THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STYLE AND
DISTRICT CULTURE
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Graduate and Professional Studies in
Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Education
(Educational Leadership)
by
Heather Nichole Minton
SPRING 2020
© 2020
Heather Nichole Minton
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STYLE AND
DISTRICT CULTURE
A Thesis
by
Heather Nichole Minton
Approved by:
______, Committee Chair Virginia L. Dixon, Ed.D.
______, Second Reader Sarah M. Jouganatos, Ed.D.
Date
iii
Student: Heather Nichole Minton
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for electronic submission to the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
, Graduate Coordinator Geni Cowan, Ph.D. Date
Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
iv
Abstract
of
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP STYLE AND
DISTRICT CULTURE
by
Heather Nichole Minton
Brief Literature Review
Culture and climate are crucial components of successful schools and districts.
They also have a substantial impact on student outcomes both academically and social emotionally.
Statement of the Problem
To improve the climate and culture of California school districts, district superintendents must analyze the role their leadership style might play in the culture of their district. This study sought to address the gap in research and to explore the relationship between superintendent leadership style and district culture.
Methodology
This quantitative study analyzed California district superintendents’ responses to the Leadership Expert Questionnaire (Oates, 2010) and the School Culture Triage Survey
(Wagner, 2006).
v
Conclusions and Recommendations
Findings indicate the existence of a relationship between district superintendent leadership style and district culture. Findings further indicate that paternalistic leadership styles, and in some cases democratic leadership styles, are associated with higher district culture scores. The findings of this survey should serve as a valuable tool for superintendents attempting to improve student outcomes through district culture.
, Committee Chair Virginia L. Dixon, Ed.D.
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Sarah Jouganatos and Dr. Denver Fowler for their knowledge and support as I began this journey. I would also like to thank Dr. Virginia
Dixon for her guidance through the completion of this study. Thank you all for your advice, feedback, and encouragement.
I would also like to thank each of the superintendents who responded to my survey.
Finally, I wish to thank my friends and family for supporting me throughout my study.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments...... vii
List of Tables ...... x
List of Figures ...... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Background ...... 1
Statement of the Problem ...... 2
Research Questions ...... 3
Significance of the Study ...... 4
Definition of Terms...... 4
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis ...... 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 7
Introduction ...... 7
Leadership ...... 7
Superintendents ...... 24
Climate/Culture ...... 36
Conclusion ...... 49
3. METHODOLOGY ...... 50
Introduction ...... 50
viii
Research Design and Rationale ...... 51
Data Analysis ...... 52
Limitations of the Study...... 53
Ethical Considerations ...... 53
Summary ...... 54
4. DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS ...... 55
Introduction ...... 55
Findings...... 55
Interpretation and Analysis ...... 69
Summary ...... 72
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 73
Introduction ...... 73
Conclusions ...... 75
Recommendations for Further Study ...... 77
Appendix A. Survey and Consent ...... 80
Appendix B. Study Recruitment ...... 82
References ...... 83
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1. Knowledge and Skills Associated with Superintendent Role Conceptualization ...... 31
2. The EDSCLS School Climate Model ...... 39
3. Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire ...... 43
4. School Climate Scale Dimensions ...... 45
5. Survey Response Breakdown ...... 56
6. District Culture by Leadership Style...... 58
7. District Culture by Leadership Style – District Size ...... 60
8. District Culture by Leadership Style – Community Type ...... 63
9. District Culture by Leadership Style – Title I Funding ...... 67
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Blake & Mouton’s managerial grid ...... 17
2. Reddin’s 3-D theory of management ...... 19
3. Highest degree held of superintendents, 1923-1960 ...... 25
4. Mapped domains across identified historical school climate measures ...... 41
5. Mean district culture scores sorted by leadership style with a statistical
significance (p = 0.012) ...... 59
6. Mean district culture scores in schools with fewer than 5,000 students sorted
by leadership style with a statistical significance (p = 0.005) ...... 61
7. Mean district culture scores for superintendents with paternalistic leadership
style sorted by district size with no statistical significance (p = 0.681) ...... 62
8. Mean district culture scores in rural schools sorted by leadership style with a
statistical significance (p = 0.001) ...... 64
9. Mean district culture scores for democratic leadership across community types
with no statistical significance (p = 0.916) ...... 65
10. Mean district culture scores for paternalistic leadership across community
types with no statistical significance (p = 1.000) ...... 65
11. District culture means for paternalistic leaders sorted by amount of schools
receiving Title I funding with no statistical significance (p = 0.875) ...... 68
xi
12. District culture means for districts with all schools receiving Title I funding
sorted by leadership style with statistical significance (p = 0.003) ...... 69
xii 1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
School culture and climate have been at the forefront of educational research over the past few decades. This is largely due to the overwhelming research indicating the effect school culture and climate have on student outcomes. Berman, Chang, and Barnes
(2012) conducted a study indicating that healthy school environments were associated with an 11-percentile gain in academic achievement. Phillips (as cited in Wagner, 2006) found a strong relationship between student achievement and school culture. Melton-
Shutt (as cited in Wagner, 2006) noted that in all their 66 cases, higher state assessment scores were tied to higher school culture scores. Furthermore, Lindstrom Johnson, Pas, and Bradshaw (2016) added that an improved school culture can disproportionately help the most at-risk students. Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, and Higgins-D'Alessandro (2013) discussed a further impact of school culture. Their research indicates numerous benefits for students including mental health, decreased drug use, and decreased absenteeism.
School climate has become such a pivotal part of the educational scene that states like California have invested substantial amounts of money, time, and resources to track the climate of its schools. Furthermore, school climate is one of only 10 priority focus areas for the California Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Two measurements used by the state of California are the California Healthy Schools Survey and the
2
California Dashboard. Both resources are referenced routinely by school-, district-, county-, and state-level administrators.
One of the primary roles of a district Superintendent, along with the school board, is to chart the direction and vision of their district. It is this researcher’s belief that the way in which Superintendents create this vision for their district may have a substantial impact on the climate and culture within their district. While research highlights the impact of site leadership on school culture and student achievement, research pertaining to superintendents is severely lacking. This study sought to help fill that gap.
Statement of the Problem
To improve the climate and culture of California school districts, district superintendents must analyze the role their leadership style might play in the culture of their district. The 2015-2017 California Healthy Kids Biennial state report shows stable or declining results in multiple school climate factors. These are especially prevalent at the high school level (Austin, Polik, Hanson, & Zheng, 2018, p. xiii). If district superintendents in the state of California do not take proactive measures to improve school climate and culture, students will continue to suffer socially, emotionally, and academically.
Currently, there is a gap in the research pertaining to a superintendent’s leadership style and the impact it has on the climate and culture of their district. Until this point, research has focused on leadership and culture at the site level. This study sought to
3 explore the relationship that exists between leadership style and culture at a district level.
Because superintendents represent the leadership of a school district, the impact they have on students could be significant.
Research Questions
1. Does the leadership style of a superintendent affect district culture?
2. Does the size of a district affect which leadership style is associated with higher
district culture scores?
3. Does the type of community, i.e., rural, suburban, urban, affect which leadership
style is associated with higher district culture scores?
4. Does the Title I status of a district affect which leadership style is associated with
higher district culture scores?
Hypotheses
H1a: The leadership style of a superintendent affects district culture scores.
H2a: Superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon the size of the district.
H3a: Superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon the type of community.
H4a: Superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon Title I status.
4
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study focus the conversation around school climate and culture at the district level. Much research has been conducted concerning various leadership styles, school culture, and student outcomes. However, little research exists on leadership styles of the superintendent or about the climate of a district as a whole.
Much of the work has been focused on the school as a lone entity, rather than a part of a larger system. With culture having such a substantial impact on student outcomes, it is necessary for the work to be done at all levels of administration, not just at the site level.
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gaps
The difference in achievement between various groups of students. Common
achievement data referred to by achievement gaps are test scores, grades, dropout
rates, and college readiness (Ansell, 2011).
California Dashboard
The dashboard is a tool used to show performance levels of California schools
and districts. It includes many indicators including student population, academic
performance, academic engagement, and conditions and climate (CDE, 2017).
California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS)
A survey administered in California schools, measuring a variety of indicators
relating to school climate and pupil engagement (Austin et al., 2018).
5
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)
The formula California uses to distribute funds to school districts. Funds are
distributed based on not only the number of students in a district but
characteristics of the population. The funding comes with a list of 10 priority
areas that funding must be shown to address (California Department of Education
[CDE], 2020a)
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
An organization for secondary administrators in the United States.
School Climate
There are many definitions of school climate and what exactly comprises the
climate of a school. Early research suggests that it is the “personality of a school”
(Halpin & Croft, 1960, p. 1). More recently, it is described by the “physical and
social environment” and can be measured by “student and staff behaviors and
perceptions” (Voight & Nation, 2016, p. 174).
School Culture
A set of “unwritten rules and traditions, customs, and expectations” that shape the
underlying makeup of a school (Deal & Petersen, 2016, pp. 7-8).
Title I Funding
These are federal funds given to high-poverty schools to ensure that all students
have access to a high-quality education (CDE, 2020b).
6
Transactional Leadership
A leadership style in which leaders give rewards and consequences based upon
follower behaviors (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987).
Transformational Leadership
A leadership style in which leaders attempt to raise each of their followers up to a
higher level so they have ownership of the same goal as their leader (Bass &
Avolio, 1993).
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the significance of school culture in today’s educational setting. Chapter 2 presents a synopsis of the current literature in the fields of leadership, culture, and student outcomes. Chapter 3 thoroughly explains the methodology used to complete the study.
Chapter 4 presents the data and findings of the study. Chapter 5 provides a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for further study.
7
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship superintendent leadership style has on the culture within the district. Research has suggested that culture has a substantial impact on student outcomes (Brown et al., 2012; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2016; Thapa et al., 2013; Wagner, 2006). This literature review examines three themes: (a) Leadership, (b) Superintendents, and (c) Climate/Culture. It is through this literature review that a greater understanding of the topic is developed.
Leadership
The topic of leadership is broad. To focus the research, three essential questions were developed: (a) What does leadership mean? (b) What do great leaders do? (c) What leadership styles exist? Though a plethora of literature exists, the concept of leadership is still challenging to contextualize. Many researchers have developed their own definition of leadership, and therefore have developed their own ideas of what great leaders do and how they do it.
Definition and Structures of Leadership
When studying and researching leadership, a researcher will likely identify leadership as one of three ideas: (a) a character trait, (b) a property of a system, or (c) a
8 social contract (Chatwani, 2018). Many researchers over the last few decades have bought into the idea of leadership as a character trait or social contract rather than the property of a system. Katz, Kahn, and Kahn published their work in 1978, which discussed the influence leadership has on organizations. They defined “the essence of organizational leadership to be the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with routine directives of the organization” (p. 528). In other words, the ability to influence others is a necessary trait of the leader.
Burns (1978), another early researcher, believed leadership had less to do with power and domination and more to do with getting followers to buy into shared values and motivations. There is a “reciprocal raising of levels of motivations rather than indoctrination or coercion” (p. 448). Thus began the theory of transformational leadership, which relies upon the traits of the leader to inspire and influence the followers. Stemming from the landmark work of Burns, Bass (1985) expanded on this leadership definition. He believed transformational leaders must influence the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of their followers. This was a move away from transactional leadership, which relied heavily on the system to give the leader power.
According to Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999), leadership is a social influence that one person or group has over other people or groups. This idea is echoed by many other researchers who believe that leadership is a social influence that leads to the achievement of goals and shared objectives (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007;
Kruse, 2013; Yukl, 2013). While a leader is usually a designated person in an
9 organization, it can also develop in members of an organization (Halpin & Croft, 1963).
Deal and Peterson (2016) argued that leadership must come from everyone in an organization. Leadership in the strongest school cultures comes from everyone in the school, including all school staff, parents, and even students. They highlight exceptional school programs that thrust students into leadership roles such as the “Tour Guide
Program,” where even very young students are showing visitors all the wonderful things happening at their school.
Hurwitz (2018) struggled with the typical definitions of leadership in which there is an implication that the outcomes of the group are all due to one person, the leader.
Hurwitz believes, instead, that leadership and followership must be interdependent. A leader will act, a follower will react, and then the leader uses the reaction of the follower to shape their future actions. He offered a definition that removes the idea of influence and favors the concept of a framework. The leader’s role is to set the framework, and the follower’s role is to work within that framework. While setting that framework, a leader creates a mission and vision, sets goals, removes roadblocks, manages tasks, and encourages teamwork (Hurwitz, 2018).
While many of the researchers argue that their definition contains all necessary components of leadership, Ciulla (2002 as cited in Kort, 2008) argued that the 221 definitions she studied from 1920 to 1990 all basically say the same thing. Leadership is
“one person getting other people to do something” (Kort, 2008, p. 409). The real
10 difference is not the definition of leadership, but how leaders motivate their followers to
“do something.”
Though there are many definitions, the concept of influence is at the heart of many. To lead others, the leader must influence others (Leithwood et al., 1999).
Leithwood et al. (1999) studied journals dating back to 1988. From their analysis, they found 20 separate educational leadership ideas or foci, that they then categorized into six categories of leadership: (a) instructional, (b) transformational, (c) moral, (d) participative, (e) managerial, and (f) contingent. Instructional leadership focuses on the actions taken by teachers, which impact student outcomes. Transformational leadership takes a strong approach toward strengthening the commitment and capacity of the staff.
The moral leadership focus is on the values and ethics established by the leader themselves. Participative leadership involves the participation of all members of an organization in decision making. A managerial leader tends to focus on the “functions, tasks, or behaviors” (Leithwood et al., 1999, p. 14) of the job. Finally, contingent leaders tend to analyze situations and respond based upon the unique circumstances they face.
Leithwood et al. made note that earlier models of leadership focused solely on formal leadership power given by position. However, more recent leadership models also focus on the informal power of members of the organization.
What Great Leaders Do
So, what makes a leader great? The answer is not entirely clear. Kort (2008) argued that great leaders must be effective in getting others to do things, which agrees
11 with what many believe is the cornerstone definition of leadership. Reiss (2006 as cited in Knight, 2009) stated that good leaders know when to step in and when to back off.
The framework of a perfect leader does not exist, but there seem to be a set of universally endorsed attributes of leaders. Gartzia and Baniandrés (2016) found that people look for intelligence, success, and dominance in their leadership. Kouzes and
Posner (2009) surveyed “tens of thousands of working people around the world” (p. 20) about leaders and colleagues they admired. The study suggests that honesty was the number one requirement of leaders, followed by being a forward-thinker. The focus of
Kouzes and Posner’s work was the forward-thinking aspect of leadership because this was the biggest contrast between leaders and colleagues. Leaders must be able to investigate the future of their organizations. Great leaders can look several years into the future of their organization. Then, leaders must be able to share this vision with the rest of the organization and get their constituents to view it as their own. “What leaders struggle with most is communicating an image of the future that draws others in” (p. 21).
This is only done through careful observation and understanding of the people in their observation.
Bolman and Deal (2017) explored this forward-thinking concept as reframing. A frame is a deep-seated structure for reacting to situations and comes from an extended amount of practice and experience within a given industry. When leaders reframe, they look at the same situation through a different lens to produce different results. Reframing
12 often comes in the form of asking different questions. The most successful leaders are able to reframe quickly and create teams that can do the same.
The idea of vision is paramount to the role of a successful leader. Deal and
Peterson (2016) believe the real reason businesses succeed is that their leaders have found a way to instill passion and purpose into their company to create a common vision and culture. They argue that this is done by a concerted effort to uncover the history and the current nature of the culture in their organization. They can then reinforce this culture to instill their common vision for the future. The idea that great leaders create strong organizational culture is echoed in Keefe and Kelley’s 1990 work related to school improvement. They stress that effective leaders must be able to develop and sustain organizational culture for their goals to be achieved. Then a positive perception by both the clientele and employees of an organization is created.
Perhaps the most powerful idea of what good leaders do comes from Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric and Fortune Magazine’s “Manager of the Year.” He said, “Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is about growing others” (Shor, 2015, p. 2907). So how does a leader grow others? It is through their style of leadership.
Leadership Styles
The Oxford Dictionary of Business and Management defines leadership style as
“the traits, behavioral tendencies, and characteristic methods of a person in a leadership position” (Law, 2016). Often leadership style is evaluated on a continuum from one
13 extreme to another, or a grid, representing a combination of two continuums (Bass &
Avolio, 1993; Burns, 1978; Carson et al., 2007; Chatwani, 2018; Gartzia & Baniandrés,
2016; Jost, 2013). What lays at the ends of this continuum represents the differences between various researchers.
One continuum that has been established is that of transformational vs. transactional leadership. The concept was originally established by Burns (1978), but has since been expanded by Bass et al. (1987). Bass et al. explain that transactional leadership depends upon giving followers some sort of reward when standards have been met, known as a contingent reward, or creating a culture where followers seek to avoid corrective actions, known as management-by-exception. This transactional style of leadership requires that the leader clarify the goals, work standards, assignments, equipment, and all other aspects of the follower's duties so that it is known whether rewards or corrective actions are needed. Bass and Avolio (1993) connect this continuum of leadership styles to the organizational culture in which they lead. They view organizational culture as being either transactional or transformational. They explain that transactional leaders work within the existing culture and follow existing rules, procedures, and norms. These leaders thrive on pointing out what followers will receive if they do something right or wrong.
On the other hand, transformational leadership is the idea that the leader will elevate their followers, so they adopt the same vision, objectives, and goals as the leader.
This ownership causes the follower to want to meet expectations just as much as the
14 leader. A great transformational leader must focus in three areas: (a) charisma, (b) individual consideration, and (c) intellectual stimulation. Followers of a charismatic leader become emotionally invested in the leader and want to copy everything they do.
In turn, those leaders give individual attention and care for the needs of each of their subordinates. Finally, they stimulate them intellectually by helping followers “think about old problems in a new way” (p. 75). This trifecta develops followers to the point where they can solve future complex problems on their own. Later, Bass and Avolio
(1993) split charisma into two separate areas: idealized influence and inspirational motivation. These ideas together are known as the 4 I’s of Transformational Leadership.
A transformational leader knows they must first understand the culture, then they can realign the vision and mission to change the culture.
Another existing leadership continuum focuses on how many leaders are present
(Carson et al., 2007; Chatwani, 2018). Hurwitz (2018) argued that leadership can come from one or many members of the group. The leadership style is established based upon how many people are occupying the leadership role and how often. Four specific leader/follower configurations are identified: (a) centralized, (b) distributed, (c) shared, and (d) leadership void. Centralized leadership is characterized by having a single member or group filling the role of leader for most of the time. Hurwitz argued that central leadership limits followers and causes the organization to perform below their potential. Distributed leadership has a few members or groups filling the role of leader, but the change is infrequent. Shared leadership, Hurwitz’s ideal style, has many
15 members or groups filling leadership roles fluidly. Finally, leadership void occurs when there is a lack of leadership role assumption by any of the members of the group
(Hurwitz, 2018).
Carson et al. (2007) also argued in favor of a shared leadership style. They take this argument further by stating that leadership needs to originate internally, rather than from external force. Instead, external leadership should act as a coach to the team rather than as their leader. Their coaching should focus on how and when to share the leadership roles. Interestingly, as part of their argument for shared leadership, Carson et al. cited a study by Bales (1953), which noted that when no leadership is appointed, two leaders often emerge. One of these leaders tends to focus on the task at hand, while the other leader focuses on the relationship within the group. This is directly connected to the leadership theory of task vs. human consideration developed by Bales (1953).
The Bales study in 1953 highlights another continuum of leadership style (as cited in Carson et al., 2007). This view consists of two differing orientations: people or relational versus task (Gartzia & Baniandrés, 2016; Jost, 2012). The meeting of these two dimensions creates a grid of leadership styles, because the optimal leader will focus on both of these essential dimensions (Gartzia & Baniandrés, 2016). A task-oriented leader, also known as initiating structure, will define the structures necessary for work to be accomplished. A relational leader, also known as the consideration factor, spends a great deal of time showing concern for the members of the group (Jost, 2013). Gartzia and Baniandrés (2016) found that people, or relationship orientation, has become
16 extremely popular in recent years; however, people-oriented leaders may often be perceived as weaker in task orientation. While they may often be viewed as opposite sides of a spectrum, they are both essential to the success of a leader.
In 1964, Blake and Mouton developed a grid into what is known as the
“Managerial Grid” (Blake & Mouton, 1964, p. 135). The Managerial Grid gives leaders scores of 1-9 in their orientation toward concern for people and concern for production.
Instead of naming each leadership style, Blake and Mouton refer to each extreme by its score. This analysis leads to five different leadership styles, each extreme of the grid, and the middle. Figure 1 identifies each leadership type on the Managerial Grid. The goal of creating this grid is to move leadership styles toward a 9,9 leadership style, which is high in concern for people and production.
17
Figure 1 Blake & Mouton’s managerial grid
Source: Blake & Mounton (1964, p. 136)
Carron (1964) went on to name the quadrants and connect them to past research.
Carron considered a leader low in consideration and structure to be a laissez-faire leader; they have little concern for either the organization or the individual. A leader high in
18 consideration but low in structure is considered a democratic leader. They value the growth and development of their group over the success of the organization. A leader with high structure and low consideration is named an autocratic leader. They control their group members to “meet the needs of the organization” (Carron, 1964, p. 412).
Leaders who are high in consideration and structure are labeled paternalistic.
Reddin (1979) tied many of these leadership styles together with his 3-D
Management Style Theory. While he initially recognized the four leadership style extremes identified by Blake and Mouton (1964), Reddin (1979) viewed leadership as situational. He believes that in various situations, effectiveness of each leadership style needs to be evaluated. It is from this view of effectiveness that he identified an additional eight leadership styles. Figure 2 illustrates the connection between these types of leadership styles.
19
Figure 2 Reddin’s 3-D theory of management
Source: Reddin (1979, p. 67)
Reddin’s (1979) ineffective leadership styles are: Deserter, Missionary, Autocrat, and Compromiser. A deserter has no orientation to either relationships or task; they have a lack of interest, which leads to a lack of morale while standing in the way of group performance. The missionary leader has a strong relationship orientation with no task orientation. The leader is so consumed with making sure that everyone is taken care of, that there is not focus on production of product, making the leader completely ineffective.
20
The autocratic leader is strong in task orientation without any relationship orientation.
The autocratic leader is ineffective due to the lack of interest in his group members. This causes the members to dislike the leader and, therefore, not do any work for the leader unless pressure is applied. Finally, the compromising leader is strong in relationship and task orientation. This leader becomes ineffective due to their lack of ability to make decisions. They are overwhelmed by compromises and mixed feelings, causing the failure of their group.
It is Reddin’s (1979) belief that all orientation combinations can be effective. The effective leadership styles are: Bureaucrat, Developer, Benevolent Autocrat, and
Executive. A bureaucratic leader has no orientation toward task or relationships. The bureaucratic leader follows the rules of the organization and maintains a fake interest.
This causes the leader to not interfere with the work of the group. The developer leader scores high in relationship orientation. This leader is effective in developing his team members so they are successful, creating a positive work environment for their team to be productive. The benevolent autocratic leader is high in the area of task orientation. The leader has a high level of skill and knows how to apply pressure to the team without creating resentment, which would inhibit work production. Finally, the executive leader is strong in both task and relationship orientations. The executive leader is extremely effective in motivating their team; they set high standards but recognize that not every person is the same. They know how to work with each member of their team for maximum production.
21
Reddin (1979) is not the only researcher to argue for situational leadership. While
Hersey and Blanchard (1982a) recognized the significance of the managerial grid, they also recognized that not every situation warrants a high degree of relationship and task orientation. A truly effective leader needs to analyze each situation and use the best managerial style for that situation. Hersey and Blanchard (1982a) give many examples of situations that would not warrant a high concern for people and production score. “For example, if a leader’s subordinates are emotionally mature and can take responsibility for themselves, the appropriate style of leadership for working with them may be below- average amounts of direction and supportive behavior” (1982a, p. 208). They argued that ignoring the needs and situations of the group is highly irresponsible. Hersey and
Blanchard (1982b) went on to describe leadership as a series of behaviors rather than a set of inborn traits. It is because of this that leaders can be trained, and the training should include analyzing various situations and deciphering what the best behavior is for any given situation.
Blake and Mouton (1982) rebutted the idea that their managerial grid does not account for situationism. They argued that this fallacy comes from a misinterpretation of the managerial grid. Blake and Mouton saw concern for production and people as interdependent; the goal is not to get the highest additive score. Instead, the ideal manager is always concerned for both aspects, accounting for a leader knowing their team and how best to manage them on a relational and production level. This difference is most evidenced in their argument that 9,9 leadership is not paternal leadership. A
22 leader with high paternal leadership would completely structure a job, then give a high amount of praise for completing the job exactly how it was structured. A 9,9 leader would provide a task to be completed but listen to the suggestions of the subordinate for how to complete the task. There is open conversation with trust because the leader is also concerned for the subordinate.
To put these controversies to rest, Blake and Mouton (1982) gave their own titles and descriptions to each of their quadrants. The 1,1 style is referred to as Impoverished
Management. A manager with this style will put forth the least amount of effort to remain a part of the organization. Style 1,9, low concern for production and high concern for people, is known as County Club Management. Country Club Management relies on relationships to create a comfortable, friendly environment. The 9,1 style, high concern for production and low concern for people, is called Authority-Obedience. This style manager will create an extremely efficient environment by “arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree” (Blake & Mouton,
1982, p. 136). Organization Man Management is the title of 5,5 management, where managers adequately balance the need for work with the morale of the staff. Finally, 9,9 management is given the name Team Management. Team managers accomplish work through committed team members. Members of the team feel as though they have a stake in the organization and are committed to its success.
23
Summary
While leadership has many definitions, the central focus is that leadership requires one person or a group to have influence over others (Ciulla, 2002). What started as leadership coming from a position of power or dominance has shifted into motivation and shared values (Burns, 1978). While this may be from a person in a position in power, it may instead come from someone within the organization (Halpin & Croft, 1963). What really matters is the relationship between the leader and the followers (Chatwani, 2018).
Therefore, a successful leader is one who can create and maintain this powerful relationship (Keefe & Kelley, 1990). Studies show that creating and maintaining powerful relationship is done through honesty and forward thinking (Kouzes & Posner,
2009). The ability to create a forward vision for the organization is pivotal (Deal &
Petersen, 2016) and is done through a leader’s style of leadership. There are many different ways to classify leadership style. Many researchers view leadership as a continuum (Bass, 1987; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Burns, 1978; Carson et al., 2007;
Chatwani, 2018), but many others view it as a grid with two main criteria for evaluation
(Bales, 1953; Blake & Mouton, 1964; Carron, 1964; Gartzia & Baniandrés, 2016; Jost,
2013). However, some researchers take this concept even further, add the situational aspect, and add a third dimension (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; Reddin, 1979).
Regardless of the model, leadership style is a crucial component to the success of an organization.
24
Superintendents
Like CEOs in the corporate world, superintendents are considered the leaders of school districts. Their role has changed drastically from their initial existence in the
1800s to today, just as the populations they serve have changed. While superintendents face many challenges, they also face many triumphs that make the job worthwhile.
History of District Superintendents and Leadership
The idea of a school district superintendent arose in the mid-1800s. Before that point, school boards had clerks who ran many of the day-to-day operations of the schools
(Bjork, Kowalski, & Browne-Ferrigno, 2014). Buffalo, New York and Louisville,
Kentucky are credited with having the first local superintendents in 1837, but by the year
1870, more than 30 districts across the United States had superintendents. These superintendent positions were created in response to rapid growth in cities. With growing cities came larger school districts, which warranted someone to manage the districts daily
(Houston, 2007; Kowalski & Bjork, 2005).
It was the job of these first local superintendents to carry out laws, collect data, and manage the district’s money. Due to the drastic increase in the number of district superintendents, the National Education Association created a division specifically for superintendents in 1865. It was during this time that superintendents became prestigious members of their communities and could do their job with little interference (Houston,
2007). Tyack (1976) likens the superintendent at this time to religious leaders having been called to the position. However, many school boards were not sure what a
25 superintendent was supposed to do, so the job of a superintendent changed based on the board they served. Kowalski (2005) reported that most often, superintendents were
“teachers of teachers” (p. 102). Their main objectives were to supervise curriculum, create uniform instruction, and lead educators. They were also responsible for giving advice to the school board, completing written reports, and communicating with other employees of the district.
It was around the turn of the 20th century that the position of the superintendent began to change. The authority of the superintendent was challenged; thus, they became the scapegoats for anything that went wrong. During the time of the industrial revolution, superintendents began following the lead of business management with a new focus on scientific research and methods. Communication became top-down, and superintendents became authoritative, task-oriented, and impersonal. Superintendents were expected to get graduate degrees and meet certification standards (Kowalski, 2005; Tyack, 1976).
Figure 3 Highest degree held of superintendents, 1923-1960
Source: Tyack (1976, p. 279)
26
The initial era of superintendency lasted for nearly 30 years. However, after the
Great Depression and the World Wars, the superintendent morphed into more of a statesman. There was a push to return to all things “democracy.” The move allowed for subordinates to be more creative in their jobs. The times also required creativity on the part of the superintendent to fight for support of the schools. Money was in short supply, and it became one of the superintendent’s main objectives to procure what the schools needed (Kowalski, 2005).
Once again in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, changes in the nation’s social scene led to changes in the superintendency. The fight for civil rights was raging, union support was on the rise, special interest groups were in abundance, and the space race was in full gear. All these factors led the nation to challenge the status quo and question authority. This was true also for the education system. Growing criticism led to the eventual downfall of the status of the local superintendent.
As if the education system were not already wounded, the 1983 publication of A
Nation at Risk and the 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation highlighted the public’s lack of trust in the educational system (Houston, 2007). A Nation at Risk explained how the world economy was strengthening and that America’s schools were not competitive on the global stage. For the first time, eyes were turned hard towards the realities of the United States’ school systems (Hoy & Miskel, 2001). A few years later,
NCLB created strict expectations for districts, especially in the area of achievement gaps.
Sherman (2008) argued that before that point, many superintendents paid no attention to
27 the disparities in test scores of their various student groups. The superintendent, as leader of the failing educational system, was an easy focus for lack of trust. From the beginning of the position, the superintendency had “changed dramatically from community leader to school manager to education leader to scapegoat” (Houston, 2007, p. 30).
Profile of the Superintendent
The profile of a district superintendent has remained remarkably unchanged over the last three decades. In 2014, Bjork et al. performed research that showed the median age of a district superintendent was 55. Seventy-six percent of superintendents were male, 94%were Caucasian, and 70% held at least a master's degree. The majority of superintendents were teachers, followed by school site leadership, central office employees, then district superintendents. Most superintendents spent the last 18 years of their professional life in the position. They usually serve for six years in two or three different districts, and they are hired by the school board (Bjork et al., 2014), and thus gain all their power from the board (Sharp & Walter, 2004).
The professional standards that a superintendent must meet in order to be successful were first summarized by Hoyle in 1993 in the American Association of
School Administrators (AASA) Professional Standards for the Superintendency (AASA,
2019). Another set of standards were published, known as the Interstate School
Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards of 2008 (AASA, 2019). Finally, the latest revamping of the standards occurred in 2015 in the Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders put out by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration
28
(NPBEA; 2015). The duties of the superintendent have been categorized into 10 standards: (1) Mission, Vision, and Core Values, (2) Ethics and Professional Norms, (3)
Equity and Cultural Responsiveness, (4) Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, (5)
Community of Care and Support for Students, (6) Professional Capacity of School
Personnel, (7) Professional Community for Teachers and Staff, (8) Meaningful
Engagement of Families and Community, (9) Operations and Management, and (10)
School Improvement. However, the job of a superintendent goes far beyond these standards of practice.
Waters and Marzano (2006) performed a meta-analysis of 27 quantitative studies since 1970 that examined 2,817 districts and over 3.4 million student achievement scores.
The focus of the review study was on student achievement. Waters and Marzano found five district-level responsibilities with statistically significant correlation to student achievement. The five responsibilities all lay with the superintendent and relate to goal setting. The first responsibility is collaborative goal setting; it is imperative the superintendent includes all stakeholders when developing goals for the district. The second responsibility is to set “non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction” (p.
4); they guide the goal-setting process toward goals that must be adopted by all staff members. The third responsibility is to create board alignment and support for those non- negotiable goals. It is the job of the superintendent to make sure the board will fully support the established goals. The fourth responsibility is to monitor the goals to ensure progress is being made toward those goals. Finally, it is the responsibility of the
29 superintendent to ensure resources are being used effectively to support the achievement and instruction goals.
Petersen’s 2002b article once again highlighted the importance of goal setting.
He identified four leadership attributes instructionally focused district leaders should possess: “(1) articulation of an instructional vision; (2) creation of an organizational structure that supports that vision; (3) assessment and evaluation of personnel and instructional programs; and (4) organizational adaptation” (p. 160). Petersen previously studied the interaction of these attributes in his 1999 article. Superintendents create a vision for the district, which is then used to evaluate the decisions made in all other areas of the district. Instructionally focused superintendents use the hiring of personnel, interactions with the school board, and shared decision-making to establish an organizational structure that adapts to the needs and vision of the district. Finally, they use their vision to evaluate the district’s programs and personnel to ensure they are based in instruction. Petersen’s (1999) research highlighted the need for visionary leadership at the top level of the district. Furthermore, when Petersen (2002b) investigated the relationship of superintendent vision and academic success, he found a positive correlation, especially true when there was involvement from the community and other stakeholders. As Glass (2015) stated, the superintendent must “read the environment, craft a vision for outcomes, identify research supported actions and find a way to actualize the vision/actions throughout the system” (p. 181).
30
Aside from the research pertaining to creating a vision, a multitude of other skills are shown to be helpful to the district superintendent. Sharp and Walter (2004) claimed that school superintendents need to look at the big picture and be willing to delegate.
They also must always “keep their cool” (p. 16). They do not have the luxury of reacting to situations. They need to use decision-making strategies. Bjork et al. (2014) stated that as CEO of the district, they must know what is going on at all levels, and in all areas, at all times.
In Shuler’s (2016) study of rural superintendents, they found that superintendents need people skills, moral leadership, a strong work ethic, and they must understand school politics. Leaders are the link between the district and the community. Such sentiments were noted by Houston (2001, 2007). A 21st-century superintendent must be
“village builders” (Houston, 2001, p. 431). They need to connect, communicate, and collaborate with the local community. Superintendents must focus on the “relationships of children to learning, children to children, children to adults, adults to adults and school to community” (Houston, 2001, p. 431).
Bjork et al. (2014) identified five major roles that developed throughout the history of the superintendency. They argued that even though these roles were developed in historical contexts, none ever became irrelevant. Superintendents have been teacher- scholars, organizational managers, democratic-political leaders, applied social scientists, communicators, and now a balancing act of all five. Table 1 shows the progression of these roles and how superintendents now must fill all these roles.
31
Table 1
Knowledge and Skills Associated with Superintendent Role Conceptualization
Role Pertinent Knowledge and Skills Teacher-Scholar Pedagogy; educational psychology; curriculum; instructional supervision; staff development; educational philosophy Manager Law; personnel administration; finance/budgeting; facility development/maintenance; collective bargaining/contract maintenance; public relations Democratic leader Community relations; collaborative decision making; politics Applied social Quantitative and qualitative research; behavioral sciences scientist Communicator Verbal communication; written communication; listening’ public speaking; media relations Multi-role Motivation; organizational theory; organizational change and development; leadership theory; ethical/moral administration; technology and its applications; diversity/multiculturalism; human relations Source: Bjork et al. (2014, p. 14)
Challenges and Triumphs of District Superintendents
In an AASA study of superintendents in the United States, Houston (2007) found that “a large percentage of people in the job like their work” (p. 28). In fact, most would choose their profession again if they had the choice. While this is promising, it is also surprising due to the overwhelming challenges superintendents face in present times.
32
Houston (2001) called these challenges the “demanding D’s” (p. 430): diversity and demographics, divide between socioeconomic status, deemphasis of education. School systems are being deregulated through systems such as vouchers and charter schools.
The transfer of power, or devolution, from central district offices to district stakeholders is ever increasing. Demassification, breaking of large industries into smaller industries, has led to fewer shared experiences between stakeholders. Finally, new technology has been introduced that is rapidly replacing older institutions, known as disintermediation.
The landscape a superintendent must face is ever changing.
With populations shifting to different states and demographics changing, Berman et al. (2012) argued that superintendents must now focus on the social emotional aspects of schools rather than just the academic success. Though the pressure to have students achieve academically is substantial, great superintendents know that social emotional learning is now equally as important. Making the job harder is the socioeconomic divide.
Houston (2001) explained that “the dirty little secret of American education is the degree to which we allow inequities in resources to exist between communities” (p. 430). It is often true that the students who have the most need are provided with the fewest resources. Bjork et al. (2014) found that financing schools has been a top issue for superintendents since 1923. And yet, the expectations remain, without the resources to match (Houston, 2001).
Lane, Feder-Lewis, Pye, Wahlstrom, and Wolfe (2013) explained that the No
Child Left Behind legislation of 2001 led to increasing demands on school
33 superintendents and created a new maze of legislation, politics, and community activism
(Houston, 2007). There is a struggle to implement each newly mandated policy (Glass,
2015). Houston (2001) argued that superintendents are given the responsibilities of
CEOs but lack the actual authority to carry out many of these mandates. Furthermore, this legislation has deemphasized the actual education of students. They have replaced learning with test scores. Schools are now held accountable for how high they score on tests rather than the changes they make in students’ lives.
A strong community reaction to this regulation is the deregulation of many school systems. Charter schools and voucher systems have moved in, and superintendents must now fight for every dollar. Additionally, schools have historically been the sole resources for academics. With the increase in technology, many students get their education using other sources. This shift positions the superintendent to now emphasize the process of learning instead of the place of learning in order to remain relevant
(Houston, 2001).
Finally, to maintain their role as the connection between the community and the district (Shuler, 2016), superintendents must adapt to a changing world. Instead of communication through one avenue, there are multiple news outlets that must be used
(Houston, 2001). The amount of conflict facing the superintendent when connections are made with the community is increasing significantly (Glass, 2015). “The superintendency is a job fraught with public critics” (Houston, 2001, p. 429).
34
Houston’s (2001, 2007) work to outline challenges painted an intimidating picture. He claimed that a good superintendent must be a “quick-healing dartboard”
(Houston, 2001, p. 429). He touted the high, unrealistic expectations, constant blame, unanswerable questions, and exasperating nature of the positions. However, Houston
(2007) was also quick to note that many superintendents love their jobs; while there are challenges, there are also many successes. They can make a huge impact and change the trajectory of children's lives. Meanwhile, they must face and overcome the challenges.
Numerous studies have shown that district leadership has an influence on students
(Brown et al., 2012; Lane et al., 2013; Lankford, 2018; Petersen, 2002b; Waters &
Marzano, 2006). In 2006, Waters and Marzano performed a meta-analysis of 27 quantitative studies. Among other significant findings, they found that district-level leadership matters. The computed correlation value between district leadership and student achievement was 0.24, meaning those districts with better superintendents tend to have higher student achievement. Further findings in this study suggest that the impact of the superintendent is due to their impact on the district, through processes such as planning and establishing a vision.
District administration was also mentioned in Hoy and Miskel’s (2001) evaluation of healthy and unhealthy school climates. They argued that healthy climates depend upon district administration protecting the schools from “unreasonable parental pressures” (p. 200). They also believed that in a healthy climate, principals have influence at the district level, which is in stark contrast to unhealthy climates where
35 administration is inundated with “unreasonable demands from parental and community groups” (p. 201). Furthermore, Hoy and Miskel identified that healthier school climates are associated with higher student achievement.
A study by Leithwood and Sun (2018) supports these findings. Eight hundred fifty-six elementary teachers from 70 schools completed an online survey with three components: setting high, yet reasonable goals known as academic press, disciplinary climate, and use of instructional time. While this study found that the effect of leadership on student learning was not direct, it did influence aspects that had a direct correlation to student learning. It was found that leadership had a direct effect on academic culture. In turn, academic culture had a direct effect on student achievement.
Lane et al. (2013) argued that leadership is one of the greatest influences on student learning, second only to the curriculum and the teacher’s instruction. Leadership helps promote equity and justice for all students, and they establish school climates where discrimination has no place. Wagner (2006) argued that “tangible support from leaders at the school and district levels” (p. 41) must be present for culture change to occur.
Summary
The role of the superintendent is thought to have begun in the mid 1800s (Bjork et al., 2014), but it spread quickly across the United States (Kowalski & Bjork, 2005).
Initially, superintendents were charged with following through on laws, collecting data, and managing district funds. However, these roles changed substantially over time. The biggest change, perhaps, aligned with the publication of A Nation at Risk and the
36 enactment of the NCLB legislation (Houston, 2007). While superintendents have many roles, the most important roles relate to vision and goal setting (Glass, 2015; Petersen,
2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Superintendents face many challenges in their work
(Houston, 2001), but the impact they have on student learning makes it worth their time
(Lane, 2013).
Climate/Culture
School climate and culture is a critical concept that developed out of organizational climate. It is through defining and measuring this crucial element of schools that a lasting impact on students can be made.
Relationship to Organizational Climate
Though school climate and culture has become a major area of study, this was not always the case. Much of the theory behind school culture began in organizational culture. One of the earliest studies of organizational culture emerged in 1951 when Elliot
Jaques (1951) published his book, The Changing Culture of a Factory, which attempted to identify some factors that could influence the social structures of the company. Jaques stated:
The culture of the factory is its customary and traditional way of thinking and
doing of things, which is shared to a greater or lesser degree by all its members,
and which new members must learn, and at least partially accept, in order to be
accepted into service in the firm. (p. 251)
37
One of the next major developments in organizational culture was introduced in the article “On Studying Organizational Cultures” by Andrew Pettigrew (1979).
Pettigrew focused on “how purpose commitment, and order are generated in an organization both through the feelings and actions of its founder and through the amalgam of beliefs, ideology, language, ritual, and myth we collapse into the label of organizational culture” (p. 572). This definition of organizational culture became one of the driving forces behind the organizational culture movement.
In 1982, Deal and Kennedy took this work further in their book, Corporate
Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, outlineing two key dimensions that impacted an organization’s culture: risk and feedback. These dimensions lead to four distinct cultures that an organization might embody: tough guy, macho culture; bet-your- company culture; work hard/play hard culture; and process culture.
Definition and Major Components of School Culture and Climate
When it comes to school climate and culture, there is not a set, agreed-upon definition of what it is. There are almost as many definitions as there are people who have sought to define and measure it. One of the earliest definitions is that of Halpin and
Croft in 1963 wherein they defined school climate as “the organizational personality of a school” (p. 1).
More recent definitions have emerged, and one such definition comes from researchers Emmons, Corner, and Haynes (1996) stating, “school climate refers to the shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that shape interactions between students, teachers,
38 and administrators” (as cited in Bradshaw, Waasdorp, Debnam, & Lindstrom Johnson,
2014, p. 594). Peterson (2002a) called it the “persona” of the school (p. 10), while
Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, and Pickeral, referred to the “quality and character of school life” (2009, p. 181). Thapa et al. (2013) later expanded on this definition to state that
“school climate is based on patterns of people’s experiences of school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (p. 358). Most recently, Voight and Nation (2016) defined school climate as “the physical and social environment and is typically operationalized as the aggregation of individual student and staff behaviors and perceptions” (p. 174).
While there is no one list of factors (Cohen et al., 2009, p. 182), there is more agreement about what factors make up school climate and culture than what definition to use. The United States Department of Education (USDOE) identified three domains of school climate—(a) engagement, (b) safety, and (c) environment—and 10 subdomains:
(a) relationships, (b) respect for diversity, (c) school participation, (d) emotional safety,
(e) physical safety, (f) substance use, (g) physical environment, (h) academic environment, (i) wellness, and (j) disciplinary environment (as cited in Voight & Nation,
2016). Since that time, the USDOE has expanded their subdomains even further. The new subdomains are categorized under the same three domains as shown in Table 2
(Voight & Nation believe that relationships must be at the forefront of effective practices).
39
Table 2
The EDSCLS School Climate Model
Engagement Safety Environment
Cultural and linguistic competence Emotional safety Physical environment Relationships Physical safety Instructional environment School participation Bullying/cyberbullying Physical health Substance abuse Mental health Emergency Discipline readiness/management National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (2019)
Cohen et al. (2009) narrowed this list to focus on the areas of safety, relationships, teaching and learning, and external environment (p. 182). Later, Thapa et al. (2013) expanded this list to include the school improvement process (p. 358). These factors are very similar to the five factors identified by the School Climate Center: (a) safety, (b) relationships, (c) teaching and learning, (d) institutional environment, and (e) the school improvement process (as cited in Bradshaw et al., 2014, p. 594). The need to map and measure what school climate is goes back to Halpin and Croft’s 1963 work (Hall, 1972).
Thapa et al. (2013) reaffirmed this need because how climate is defined will change what and how it is measured (p. 371), and as it stands, most existing definitions of school climate are unclear (Lunenburg, 2011, p. 1).
Measurement of School Culture and Climate
The United States Department of Education has spent about $70 million over the last 10 years to measure and improve school climate (as cited in Voight & Nation, 2016,
40 p. 174). Currently, very few research-based tools can easily be used to measure a school's culture (Wagner, 2006, p. 42). To measure school climate effectively, multiple data types should be utilized such as administrative data, surveys, or interviews (National
Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, 2019). The limitation is due in part to the lack of comprehensive school climate assessments that account for all the domains and factors comprising school climate (Bradshaw et al., 2014).
Lunenburg (2011) stated that even though the existing assessments are varied, they can be categorized into two types, direct and indirect. Direct forms of data collection consist of surveys. Indirect forms can vary from accessing data such as absenteeism or observing school climate in action. Additionally, these data types usually rely on perception of various stakeholder groups. However, the perceptions are useful because people react based upon those perceptions (Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008).
Furthermore, “teachers’ perceptions are critical for shaping the decisions they make in the classroom” (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012, p. 1189).
41
Figure 4 Mapped domains across identified historical school climate measures
Source: Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes (2010, p. 141)
Perhaps the earliest and most influential school climate assessment was developed by Halpin and Croft (1963 as cited in Hall, 1972). Their Organizational Climate
Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) created six different school profiles: (a) Open, (b)
Autonomous, (c) Controlled, (d) Familiar, (e) Paternal, and (f) Closed (as cited in Hall,
1972). The Open Climate consists of an energetic, lively environment where leadership comes from both the administration and the group. This climate is considered especially authentic and would be considered the ideal climate for a school. The Autonomous
Climate is where the leader has very little control over the organization. Leadership comes from the group, and there is a high satisfaction level, but there is not a real focus on task-achievement. The Controlled Climate is characterized as impersonal and lacking
42 authenticity. There is an extreme focus on task-orientation and goal achievement. On the other hand, the Familiar Climate is extremely personal, but there is a lack of control.
While group members gain satisfaction of their social needs, they do not gain satisfaction from task-achievement.
The Paternal Climate is one in which the leadership of the group is stifled so it remains in the hands of the leader. This leads to an environment where group members do not gain satisfaction from either task-achievement or social interactions. Finally, the
Closed Climate is one in which there is apathy among many members of the group, and there is a feeling that the organization is not moving forward. Task-achievement and social needs are not being met for the group, and the organization has become stagnant
(Halpin & Croft, 1963, pp. 4-5). After analysis of these school profiles, three parameters were found to be of high importance: (a) Authenticity, (b) Satisfaction, and (c)
Leadership Initiation. This pivotal research leads the way for others to begin to look at school climate as a measurable way to improve their school.
43
Table 3
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire
Climate High Average Low
Open Esprit Intimacy Hindrance Thrust Disengagement Consideration Aloofness Production emphasis Autonomous Esprit Consideration Disengagement Intimacy Hindrance Aloofness Production emphasis Thrust Controlled Disengagement Thrust Disengagement Hindrance Aloofness Intimacy Production emphasis Esprit Consideration Familiar Disengagement Thrust Hindrance Intimacy Esprit Aloofness Consideration Production emphasis Paternal Disengagement Thrust Hindrance Production emphasis Consideration Intimacy Esprit Aloofness Closed Disengagement Intimacy Consideration Hindrance Thrust Aloofness Esprit Production emphasis
Source: Hall (1972, Table 1, p. 587)
While Hoy and Clover (1986) and Kottkamp, Mulhern, and Hoy (1987) praised the breakthrough research by Halpin and Croft, they found many limitations to the
OCDQ. Their primary concerns were that it had not been updated, student interactions
44 were not analyzed, and there were a variety of other conceptual issues. Hoy and Clover
(1986) made revisions to remedy the limitations of the original OCDQ, and their revised questionnaire resulted in a four-cell matrix evaluating the openness of both principals and teachers. Though they made significant improvements, they too ignored the student factor because it did not fit into their conceptual model. A year later, Kottkamp et al.
(1987) made another revision to the OCDQ, which attempted to create a questionnaire that was appropriate for vastly different secondary schools. The result was a questionnaire measuring five dimensions of school climate: supportive or directive principals and engaged, frustrated, or intimate teachers.
The Comprehensive Assessment of School Environments (CASE) is a battery of four assessments given to three stake holder groups. The first of these is the School
Climate Survey, which is given to all three groups. Next, three NASSP Satisfaction
Surveys are specifically designed for each stakeholder group. These assessments gather data tied to perceptions of teacher-student relationships, security and maintenance, administration, student academic orientation, student behavioral values, student-peer relationships, parent and community school relationships, instructional management, and student activities (Lunenburg, 2011). Table 4 clarifies what is meant by each dimension and gives a sample question from the survey.
45
Table 4
School Climate Scale Dimensions
Scale Name Scale Description Sample Item
Teacher-Student Quality of the interpersonal Teachers in this school Relationships and professional like their students. (+) relationships between teachers and students. Security and Maintenance Quality of maintenance and Students usually feel safe degree of security. in the school building. (+) Administration Degree to which school The administrators in this administrators are effective school listen to student in communicating with ideas. (+) different role groups and in setting high performance expectations for teachers and students. Student Academic Student attention to task Students work hard to Orientation and concern for complete their school achievement at school. assignments. (+) Student Behavioral Values Student self-discipline and If one student makes fun tolerance for others. of someone, other students do not join in. (+) Guidance Quality of academic and Teachers or counselors career guidance and encourage students to personal counseling think about their future. services available to (+) students. Student-Peer Relationships Students’ care and respect Students care about each for one another and their other. (+) cooperation.
46
Scale Name Scale Description Sample Item
Table 4 (continued)
Scale Name Scale Description Sample Item
Parent and Community- Amount and quality of Parents and members of School Relationships involvement of parents and the community attend community members in the school meetings and other school. activities. (+) Instructional Management Efficiency and There is a clear set of effectiveness of teacher rules for students to classroom organization and follow in this school. (+) use of classroom time. Student Activities Opportunities for and Students can take part in actual participation of sports and other school students in school- activities even if their sponsored activities. families cannot afford it. (+) Source: Lunenberg (2011, Table 1, p. 4)
The School Culture Triage Survey (Wagner, 2006, p. 43) was developed to measure the health of a school’s culture by measuring three specific indicators, known as
“culture behaviors,” rather than factors. These indicators are (a) Professional
Collaboration, (b) Affiliative Collegiality, and (c) Self-Determination/Efficacy.
Professional Collaboration is the extent to which staff members work together to solve problems pertaining to instruction, organization, and curriculum. Affiliative Collegiality measures how much people enjoy working with each other. Do they feel supported, valued, and included? Self-Determination/Efficacy is referring to whether staff members want to be there or not. It also measures their drive to become better at their jobs vs. the
47 feelings of victimization by a bureaucratic environment. The School Culture Triage
Survey is meant to be distributed anonymously to staff members toward the beginning of the year, then re-administered every few months to show change. This survey varies from other surveys in that it measures factors pertaining to staff members only, whereas other surveys measure factors influencing a wide variety of stakeholders. Wagner argues that “schools should be nurturing places for staff members and students alike” (p. 44).
This survey has been used thousands of times by schools and districts across the country to quickly and easily measure the health of their school culture (Wagner, 2006).
Zullig et al. (2010) discussed other surveys that have been developed, each with its own set of flaws. Most climate surveys have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or they were published over 20 years ago. Each survey measures part of school climate, but no one survey seems to capture it all. Such surveys are the California School
Climate and Safety Survey, the National Longitudinal Study Student Questionnaire, the
Effective Schools Student Survey, and the School Development Program survey.
Outcomes of School Culture
So why such pressure to define and measure school climate and culture? Climate is not just a “feel good” phrase (DeWitt & Slade, 2014, p. 37). A positive school climate is overwhelmingly shown to relate to increased student and staff outcomes. However, school climate is “an important but often-overlooked component of school improvement”
(Wagner, 2006, p. 41).
48
Perhaps most noted of these student outcomes is academic achievement. In a study, Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, and Schellinger (2011) performed a meta-analysis of 213 school-based programs, kindergarten through high school. They found that students in a supportive school environment had an average of an 11-percentile gain in their academic achievement. Phillips (1996 as cited in Wagner, 2006) collected over
3,100 School Culture Triage Surveys from 1981 to 2006. Through his study, he found evidence of a relationship between student achievement and school culture. He also noticed that school culture had an influence on “staff member satisfaction, parent engagement, and community support” (p. 42). School culture seems to influence every aspect of a school. Using the same survey, Melton-Shutt (2004 as cited in Wagner, 2006) found in all his 66 cases that higher school culture scores were tied to higher state assessment scores, and lower school culture scores were tied to lower assessment scores.
Another study by Cunningham (2003 as cited in Wagner, 2006) in Florida, produced similar results. This is because “students learn best when they are in environments in which they feel safe, supported, challenged, and accepted” (Safe Supportive Learning,
2016, p. 1). Even more notable, interventions that seek to improve school climate may disproportionately benefit at-risk students (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2016, p. 1576).
Summary
School climate got its start in the area of organizational culture. Halpin and Croft
(1963) were the first researchers to take the concept and apply it to the educational setting. They described school climate as the “personality of a school” (p. 1). In a
49 landmark study, they developed the OCDQ, which sought to measure the health of a school's climate. From that point, researchers began to develop new ways to measure school climate, but very few assessments can be considered useful in contemporary times
(Lunenburg, 2011). Even though it is difficult to measure, school climate is a critical component of the school system because of the overwhelming research linking positive school cultures with increased student outcomes (Cunningham, 2003; Durlak et al., 2011;
Wagner, 2006).
Conclusion
This literature review explored the areas of leadership, school superintendents, and school climate and culture. Leadership has been defined and redefined numerous times by numerous researchers (Burns, 1978; Chatwani, 2018; Leithwood et al., 1999).
Arguments have been made over which leadership style is best (Bass & Avolio, 1993;
Blake & Mouton, 1964; Burns, 1978; Carron, 1964; Carson et al., 2007; Chatwani, 2018;
Gartzia & Baniandrés, 2016; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982a; Jost, 2013; Reddin, 1979) and which is the best way to measure school climate (Halpin & Croft, 1963; Hoy & Clover,
1986; Kottkamp et al., 1987; Lunenberg, 2011; Wagner, 2006; Zullig et al., 2010).
Further, research has been conducted on leadership in schools and its relationship with school climate and student outcomes (Brown et al., 2012; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2016;
Thapa et al., 2013; Wagner, 2006). However, the research is severely lacking in the area
50 of district superintendents and their effect on the climate of their district. It is the goal of this study to begin to fill this gap.
51
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to address the gap in research on school district superintendents and district culture. Research has shown school culture to have a substantial impact on student outcomes (Brown et al., 2012; Lindstrom Johnson et al.,
2016; Thapa et al., 2013; Wagner, 2006). With superintendents serving as the leaders of districts, superintendents may impact the climate of their district. This chapter contains the research questions that guided this study, as well as the research design, limitations of the study, and ethical considerations.
Research Questions
1. Does the leadership style of a superintendent affect district culture?
2. Does the size of a district affect which leadership style is associated with higher
district culture scores?
3. Does the type of community, i.e., rural, suburban, urban, affect which leadership
style is associated with higher district culture scores?
4. Does the Title I status of a district affect which leadership style is associated with
higher district culture scores?
52
Research Design and Rationale
This quantitative study was performed to further understand the relationship between leadership style and district culture. An electronic survey was administered to collect self-reported responses from participants. Participants were district superintendents in the state of California who had been in their position for at least a year.
An electronic questionnaire consisting of 43 questions was used to capture a wide range of data. This type of design was used because the researcher wanted to capture the behaviors and characteristics of the group without attempting to manipulate the conditions of the group (Creswell, 2008). The survey was distributed using the Qualtrics program, and it had a total of 43 questions, including an informed consent and four other sections: (a) Qualifications, (b) District Demographics, (c) Leadership Expert
Questionnaire (Oates, 2010), and (d) School Culture Triage Survey (Wagner, 2006; see
Appendix A). Each question on the survey was forced choice. The demographic section had participants choose which demographics matched their district best. The Leadership
Expert Questionnaire used a five-point Likert-type scale, and the School Culture Triage
Survey used a five-point ordinal scale from Never to Always or Almost Always. Both the Leadership Expert Questionnaire and the School Culture Triage Survey are published surveys.
All district superintendents with an email address listed on the California
Department of Education (CDE) website were contacted to complete this survey. The
53 only exceptions were four districts where the researcher was currently or had previously been employed. On May 23, 2019, an email requesting the superintendent to participate in the survey along with an anonymous survey link was sent to 939 district superintendent email addresses listed on the CDE website (see Appendix B). Upon beginning the survey, participants were asked two qualifying questions: (a) Are you currently working as a district superintendent in the state of California? and (b) Have you been working for your current district for at least a year? Any participants who met these requirements were able to take the survey. The survey closed on June 30, 2019, and at that time, a total of 48 responses had been collected. Of those participants, one chose to not agree to the informed consent, one did not qualify, and one did not complete the entire survey. On the Leadership Expert Questionnaire, “strongly disagree” scored a zero while “strongly agree” scored a four. Scores were sorted based on which leadership style they corresponded with and a total score for each leadership style was calculated. On the
School Culture Triage Survey, “never” responses earned a one, while “always” or
“almost always” scored a five. Scores were sorted based on the culture behavior and a score for each behavior along with a total score was calculated.
Data Analysis
Data were compiled and sorted based upon which leadership style was most prominent for each superintendent. For Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, scores were further
54 grouped by demographic information. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with a statistical significance of p ≤ .05 was run comparing the average scores for each group.
Limitations of the Study
The researcher recognized many limitations in this study. The first limitation is that all information was self-reported by district superintendents. While superintendents may have overinflated their responses, it is the researcher’s belief that their responses are still relevant. Furthermore, while the responses were to remain anonymous, if a participant feared that their responses would be released, they may not have answered truthfully. Another limitation was that the study was conducted only in the state of
California. Other states or countries may produce different results. Finally, respondents represented a convenience sampling because only participants who were “willing and available” (Creswell, 2008, p. 155) responded. With only 5% of the population responding, the sample may not have been representative of the population.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher made every effort to conceal the identity of the participants of this study. A human subject’s research application was submitted to the Institutional Review
Board at California State University, Sacramento. The research was designated as
Exempt. Participation in the study was voluntary. Only indirect identifiers were collected, and the pool of 945 superintendents was large enough that participants are not
55 likely to be identified. An email was sent to superintendents’ public email address. The informed consent presented safeguards to the participants to ease any concerns they may have had. All data were collected through an anonymous link that was untraceable by the researcher.
Summary
A quantitative study was conducted to explore the relationship between superintendent leadership style and district culture. Four research questions guided the direction of the study. A survey was sent through email to all California district superintendents. It contained questions pertaining to their leadership style and the culture within their district. A total of 48 responses were collected. While the sample size is limited, the results of this study may have a substantial impact on the leadership practices of superintendents.
56
Chapter 4
DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
The purpose of this quantitative study was to explore the relationship between the leadership style of superintendents and the health of their district culture. The population of this study was superintendents of California school districts who had been in their position for at least a year. Surveys were sent to all California school district superintendents, which resulted in 48 returned surveys. On these surveys, superintendents answered qualifying questions, gave basic demographics, and responded to two questionnaires. Three of the 48 returned surveys were not complete and were excluded from the remainder of the study. Four respondents did not have a clear leadership style and were therefore not included in calculations. The first questionnaire established their leadership style, while the second questionnaire determined the health of their district culture. All information gathered was from the perspective of the superintendent.
Findings
Four research questions and alternative hypotheses pertaining to the relationship between superintendent leadership style and district culture were established to guide the research. Surveys were distributed to 939 district superintendents asking self-reported
57 information about demographics, leadership style, and district culture. Forty-eight surveys were returned. Upon cleaning the data, three surveys were not included because they were incomplete. To establish the leadership style, respondents were asked 20 questions pertaining to how they lead, which were broken into five groups based on each of the leadership styles on Oates’s Leadership Expert Questionnaire (2010). The group with the highest score was the leadership style for the superintendent. Four surveys were not used for further calculations because no clear leadership style was established.
Scores for district culture were totaled based on all answers given. Table 5 shows the breakdown of responses for all survey categories. Typically, respondents worked in small, rural districts where all their sites qualified for Title I funding. They had a paternalistic leadership style with a mean score of 68.1 in district culture.
Table 5
Survey Response Breakdown
Survey Item Response n n%
Q3.1: How would you classify your district? Rural 28 62.2 Suburban 10 22.2 Urban 7 15.6
Q3.2: How many of your sites qualify for Title All 30 66.7 1 funding? Most 6 13.3 None 2 4.4 Some 7 15.6
58
Survey Item Response n n%
Table 5 (continued)
Survey Item Response n n%
Q3.3: How many students attend school in your <5,000 36 80 district? 5,000-10,000 3 6.7 10,000- 2 4.4 15,000 >15,000 4 8.9
Leadership Style Bureaucratic 2 4.4 Democratic 3 6.7 Paternalistic 36 80.0 Multiple 4 8.9
District Culture ≤ 40 0 0.0 41 - 59 8 17.8 60 - 75 24 53.3 ≥ 76 13 28.9 M 68.1 Mdn 69.0 SD 8.9 SE 1.3
Research Question One
Research Question 1 sought to determine if there was a relationship between the mean culture scores and the leadership style of the superintendent.
Q1. Does the leadership style of a superintendent affect district culture?
H1a. The leadership style of a superintendent affects district culture scores.
59
An analysis of variance test (ANOVA) with a p ≤. 05 was used to find the statistical significance of any relationships found between the mean district culture scores and the leadership style of the superintendent. The ANOVA test indicated a significant variance (p = 0.012) within the data set. The alternative hypothesis was not rejected.
Table 6 shows the average district culture scores and count for each leadership style.
Table 6
District Culture by Leadership Style
Leadership Style n M Mdn SD SE Bureaucratic 2 51.0 51.0 9.9 7.0 Democratic 3 70.3 69.0 3.2 1.9 Paternalistic 36 69.7 72.0 7.9 1.3 Total 41 68.8 71.0 8.6 1.3 ANOVA p = 0.012 * p ≤ 0.05
Further analysis resulted in statistically significant (p = 0.049) results between bureaucratic and democratic leadership styles. A comparison of bureaucratic and paternalistic leadership styles also yielded significant variance (p = 0.014). The variance between democratic and paternalistic leadership styles was nonsignificant (p = 0.751).
Figure 5 illustrates the mean score for each leadership style.
60
Figure 5 Mean district culture scores sorted by leadership style with a statistical
significance (p = 0.012)
Research Question Two
Research Question 2 sought to determine if different leadership styles have different relationships with district culture depending upon the population size of the district.
Q2. Does the size of a district affect which leadership style is associated with higher district culture scores?
H2a. Superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon the size of the district.
An ANOVA test was conducted on district culture scores separated by both leadership style and district size. The ANOVA test resulted in nonsignificant results
(p = 0.053), likely due to gaps in the data when separated into these smaller groupings.
61
For example, districts with 5,000-10,000 and 10,000-15,000 students only had paternalistic leaders. Table 7 captures the results of this test along with categories with no data. The alternative hypothesis was rejected.
Table 7
District Culture by Leadership Style – District Size
District Size Leadership Style n M Mdn SD SE
<5,000 Bureaucratic 2 51.0 51.0 9.9 7.0 Democratic 2 68.5 68.5 0.7 0.5 Paternalistic 28 70.7 73.0 7.3 1.4 5,000-10,000 Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 0 Paternalistic 3 66.0 64.0 7.2 4.2 10,000-15,000 Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 0 Paternalistic 2 64.5 64.5 13.4 9.5 >15,000 Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 1 74.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 Paternalistic 3 67.7 71.0 13.3 7.7 Total 41 68.8 71.0 8.6 1.3 ANOVA p = 0.053 * p ≤ 0.05
Because of the incomplete data, the data were reanalyzed in groups that had complete data. When an ANOVA test was run using only data within districts with fewer than 5,000 students, results were shown to be significant (p = 0.005). In smaller districts,
62 there is a relationship between leadership style and district culture. Further analysis showed a nonsignificant (p = 0.106) relationship between bureaucratic and democratic leadership and a nonsignificant (p = 0.131) relationship between democratic and paternalistic leadership. However, analysis of bureaucratic and paternalistic leadership yielded a significant (p = 0.0003) relationship. When paternalistic leadership styles were analyzed across district size, results were nonsignificant (p = 0.681). Results indicate that while a relationship exists between leadership style and district culture, the size of the district does not impact how successful bureaucratic and paternalistic leadership is.
These styles of leadership are just as successful in districts of all sizes. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate these means.
Figure 6 Mean district culture scores in schools with fewer than 5,000 students sorted
by leadership style with a statistical significance (p = 0.005)
63
Figure 7 Mean district culture scores for superintendents with paternalistic leadership
style sorted by district size with no statistical significance (p = 0.681)
Research Question Three
Research Question 3 sought to determine if the relationship between leadership style and district culture changed based upon the community type.
RQ3. Does the type of community, i.e., rural, suburban, urban, affect which leadership style is associated with higher district culture scores?
H3a. Superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon the type of community.
Mean district culture scores were sorted into groups based upon their leadership style and community type of the district. An ANOVA test was run and determined there was a statistically significant (p = 0.003) relationship within the sample. The alternative hypothesis was not rejected. Table 8 illustrates these results.
64
Table 8
District Culture by Leadership Style – Community Type
Community Type Leadership Style n M Mdn SD SE Rural Bureaucratic 2 51.0 51.0 9.9 7.0 Democratic 1 69.0 69.0 0.0 0.0 Paternalistic 23 70.1 72.0 7.6 1.6 Suburban Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 1 68.0 68.0 0.0 0.0 Paternalistic 7 68.7 67.0 8.2 3.1 Urban Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 1 74.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 Paternalistic 6 69.2 74.0 10. 4.2 2 Total 41 68.8 71.0 8.6 1.3 ANOVA p = 0.003 * p ≤ 0.05
Further analysis was conducted to determine which relationships were significant.
An analysis of data across rural districts resulted in a statistically significant (p = 0.001) relationship between leadership style and district culture. Neither the relationship between bureaucratic and democratic (p = 1.000) nor between democratic and paternalistic (p = 1.000) was significant. However, a significant (p = 0.002) relationship exists between bureaucratic and paternalistic leadership. Figure 8 illustrates these findings. Analysis across other community types was unable to be completed due to low response levels in those categories.
65
Figure 8 Mean district culture scores in rural schools sorted by leadership style with a
statistical significance (p = 0.001)
Analysis was then conducted on paternalistic and democratic leadership styles in various community settings. No statistical relationship was found for either paternalistic
(p = 0.916) or democratic (p = 1.000) leadership styles. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate these findings.
66
Figure 9 Mean district culture scores for democratic leadership across community types
with no statistical significance (p = 0.916)
Figure 10 Mean district culture scores for paternalistic leadership across community
types with no statistical significance (p = 1.000)
67
Research Question Four
Research Question 4 sought to determine whether Title I status affects the impact of superintendent leadership style on district culture.
RQ4. Does the Title I status of a district affect which leadership style is associated with higher district culture scores?
H4a. Superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon
Title I status.
An ANOVA test was conducted on mean district culture scores sorted by how many sites in the district were classified as Title I and leadership style. Findings indicate a statistically significant relationship (p = 0.029). The alternative hypothesis was not rejected. Table 9 illustrates these results.
68
Table 9
District Culture by Leadership Style – Title I Funding
School Sites Receiving Leadership n M Mdn SD SE Title 1 Funding Style All Bureaucratic 2 51.0 51.0 9.9 7.0 Democratic 3 70.3 69.0 3.2 1.9 Paternalistic 23 69.5 72.0 7.6 1.6 Most Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 0 Paternalistic 5 70.8 74.0 10.4 4.7 Some Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 0 Paternalistic 2 74.0 74.0 7.1 5.0 None Bureaucratic 0 Democratic 0 Paternalistic 6 68.0 67.0 8.6 3.5 Total 41 68.8 71.0 8.6 1.3 ANOVA p = 0.029 * p ≤ 0.05
Further analysis was conducted to determine which areas had relationships.
Findings indicate the relationship between paternalistic leadership and Title I status is nonsignificant (p = 0.875). However, the relationship of leadership style in districts with all schools receiving Title I funds was significant (p = 0.003). Further analysis indicates significant relationships between bureaucratic and democratic leadership
(p = 0.049) and bureaucratic and paternalistic leadership (p = 0.002). On the other hand,
69 there was not a significant relationship (p = 0.079) between democratic and paternalistic leadership. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate these findings.
Figure 11 District culture means for paternalistic leaders sorted by amount of schools
receiving Title I funding with no statistical significance (p = 0.875)
70
Figure 12 District culture means for districts with all schools receiving Title I funding
sorted by leadership style with statistical significance (p = 0.003)
Interpretation and Analysis
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects that superintendent leadership style had on district culture in various environmental settings. Surveys were sent to 939 California district superintendents; 48 surveys were returned. Of the 48 surveys, a total of seven surveys were discarded due to incomplete answers, or no clear leadership style indicated. The typical respondent was superintendent of a small, rural district in which all their schools qualified for Title I funding. Most respondents were categorized as paternalistic leaders with high or very high district culture scores. Because of the similarity in responses, many nuances in the data could not be evaluated. Yet, this study has many significant findings.
71
Findings indicate an overall significant (p = 0.012) relationship between the leadership style of the superintendent and district culture scores. The mean score for bureaucratic leaders (M = 51.0) is substantially lower than that for both democratic
(M = 69.0) and paternalistic leaders (M = 72.0). However, there was not a substantial difference between democratic (M = 69.0) and paternalistic leaders (M = 72.0). These findings are supported by research findings that both people and task orientation are essential for a successful leader (Gartzia & Baniandrés, 2016). Blake and Mouton (1964) believed it was the goal of a leader to move towards a 9,9 leader, a leader high in both people and task orientation.
When analyzed in various district sizes, initial findings indicate that district size does not affect which leadership style produces highest district culture scores (p = 0.053).
Upon further analysis, findings indicate that among small districts (< 5,000), paternalistic leadership (M = 70.7) was substantially higher than bureaucratic (M = 51.0). However, when paternalistic leadership is compared across district sizes, the differences in means is not significant (p = 0.681). These results are in line with the previous findings of this study. Paternalistic leadership is associated with higher district scores in general. The findings do not indicate that district size relates to different district culture scores for paternalistic leaders. This is supported by the studies, indicating that high people and task orientation leaders are highly effective (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Gartzia &
Baniandrés, 2016).
72
Initially, community type does indicate a significant (p = 0.003) impact on the relationship between leadership style and district culture, but when analyzed more closely in a rural setting, the findings were even more significant (p = 0.001). These findings are to be expected since the initial findings of this study indicate that district culture is affected by leadership style. The significance is greater in rural districts (p = 0.001) than overall (p = 0.012). Mean district culture scores in rural districts with paternalistic leaders (M = 70.1) is significantly higher (p = 0.002) than those with bureaucratic leaders
(M = 51.0), but when paternalistic leaders are compared across community types, there is no statistical significance (p = 0.916). Findings are supported by research indicating that rural leaders need a combination of people skills, moral leadership, strong work ethic, and understanding of local politics (Shuler, 2016). Superintendents in these rural districts must have a stronger connection to both people and task orientation to be successful.
Finally, when analyzed in relation to Title I funding status, findings were significant (p = 0.029). Like previous findings, a specific category was analyzed, and findings indicate that in districts with all schools receiving Title I funding, there is a significant (p = 0.003) relationship between culture scores and leadership style.
However, when paternalistic leaders in districts with all schools receiving Title I funds
(M = 69.5) are compared to other levels of funding, the relationship is not significant
(p = 0.875). This is understandable when looking at which leadership styles are most successful. Both task and people orientation are necessary for success (Blake & Mouton,
1982; Gartzia & Baniandrés, 2016).
73
Summary
A quantitative study of California superintendents was conducted to explore the relationship between superintendent leadership style and district culture. Data were collected identifying a superintendent's leadership style, and each superintendent’s district earned a district culture score based on self-reported superintendent responses.
Data were analyzed using an ANOVA test yielding a mixture of statistically significant
(p ≤ 0.05) and nonsignificant (p > 0.05) results.
Consistently across community types, district sizes, and Title I funding levels, paternalistic leadership styles have higher mean scores when compared against bureaucratic leaders. Democratic leaders are also shown to have higher scores in general, but most significantly (p = 0.049) in districts where all schools receive Title I funding.
Democratic leaders are not shown to have statistically significant lower mean culture scores than paternalistic leaders in any setting. These findings fall in line with Reddin’s
(1979) belief that all leadership styles should be viewed through a situational lens.
Democratic leadership can be successful when they develop a team to a point that they can become successful on their own. In no circumstance do bureaucratic leaders have higher mean district culture scores than either democratic or paternalistic leaders.
74
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
A positive school culture has repeatedly been shown to be associated with improved student outcomes (Brown et al., 2012; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2016; Thapa et al., 2013; Wagner, 2006). Multiple indicators of school climate have declined or become stagnant in the state of California. Seventh graders reported that they have a fear of being beaten up or are chronically sad, along with 9th and 11th graders feeling connected to their school remained the same from 2015-2017. There was a decline in 9th and 11th graders feeling safe at school, and fewer 11th-grade students felt they had a meaningful relationship with an adult (Austin et al., 2018, p. xiii). Therefore, further research into the factors contributing to school climate is essential. This study sought to explore the relationship between superintendents and school culture.
Many researchers have sought to define leadership and how to measure it (Burns,
1978; Chatwani, 2018; Leithwood et al., 1999). While there are many different measures, most researchers agree that the ability to develop and share a vision is a crucial component of great leaders (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Deal & Peterson, 2016; Kouzes &
Posner, 2009). Many also agree that the most successful leaders are those who place importance on both the task of the organization and the people in the organization (Bales,
75
1953; Blake & Mouton, 1964; Carron, 1964; Gartzia & Baniandrés, 2016; Hersey &
Blanchard, 1982a; Jost, 2012; Reddin, 1979).
Halpin and Croft (1963) are credited with making the jump from organizational culture to school culture with the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire.
Since that time, researchers have revised or created their own surveys of school climate
(Hoy & Clover, 1986; Kottkamp et al., 1987; Lunenburg, 2011; Wagner, 2006; Zullig et al., 2010). School climate has repeatedly been shown to impact student outcomes
(Brown et al., 2012; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2016; Thapa et al., 2013; Wagner, 2006).
Leadership has also been shown to have an impact on student outcomes (Brown et al.,
2012; Lane, 2013; Lankford, 2018; Petersen, 2002b; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The purpose of this study was to explore that relationship further.
A quantitative study of California district superintendents was conducted. District superintendents were sent an electronic survey containing an informed consent, qualifying questions, district demographics, the Leadership Expert Questionnaire (Oates,
2010), and the School Culture Triage Survey (Wagner, 2006). Forty-eight superintendents completed the survey. Each superintendent was assigned a leadership style and district culture score based on their responses. ANOVA tests were run to identify the significance of the culture scores across leadership styles.
76
Conclusions
This study sought to answer four research questions regarding superintendent leadership style and district culture.
1. Does the leadership style of a superintendent affect district culture?
2. Does the size of a district affect which leadership style is associated with higher
district culture scores?
3. Does the type of community, i.e., rural, suburban, urban, affect which leadership
style is associated with higher district culture scores?
4. Does the Title I status of a district affect which leadership style is associated with
higher district culture scores?
Research Question 1 sought to determine if leadership style had an impact on district culture. Alternative Research Hypothesis 1 stated that the leadership style of the superintendent affects district culture scores. An ANOVA test with a p ≤ .05 indicated that the alternative hypothesis was not rejected (p = 0.012). Findings suggest that both democratic (p = 0.049) and paternalistic (p = 0.014) leadership styles are associated with higher district culture scores.
Research Question 2 sought to determine if the impact leadership style has on district culture changes based on district size. Alternative Research Hypothesis 2 stated that superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon the size of the district. An ANOVA test with a p ≤ .05 indicated that the alternative hypothesis was rejected (p = 0.053). Findings suggest that leadership style is not impacted by
77 district size. However, these findings may be impacted by missing data for many of the subcategories.
Research Question 3 sought to determine if the impact of leadership style has on district culture changes based on community type. Alternative Research Hypothesis 3 stated that superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon the type of community. An ANOVA test with a p ≤ .05 indicated that the alternative hypothesis was not rejected (p = 0.003). Findings suggest that in rural districts, only paternalistic leaders had higher district culture scores than bureaucratic leaders (p =
0.002). There was not a significant (p = 1.000) difference between bureaucratic and democratic leaders in rural settings.
Research Question 4 sought to determine if the impact of leadership style has on district culture changes based on Title I status. Alternative Research Hypothesis 4 stated that superintendent leadership style affects district culture differently based upon Title I status. An ANOVA test with a p ≤ .05 indicated that the alternative hypothesis was not rejected (p = 0.029). Findings suggest that in schools where all sites receive Title 1 funding, both paternalistic (p = 0.002) and democratic (p = 0.049) styles were associated with higher district culture scores.
78
Recommendations for Further Study
This study had two substantial limitations. The first limitation was due to the self-reporting nature of the questionnaires. The second limitation was due to sample size.
To reduce these limitations, there are three recommendations for further research.
The first recommendation is to replicate this study with a larger sample size. The population could also be expanded nationwide. Many of the current respondents answered similarly to each other, including their demographic information. This created low variability in the data, which did not allow for adequate analysis of all factors. With a larger sample size, the variation in the data should increase, allowing each factor to be fully explored.
The second recommendation is to use different culture and leadership measurements. By changing the culture measures, different aspects of culture can be measured. The current study looked at culture indicators primarily relating to staff.
Indicators that relate to students is an important area of study. One recommendation would be to use the results of the California Healthy Kids Survey from each district.
Different leadership measurements could include leadership styles not captured on the current leadership inventory given. Administering questionnaires for transactional vs. transformational leadership could elicit valuable information.
The final recommendation is to repeat the study from other perspectives. This study was presented from the perspective of the superintendents themselves. While their data are important, a view from the perspective of staff, students, or community
79 stakeholders could capture valuable information. Voight and Nation (2016) believe that student and staff perceptions are a pillar of school culture. Koth et al. (2008) believe that perceptions are important because people tend to react based upon what they perceive to be true. Therefore, this recommendation for further study is likely the most crucial.
80
APPENDICES
81
APPENDIX A
Survey and Consent
INFORMED CONSENT FORM The Relationship Between Leadership Styles of District Superintendents and District Culture My name is Heather Minton, and I am a student at California State University, Sacramento, College of Education. I am conducting this research study to determine if there is a relationship between school district superintendents and the culture of their district. If you volunteer to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey with questions related to school demographics, leadership styles, and school culture. Your participation in this study will last 30 minutes. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to leave the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. There are some possible risks involved for participants. These risks may be psychological, sociological and economic, and confidentiality. There are some benefits to this research, particularly that the study will bring greater understanding of how leadership styles effect school district culture. It is anticipated that study results will be shared with the public through presentations and/or publications. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Measures to ensure your confidentiality are that only basic identifiers will be collected. Furthermore, sample groups smaller than 10 respondents will not be analyzed to minimize the likelihood of identifying any one district. Raw data will not be published. Data will be stored in the survey system Qualtrics, and a backup copy will be stored on a password protected hard drive. After analysis, all demographic identifiers will be removed from the data. Raw data containing information that can be identified with you will be destroyed after a period of 6 months after study completion. The de- identified data will be maintained in a safe, locked location and may be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from you. If you have any questions about the research at any time, please contact me, Heather Minton, at [email protected], or Dr. Sarah Graham, at [email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in a research project please call the
82
Office of Research, Innovation, and Economic Development, California State University, Sacramento, (916) 278-5674, or email [email protected]. By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is voluntary, you are 18 years of age, and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation in the study at any time and for any reason.
Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer. Some features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device. You may print this form to keep for your records.
83
APPENDIX B
Study Recruitment
Hello, My name is Heather Minton, and I am a student at California State University, Sacramento, College of Education. I am conducting this research study to determine if there is a relationship between school district superintendents and the culture of their district. If you volunteer to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey with questions related to school demographics, leadership styles, and school culture. Your participation in this study will last 30 minutes. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to leave the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Please use the following link to participate in this study. https://csus.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bmD62OTKDbn7LyR Thank you for your time, Heather Minton
84
REFERENCES
American Association of School Administrators (AASA). (2019). Resources. Retrieved
from https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=1844
Ansell, S. (2011, July 7). Achievement gap. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/
Austin, G., Polik, J., Hanson, T., & Zheng, C. (2018). School climate, substance use, and
student well-being in California, 2015-17. Results of the Sixteenth Biennial
Statewide Student Survey, Grades 7, 9, and 11. San Francisco: WestEd.
Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales,
& E. A. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of actions (pp. 111-161).
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. London: Collier
Macmillan.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.
Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.
Bass, B., Waldman, D., Avolio, B., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and
the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 73.
Berman, S. H., Change, F. C., & Barnes, J. A. (2012). The district superintendent’s role
in supporting prosocial education (pp. 691-708). In P. Brown, M. W. Corrigan, &
A. Higgins-D'Alessandro (Eds.), Handbook of prosocial education. Lanham, Md.:
Rowman & Littlefield.
85
Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district
superintendent in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty
Publications. Paper 13. Retrieved from
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=eda_fa
c_pub
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1982). A comparative analysis of situationalism and 9,9
management by principle. Organizational Dynamics, 10, 20-43.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: Key orientations for achieving
production through people. Houston, Tex.: Gulf Pub.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass, a John Wiley and Sons, imprint.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Debnam, K. J., Lindstrom Johnson, S. (2014).
Measuring school climate in high schools: A focus on safety, engagements, and
the environment. Journal of School Health, 84, 593-604.
Brown, P., Corrigan, M. W., & Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. (2012). Handbook of prosocial
education. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2017). California school dashboard.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/
California Department of Education (CDE). (2020a). Local control funding formula.
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/
86
California Department of Education (CDE). (2020b). Title I: Improving academic
achievement. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/
Carron, T. (1964). Human relations training and attitude change: A vector analysis 1.
Personnel Psychology, 17, 403-424.
Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation
of antecedent conditions and performance. The Academy of Management Journal,
50, 1217-1234.
Chatwani, N. (2018). Distributed leadership: The dynamics of balancing leadership with
followership (Palgrave studies in leadership and followership). Cham,
Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, J., Mccabe, L., Michelli, N., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-
213.
Collie, R., Shapka, J., & Perry, N. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104, 1189-1204.
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
87
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate
life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (2016). Shaping school culture (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DeWitt, P., & Slade, S. (2014). School climate change: How do I build a positive
environment for learning? Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
Gartzia, L., & Baniandrés, J. (2016). Are people-oriented leaders perceived as less
effective in task performance? Surprising results from two experimental studies.
Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 508-516.
Glass, R. (2015). A self-study of the role of the superintendent in navigating entrenched
school-community conflict (Doctoral dissertation). (Order No.10109842).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Hall, J. (1972). A comparison of Halpin and Croft's organizational climates and Likert
and Likert's organizational systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 586-
590. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393835
88
Halpin, A., & Croft, D. (1960). The organizational climate of schools. Cooperative
research project, no. 543. Washington, DC: Office of Education.
Halpin, A., & Croft, D. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago, IL:
Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982a). Grid® principles and situationalism: Both! A
response to Blake and Mouton. Group & Organization Management, 7(2), 207-
210.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982b). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's not just a job, it's a calling.
Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, 82, 428-433.
Houston, P. (2007). From custodian to conductor. School Administrator, 64(3), 28.
Hoy, W., & Clover, S. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 93-110.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and
practice (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Hurwitz, M. (2018). Exploring distributed leadership: A leader-follower collaborative
lens (pp. 1-26). In N. Chatwani (Ed.), Distributed leadership: The dynamics of
balancing leadership with followership (Palgrave studies in leadership and
followership). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jaques, E. (1951). The changing culture of a factory. London: Tavistock Publications.
89
Jost, P. (2013). An economic theory of leadership styles. Review of Managerial Science,
7, 365-391.
Katz, R., Kahn, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Keefe, J., & Kelley, E. (1990). Comprehensive assessment and school improvement.
NASSP Bulletin, 74(530), 54-63.
Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Kort, E. (2008). What, after all, is leadership? ‘Leadership’ and plural action. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19, 409-425.
Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of
student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96-104.
Kottkamp, R., Mulhern, J., & Hoy, W. (1987). Secondary school climate: A revision of
the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(3), 31-48.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2009). To lead, create a shared vision. (Forethought:
Leadership Transitions). Harvard Business Review, 87(1), N/a.
Kowalski, T. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 54(2), 101-117.
90
Kowalski, T. J., & Bjork, L. G. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent:
implications for deregulating preparation and licensing. Educational Leadership
Faculty Publications, 45. Retrieved from
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=eda_fa
c_pub
Kruse, K. (2013, April). What is leadership? Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2013/04/09/what-is-
leadership/#13b2671f5b90
Lane, B. (2013). Factors contributing to exits from the superintendency in Minnesota
(Doctoral dissertation). (Order No. 3734314). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Lankford, K. (2018). School district climate as a predictor to teacher commitment
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Law, J. (2016). Leadership style. In J. Law (Ed.), A dictionary of business and
management. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2018). Academic culture: A promising mediator of school
leaders’ influence on student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 56,
350-363.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times (Changing education). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
91
Lindstrom Johnson, S., Pas, E., & Bradshaw, C. (2016). Understanding the association
between school climate and future orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
45, 1575-1586.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Comprehensive assessment of school environments (CASE): an
underused framework for measuring school climate. National Focus of
Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 29(4).
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. (2019). Ed school climate
surveys. Retrieved from https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls/measures
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). (2015). Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.
Oates, S. (2010). “How do you lead?” questionnaire. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/35720765/Leadership_Expert_How_Do_You_Lead_Q
uestionnaire
Petersen, G. (1999). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 7, 18.
Petersen, G. (2002b). Singing the same tune. Journal of Educational Administration,
40(2), 158-171.
Peterson, K. (2002a). Positive or negative. Journal of Staff Development, 23(3), 10-15.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 570-581.
92
Reddin, W. J. (1979). The 3-D management style training. Training & Development
Journal, 33, 62-67.
Safe Supportive Learning. (2016). Quick guide on making school climate improvements.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NCSSLE_SCIRP_QuickG
uide508.pdf
Sharp, W., & Walter, J. (2004). The school superintendent: The profession and the
person (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation.
Sherman, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent
action to eliminate test-score gaps? Educational Policy, 22, 675-704.
Shor, R. (2015). Honing leadership skills at the chapter level. Journal of the American
College of Cardiology, 66, 2907-2908.
Shuler, W. (2016). Superintendent succession in a rural school district: An historical
case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina University.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357-385.
Tyack, D. (1976). Pilgrim's progress: Toward a social history of the school
superintendency, 1860-1960. History of Education Quarterly, 16, 257-300.
Voight, A., & Nation, M. (2016). Practices for improving secondary school climate: A
systematic review of the research literature. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 58(1-2), 174-191.
93
Wagner, C. (2006). The school leader’s tool for assessing and improving school culture.
Retrieved from
http://www.mssaa.org/gen/mssaa_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/School
_culture_triage.pdf
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning. Retrieved from ERIC document. (ED494270)
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Zullig, K., Koopman, T., Patton, J., & Ubbes, V. (2010). School climate: Historical
review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 139-152.