stated that “labels are shorthanded designations for a more lengthy description of an organizing influence.” The labels for each correlate assigned by the school district are in parentheses beside the corresponding correlates. The eight correlates are: 1. Instructional leadership. (Principal as Leader) 2. Clear and focused mission. (Mission) 3. Climate of high expectations. (High Expectations) 4. Frequent monitoring of student progress. (Assessment and Monitoring) 5. Opportunity to learn and student time on task. (Instructional Delivery) 6. Safe and orderly environment. (Environment) 7. Positive home-school relations. (Parent/community) 8. School culture. (Culture) School culture was classified in this study as assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms and values (Conner, 1992; Leithwood, Aitkin, & Jantzi, 2001; and Schein, 1992). Categories of School Culture 1. Assumptions: They are the values that people take for granted in the school. 2. Behaviors: Observable actions of how people operate during daily activities in the school environment. 3. Beliefs: What people hold to be true or false in the school. 4. Norms: Taken-for-granted standards, traditions, rituals, or habits in the school. 5. Values: Things that individuals claim guide their actions. They are the basis for strategies, goals, and philosophies. The correlates of school culture were divided into the following categories: Assumptions: Environment. Behaviors: Principal as Leader. Instructional Delivery Beliefs: High Expectations

76 Parent/Community Involvement Norms: Culture Values: Mission Assessment and Monitoring Reliability

Reliability of a measuring instrument refers to the degree of consistency with which it measures whatever it is measuring. (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 1990; Gay & Airasian, 2000). This is a very important quality in any kind of measurement. Researchers use correlations to express reliability numerically as a reliability coefficient. A high reliability coefficient indicates high reliability of the instrument. The reliability coefficient of 1.00 would indicate a perfect reliability. However, because scores are invariably affected by errors of measurement resulting from a variety of causes, no test or measure is perfectly reliable (Gay & Airasian, 2000, p. 170). Validity

The validity of an instrument is the degree to which it measures what it is intended to measure. If an instrument measures consistently (reliably) but does not measure the intended variable, it has little value. Therefore, validity is a crucial feature of any instrument and the most important characteristic that any test or measuring instrument can possess. It is concerned with the appropriateness of the interpretations made from results obtained from the instrument. Since we have a purpose for testing or measuring specific variables, we must have validity (Gay & Airasian, 2000). “Validity is best thought of in terms of degree: highly valid, moderately valid, and generally invalid” (p.161). Understanding the interpretations to be made from the selected instruments and collecting evidence to support the desired interpretation are steps in recognizing the validity of an instrument. Validity and Reliability of the Whole School Effectiveness Survey Information on the reliability and validity of the instrument revealed that the Effective Schools Needs Assessment Database contained over 2,000 items retrieved from various sources, and coded to reflect the correlates. The items have been tested for reliability based on these factors: (a) the respondents tend to agree with each other

77 regarding responses to the same item, (b) similar responses and patterns of responses are noted for items designed to assess the same construct, and (c) responses remain unchanged for two copies of the survey completed a few day apart. Regarding the validity of the instrument, there are concurrent and content validity, of which content validity is the most important in assessing school needs. Questions are categorized to fit each correlate. The final authority on the items selection was the responsibility of the school improvement team and/or district in selecting the items that are valid for the purpose of assessment. The School District of Riverhills County adhered to this procedure. Tests for reliability of the instrument were unavailable, thus creating a limitation of this instrument. A factor analysis was performed to assess the internal reliability of the Whole School Effectiveness instrument. The “Instructional and Professional Staff” section of the Whole School Effectiveness Survey (WSES) had two forms, A and B. Both forms were administered to approximately 4,500 teachers during the 2001-2002 school year. Factor analysis is a statistical method, which identifies clusters of items as factors or constructs that share sufficient deviation from other items. The factor analysis identified a total of 9 factors and explained variance of 55% of the responses in form A, compared to 65% the previous year with 7 factors identified. According to Watts (2002), “the survey was shorter than the previous year and likely explains the reason for less explained variance.” Form B identified 7 factors and accounted for 54% of the variance. Examples of items related to the principal and school administration for Correlate 1, showed loadings ranging from .599, “the principal views teaching others as one of his/her major job,” to .712, “the principal emphasizes the instructional program.” Clusters showed high variance indicating that they were loaded appropriately for the constructs and that the instrument is reliable. In the process of investigating the validity of the instrument, it was necessary to contact district personnel who were involved in developing the Whole School Effectiveness Survey. The information that was obtained revealed that extensive literature review was done on the correlates and the items for the survey were derived from those indicators. Similarly, when the instrument was built it went through an expert panel of judges for approval.

78 Characteristics of Thinking Styles (Mental Models) The construct of mental models is defined as the practice of any of the five styles of thinking which are: synthesists, idealists, pragmatists, analysts, and realists, and are characterized by (a) synthesists’ styles are challenging and process oriented; (b) idealists are assimilative and need-oriented; (c) pragmatists are adaptive, incremental and payoff- oriented; (d) analysts are prescriptive and method-oriented; and (e) realists are empirical and task-oriented. The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire consists of a series of statements with responses ranging from 5 = most like you to 1 = least like you; see Appendix C. Prior to using the instrument a letter that was sent to the publisher of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire to seek permission to use the instrument for this study; see Appendix G. Validity and Reliability of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire The Bramson-Harrison (1977) Inquiry Mode Questionnaire (InQ) correlates to certain sections of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Hughes & Franceschini, 1989). This particular instrument was selected because this questionnaire has no right or wrong answers since it does not measure ability or personality. It is designed primarily to look at how an individual evaluates information, and it can assist individuals in identifying the manner in which they solve problems and what thinking strategies they typically employ when making decisions based on the data relevant to solving the problem. Based on Peter Senge’s work with “mental models” and Chris Argyris’ work on “single and double-loop learning,” the InQ can be found in Education and Psychological Measurement (1983, Vol. 43) and has been tested vigorously for validity and reliability. Reliability tests were conducted for each subtest scores and produced moderate to low reliability for internal consistency. Subscores for the synthesist mental models had a Cronbach’s alpha of .35 indicating moderate internal consistency. The idealist mental models had a high moderate Cronbach’s alpha of .59 showing good internal consistency. Subscores for the pragmatist thinking style was very low with a Cronbach’s alpha of .16 for internal consistency. A Cronbach’s alpha of .66 was found for the analyst thinking style indicating good internal consistency for the subscores. Finally, the realist mental models had a reliability factor of .28 showing low internal consistency.

79 Interpreting the scores from the instrument reflects the dominant or preferred thinking style of an individual. There are 18 questions with five possible responses for total points of 90 (5 points for each item) or 18 (1 point for each item). The sum of all responses is 270, or 15 total points for each of the 18 separate items. A score of 72 or more indicate “very strong preference” to a specific style, whereas, scoring 66 or more show a “strong preference,” and a score of 60 or more indicate a “marked preference” for that particular style. On the other end of the spectrum are the low scores, with 48 or less implying a “marked disinclination” for that style, 42 or less indicate a “strong disinclination,” and scores of 36 or less represent a “virtual disregard” for a particular style (Benson, 12 Mental Measurements Yearbook). Dimensions of Leadership Behaviors Leadership behaviors are defined as principals’ actions that are reflected in Bolman and Deal’s Four-Frame model consisting of the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames. The images of leadership under these four frames are: (a) structural leaders are social architects, (b) human resource leaders give empowerment, (c) political leaders promote advocacy, and (d) symbolic leaders provide inspiration. The Leadership Orientations Survey has three sections. Section One describes behaviors and contains rating scales with the items in consistent frame sequence: 1 never, 2 occasionally, 3 sometimes, 4 often, and 5 always. Section Two is about leadership style and contains six forced-choice items with the options arranged in the same sequence with ratings of 4 = best describes you, to1 = least like you. In Section Three, there are two one-item measures effectiveness as a manager and effectiveness as a leader; see Appendix D. Prior to using this instrument permission was requested from the publisher and a formal permission letter was subsequently sent; see Appendix H. Validity and Reliability of the Leadership Orientations Survey Leadership behaviors will be assessed with Bolman and Deal’s Leadership Orientations Survey. Selection of this instrument was based on its frame orientation that depicts different styles of leadership behaviors. These frames of reference help to define situations and determine what actions are taken in the complex and ambiguous world of human experience (Bolman, & Deal, 1991).

80 Each question for the four frames was entered for each participant and analyzed. Reliability statistics for the four frames of leadership behavior revealed the following: The structural frame had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 which means high internal consistency of the items. The human resource frame had a high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha at .80. Likewise, the political frame had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 showing high internal consistency. Finally, the political frame had high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. Overall, the four frames of leadership behavior had high internal consistency. Dimensions of the four frames of leadership behavior showed moderate to high internal consistency: Analytic (.79), organized (.64); supportive (.74), participative (.61); powerful (.71), adroit (.74); inspirational (.80) and charismatic (.75). Reliability statistics on overall effectiveness as a manager or leader had a high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha at .81. The survey instrument has two parallel forms in which individual can rate themselves, and colleagues can rate them. There are three sections to the survey, with Section 1 consisting of 32 statements containing rating scales with the items in consistent frame sequence (i.e., are in the same order): structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Within each frame there are also subscales, in a consistent sequence: analytic, supportive, powerful, inspirational, organized, participative, adroit, and charismatic. The structural frame consists of (Items 1, 5, 9....), human resource (Items 2, 6....), political (Items 3, 7...), symbolic (Items 4, 8...). Within each frame there are also subscales, in a consistent sequence: analytic (Items 1, 9, 17...), supportive (Items 2, 10, 18...), powerful (Items 3, 11, 19...), inspirational (Items 4, 12, 20...) organized (Items 5, 13,21...), participative (Items 6, 14, 22...), adroit (Items 7, 15, 23....), and charismatic (Items 8, 16, 24...). Section 2 contains six forced-choice (i.e., that force participants to choose) items with the options arranged in the same sequence. In Section 3, there are two one-item measures: effectiveness as a manager and effectiveness as a leader. Bolman and Deal conducted a study in 1992 that used the survey instrument with 5-point rating scales organized around the eight separate dimensions of leadership.

81 Prior to collecting data, the University’s Human Subject Review Committee granted approval for this research study; see Appendix I. Data Analysis The research design was a quantitative correlational study using multiple regression. A correlational model can show the unique effect of the variables of interest and the independent variables. The dependent variables, the variables of interest, are the characteristics of mental models and leadership behaviors, continuous variables that will be measured using interval scales. The independent variables are the elements of school culture with intervening variables of gender, years of experience, and position. The use of multiple independent variables will provide statistical control in estimating the unique effects of independent variables on the outcomes of interest. Dummy variables were used to code the dichotomous and categorical variables. “Dummy variables are especially useful for representing the effects of a discrete independent variable in a regression equation” (Bohrnstedt & Knoke, 1982, p. 388). A code was used to identify each category or variable. The proposed model will include the following:

• School culture (X1): An interval variable that is measured using the Whole School Effectiveness survey. It is a 5-point Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree to not applicable.

• Gender (X2): A dichotomous variable (male and female). Males the first level is coded 1, and females are coded 0, for the second level.

• Years of experience (X3 X4): Classified as follows, this categorical variable has three levels: veterans (10 years or more), mid-career (5-9 years), and novices (1-4 years). It was coded: veterans (10), mid-career (01), and novices, “other” (00).

• Position (X5): A dichotomous variable with principals on the first level (coded 1) and assistant principals as the second level (coded 0).

• School Level (X6 X7): A categorical variable with three levels. Elementary was the first level, middle the second level, and senior high the third level. Data collection from the survey was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). This is a computer program that can provide both descriptive and

82 inferential statistics. Descriptive summary statistics, including the number of responses for each variable, as well as the mean and standard deviation, was part of the initial analyses. After the initial analyses were conducted, data was analyzed to address each of the six research questions posed in the study. The Pearson Product-Moment, and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), were used to examine the research questions and six hypotheses to determine the relationships between the dependent and independent variables. With the number of analyses conducted on the six research questions, there were some concerns regarding the family-wise error rate. According to Tate (1998, p. 124), “the inflation of error rate can become quite serious as the size of the family rate increases.” Instead of the usual alpha level of a = .05 that is recommended for educational research, the decision was made to control the family-wise error rate and to set a more rigorous level of significance for alpha (a = .01). The first two research questions were designed to determine the relationships between school culture and the variables of interest, mental models and leadership behaviors, in Research questions 1 and 2 the researcher used bivariate correlations of the Pearson product-moment correlation. Significant relationships were observed by utilizing this method, but relationships were not of statistical significance. Research questions 3 and 4 used bivariate correlations to determine the significant relationships. Correlations of the variables showed the directions of the relationships. The regression coefficients described the effect of the variables on the outcome of interest, which were thinking styles mental models), and school levels. Multiple regression analyses were selected to verify the relationships from the correlations and to discover the overall strength of the model. Research question 3 used the variable of school culture, with four demographic variables. To explore the relationships between variables does not necessarily imply cause and effect. The relationship between the variables was examined using this model. The overall strength of a relationship was tested by the coefficient of determination R2 before taking into account the effects of individual independent variables. After observing the overall relationship, the unique effect of the dichotomous independent variable of position (principals or assistant principals) and the categorical

83 independent variable of school levels was described. The effects of the interval and dichotomous variables were examined to indicate unique effects on the variables using the estimated regression coefficient to describe the test of significance. The global effect of a categorical variable controlling for all other variables in the model is delta R2. The global effect can be determined from the Model Summary Table, and was due to adding the set of coded categorical variables to a model that contains all the other variables School culture and leadership behaviors are both interval variables. With interval variables the coefficient is the expected change in Y associated with a unit change in X, controlling for all other independent variables. Gender and position of school administrators are dichotomous variables, and was interpreted as the contrast between the coefficients of the predicted Y for the first group minus the second group, controlling for all other independent variables. School levels, a categorical independent variable, were used to identify the different types of schools (elementary, middle, high). Years of experience were also classified as a categorical independent variable with the comparison of levels. Each level of this categorical independent variable was coded and pair-wise comparisons were contrasted similar to the dichotomous independent variable. Research question 5 examined the two groups of female and male principals and assistant principals from elementary, middle, senior high to determine outcomes for the variable of thinking styles (mental models). The two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) determined if there were significant differences among the means of the groups. Research question 6 was analyzed using a bivariate correlation to establish the significant relationships from the combination of frames associated with effectiveness as a manager and effectiveness as a leader. Conclusion Chapter III described the methodology to be applied in the study, the target population, procedures taken to gather the data, description of the survey instruments and their reliability and validity, and data analysis. Organization of the subsequent chapters includes Chapter IV, where charts and tables are utilized to illustrate the results of the

84 data. Summary, conclusions, implications to the field of education, and recommendations for future research are provided in Chapter V.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE DATA

This chapter presents the findings of the investigation and the statistical methodology utilized as described in chapter III. The current investigation examined the relationships among school cultures, mental models or thinking styles, and leadership behaviors for school administrators at the elementary, middle, and senior high school levels. School administrators in the study were comprised of both female and male principals and assistant principals from K-12 schools. Of particular importance was to identify how these constructs differ depending on school level, position, years of experience, and gender of school administrators. Data was collected from the third largest urban school district in Florida (Riverhills County). The sample consisted of 400 K-12 school administrators. A purposive sampling method was utilized because of the researcher’s experience and knowledge of the school district. Special centers, schools under construction, pre-k centers and charter schools were not included in the study. A purposive sampling method was used to select principals who had been at their current position and present school for more than one school year. Assistant principals at the middle and high school levels were randomly selected. Both principals and assistant principals were given a period of three to four weeks to respond to the surveys. A letter of approval from the supervisor of Assessment and Accountability, a cover letter, demographic data sheet, the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire (InQ), and the Leadership Orientations Self-Survey were sent to 166 principals from elementary, middle and high schools. There were 234 assistant principals in the sample for a total of 400 school administrators within the district. Ninety-six principals and assistant principals responded to the surveys. There were four blank surveys returned, which brought the total to ninety-two. The data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 12.0. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were provided.

86 Demographic Data Analysis Participants supplied information regarding demographic data for the study. A targeted sample of approximately 400 school administrators was chosen to participate in the study. The sample consisted of 107 principals at the elementary level, 37 at the middle school level, and 22 principals at the high school level. Assistant principals at the elementary level were 95, whereas middle school had 75, and there were 64 at the high school level. The sample was a purposive sample based on the researcher’s experience and knowledge of the group. The initial sample of 400 K-12 principals and assistant principals were selected as a targeted sample for the study. The principals and assistant principals who participated may not be representative of the population at large. Participants of the study consisted of both female and male principals and assistant principals from elementary, middle and senior high schools in Riverhills County School District. Although there are fewer middle and senior high schools in the district than elementary schools, the ratio of assistant principals to principals are higher in the middle and senior high schools than elementary schools. To increase the participation rate, middle and senior high school assistant principals were selected from the same school. The sample constituted mainly of female school administrators at the elementary school level. Female assistant principals had the highest rate of participation. The group was made up of veteran school administrators who had more than ten years of service, school administrators at mid-career with five to nine years, as well as novice principals and assistant principals with less than five years of experience. Results indicated that for the variable of school level there were 46 (50%) elementary, 29 (31.5%) middle, and senior high 17 (18.5%) school administrators from the 92 responses. There were 36 principals (39.1%) and 56 assistant principals (60.9%). The gender variable revealed that participants were made up of 58 females (63%) and 34 males (37%). The number of elementary schools responding was 42 out of 107 (39.3%). Middle schools responding were 24 out of 37 (64.9%), whereas, senior high school had a response rate of 45.5% or 10 out of 22. Middle schools had the highest response rate followed by the senior high schools, but elementary schools had the lowest number of

87 schools responding to the surveys. A total of 76 different schools participated in the study out of the 166 schools that were targeted giving a school return rate of 45.8%. A summary comparing the responses with the targeted sample is provided in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.. Table 4.1 Comparison of Schools Responding and Targeted Sample Schools Targeted Sample Percentage of Sample

Responding ______

School Level Elementary 42 107 39.3% Middle 24 37 64.9% High 10 22 45.5% Total 76 166 45.8% ______

Table 4.2

Comparison of Responses and Targeted Sample by Position and Gender ______

Position Principals 36 39.1% 166 41.5% Assistant Principals 56 60.9% 234 58.5% Total 92 100.0% 400 100.0% ______

Gender Female 58 63.0% 277 69.2%

Male 34 37.0% 123 30.8%

Total 92 100.0% 400 100.0%

As illustrated in the table above, the demographic data collected from the participants was proportionally representative of the targeted sample in the study. In view of the relatively small return rate, it was necessary to find out from literature review if the sample size would be appropriate for the proposed study. According to Gay and Airasian (2000), the sample size may be appropriate because, “for correlational studies at least 30 participants are needed to establish the existence or nonexistence of a relationship” (p. 134). The value of true effect size is .20 for which the power is .80 given the current sample size of 92. Inquiry Mode Questionnaire The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire for assessing thinking styles or mental models of school administrators was separated into the five styles of thinking namely: sythesists, idealist, pragmatist, analyst, and realist. The instrument consisted of a series of statements with responses ranging from 5 = most like you to 1 = least like you. Responses from the questionnaire were calculated and placed into categories as the publisher of the questionnaire indicated, for a total of 270. Leadership Orientations Survey Participants responded to the three sections of the Leadership Orientations Survey in a variety of ways. The first section consisting of Four Frames (structural, human relations, political, and symbolic) described behaviors and contained rating scales with the items in consistent frame sequence ranging from 1 never, 2 occasionally, 3 sometimes, 4 often, and 5 always. Eight subsections were extracted from the Four Frames in Section One and described as dimensions of leadership behaviors. Section Two was about leadership styles and contained six forced-choice items with the options arranged in identical frame sequence with ratings of 4 = best describes you, to 1 = least like you. In Section Three, there were only two items that measured effectiveness as a manager and effectiveness as a leader. Whole School Effectiveness Survey The researcher obtained results of data from the school district pertaining to the Whole School Effectiveness Survey (WSES), using the eight correlates provided. These correlates were placed into five components for school culture. In school culture,

89 assumptions are the values that people take for granted in the school, behaviors are observable actions of school administrators, beliefs are what people acknowledge to be true or false, norms are the taken-for-granted traditions or rituals in the school and the values of are defined as the things that individuals claim guide their actions. Categories were formed to extract the components of school culture from the eight correlates: assumptions (environment), behaviors (principal as leader, instruction), beliefs (expectations, parent and community), norms (school culture), and values (monitoring and assessment, clear focused mission). The WSES uses a Likert scale with responses: A strongly agree, B agree, C disagree, D strongly disagree, and E not applicable. The researcher collected the data from the school district for all of the schools involved in the sample. Mean scores from the WSES for each category were extracted and placed into the appropriate category for each school represented in the sample. Findings for Research Questions The following are the findings for the six research questions. The findings of the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficient (r) are interpreted as: (a) low, below plus or minus .35; (b) moderately related, between plus or minus .35 and .65; and (c) highly related, over plus or minus .65 (Gay & Airasian, 2000, p. 324). The number of research questions in this study and the many analyses to be conducted provoked some concern with the inflation of family-wise error rate. Instead of the recommended alpha level of a = .05 for educational research, a more stringent alpha level of significance was set at a = .01 to control for the family-wise error rate Primary Questions Research Question 1: How do the mental models of principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? Findings for Question 1 Descriptive statistics helped to clarify the components of mental models or thinking styles. The means of the five characteristics (synthesist, idealist, pragmatist, analyst, and realist) ranged from 47.24 to 58.28, as shown in Table 4.2. Analyst thinking style produced the largest variance of 69.859, which indicates the spread of the scores, with the smallest variance of 32.426 for the pragmatist. Conspicuous in the observation

90 were the synthesist and pragmatist thinking styles each contributing multiple modes to the data analysis as shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for Mental Models ______Mean Median Mode Std. Variance Deviation ______Synthesist 47.24 47.00 47a 6.222 38.711

Idealist 56.42 57.00 59 7.379 54.445

Pragmatist 54.45 54.00 52a 5.694 32.426

Analyst 56.64 57.00 56 8.358 69.859

Realist 58.28 55.00 52 6.362 40.469 ______a Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.

A bivariate correlation was the statistical method used to determine the relationships. The relationship between a particular variable and the variable of primary interest is represented by each correlation coefficient ranging from –1.00 to + 1.00 (Gay and Airasian, 2000). Table 4.3 depicts the bivariate correlations for mental models or thinking styles and school culture. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation showed that there were no statistically significant relationships at the p < .01 level of significance between the characteristics of current school culture and mental models of school administrators. Examination of the scatterplots from the bivariate correlations did not reveal any outliers. Since there were 76 different schools participating in the study and 92 responses there appears to be a violation of the independence assumptions for the variable of school culture where there were multiple responses from several schools. This will be further discussed in Chapter V under Limitations of Study. The analysis used a bivariate correlation and not a regression analysis, and there were no repeated measures or individual responses influenced by others in a group. According to Tate (1998, p.56) if in a study there are nonrandom sampling, repeated measures and individuals interacting

91 in groups, “there would be the potential for important violation of the independence assumption.” Table 4.4 Bivariate Correlation Matrix for Mental Models and School Culture Mental Assumptions Behaviors Beliefs Norms Values Models Synthesist Pearson .018 -.044 .010 .027 -.016 Correlation .863 .674 .927 .795 .881 Sig. (2-tailed) Idealist Pearson .154 .209* .130 .164 .140 Correlation .144 .045 .218 .118 .182 Sig. (2-tailed) Pragmatist Pearson .052 .091 -.005 .052 .061 Correlation .624 .390 .964 .622 .566 Sig. (2-tailed) Analyst Pearson -.074 -.043 -.021 -.079 -.042 Correlation .485 .686 .845 .452 .694 Sig. (2-tailed) Realist Pearson -.141 -.222* -.126 -.155 -.143 Correlation .179 .033 .231 .141 .174 Sig. (2-tailed) N = 92 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Research Question 2: How do the leadership behaviors of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve?

Findings for Research Question 2 Bivariate correlations were conducted on (a) the four leadership behaviors, (b) the four leadership styles and (c) the eight dimensions of leadership behaviors. There were no statistically significant relationships found between the four frames of leadership behaviors and school culture as illustrated in Table 4.5. Low inverse relationships were observed with the structural and human resource frames of leadership behaviors, but the relationships were not significant. Low positive correlations were shown between the political and symbolic frames, but relationships did not prove to be of any significance.

92 The four leadership styles did not have any statistically significant relationship with the characteristics of school culture. Likewise, the eight dimensions of leadership revealed that there were no statistically significant relationships with the characteristics of current school culture. Table 4.5 Bivariate Correlations of Four-Frames of Leadership Behaviors and Current School Culture Assumptions Behaviors Beliefs Norms Values ______

Frames

Structural Pearson Correlation -.056 -.067 -.037 -.062 -.053 Sig. (2-tailed) .597 .528 .724 .555 .617 ______Human Pearson Correlation -.050 -.066 -.002 -.024 -.064 Resource Sig. (2-tailed) .635 .955 .984 .824 .544 ______Political Pearson Correlation .077 .076 .086 .076 .050 Sig. (2-tailed) .466 .473 .415 .472 .635 ______Symbolic Pearson Correlation .143 .127 .141 .140 .114 Sig. (2-tailed) .173 .226 .181 .182 .278 ______

N = 92 Secondary Questions Research Question 3: How does the current school culture relate to gender, position and schools in which principals and assistant principals serve? What are the unique effects of gender, position and school levels on each of the school culture variables? Findings for Question 3 A bivariate correlation was initially conducted to find the significant relationships among the characteristics of current school culture and four demographic variables. School levels referred to the elementary, middle and high school levels. Characteristics of current school culture, in this analysis, refer to assumptions (environment), behaviors (principal as leader, instruction), beliefs (expectations, parent and community), norms (school culture), and values (assessment, clear focused mission).

93 There were statistically significant inverse low relationships between behaviors, of school culture and gender of principals and assistant principals. ‘Behaviors’ of school culture yielded a statistically significant moderate inverse relationship with gender (r = -.320, p < .01). This means that female principals and assistant principals were more inclined to have a positive impact on current school culture than male principals and assistant principals; see Table 4.6. There was a statistically significant positive moderate relationship between school level one and the characteristics of current school culture. ‘Assumptions’ and school level one was (r = .455, p < .01), and school level two had a statistically significant inverse low relationship (r = -.274, p < .01). This means that elementary teachers perceived their schools to have a safe environment compared to the senior high school teachers. ‘Behaviors’ had a statistically significant positive moderate relationship with school level one (r = .636, p < .01), but no significant correlation with school level two. This indicates that teachers at the elementary levels had a high opinion of their principals as leaders, and felt that their principals were more likely to have a positive association with instruction. There was a statistically significant moderate relationship observed between ‘beliefs’ and school level one (r = .393, p < .01), but a significant relationship with school level two was not observed. This denotes that teachers at the elementary level perceived that there were high expectations and parent and community involvement at their schools. A statistically significant moderate correlation was found between ‘norms’ and school level one (r = .422, p < .01), but the relationship with school level two was not at a significant level. This suggests that elementary school teachers perceived the traditions or habits in the schools were positive in comparison to those teachers at the middle and senior high school levels. Statistically significant moderate relationship was observed between ‘values’ and schools level one (r = .390, p < .01). This signifies that perception of elementary schools’ teachers with regards to the strategies, goals and philosophies of a clear focused mission and student assessment were positive compared to the middle or senior high schools.

94 Table 4.6 Characteristics of Current School Culture and Demographic Variables School Gender Position School School Culture Level Level One Two Assumptions Pearson -.188 .240* .455** -.274** Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .073 .021 .000 .008 Behaviors Pearson -.320** .225* .636** -.180 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .031 .000 .087 Beliefs Pearson -.222* .190 .393** -.179 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .069 .000 .087 Norms Pearson -.211* .209* .422** -.239* Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .046 .000 .022 Values Pearson -.158 .259* .390** -.218* Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .132 .013 .000 .037 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Results from the multiple regression analyses gave the following results for the R2 and the adjusted R2 showing statistical significance at the p<.01 level. Table 4.7 Results for the Characteristics of Current School Culture and School Levels ______Variables R2 adj. R2 F p ______Assumptions .236 .200 6.574 .000** Behaviors .507 .484 21.835 .000** Beliefs .177 .138 4.573 .002** Norms .234 .198 6.497 .000** Values .186 .148 4.857 .001** ______** p < .01

95 The unique effect of each demographic variable on the school culture variable of ‘behaviors,’ is shown in Table 4.8. Gender of school administrators had an effect estimate of -.034, meaning that the expected predictive school culture was .034 more for female school administrators than it was for male school administrators. Position of school administrators had an effect estimate of .010, meaning that the expected predictive school culture was .010 more for principals than assistant principals. The pair-wise comparisons of school levels showed the results for the elementary versus high at .023, the middle versus high at .011 and elementary versus middle at .012. This means that the elementary schools had a higher effect estimate than high schools, but high schools were slightly better predictors of school culture than middle schools. The delta R2 was statistically significant by adding the coded variables of school levels in a model already containing the other variables. Table 4.8 Results Summary of the Unique Effect of Each Demographic Variable on the Current School Culture ______Variable Std. Effect 95% Confidence ∆R2 Deviation Estimate Interval ______Gender .485 -.034 -.082, .015 -.210 Position .493 .010 -.035, .056 .001 School Levels .351** Elem. – other 4.730 .023 -.017, .029 Middle – other 4.288 .011 005, .017 Elem. - Middle .012 .184, .208 ______

The ∆R2 result is the increase in R2 due to adding each variable last, given the other variables. **Significant at the 0.01 level

Research Question 4: How do the dimensions of leadership behavior of principals and assistant principals relate to their gender, position and years of experience? What are the

96 unique effects of gender position and years of experience on each of the four frames of leadership behaviors? Findings for Question 4 Analysis of this hypothesis required two statistical methods consisting of two bivariate correlations and multiple regressions for the four frames and eight dimensions.

Gender refers to whether school administrators are female or male. Position defines school administrators as principals or assistant principals. Years of experience are veteran principals and assistant principals who have been in the profession for ten or more years, whereas, school administrators who have four to nine years service are described as mid-career, and novices are principals and assistant principals with service of one to four years.

Leadership behaviors were divided into the four frames in addition to the eight dimensions of those four frames. It was revealed from the bivariate correlation conducted that the ‘structural’ frame of leadership behavior had a statistically significant low relationship with years of experience (r = .269, p < .01). This means that veteran school administrators were more inclined to practice the structural leadership behavior. A statistically significant moderate inverse relationship was found between the ‘human resource’ frame and gender of school administrators (r = -.396, p < .01). This suggests that female school administrators were more inclined to be human resource leaders. Table 4.9 illustrates the significant correlations for the four frames, and demographic variables.

97 Table 4.9 Correlation Matrix of the Four-Frames of Leadership Behavior Four-Frames Gender Position Years

Structural Pearson -.164 .065 .269** Correlation .118 .538 .010 Sig. (2-tailed) Human Pearson -.396** -.037 .120 Correlation Resource .000 .729 .253 Sig. (2-tailed) Political Pearson -.181 .070 .179 Correlation .084 .506 .089 Sig. (2-tailed) Symbolic Pearson -.225* .186 .148 Correlation .031 .075 .160 Sig. (2-tailed)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Analysis of the eight dimensions of leadership behaviors illustrated similar findings as the four frames. There were several components of leadership behavior that shared statistically significant relationship with gender of school administrators. The dimensions and corresponding frame will be given to demonstrate the similarity. Table 4.10 depicts the significant bivariate correlations of the eight dimensions. The statistically significant positive low relationships were found in the structural frame between ‘organized’ (r =. 276, p < .01) and years of experience of principals and assistant principals. This means that principals and assistant principals who are veterans in their field are more organized than mid-career or novice school administrators. Of the human resource frame there were the dimensions of ‘supportive’ and ‘participative’ with statistically significant low inverse relationships with gender of school administrators at (r = -.287, p < .01), and (r = -.331, p < .01), respectively. Contrasts between female and male school administrators showed that females had higher means than their male counterpart, and were more inclined to be supportive and participative. There was also a

98 statistically significant low inverse relationship with gender and the ‘inspirational’ element of the symbolic frame (r = -.288, p < .01). Female principals and assistant principals were more inclined to be inspirational in leadership behavior than male principals and assistant principals.

Table 4.10 Significant Correlations of the Dimensions of Leadership Behavior Frames Dimensions Gender Position Years Structural Analytic -.088 .112 .225* Organized -.217* .011 .276** Human Resource Supportive -.287** -.034 .108 Participative -.331** .050 .080 Political Powerful -.207* .126 .097 Adroit -.128 .006 .226* Symbolic Inspirational -.288** .164 .124 Charismatic -.137 .184 .153

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Multiple regression analysis for Research Question 4 provided the following results. The human resource frame had statistical significance in the regression model. Table 4.11 Results for the Four-Frames of Leadership Behaviors and Demographic ______Variables R2 adj. R2 F p ______Structural .122 .081 3.012 .022 Human Resource .170 .132 4.459 .003** Political .067 .024 1.555 .193 Symbolic .105 .064 2.557 .044 ______** p < .01

99 Statistically significant relationships were found between ‘human resource’ leadership behavior and gender, position, and years of experience for school administrators. Table 4.11 depicts this significance between the variable human resource leadership behavior and demographic variables of gender, position, and years of experience. Reflecting the overall strength of the relationship between human resource leadership behaviors and the demographic variables, the R2 of .170 was statistically significant at the p < .01 level. A relatively modest overall strength was reflected by the adjusted R2 of .132. Examination of the histograms and scatter plots showed that there was one outlier in the human resource frame, but it was less than 3.0. There appear to be no serious violations of the four assumptions. Table 4.12 Results Summary of the Unique Effect of Each Variable on the Human Resource Leadership Behavior ______Variable Std. Effect 95% Confidence ∆R2 Deviation Estimate Interval ______Gender .485 -2.601 -3.892, -1.311 -.782 Position .491 -.180 -1.439, 1.108 -.054 Years of Experience .012 Veteran – other 3.853 .086 -.079, .251 Expert – other 4.592 -.022 -.161, .117 Veteran - Expert .108 -.088, .304 ______

The ∆R2 result is the increase in R2 due to adding each independent variable last, given the other independent variables.

The unique effect of each demographic variable on leadership behavior is summarized in Table 4.12. Gender of principals and assistant principals had an effect size of –2.601 in the regression model for human resource frame. A contrast of the means showed female school administrators had a higher predictive value for practicing the ‘human resource’ frame of leadership behavior than male school administrators. Position

100 of school administrators had an effect estimate of -.180, meaning that the expected predictive leadership behavior was .180 more for assistant principals than it was for principals. The delta R2 of -.054 showed that the contribution of adding the demographic variable, position, was not significant. The pair-wise comparisons of years of experience showed the results for the three levels. Novices “others” had the highest results with regards to the predictive leadership behavior at (.108) followed by veterans (.086) and then mid-career (-.022). Veterans had ten or more years of experience and were the first level. Mid-career was classified as school administrators with four to nine years of experience. Novices were school administrators who had served from one to four years. There were no significant contributions to the model for years of experience, as indicated by the delta R2 of .012. The global effect for adding the coded variables of years of experience in a model already containing the other variables was not significant. Research Questions 5: What are the differences between female and male principals and assistant principals as indicated by their thinking styles (mental models)? Findings for Question 5 A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was chosen to analyze the differences between the thinking styles of female and male principals and assistant principals. The univariate analysis from the General Linear Model was selected to observe main effects and interactive effects of the variables for Hypothesis 5. Table 4.13 summarizes the results of the two-way ANOVA for the synthesist mental model. To understand main effects and interactions, a brief explanation is given. It was necessary to find out if the independent variable (gender) has an effect on the variable (mental models) that represents a main effect, apart from the other variable (position) even if that significant result may have been obtained for the other variable. A significant “interaction between two factors is said to exist if the mean differences among the levels of factor A are not constant across levels (categories) of factor B” (Glass & Hopkins, 1996, p. 483). By contrast, “the absence of an interaction indicates that the pattern of results on factor A is constant across all levels of factor B: the results for factor A are consistent across all of the categories of factor B” (Glass & Hopkins, 1996, p. 524).

101 Table 4.13 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis of Variance for Synthesist Mental Model ______Source df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared ______Between Subjects Gender (G) 1 6.661 .170 .681 .002 Position (P) 1 .558 .014 .905 .000 G X P 1 58.426 1.495 .225 .017 Within-group error 88 (39.074) ______

R2 = .024

There were no significant main effects or interactive effects found in the synthesist mental model. Assessment of the practical importance of the partial eta squared showed that the variables of gender and position were not of practical importance for the synthesist mental model. Table 4.14 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis of Variance for Idealist Mental Model ______Source df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared ______Between Subjects Gender (G) 1 366.84 7.431 .008** .078 Position (P) 1 170.90 3.462 .066 .038 G X P 1 48.13 .975 .326 .011 Within-group error 88 (49.37) ______

102 R2 = .123 **p < .01

A significant main effect was found with gender, F (1, 91) = 7.431, p = .008, as shown in Table 4.14. Gender, by itself, was responsible for a significant amount of differences in the dependent variable (mental models). Assessment of the practical importance of gender and position for the idealist mental model showed that by examining the partial eta squared that gender was of practical importance. Table 4.15 Table of Means for Idealist Mental Model, Gender and Position Position Gender

Female Male

Assistant Principals 57.56 51.80 55.50

Principal 58.91 56.21 57.86

8.265 7.532 56.42

Female Principals, N = 22 Male Principals, N = 14 Female AP, N = 36 Male AP, N = 20

Table 4.15 depicts the differences between the marginal means for the different levels of position across the level of gender. The standardized mean differences showed that for the marginal means of gender across position female school principals and assistant principals had higher mean scores compared to male principals and assistant principals for the ‘idealist’ mental model. Examination of the spread-versus-level plots revealed that the standard deviations from the Descriptive Statistics Table displayed equal variances assumed. The standard deviations appear to be relatively homogeneous, and there was no interaction observed between gender and position for the idealist mental model.

103 Table 4.16 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis of Variance for Pragmatist Mental Model ______Source df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared ______Between Subjects Gender (G) 1 17.568 .540 .464 .006 Position (P) 1 7.576 .233 .631 .003 G X P 1 58.394 1.795 .184 .020 Within-group error 88 (32.53) ______R2 = .030

There were no significant main effects or interactive effects found in the pragmatist thinking style as depicted in Table 4.16. Assessment of the practical importance of the partial eta squared showed that the variables of gender and position were not of practical importance for the pragmatist mental model. Table 4.17 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis of Variance for Analyst Mental Model ______Source df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared ______Between Subjects Gender (G) 1 6.896 .097 .756 .001 Position (P) 1 49.214 .692 .406 .008 G X P 1 14.025 .197 .658 .002 Within-group error 88 (71.16) ______

104 R2 = .015

In Table 4.17, there were no significant main effects or interactive effects found in the analyst mental model. Assessment of the practical importance of the partial eta squared showed that the variables of gender and position were not of practical importance for the analyst mental model. Table 4.18 Two-Way ANOVA Analysis of Variance for Realist Mental Model ______Source df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared ______Between Subjects

Gender (G) 1 89.211 2.401 .125 .027

Position (P) 1 315.906 8.502 .004** .088

G X P 1 12.245 .330 .567 .004

Within-group error 88 (37.16)

______

R2 = .112 **p < .01

There is one significant effect with position, F (1, 91) = 8.502, p = .004, indicating that the demographic variable position accounted for a large variance in the ‘realist’ mental model variable as depicted in Table 4.18. The assumption of the analysis of variance is that the variance of groups is equivalent. The results of the two-way ANOVA supported this assumption. Analysis showed that the test for equality of error variance for the dependent variable was equal across groups.

105 Table 4.19 Table of Means for Realist Mental Model, Gender and Position Position Gender

Female Male

Assistant Principals 55.69 58.55 9.30

Principal 52.55 53.86 8.70

54.50 56.62 55.28

Female Principals, N = 22 Male Principals, N = 14 Female AP, N = 36 Male AP, N = 20

Means for the ‘realist’ mental model in Table 4.19 revealed that the marginal means for the different levels of position across the level of gender showed that assistant principals had higher standardized mean differences than principals. The spread-versus-level plots were inspected to reveal that the standard deviations from the Descriptive Statistics Table displayed equal variances assumed. There was no interaction observed between gender and position for the realist mental model because the standard deviations appear to be relatively homogeneous. Descriptive statistics in Table 4.20 depict the demographic variables of position and gender of school administrators at the elementary, middle and high school levels. School level one is defined as the elementary level, holding all other variables constant, whereas, school level two is represented as the middle school level, holding all others constant. Results illustrated that the means of school level one were higher than school level two for both gender and position of school administrators. Principals had higher means than assistant principals, and the means for female school administrators were higher than their male counterparts.

106 Table 4.20 Descriptive Statistics of School Levels, Position and Gender ______School Levels Mean Std. Deviation ______Position Level 1 Principal 36 7.545 4.103 Asst. Prin. 56 6.056 4.745 Total 92 Level 2 Principal 36 3.455 4.103 Asst. Prin. 56 2.806 3.919 Total 92 Gender Level 1 Female 58 6.621 4.534 Male 34 3.088 4.231 Total 92 Level 2 Female 58 3.052 3.967 Male 34 4.676 4.816 Total 92

Research Question 6: What is the overall perceived level of effectiveness as managers or leaders and behavior orientations of principals and assistant principals? Findings for Question 6 A bivariate correlation was selected to establish the significant relationships. A preliminary analysis of the eight dimensions of the four frames showed statistically significant relationships with effectiveness as managers at the p < .01 level. Effectiveness as a leader had statistical significance at the p < .01 level, with all of the dimensions except ‘analytic.’ Results of the analysis indicated that the four frames of leadership

107 behaviors were statistically correlated to effectiveness as a manager and as a leader at the p < .01 level of significance. Table 4.21 clearly depicts these relationships. Table 4.21 Correlations For Effectiveness as Manager and Leader ______Leadership Behaviors Effectiveness Significance Effectiveness Significance Manager p Leader p ______

Structural .483** .000 .304** .003 Human Resource .348** .001 .318** .002 Political .549** .000 .547** .000 Symbolic .482** .000 .584** .000 ______** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Symbolic leadership behavior proved to be the most significant with effectiveness as a leader (r = .584, p < .01), followed by the political frame demonstrating effectiveness as a manager (r = .549, p < .01), as well as effectiveness as a leader with (r = .547, p < .01). Because the survey instrument was self-rated, principals and assistant principals at all school levels perceived themselves to be highly effective as managers and leaders with regards to their leadership behaviors demonstrated within the school setting. Summary of Findings

This chapter concentrated on the analysis of data in addressing the six research questions. The summary of the findings briefly explains the important results along with a discussion of their relevance. Primary Questions Research Question 1: How do the mental models of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? Descriptive statistics, which helped to clarify the components of mental models or thinking styles showed that the means were not wide ranging, giving a difference of 11.04 between the highest and lowest scores. Analyst thinking style produced the largest

108 variance, implying that the scores for this characteristic were more spread out. The pragmatist component with the smallest variance meant that the scores were closer together. Two or more modes make an observation bimodal and this was apparent in the synthesist and pragmatist thinking styles. Bivariate correlations revealed that there were no statistically significant relationships between the characteristics of current school culture and mental models at the p < .01 level. Research Question 2: How do the leadership behaviors of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? Taking into consideration all the aspects of the Leadership Orientations Survey, bivariate correlations were executed on the four frames of leadership behavior, the leadership styles, and the dimensions of the four frames. Analyses revealed no statistically significant correlations between current school culture and the four frames of leadership behaviors, leadership styles, and dimensions of the four frames at the p < .01 level of significance. Secondary Questions Research Question 3: How does the current school culture relate to gender, position and schools in which principals and assistant principals serve? What are the unique effects of gender, position and school level on each of the school culture variables? There were two analyses that were chosen to assess hypothesis three. The first analysis was a bivariate correlation to determine significant relationships, and the second was a multiple regression to assess the overall strength of the model and the unique effect of the demographic variables. The bivariate correlation results demonstrated low to moderate statistically significant results at the p < .01 level. ‘Behaviors’ of school culture yielded statistically significant inverse relationship with gender of school administrators. Position of principals and assistant principals showed that there were no statistically significant relationships with the characteristics of current school culture. Statistically significant low to moderate relationships were observed with school level one and ‘assumptions’, ‘behaviors’, ‘beliefs’, ‘norms,’ and ‘values’ of school culture at the p < .01 level of

109 significance. School level two had a statistically significant relationship with ‘assumptions’ of school culture at the p < .01 level. Multiple regression analysis showed that there were statistically significant relationships with school level one and all the characteristics of current school culture at the p < .01 level. School level one is the elementary level holding all other variables constant. ‘Behaviors’ of school culture also showed statistical significance at the p < .01 level with school level two. The overall strength of the model for behaviors of school culture was significant with an R2 of .507 and an adjusted R2 of .484 compensating for the positive bias in the R2. The unique effect of the demographic variables exemplified the relative importance of these variables on school culture with significant contributions for elementary and senior high schools in the model. Research Question 4: How do the dimensions of leadership behavior of principals and assistant principals relate to their gender, position and years of experience? What are the unique effects of gender position and years of experience on each of the four frames of leadership behaviors? Leadership behaviors consisted of the four frames and the eight dimensions of the four frames. Analysis of this hypothesis used bivariate correlations and multiple regressions to ascertain significant relationships. Results of the bivariate correlation for the four frames revealed statistically significant low relationships between the ‘structural’ frame and years of experience. Correspondingly, the ‘human resource’ frame showed a statistically significant moderate inverse relationship with gender of school administrators. Both correlations were at the p < .01 level of statistical significance. Dimensions of leadership behavior were almost identical to the four frames. ‘Organized’ of the structural frame had statistical significant relationships with years of experience of school administrators at the p < .01 level of significance. Both dimensions of the human resource frame (supportive, participative) showed a statistically significant low correlation to gender of school administrators at the p < .01 level. ‘Inspirational’ dimension of the symbolic frame had a statistically significant correlation with gender of school administrators.

110 The multiple regression analysis provided results of the delta R2 to reflect the overall strength of the regression model. An example of the Results Summary for ‘human resource’ leadership behavior showed the unique effect of each of the demographic variable. Gender of school administrators had an effect size of –2.601, which meant that the expected predictive leadership behavior was 2.601 less for male school administrators than for female school administrators Research Question 5: What are the differences between female and male principals and assistant principals as indicated by their thinking styles (mental models)? A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was the method used to detect the differences among thinking styles and the gender of school administrators. Results of the ANOVA Table indicated that a significant main effect was shown with “gender” for the idealist mental model. A significant main effect for “position” was also revealed for the realist mental model. The means illustrated that female principals had higher means than males for the ‘idealist’ mental model. The means for the ‘realist’ mental model showed that male assistant principals had higher means than female principals and female assistant principals.

Research Hypothesis 6: What is the overall perceived level of effectiveness as managers or leaders and behavior orientations of principals and assistant principals? A bivariate correlation was selected to establish the significant relationships between the last section of the Leadership Orientation Survey consisting of only two items. Results of the analysis revealed that effectiveness as managers and effectiveness as leaders were statistically significantly correlated with the four frames of leadership behavior at the p < .01 level. Other Findings There were other findings found from the analyses of data for the survey instruments utilized in this study. The subsequent paragraphs explain the findings for the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire and Leadership Orientations Self-Survey. Mental Models Examination of the findings of the results of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire provided insight into the responses for mental models. Descriptive statistics illustrated that the synthesist and pragmatist mental models have multiple modes. A large variance

111 is observed as well for the analyst thinking style (see Table 4.12). Responses were computed of school administrators to the InQ survey and they were placed into categories for the purpose of identifying predominant and least preferred thinking styles. A summary of the results is shown in Appendix J. Interpretation of the scores signified that high scores of 60 or above identified a preference in the styles that are utilized by school administrators. Only one person had a predominant style selected for the analyst mental model in the 72 or higher score range. A moderate disinclination to use a particular style was observed for the scores within the range of 41 to 48 for approximately 20% of the sample. The majority of the scores are classified as neutral showing no preference for, or disinclination against any style with scores of 49 to 59. This creates a “flat” profile, and according to Goodbrand (2000), flat profiles are evident of people who tend to be unpredictable and flexible, but are lacking of leadership traits. People with flat profiles are adaptable and tend to be situational in response to problem solving. Combination of styles is apparent for 37% of the participants who display a preference for two or more styles. School administrators who are described as neutral in their responses to the five frames consisted of 17% of the sample. These results are comparative to previous research by the publisher of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire, but are slightly higher in both areas than the 35% and 13% given respectively. Reliability tests were conducted for each subtest scores and produced moderate to low reliability for internal consistency. Sub scores for the synthesist mental models had a Cronbach’s alpha of .35 indicating moderate internal consistency. The idealist mental models had a high moderate Cronbach’s alpha of .59 showing good internal consistency. Sub scores for the pragmatist thinking style was very low with a Cronbach’s alpha of .16 for internal consistency. A Cronbach’s alpha of .66 was found for the analyst thinking style indicating good internal consistency for the sub scores. Finally, the realist mental models had a reliability factor of .28 showing low internal consistency. Leadership Behaviors Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientation Survey is the measurement instrument to assess the Four-Frame model of leadership behaviors, the eight dimensions of those four frames, as well as effectiveness as managers and leaders. As a preliminary analysis,

112 reliability statistics was conducted on sub-scores of leadership behaviors using SPSS. Each question for the four frames was entered for each participant and analyzed. Reliability statistics for the four frames of leadership behavior revealed the following: The structural frame had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84, which showed high internal consistency of the items. The human resource frame had a high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha at .80. Likewise, the political frame had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 showing high internal consistency. Finally, the political frame had high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. Overall, the four frames of leadership behavior had high internal consistency. Dimensions of the four frames of leadership behavior showed moderate to high internal consistency: Analytic (.79), organized (.64); supportive (.74), participative (.61); powerful (.71), adroit (.74); inspirational (.80) and charismatic (.75). Reliability statistics on overall effectiveness as a manager or leader had a high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha at .81. Major Findings The major findings from the six research questions are as follows. 1. No significant relationships were shown between the synthesist, idealist, pragmatist, analyst, and realist mental models and the characteristics of current school culture. 2. No significant relationships were revealed between the Four-Frame Model of leadership behaviors and the dimensions of the four frames and the characteristics of current school culture. 3. Characteristics of current school culture had statistically significant inverse relationships with gender of school administrators. This suggests that female principals and assistant principals were more inclined to have a positive impact on current school culture than male principals and assistant principals. 4. Significant relationships were found between all of the characteristics of current school culture and school level one (elementary schools). This indicates that elementary schools were more likely to have a positive school culture than middle or senior high schools.

113 5. School level two (middle schools) had statistically significant inverse relationship with ‘assumptions’ of current school culture. This suggests that since the relationship was reverse for the middle versus high school level, that senior high schools were likely to have a more positive school culture than middle schools. 6. The unique effects of the variables on the characteristics of current school culture can be viewed as follows: • For gender, the effect estimate of -.034 indicated the expected increase of current school culture when gender increases one standard deviation holding all other variables constant. Current school culture is expected to increase .034 units more for female school administrators than for male school administrators. • Position was not shown to be significant: it had an effect estimate, .010 showing the units of increase for current school culture. This suggests that the expected predictive school culture was .010 units more for principals than for assistant principals. • School level one had a significant effect estimate of .023 for current school culture at the elementary schools level. Current school culture is expected to increase .023 units when elementary schools increase one standard deviation holding all others constant. Middle schools had an effect estimate of .011, and high schools had an effect estimate of .012. This suggests that elementary schools were better predictors of school culture than high schools, but high schools were slightly better predictors of school culture than middle schools. 7. The Four-Frame Model of leadership behaviors showed significant relationships between the ‘structural’ frame and years of experience of school administrators. This indicates that veteran school administrators were more likely to practice the structural leadership behavior. The ‘human resource’ was significantly related to gender of school administrators. This suggests that female principals and assistant principals are more inclined to be human resource leaders.

114 8. Dimensions of leadership behaviors of ‘supportive’ and ‘participative’ of the human resource frame were significantly correlated to gender of school administrators. Contrasts between female and male school administrators showed that females had higher means than their male counterparts and are more inclined to be supportive and participative. The ‘inspirational’ dimension of the symbolic frame was also significantly related to gender, meaning that female school administrators were more inclined to be inspirational leaders than male school administrators. The structural frame of the ‘organized’ dimension of leadership behaviors was significantly related to years of experience of school administrators. This suggests that principals and assistant principals who are veterans were likely to be more organized than mid-career or novice school administrators. 9. The unique effects of the demographic variables on the dimensions of leadership behaviors are interpreted as follows: • Gender of school administrators had an effect size of –2.601 and is interpreted as the estimated change in leadership behavior for every unit change in gender controlling for all other variables. Expected predictive leadership behaviors were 2.601 units less for males than for females. • Position had no significant effect by adding to the regression model. An effect estimate of -.180 was interpreted that the expected predictive leadership behavior is .180 units less for principals than for assistant principals. • Years of experience showed that novices, “others,” had the highest results for predictive leadership behaviors of .108 units, followed by veterans with .086 units, and mid-career with -.022 units. 10. The significant difference in mental models was revealed with the ‘idealist’ thinking style and female school administrators, as well as with the ‘realist’ mental model and male school administrators. This suggests that female principals were more inclined to be ‘idealist’ thinkers than males, while male assistant principals were more inclined to have a ‘realist’ thinking style.

115 11. The Four-Frame Model of leadership behaviors were statistically correlated with effectiveness as mangers and leaders at the p < .01 level of significance. This indicates that principals and assistant principals perceived themselves to be highly effective as both managers and leaders within their respective schools.

116

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Characteristics of current school culture consist of the assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms, and values that exist in a school or school district. These characteristics may vary depending on whether the school is at the elementary, middle, or senior high level. Important to this discussion is the concept of school reform and how school administrators can apply their mental models or thinking styles to understand how school culture is connected to leadership behavior. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among variables reflecting school culture, mental models or thinking styles, and leadership behaviors for elementary, middle, and senior high schools. This study also explored how these constructs differed depending on school levels, gender, position, and years of experience of school administrators. This chapter focuses on discussion of the conclusions, implications to the field of education, and suggested recommendations for future research. Discussion of the Conclusions Results of the six research questions posed in the study are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs with the major findings presented. The conclusions drawn from the results of this study are interpreted in light of the primary questions and how the secondary questions have contributed understanding to the primary focus of the investigation. School culture is usually difficult to define, but in this study it was defined in terms of five characteristics (assumptions, behaviors, beliefs, norms and values) and was anchored within School Effectiveness giving it more clarity and definitiveness. Primary Questions Research Question 1: How do the mental models of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? Major findings of the study for question one revealed that school administrators’ mental models did not relate significantly to the current school culture; see Table 4.4. It is the researcher’s perspective that these findings may have resulted from the following factors: (a) the mean scores varied showing multiple

117 modes for the synthesist and pragmatist mental models, see Table 4.3; (b) reliability statistics of the sub scores showed a low to moderate internal consistency, (c) other findings revealed that most school administrators had a flat profile in response to the survey on thinking styles, which indicated a lack of a preferred or dominant mental model; (d) the variable of current school culture was based on perceptions of teachers at the elementary, middle and senior high school levels; and (e) mental models at the individual level for school administrators did not translate to the collective mental models of current school culture. Research Question 2: How do the leadership behaviors of principals and assistant principals relate to the current culture of the schools in which they serve? For research question two, similar findings revealed that no significant relationships were found between leadership behaviors of school administrators and current school culture; see Table 4.5. Several possibilities came to mind in an attempt to understand this phenomenon. From the researcher’s perspective, these findings may have resulted from the following factors: (a) the current school culture was based on the perceptions of teachers at the elementary, middle and senior high schools; (b) the mean scores for leadership behaviors were dissimilar for school administrators at the three school levels; and (c) the mean scores for current school culture were dissimilar at the three school levels. Additional to the above factors presented, further explanation is warranted. Even though principals and assistant principals at the senior high schools had higher means than middle or elementary school administrators for the ‘structural’ and ‘human resource’ frames, the representative sample was too small to actually impact the current school culture. Conversely, the symbolic and political frames were higher for elementary school principals and assistant principals than for middle and senior high school administrators. In addition, elementary schools had the highest mean scores for all the characteristics of current school culture. Since the elementary schools in this study were comprised mainly of assistant principals with less than five years experience, it can be assumed that their perceptions of their leadership behaviors were not congruent with how teachers of their schools perceived them.

118 Secondary Questions Research Question 3: How does the current school culture relate to gender, position and schools in which principals and assistant principals serve? What are the unique effects of gender, position and school level on each of the school culture variables? Secondary questions were selected to gain insight into the three major constructs of current school culture, mental models and leadership behaviors. Conclusions based on these findings are interpreted with an understanding for the underpinnings of the broader context of this study. Current school culture characteristics were significantly related to elementary schools and gender of school administrators; see Table 4.6. As previously stated, elementary schools had higher mean scores for current school culture characteristics than middle or senior high schools. An interpretation of the results in Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 are as follows: (a) female principals and female assistant principals were more inclined to have a positive relationship to current school culture; (b) elementary teachers perceived their schools to have a safe environment compared to the senior high school teachers; (c) teachers at the elementary levels had a high opinion of their principals as leaders, and felt that their principals were more likely to have a positive association with instruction; (d) teachers at the elementary level perceived that there were high expectations and parent and community involvement at their schools; (e) elementary schools teachers perceived the traditions or habits in the schools were positive in comparison to those teachers at the middle and senior high school levels; and (f) elementary schools teachers’ perceptions with regards to the strategies, goals and philosophies of a clear focused mission and student assessment were positive compared to the middle or senior high schools. From the previous mentioned results, a conclusion can be made that the collective mental models of teachers at the elementary school levels reflected the current school culture. There is an old adage that states that ‘perception is stronger than reality.’ This suggests that people’s perceptions are stronger that what actually the reality of the situation is. If this is the case, then perceptions of the current school culture were not reflective of the reality of the mental models of principals and assistant principals. Because school culture is an aggregation of mental models (Lindsay, 2000), teachers’

119 perceptions of school administrators did not correspond to how principals and assistant principals actually think or make decisions. However, despite this incongruity in discernment, this study finds that female principals at the elementary schools are more inclined to spend time on activities related to current school culture than male school administrators at the middle and senior high school levels. This study suggests that elementary schools appear to practice the cultural dimensions of Effective Schools more than middle or senior high schools; see Table 4.8. Research Question 4: How do the dimensions of leadership behavior of principals and assistant principals relate to their gender, position and years of experience? What are the unique effects of gender, position and years of experience on each of the four frames of leadership behaviors? In examining another secondary question that looked at the dimensions of leadership behaviors and the demographic variables of gender, position and years of experience, a significant finding was made between the ‘structural’ frame and years of experience, and between the ‘human resource’ frame and gender; see Table 4.7 Conclusions can be drawn that: (a) veteran school administrators are more likely to practice the ‘structural’ leadership behavior and are more inclined to be system thinkers and data driven than mid-career or novice principals and assistant principals, and (b) female school administrators tend to value relationships and feelings more than male school administrators. This signifies that within the context of the school culture, there were different leadership styles that appeared to be related to the years of experience and the gender of the school administrators at the elementary schools level; see Table 4.10. Leadership behaviors can be further described as more ‘organized’ for veteran principals and assistant principals, and more ‘participative’ and ‘supportive’ for female school administrators. Female principals and assistant principals also tend to be more ‘inspirational’ or inclined to inspire others to loyalty and enthusiasm. This can be interpreted within the school culture that some principals and assistant principals have different focuses, whether for accountability as in the FCAT, or in building relationship with teachers by empowering them to higher standards.

120 For this question, this study also found, from using the regression model, that female assistant principals were predicted to demonstrate the ‘human resource’ frame of leadership behaviors more than female principals and male school administrators; see Table 4.11. Novice school administrators are predicted to demonstrate the ‘human resource’ frame of leadership behaviors more than mid-career or veteran principals and assistant principals; see Table 4.12.

Research Question 5: What are the differences between female and male principals and assistant principals as indicated by their thinking styles (mental models)? The next research question in this category found the differences between female and male principals and assistant principals as indicated by their thinking styles. Table 4.13; Table 4.14; Table 4.16; Table 4.17; and Table 4.18 depict the results of the differences for the synthesist, idealist, pragmatist, idealist and realist mental models. A summary of descriptive results are found in Table 4.20. Findings revealed that the mean scores for female school administrators were higher than male principals and assistant principals for the ‘idealist’ mental model; see Table 4.15. Interpretation of this in the broader context may lead to the conclusion that female principals and assistant principals with an idealist thinking style, tend to look at the ‘big picture’ and are more future- oriented than male principals and assistant principals. Mean scores for the ‘realist’ mental model were higher for assistant principals than for principals; see Table 4.19. It is the researcher’s perspective that these findings suggest that assistant principals are more empirical and task-oriented than principals. Within the framework of current school culture, there may be differences between the way in which female school administrators and assistant principals make decisions. It would be beneficial for these two groups to learn from each other’s strengths and find ways to improve on areas of weaknesses. Research Question 6: What is the overall perceived level of effectiveness as managers or leaders and behavior orientations of principals and assistant principals? The final research secondary question examined the overall perceived level of effectiveness as managers or leaders and behavior orientations of principals and assistant principals. The findings revealed significant results for principals and assistant principals with the four frames of leadership behaviors and the levels of effectiveness as managers as leaders; see Table 4.21. It is the researcher’s perspective that these findings are based

121 on the following: (a) the sub scores for the four frames of leadership behaviors had high internal consistency and (b) principals and assistant principals rated themselves, therefore the scores may tend to be over inflated. A conclusion can be made based on the broader context of school culture that even though school administrators perceived themselves to be effective as managers or leaders, this high level of effectiveness did not transfer to the school culture as indicated from the conclusion of the primary objective for the second research question. In Summary, conclusions based on the results of this exploratory study have revealed interesting connections between the current school culture and the variable of school levels. Dimensions of leadership behaviors showed relationships with the variables of years of experience and gender of principals and assistant principals. Pertinent also to the discussion are the differences observed in the thinking styles of principals and assistant principals. Finally, the current school culture was based on the Effective Schools Model, and elementary schools showed evidence of practicing these characteristics or dimensions more than middle or senior high schools. Even though elementary schools represented the smallest response rate for schools, more elementary school administrators responded and the number of participants responding from those schools represented half of the sample size. This provided important insight into the characteristics of school administrators who serve at the elementary school level. Current school culture did not have a direct relationship with mental models and leadership behaviors, but other demographic variables helped to clarify how leadership behaviors and mental models were observed within the context of school culture. As indicated later on under Recommendation 3 of the section, under “Recommendations for Future Research,” a causal-comparative study, for example, would help to show if school culture indeed has an influence on leadership behaviors, or if leadership behaviors help to shape the school culture. Since behaviors are reflective actions of mental models, it would be interesting to find out if the collective mental models of the school culture impact the individual mental models of principals and assistant principals, or if the behaviors of principals and assistant principals are influenced by their own thinking styles.

122 Conclusions for Education There has been a scarcity of research on school culture (Harris & Mossholder, 1996; Schein, 1996), mental models, and leadership behavior as a method of empirical investigation. First, this study was intended to add to the empirical and theoretical literature in an attempt to understand these three constructs as they relate to schools at the elementary, middle, and senior high school levels. Second, since this study was the first study of its kind to explore relationships among current school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors, the primary objective is to provide information as a contribution to the field of education. Third, it was the first reported research study to demonstrate the relationship between the dimensions of leadership behaviors and demographic variables. Finally, school administrators, school districts, educational practitioners and policy makers may utilize the results of this study for the purpose of decision-making. A summary of conclusions for school administrators are presented in Table 5.1, and a summary of conclusions from the research study in Table 5.2.

123 Table 5.1

Summary of Conclusions for School Administrators

Mental Leadership Dimensions Years of School Levels Models Behaviors Leadership Experience Behaviors

Female Preferred ‘Human ‘Supportive,’ Novices Elementary Principals thinking Resource’ ‘Participative’ Category Schools are style, frame is and of years of most favorable ‘Idealist’ predicted ‘Inspirational’ experience for school leadership dimensions of (1-4 years) culture style leadership behaviors are predicted

Female ‘Human ‘Supportive,’ Novices Elementary Assistant Resource’ ‘Participative’ Category Schools are Principals frame is and of years of most favorable predicted ‘Inspirational’ experience for school leadership dimensions of (1-4 years) culture style leadership behaviors are predicted

Male ‘Structural’ ‘Organized’ Veterans High Schools Principals frame is dimension of Category were slightly predicted leadership of years of better leadership behavior is experience predictors of style predicted (Over 10 school culture years) than middle schools

Male Preferred ‘Structural’ ‘Organized’ Veterans High Schools Assistant thinking frame is dimension of Category were slightly Principals style, predicted leadership of years of better ‘Realist’ leadership behavior is experience predictors of style predicted (Over 10 school culture years) than middle schools

124 Table 5.2

Summary of Conclusions From Research Study

New Findings From Present Existing Research That Study Supports The Present Study

Mental Models Female principals’ preferred thinking styles are as ‘idealist.’ Male assistant principals’ preferred thinking styles are as ‘realist.’

Leadership The ‘human resource’ frame Bolman and Deal (1992) Behaviors is found to be significant found that the ‘human with female administrators. resource’ frame was The ‘structural’ frame is prevalent in school principals found to be significant with from Florida and Singapore. male administrators. Bista and Glasman (1998) found that the ‘human resource’ frame is most dominant among school principals.

The dimensions of leadership Eagley, Karau, and Johnson behaviors show that male (1992) found that female school administrators are principals’ style of more ‘organized,’ whereas leadership are more female school administrators democratic and participatory are more ‘participative,’ and less autocratic than male ‘supportive’ and principals. ‘inspirational’ than their male counterparts.

125

Effectiveness of school Bolman and Deal (1991) administrators as managers found that effectiveness of and leaders are significantly school principals as a related to the ‘structural,’ manager is related to the ‘human resource,’ ‘political’ ‘structural’ frame. and ‘symbolic’ frames of Effectiveness of school leadership behaviors. principals as a leader is related to the ‘symbolic’ and ‘structural’ frames.

Characteristics of All characteristics of school Fiore (1999) found that Current School culture are significantly schools with positive school Culture related to school culture have visible leaders. administrators in elementary schools.

This study finds that female principals at the elementary schools are more inclined to spend time on activities related to current school culture than male school administrators.

Limitations of Study As mentioned in Chapter I, there are several limitations of the study. First, other variables besides school culture might be associated with mental models and leadership behaviors of school administrators. Second, the present study was not causal- comparative, and therefore, does not establish a cause-effect relationship. Third, mental models or thinking styles and leadership behaviors may not be reflective of school administrators in other school districts. Fourth, the study was not designed to be predictive, and any results obtained should be viewed in light of this knowledge. Fifth, results of this study cannot be generalized to other geographic regions and to other populations. A final limitation is that there appeared to be a violation of the independence assumption for the variable of school culture because there were multiple responses from the same schools. There were 76 different schools participating in the study and 92

126 responses from these schools; see Tables 4.1 and Table 4.2. There were four elementary schools, five middle schools, and five senior high schools that each had at least two persons responding. To compensate for this violation, a more stringent alpha (a = .01) level of significant was set for all analyses. Some participants were selected in nonrandom manner and were part of the purposive sampling method used, but there were no repeated measures on the same subjects and no interaction between groups. Implications for Schools As an educator, I have noticed over the years the Deficit Model that has been practiced in education. It is the prevailing mindset that separates children into groups of achievers and non-achievers, or teachable and unteachable. This attitude or mindset of this model often becomes the underlying assumptions that govern the activities within a school or school district. Consequently, activities that promote and foster change and school reform initiatives, may be seen as challenging to school leaders who may have adopted a negative mindset towards change. When school leaders demonstrate through their actions what they fundamentally believe about certain issues, it has the tendency to permeate the school culture. Mental models and culture are interrelated, that is, culture is an aggregation of mental models (Lindsay, 2000). That is why it is so important to present opportunities for school leaders to practice the strategies of reflection and inquiry. The strategy of reflection requires school leaders to become aware of how they form their mental models. Inquiry, on the contrary, is openly sharing views through conversations with other school leaders (at the elementary, middle, and high school levels) in the process of developing knowledge about those other school leaders’ assumptions. Another recommendation for school leaders in learning to understand themselves, teachers, support staff, and the school culture, is to employ this four step process to modify and change their thinking styles. As cited in Golian (1999) Benfari (1995), suggested that modification of thinking styles can only begin when understanding is achieved. The four steps are: 1. Reflect: Take the time to understand yourself and others in terms of strength and weaknesses regarding thinking style preferences. 2. Identify: Find work situations that have been effective and ineffective.

127 3. Determine: Recognize what aspects of your thinking styles have an effect on both the positive and negative outcomes in these situations. 4. Modify: Work to achieve positive outcomes at all times by using the thinking style most appropriate for the situation, and try to align these outcomes with the school’s mission. In this complex world of change, schools are facing increasing pressures to perform successfully and to compete at a global level. It then becomes critical for schools to develop the ability to become a learning environment. First and foremost, learning takes place in the classroom. Therefore, the one-size-fits-all way of thinking is becoming obsolete in this competitive world. Students learn at different rates, and needs are varied even within a single classroom setting. Teachers and school leaders may find it necessary to have a paradigm shift or develop mindsets that are adaptable to change. Real learning, according to Senge (1992), is the capability and capacity to achieve real goals. Lick and Kaufman (2000) argued that capacity is the willingness and ability for effective action necessary for learning. If there is no willingness to learn at the classroom or school level, and the ability to learn is lacking at either the classroom or school level, then real learning has not taken place. Real learning is generative learning where school leaders and teachers are able to accept the reality of their own behaviors, instead of looking at what they could be. Important to this argument is an alignment of what is believed (espoused theory) and what is done (theory-in- action) within the school settings. Alignment of the mission and vision with the daily instructional activities is crucial to creating a culture of success. In looking at culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors at the elementary, middle, and senior high school levels, the primary objective was to find existing relationships among these constructs. Since no significant relationship was found between the three constructs, it forced the researcher to taker a closer look at the relationship in a different perspective or to have a change in mental models. The researcher recommends the following examples: 1. That school districts adopt a training program for professional development that will allow principals and assistant principals to examine

128 their current mental models and practice strategies that would enhance or modify their thinking styles. 2. That school districts create opportunities for principals and assistant principals to reframe their leadership behaviors, by presenting opportunities at the district or state level for school administrators to enhance their leadership behaviors and to strengthen areas of weakness. Applying a ‘spiritual’ analogy to the three constructs, an implication can be made that schools can be referred to as having a body, a soul, and spirit. The body of the school is similar to the observed daily activities and leadership behaviors. On the other hand, the soul of the school is comprised of the mind, will, and emotions that are consistent with mental models, whereas, the spirit of the school is the underlying culture that permeates every aspect of the organization. The spirit or culture of the school essentially defines the real “you” of the school, and is that indescribable essence that is the most important characteristic. If more efforts are made in focusing on the spirit of the school, by fostering a caring environment where learning can take place, then the body and mind will follow. Senge et al. (2000, p.19) stated that “every organization (school) is a product of how its members think and interact, and that the fundamental nature of reality is relationships, not things.” The power of the “you” within the school setting is the spirit of its people, whether school administrators, teachers, students, support staff, and parents working together in unity to produce a quality school. In conclusion, following in the same thought of analogous comparisons, leadership behaviors are statistically significantly correlated to effectiveness as managers and leaders. Consequently, school administrators in this study can be referred to as: • Structural – Designer • Symbolic –Steward • Human Resource – Teacher • Political – Collaborator Recommendations for Future Research Recommendations for future actions or research are given below for building on the present study, to improve a better understanding of school culture, mental models and leadership behaviors in schools.

129 1. It is recommended to replicate this study in charter schools or other school districts to find out if the relationships exist among current school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors and other variables, such as gender, years of experience, position and school levels. 2. It is recommended that the present study, be duplicated with a larger sample size with the three constructs and other demographic variables to explore their relationships. 3. It is recommended from the findings of this study that further research be conducted focusing on possible causal relationships among school culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors. 4. It is recommended that a Structural Equation Model (SEM) be used to determine direct effects of demographic variables on the three constructs or indirect effects through one or more intervening variables. 5. It is recommended that the present study be extended with a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to further investigate the phenomena of mental models through in-depth interviews, to provide a deeper understanding and assessing the information for contextual clues and meanings. 6. It is recommended that a study be conducted to compare and contrast school cultures in rural, urban, and suburban schools.

130 APPENDIX A

PERMISSION LETTER FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT

131 132 APPPENDIX B

COVER LETTER

133 The Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4452

College of Education Departnietit of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies 113 Stone Building Telephone: (850) 644-6777 Fax: (850) 644-1258 (850) 644-6401 11317 Calgary Circle Tampa, FL 33624 February 20, 2004

Dear Participant,

I am a doctoral candidate under the direction of University Professor, Dr. Dale W. Lick, in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Florida State University. I am conducting a research study in exploring the relationships among school culture, thinking styles (mental models), and leadership behaviors. The School District o Hillsborough County has approved the research project entitled School Culture: Exploring Its Relationship With Mental Models and Leadership Behaviors in Schools. The benefits of participating in this research project will include (a) opening your awareness of your thinking styles and leadership behaviors (b) assisting you in initiating reform efforts, and (c) creating an environment conducive to leaming and student achievement.

I am requesting your participation, which will involve completing a data sheet and two paper and pencil questionnaires for a total time commitment of about 20 minutes. All questionnaires must be returned by March 17, 2004. Your participation in this study is totally voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from this study at any time, there will be no penalty, prejudice, or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. T questionnaire is anonymous and results of the research study will be published, but your responses will be kept strictly confidential, to the extent allowed by law. All participants will receive a summary of the final results.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx or e- mail me at duncanda3648(&prodigy.net or contact Dr. Dale W. Lick at xxx-xxx-xxxx

Please return the data sheet and questionnaires to the above address in the self-addressed stamped envelope. Return of these items will be considered your consent to participate. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Doreen A. Duncan

134 APPENDIX C

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

135 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

Directions: Please complete the statements below by checking the response(s) that best describe(s) your position or answers the questions.

1. Your Name (optional) ______Institution’s Name (optional) ______

2. At what level of school do you work? ______Elementary School ______Junior High/Middle School ______High School

3. What is your position? ______Principal ______Assistant Principal

4. How long have you been in your current position? ______1-4 years ______5-9 years ______10 years or more

5. Gender ______Female ______Male

Would you like to have a copy of the summary of the findings? ______Yes ______No

(Please include your name and address if you do).

136 APPENDIX D

INQUIRY MODE QUESTIONNAIRE

137 INQUIRY MODE QUESTIONNAIRE

A Measure of How You Think and Make Decisions

By Allen F. Harrison, D.P.A., Robert M. Bramson PhD., Susan Bramsom & Nicholas Parlette M.P.H.

This questionnaire has no right or wrong answers. It is a tool which can help you identify your preferred modes of thinking, asking questions, and making decisions. To be of maximum value to you, it is important that you respond as accurately as possible in terms of the way you believe you actually behave, not as you think you should.

Each item in this questionnaire is made up of a statement followed by five possible endings. Indicate the order in which you believe each ending applies to you. In the blank to the left of each ending, fill in the number 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1, indicating the degree to which an ending is most like you (5) or least like you (1). Do not use any number more than once for any group of five endings. Even if two or more endings seem equally like you, rank them anyway. Each ending must be ranked, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. Remember 5 is most like you, 1 is least like you.

EXAMPLE

Please fill in this example WHEN I READ A REPORT, I AM MOST LIKELY TO

PAY ATTENTION TO:

1.The quality of the writing 2.The main ideas in the report 3.The table of contents 4.The back-up materials and tables 5.The finding and recommendations

Once you are sure you understand the directions given above please proceed.

138 A: WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE ARGUE OVER AN IDEA, I TEND TO FAVOR THE SIDE THAT: 1. Identifies and tries to bring out the conflict 2. Best expresses the values and deals involved 3. Best reflects my personal opinions and experience 4. Approaches the situation with the most logic and consistency 5. Expresses the argument most forcefully and concisely

B: WHEN I BEGIN WORK ON A GROUP PROJECT, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO ME IS: 1. Understanding the purposes and value of the project 2. Discovering the goals and values of individuals in the group 3. Determining the steps to be taken to get the project done efficiently 4. Understanding how the project will pay off for myself and others 5. Getting the project organized and underway

C: GENERALLY SPEAKING, I ABSORB NEW IDEAS BEST BY: 1. Relating them to current or future activities 2. Applying them to concrete situations 3. Concentration and careful analysis 4. Understanding how they are similar to familiar ideas 5. Contrasting them to other ideas

D: FOR ME, THE BACK-UP DATA IN A BOOK OR REPORT ARE USUALLY 1. Very important if they demonstrate the truth of the findings 2. Important only for checking on the accuracy of the facts that are cited 3. Useful, if supported and explained by the narrative 4. Important only in terms of the conclusions to be drawn from them 5. No more and no less important than the narrative

E: IF I WERE PUT IN CHARGE OF A PROJECT, I WOULD PROBABLY START BY: 1. Trying to fit the project into broad perspective 2. Deciding how to get it done with the available time and money 3. Speculating about what the possible outcomes might be 4. Determining whether or not the project should be done at all 5. Trying to formulate the problem as thoroughly as possible

F: IF I WERE ASKED TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE, I WOULD PREFER

TO:

1. Form my own opinion on the facts and issues and then ask specific questions 2. Hold an open meeting and ask them to air their views 3. Interview them in small groups and ask general questions 4. Meet informally with key people to get their ideas 5. Ask them to give me their information in writing

139 G: I AM LIKELY TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE IF IT: 1. Has held up against opposition 2. Fits in well with other things that I hold to be true 3. Has been shown to hold up in practice 4. Make sense logically and scientifically 5. Can be personally verified by observable facts

H: I CAN CONTRIBUTE THE MOST WHEN I’M ASKED TO: 1. Identify the goals and objectives of a project 2. Identify priorities between competing projects 3. Identify how to save time and money on a project 4. Identify the practical effects of a project 5. Identify and assign the resources needed to carry out a project

I: WHEN I READ A NON-FICTION BOOK I PAY MOST ATTENTION TO: 1. The relation of the conclusions to my own experience 2. Whether or not the recommendations can be accomplished 3. The validity of the findings, backed up by data 4. The writer’s understanding of goals and objectives 5. The inferences that are drawn from the data

J: WHEN I HAVE A JOB TO DO, THE FIRST THING I WANT TO KNOW IS: 1. What the best method is for getting the job done 2. Who wants the job done and when 3. Why the job is worth doing 4. What effect it may have on other jobs that have to be done 5. What the immediate benefit is for doing the job

K: I USUALLY LEARN THE MOST ABOUT HOW TO DO SOMETHING NEW BY: 1. Understanding how it is related to other things I know 2. Starting in to practice it as soon as possible 3. Listening to differing views about how to do it 4. Having someone show me how to do it 5. Analyzing how to do it in the best way

L: IF I WERE TO BE TESTED, I WOULD PREFER: 1. An objective, problem-oriented set of questions on the subject 2. A debate with others who are also being tested 3. An oral presentation covering what I know 4. An informal report on how I have applied what I have learned 5. A written report covering background, theory and method

M: PEOPLE WHOSE ABILITIES I RESPECT THE MOST ARE LIKELY TO BE: 1. Philosophers and consultants 2. Writers and teachers 3. Business and governmental leaders 4. Economists and engineers 5. Entrepreneurs and journalists

140 N: GENERALLY SPEAKING, I FIND AN IDEA USEFUL IF IT: 1. Fits in well with ideas that I have learned 2. Explains things to me in a new way 3. Can systematically explain a number of related situations 4. Serves to clarify my own experience and observations 5. Has a practical and concrete application

O: WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A RECOMMENDATION, I PREFER THAT HE OR SHE: 1 Show clearly what benefits will be realized 2. Show how the recommendation can be implemented 3. Back up the recommendation with data and a plan 4. Show how the recommendation will support overall goals 5. Take into account the drawbacks as well as the benefits

P: I WOULD MOST LIKELY READ A BOOK ON AN UNFAMILIAR TOPIC BECAUSE OF: 1. An interest in improving my technical knowledge 2. Having been told it would be useful by someone I respect 3. A desire to know more about how others think 4. A desire to find ideas that would challenge me 5. A wish to learn if the specific subject could benefit me

Q: WHEN I FIRST APPROACH A PROBLEM, I AM MOST LIKELY TO: 1. Try to relate it to a broader problem or theory 2. Look for ways to get the problem solved quickly 3. Think of a number of opposing ways to solve it 4. Look for ways that others might have solved it 5. Try to find the best procedure for solving it

R: GENERALLY SPEAKING, I AM MOST INCLINED TO: 1. Find existing methods that work, and use them as well as possible 2. Speculate about how dissimilar methods might work together 3. Strive for quality regardless of the cost 4. Look for new ways to do things 5. Be dissatisfied until I’ve found the best method

141 APPENDIX E

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SURVEY

142 Form S-4

LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS (SELF)

I. Behaviors

You are asked to indicate how often each of the items below is true of you. Please use the following scale in answering each item.

1 = never 2 = occasionally 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always

So, you would answer ‘1’ for an item that is never true of you, ‘2’ for one that is occasionally true, ‘3’ for one that is sometimes true of you, and so on.

Be discriminating! Your results will be more helpful if you think about each item and distinguish the things that you really do all the time from the things that you do seldom or never.

1. Think very clearly and logically 1 2 3 4 5

2. Show high levels of support and concern for others. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Have exceptional ability to mobilize people and resources to get things done. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Inspire others to do their best. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Strongly emphasize careful planning and clear time lines. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Build trust through open and collaborative relationships. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Am a very skillful and shrewd negotiator. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Am highly charismatic 1 2 3 4 5

143 9. Approach problems through logical analysis and careful thinking. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Show high sensitivity and concern for others’ needs and feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

11. Am usually persuasive and influential. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Am able to be an inspiration to others. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Develop and implement clear, logical policies and procedures. 1 2 3 4 5

14. Foster high levels of participation and involvement in decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Anticipate and deal adroitly with organizational conflict. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Am highly imaginative and creative. 1 2 3 4 5

17. Approach problems with facts and logic. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Am consistently helpful and responsive to others. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Am very effective in getting support from people with influence and power. 1 2 3 4 5

20. Communicate strong and challenging sense of vision and mission. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Set specific, measurable goals and hold people accountable for results. 1 2 3 4 5

22. Listen well and am unusually receptive to other people’s ideas and input. 1 2 3 4 5

23. Am politically very sensitive and skillful. 1 2 3 4 5

24. See beyond current realities to generate exciting new opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5

25. Have extraordinary attention to detail. 1 2 3 4 5

144 26. Give personal recognition for work well done. 1 2 3 4 5

27. Develop alliances to build a strong base of support. 1 2 3 4 5

28. Generate loyalty and enthusiasm. 1 2 3 4 5

29. Strongly believe in clear structure and a chain of command. 1 2 3 4 5

30. Am a highly participative manager. 1 2 3 4 5

31. Succeed in the face of conflict and opposition. 1 2 3 4 5

32. Serve as an influential model of organizational aspirations and values. 1 2 3 4 5

II. Leadership Style

This section asks you to describe your leadership style. For each item, give the number “4” to the phrase that best describes you, “3” to the item that is next best, and on down to “1” for the item that is least like you.

1. My strongest skills are: a. ----- Analytical skills b. ----- Interpersonal skills c. ----- Political skills d. ----- Ability to excite and motivate

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

2. What has helped me the most to be successful is my ability to: a. ----- Make good decisions b. ----- Coach and develop people c. ----- Build strong alliances and a power base d. ----- Energize and inspire others

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

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

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

III Overall rating

Compared to other individuals that you have known with comparable levels of experience and responsibility, how would you rate yourself on?

1. Overall effectiveness as a manager

1 2 3 4 5 Bottom 20% Middle 20% Top 20%

2. Overall effectiveness as a leader.

1 2 3 4 5 Bottom 20% Middle 20% Top 20%

146 APPENDIX F

WHOLE SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS SURVEY

147 Whole School Effectiveness Survey Instructional and Professional Staff (2002-2003)

DIRECTIONS: Please match the number of the item on the survey form to the corresponding number on the accompanying answer sheet. Fill in the letter on the answer sheet that applies to you. Please use a #2 pencil.

1. What is your current job role? A. Teacher B. Instructional Specialist (e.g., curriculum, technical, media) C. Support Service Specialist (e.g., guidance, occupational) D. Teacher Aide/Paraprofessional E. Other

2. What is your racial or ethnic background? A. White D. Asian/Pacific Islander/American Indian B. Black E. Multi-racial C. Hispanic

Directions: For each item listed below, on the accompanying answer sheet bubble in the answer that best describes your judgment or perception using the following scale. ___A______B______C______D______E_____ Almost Always/Always Frequently Infrequently Rarely or Never Not Applicable (Strongly Agree) (Agree) (Disagree) (Strongly Disagree) Don’t Know

3. The principal develops a logical plan for getting things done. 4. The principal displays a professional image. 5. The principal makes decisions with confidence. 6. The principal demonstrates high expectations for his/her own work. 7. The principal communicates in a clear and concise manner. 8. The principal is “in charge” and assumes responsibility for the school. 9. The principal writes clear, concise and properly constructed memos and letters. 10. The principal sets high standards for the performance of others. 11. The principal sets high expectations for the overall school program. 12. The principal holds staff accountable for high standards that improve students’ academic achievement. 13. The principal builds a safe and orderly school culture conducive to learning. 14. The principal displays empathy and fairness in dealing with others. 15. The principal recognizes the good performance of others. 16. The principal promotes a positive image of the school. 17. The principal influences others towards school and district goals. 18. The principal takes action within the school and community to make a difference in school. 19. The principal observes and provides feedback to personnel on an on-going basis. 20. I am aware of the school’s vision/mission. 21. The school’s practices, policies, and procedures are aligned with the school’s vision/mission statement. 22. Committee work is designed to further the school’s vision/mission. 23. I believe each child is capable of high quality work. 24. I routinely give my students individualized attention. 25. Participation in academic and extracurricular events is encouraged for all students. 26. Academic incentive programs are implemented for students.

148 27. I have opportunities to review academic performance data and recommend changes in instructional practices. 28. I use a variety of assessment measures to assess academic progress. 29. I hold individual student conferences to give feedback on their performance. 30. Classroom procedures are posted and visible to students. 31. In my class, students are held accountable for classwork and homework. 32. I use a variety of teaching strategies to meet the academic needs for all my students. 33. I use interactive teaching methods that provide opportunities for students to actively participate. 34. I incorporate FCAT activities/strategies in my lessons. 35. I am proud to work at this school. 36. Clearly stated rules, responsibilities, and consequences are posted in my classroom. 37. Adults are visible throughout the school, particularly during transition times for students. 38. Office personnel are helpful and courteous when they communicate with me. 39. Procedures for transitions and schoolwide gatherings are carefully planned and communicated. 40. Schedules and calendar dates are communicated well in advance to insure proper academic planning. 41. I communicate with parents at least once during each grading period. 42. There is a high level of parent involvement in the school. 43. There is a strong program of parent support and participation at our school. 44. Our school has strong community support. 45. School personnel use multiple/repeated efforts to involve parents in school events and decisions. 46. Examples of students’ work are prominently displayed. 47. Student achievement is recognized by the school. 48. Pep rallies or other celebrations are held to recognize student achievement. 49. I am encouraged to openly make suggestions that would have a positive impact on student performance. 50. My colleagues and I share common goals and mutual respect for one another’s professional expertise. 51. Overall, the atmosphere of the school is positive. 52. School rules are consistently applied. 53. Students demonstrate a sense of pride in their school through participation in various school activities. 54. I feel safe when I’m at work. 55. I think this school is orderly. 56. I treat students like I would want my child to be treated. 57. Students feel safe when they are at school. 58. At this school, people from different backgrounds feel welcome and part of the group. 59. I am informed about new district policies. 60. Communication received from the district is articulated effectively.

In November 2000, the School District of Riverhills County approved a Controlled Choice Plan for student assignment that will begin August 2004. Please respond by indicating your level of agreement with the following items based on your knowledge of the district’s Controlled Choice Plan. 61. I am aware of the school district’s Controlled Choice Plan. 62. I have attendeda Controlled Choice Plan informational meeting. 63. I understand the Controlled Choice Plan. 64. I can help parents understand their options as they relate to the Controlled Choice Plan. 65. I know where to direct parents if they need additional information on the Controlled Choice Plan.

149 APPENDIX G

LETTER TO INQ PUBLISHER

150 June 2, 2003 Carol Holland Parlette, President InQ Educational Materials, Inc 640 Davis Street, No., 28 San Francisco, CA 94111

Dear Mrs. Parlette,

I am a doctoral student at Florida State University, and as part of the graduate requirements for Educational Leadership I am undertaking a study of organizational culture, mental models, and leadership behaviors of K-12 school administrators in a Florida school district. My major professor is Dr. Dale W Lick, University Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.

The purpose of the study is to examine the relationships among the three variables to determine if organizational culture influences the mental models and leadership behaviors of principals and assistant principals. Multiple Regression will be the design method of choice to explore the relationships.

I am requesting permission to use the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire for individual use to measure the construct of mental models or thinking styles. I would also like to order a sample set for preview.

The general results of the study and raw data will be shared with you in the event that your approval has been granted. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Doreen Duncan Florida State University Department of Educational Leadership Tallahassee, FL 32306

151 APPENDIX H

PERMISSION TO USE LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS SURVEY

152 HENRY W BLOCH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Lee G. Bolman Marion H. Bloch Missouri Chair in Leadership

October 25, 2004

Doreen Duncan 11317 Calgary Circle Tampa, FL 33624

Dear Ms. Duncan:

Thanks for your interest in the Leadership Orientations instrument. I am pleased to offer you permission to use the instrument in your research, subject to the following conditions: (a) the research is non-commercial; (b) you agree to provide us a copy of any thesis, report of publication that reports data based on the instrument, and (c) you agree to provide, if we request it, a copy of your data file.

The instruments and information about their use, including data on internal reliability, and a list of research using the Bolman and Deal Four Frames Model, can be found at: http://bspa.umkc.edu/classes/bolman//Ieadership research.htm.

Best wishes in your doctoral research.

Lee Bolman, Ph.D.

153 APPENDIX I

HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE

154 7PcM-da State

UNIVERSI'RY

Office of the Vice President For Research Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2763 (850) 644-8673 - FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM Human Subjects Committee

Date: 11/12/2003

Doreen Duncan 11317 Calgary Cr Tampa, FL 33624

Dept.: Educational Leadership and Policy

From: David Quadagno, Chai

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research School Culture: Exploring its relationship with mental models and leadership behaviors in schools

The forms that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be exempt per 45 CFR § 46.1 01 (b) 2 and has been approved by an accelerated review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If the project has not been completed by 11/11/2004 you must request renewed approval for continuation of the project.

You are advised that any change in protocol in this project must be approved by resubmission of the project to the Committee for approval. Also the principal investigator must promptly report, in writing, any unexpected problems causing risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols of such investigations as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Protection from Research Risks. The Assurance Number is IRBOO000446.

Cc- Dale W Lick HSC No. 2003.631

155 APPENDIX J

SUMMARY OF INQ RESPONSES

156 Summary of The Inquiry Mode Questionnaire Profiles

Scores Synthesist Idealist Pragmatist Analyst Realist

72 or higher 0 0 0 1 0

66 to 71 0 11 3 14 4

60 to 65 4 21 17 19 21

*49 to 59 33 43 61 42 53

41 to 48 44 16 11 14 13

37 to 42 7 1 0 0 1

0 to 36 4 0 0 2 0

TOTAL 92 92 92 92 92

Scores and their Meaning

72 or higher: This style is dominant in thinking approach 66 to 71: A strong preference for this style 60 to 65: A moderate preference for the style *49 to 59: Neutral- no preference for, or no inclination towards the style 41 to 48: A moderate disinclination to use the style 37 to 42: A strong disinclination to use the style 0 to 36: A predisposition against the use of the style

157 REFERENCES

Aguinis, H., & Adams, S. K. R. (1998). Social-role versus structural model of gender and influence use in organization: a strong inference approach. Group and Organizational Management, 23(4), 414-423.

Andrews, R. L., & Basom, M. R. (1990). Instructional leadership: Are women principals better? Principal, 70(2), 38-40.

Appelbaum, S. H., & Reichart, W. (1997). How to measure an organization’s learning ability: a learning orientation: part 1. Journal of Workplace Learning, 9(7), 225-239.

Argyris, C. (1992). On Learning Organization. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspectives. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, methods and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyis, C., Putman, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action Science; Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. California: Jossey-Bass.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to Research Education (4th ed.). Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Bamburg, J. (2001). Restructuring Education. Retrieved April 8, 2001, from http://www.newhorizons.org/restr_bamburg1.html

Banks, A. P., & Millward, L. J. (2000). Running shared mental models as a distributed cognitive process. The British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 513-531.

Barker, J. A. (1990). The Business of Paradigms [Videorecording]. Burnsville, MN: Charthouse International Learning Corporation.

Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.

Benson, P., & Yelland, T. (1989). Inquiry Mode Questionnaire: A Measure of How You Think and Make Decisions. 12 Mental Measurements Yearbook.

Bista, M. B., & Glasman, N. S. (1998). Principals’ perceptions of their approaches to organizational leadership: revisiting Bolman and Deal. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 26-48.

158 Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and mangement effectiveness: A multi- frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture, and gender. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 314-329.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal. T. E. (1997). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Knoke, D. (1982). Statistics for Social Data Analysis. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers.

Bruvold, W. H., Parlette, N., Bramson, R. M., & Bramson, S. J. (1983). An investigation of the item characteristics, reliability, and validity of the Inquiry Mode Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measure, 43, 428-493.

Buch, K., & Wetzel, D. K. (2001). Analyzing and realigning organizational culture. Learning & Organizational Development Journal; Bradford, 22, 40-44.

Cain, D. A. (2000). Creating a learning organizational environment for the facilities professional. APPA Facilities Manager. Retrieved September 18, 2001, from http://www.appa.org/resources/Facilities_manager/000304/article1.html

Chapman, J. A., & Ferfolja, T. (2001). Fatal flaws. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4), 398-409.

Clift, R. T., Veal, M., Holland, P., Johnson, M., & McCarthy, J. (1995). Collaborative Leadership and Shared Decision Making. New York: Teachers College Press.

Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing At The Speed of Change. New York: Villard Books.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, New York: Franklin Covey.

Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The Nature of Explanation. London: Cambridge University Press.

Cuban, L. (1998). The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1991). The Principal’s Role in Shaping School Culture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

159 Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Fullan & Hargreaves.

DeLisi, P., & Danielson, R. (2003). “I Think I am, Therefore....” An inquiry into the thinking styles of executives and professionals. Retrieved August 21, 2003, from Organizational Synergies http://www.org-synergies.com/ThinkingStyles.htm

DePree, M. (1989). Leadership Is An Art. New York: Dell Publishing.

Dever, J. T. (1997). Reconciling educational leadership and the learning organization. Community College Review, 25, 57-63.

Doud, J. L., & Keller, E. P. (1998). Elementary/Middle-School Principals: 1998 and Beyond. The Education Digest, 64(3), 4-10.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school principals: A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 76-102.

East, E. (1981). A Comparative Study of Male and Female Perceptions of Leadership Styles of Selected Elementary School Principals in Florida. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1981).

Fiore, D. (1999). Positive school cultures: The importance of visible leaders. Contemporary Education, 71(2), 11-13.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullerton, J. P. (2002). Review of the Fifth Discipline. Retrieved February 27, 2002, from http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/jfullerton/review/learning.htm

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.

Gephart, M. A., & Marsick, V. J., & van Buren, M. E. (1996). Learning organizations...come alive. Training and Development, 50, 35-51.

Gideon, B. H. (2002). Supporting a collaborative culture. Principal Leadership (High School Ed.). 3(1), 41-44.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldman, E. (1998). The significance of leadership style. Educational Leadership, 20- 22.

160 Goldring, L. (2002). The power of school culture. Ledership, 32(2), 32-35.

Golian, L. M. (1999). Thinking style preferences among academic librarians: Practical tips for effective work relations. ACRL Ninth National Conference. Florida Gulf Coast University.

Goodbrand, A. E. (2003). The Art of Thinking. Retrieved November 18, 2003 from The University of Calgary.

Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing values framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality of life. Organizational Development Journal, 19(3), 58-68.

Graham, M. W., & Messner, P. E. (1998). Principals and job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational management, 12, 196-202.

Green, R. (2000). Natural Forces: How to significantly increase school performance in the third millennium. Florida: Author.

Gruenert, S. (2000). Shaping a new school culture. Contemporary Education, 71(2), 14-17.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 98-116.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: the impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151.

Hallinger P., Murphy, J., & Hausman, C. (1992), Restructuring Schools: Principals perceptions of fundamental educational reform. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 28(3), 330-349.

Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22(4), 527-547.

Harrison, A. F., & Bramson, R. M. (1982). Styles of Thinking. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hausman, C., Nebeker, A., McCreary, J., & Donaldson, G. (2002). The worklife of the assistant principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(2), 136-157.

Herasymowych, M. (1996). Building learning organizations part 3: Building learning infrastructures. InfoMine, 3(2), 1-4.

161 Hitt, W. D., (1996). The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal. Employee Counseling Today, 8(7), 16-25.

Huang, J. (1993). The Relationship of Cognitive Styles, Cognitive profiles, and Thinking Styles Among Selected Chinese and American Students in Higher Education, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (09), 3294.

Huggett, J. F. (1999). When culture resists change. Quality Progress, 32(3), 35-39.

Hughes, T. H., & Franceschini, L. A. (1989). A comparison of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with the Bramson-Harrison Inquiry Mode Questionnaire. Proceedings, Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis State University 1989.

Ibrahim, A. S. (1985). Instructional leadership Behaviors of High School Principals, Department Heads and other Administrative Staff as perceived by Teachers and Principals (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1985).

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, W. L., Snyder, K. J., & Anderson, R. H. (1996). School work and culture productivity. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 139-156.

Johnston, C., & Caldwell, B. (2001). Leadership and organisational learning in the quest for world class schools. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 94-103.

Keating, C, Robinson, T., & Clemson, B. (1996). Reflective inquiry: a method for organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 3(4), 35-43.

Kienholz, A., & Hritzuk, J. (1986). Comparing students in architecture and medicine: Findings from two measures of cognitive style. Psychological Reports, 58, 823-830.

Kienholz, A., Mishra, R. K., Hayes, P., & Engel, J. (1993). Further validation of the Revised Inquiry Mode Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 72, 779-784.

Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 37-50.

Klecker, B. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1999). Measuring principals’ openness to change on three dimensions: affective, cognitive, and behavioral. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26, 213-225.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

162 Kuck, G. (2000). Improving school culture-without a word. Lutheran Education, 136(2), 141-142.

Lakomski, G. (2001). Organizational change, leadership and learning: culture as cognitive process. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 68-77.

Langan-Fox, J., Code, S., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2000). Team mental models: techniques, methods, and analytic approaches. Human Factors, 42(2), 242-271.

Lashway, L. (1996). The strategies of a leader. Eric Digest, Number 105. Retrieved June 17, 2003, from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest105.html

Leithwood, K., Aitken, R., & Jantzi, D. (2001). Making Schools Smarter (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lezotte, L. W. (2003). Correlates of Effective Schools: The first and second generation. Retrieved September 4, 2003, from Association for Effective Schools http://www.effectiveschools.com

Lick, D. W. (2003). Developing learning teams. Smaller Learning Communities Conference, Pinellas County Schools. Florida State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.

Lick, D. W., & Kaufman, R. (Winter, 2000-2001). Change Creation the rest of the planning story. Planning for Higher Education.

Liebig, T. (2003). Mental models. Retrieved August 18, 2003, from http://www.sgzz.ch/home/links/stp/mentmod.htm

Lindsay, S. (2000). Culture, Mental Models, and National Prosperity. In L. E. Harrison (Ed.). Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (pp. 282-296).

Linzy, M. J. S. (1990). A comparative study of the relationships between school climates and student achievement in fifth, seventh, and ninth graders in a North Florida School District (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1990).

Malhotra, Y. (1996). Organizational learning and learning organizations: An overview. Retrieved February 10, 2002, from http://www.brint.com/papers/orglrng.htm

Maxwell, J. C. (2002). Leadership 101. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

McCay, E. (2001). The learning needs of principals. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 75-77.

163 Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizational culture: Origins and Weaknesses. Organizational Studies, 9(9), 453-473.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, M. A., & Yates, D. (2002). How to use your organizational culture as a competitive tool. Nonprofit World, 20(2), 33-34.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Where do minority principals work? U.S. Department of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Principals in public and private elementary and secondary schools, by selected characteristics: 1993-94 and 1999-2000. Retrieved November 24, 2003, from http://nces.ed/gov/edstats

Neck, C. P., & Barnard, W. H. (1996). Managing your mind: What are you telling yourself? Educational Leadership, 53, 24-27.

O’Neil, J. (April, 1995). On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge. Educational Leadership, 20-23.

Patterson, W. (2000). Grounding school culture to enable real change. The Education Digest, 65(9), 4-8.

Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., & Kahlert, R., & Sobel, A. (2002). Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.). 3(4), 38-41.

Policy Brief. (June, 1999). Effective leaders for today’s schools. Synthesis of a Policy Forum on Educational Leadership. Retrieved September 19,2001, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EffectiveLeaders/effective-leadership.html

Policy Publications. (2003). Viewpoints: School leadership in the 21st Century: Why and how it is important. Retrieved November 24, 2003, from http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/leadersh/goodschl.htm

Quinn, D. W. (2000). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (5), 447-467.

Raybould, R. (2000). Mental models: A key for understanding individual, collective, and organizational learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(10), 3846.

164 Reis, S. B., Young, I. P., & Jury, J. C. (1999) Female administrators: A crack in the glass ceiling. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 71-82.

Rogers, Y., Rutherford, A., & Bibby, P. A (Eds.). (1992). Models in the Mind. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rossow, L. T., & Warner, L. S. (2000). The Principalship: Dimensions in Instructional Leadership (2nd ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships in Communities and Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sammon, G. (2000). The challenge of change. High School Magazine, 7(9), 32-36.

Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational Leadership, 42(6), 67-74.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 229-240.

Schein, E. (1999). How to set the stage for a change in organizational culture. In the Dance of Change pp.334-342. New York: Doubleday-Currency.

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

School District of Hillsborough County from http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us.

Senge, P. (1990a). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. (Fall 1990b). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 7-23.

Senge, P. (1992). Mental Models. Putting strategic ideas into practice. Planning Review, 20(2), 4-11.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The Dance of Change. New York: Doubleday-Currency.

165 Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools That Learn. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. (2002). Learning to alter mental models. Executive Excellence, 11(3), 16-17.

Shaw, W. P. (1990). The organizational cultures and principals’ leadership behaviors in three academically dissimilar middle schools (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (07), 2294.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organizations. Journal of Educational Leadership, 40(5), 425-446.

Snyder, K.J., Acker-Hocevar, M., & Snyder, K. M. (2000). Living on the Edge of Chaos: Leading schools into the global age. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press.

Sparks, D. (2001). Why change is so challenging for schools. Journal of Staff Development, 22(3), 42-47.

Stanwick, P. A. (1996). Mental imagery: An alternative to top management team replacement for declining organizations. Journal of Organizational Change, 9, 47-65.

Stenner, A. J. (1978). Construct definition: Theory and practice. Presented to NIE’s National Conference on Testing Issues in Career Development, Washington, DC. May 18-20, 1978.

Subramaniam, N, & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). The effect of organisational culture perceptions on the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial job-related outcomes. Australian Journal of Management, 26, 35-54.

Szabo, M., & Fuchs, A, (1998), Dealing with mental models. Retrieved September 18, 2001, from http:// www.quasar.aualberta.ca/edmedia/TIES/L3.html

Tate, R. (1998). An Introduction to Modeling Outcomes in the Behavioral and Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Minnesota: Burgess International Groups.

Taylor, R. T. (2002). Shaping the culture of learning communities. Principal Leadership, 3(4), 42-45.

Turner, J. (1999). Spirituality in the workplace. CA Magazine, 132(10), 41-42.

Ubben, G. C., & Hughes, L. W. (1997). The Principal: Creative Leadership for Effective Schools (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

166 Watts, M. R. (2002). Whole School Effectiveness Factor Analysis of Survey. Department of Assessment, Accountability and Evaluation, School District of Hillsborough County.

Williams, R. (2003). Lessons from Everest: The role of collaborative leadership in crisis. Retrieved June 17, 2003, from http://www.peagasuscom.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000012.html

Wilson, B. (2001). Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model Building and its Contribution. Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.

Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87-95.

Wonacott, M. E. (2000). The Learning Organization: Theory and practice. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from ERIC/ACVE Publications http://www.ericacve.org

Wyckoff, S. L. (1998). Schools As learning Organizations: A Study of Instrument Development (Doctoral dissertation, Wichita State University, 1998).

Yeo, R. (2002). Learning within organizations: linking the theoretical and empirical perspectives. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(3), 109-122.

Zelvys, R. (1998). Characteristics of successful school leaders in a period of change. International Conference on The Role of Social Science in the Development of Education, Business and Government Entering the 21st Century: Vol. 1. Retrieved November 15, 2003, from http://www.education.ktu.lt/failai/knyga_the_role/contents.htm

167 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Dr. Doreen A. Duncan attended Girls’ High School in St. Christopher (St. Kitts) during her formative years, and graduated at age 16. She started teaching soon after graduation, and has been a teacher for most of her life. While in St. Kitts, she attended Teachers’ Training College, on a 2-year government scholarship, and learned the value of a good education. Her quest for knowledge opened doors for her to fulfill her educational goals. Ms. Duncan has gained experience in teaching students from the elementary to college level, and has earned certifications in Educational Leadership and Human Resource Development from Florida State University, in addition to having certifications in Gifted Education, Elementary Education, and Special Education. She is a graduate of the Suncoast Area Teacher Training (SCATT) Honors Program at the University of South Florida. She has been a member of several honor societies including Pi Lambda Theta and Golden Key National Honor Society. Her professional organization affiliation includes membership of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Dr. Duncan’s experience in teaching both regular and special education in the United States has added to her repertoire and expanded her understanding of diversity in education. Her background and education has equipped her to work at the college level to assist students in pursuing educational excellence and to serve in the capacity as an educational consultant. Her own educational goals have culminated in earning a doctoral degree in Educational Leadership from Florida State University. PhD Educational Leadership, 2004 Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL MA, Gifted Education, 1993 University of South Florida, Tampa, FL BS, Special Education, 1990 University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

168