PARTICIPATORY LEADERS H IP, PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS, AND HIGH PERFORMING SCHOOLS by K EVIN BRANEY B.A., Brown University, 1995 M. Ed, University of Colorado Denver, 2004 A thesis s ubmitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovation 2014
201 4 K EVIN BRANEY A LL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Kevin Braney has been approved for the Educational Leadership and Innovation Program by Connie L. Fulmer, Dissertation Chair Dorothy Garrison Wade, Examination Chair Rodney Muth Ron Cabrera May 12, 2014
iv Braney, Kevin (Ph.D Educational Leadership and Innovation) Participatory Leadership, Principal Leadership Behaviors, and High Performing Schools Thesis d irected by Professor Connie L. Fulmer. ABSTRACT The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the leadershi p characteristics found in high performing secondary schools and to what extent these behaviors reflect attributes of servant leadership My interest in this topic stems from my professional experience as high school administrator and my desire to extend my studies of leadership into my professional experi ences. While quantifying leadership and its impact on organizationa l effectiveness is challenging this study elicited a possible connection with servant leadership and student performance. Outcomes for t his exploratory study includ e a promising survey design for servant leadership characteristics and an analysis of leadership and student performance using Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) results Findings from this study encourage me as an administrator to be more strategic about the specific leadership style that I choose to implement and cognizant of the breadth of leadership behaviors expected of a principal. Th e form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publicati on. Approved: Connie L. Fulmer
v ACKNOWLEGEME NTS Sincere thanks goes to my advisor Dr. Connie Fulmer for her steadfast support of my studies over the course of eight challenging years to achieve this degree. Dr. Fulmer provided countless hours of work and encourageme nt to keep me on course among many diversions. A special thank you to Dr. Rodney Muth for his mentorship and friendship to keep me motivated and mak e the impossible seem possible. I am most grateful to my three children Jack, Allie and Trygve for their patience when Dad always seemed to be working on his dissertation. We can now finally go on vac ation! Thank you to my parents Patricia and Ronald Braney and Ashley Da ravanis for their belief in me that no matter the challenge I would reach the finish line.
vi DEDICATION To the survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests may you find both peace and justice.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................... 1 Connecting School Leadership and Performance ............................. 2 The Principal as Hero ................................ .............................. 3 Principal as Bureaucrat ................................ ............................. 5 Statem ent of the Problem ................................ ................................ .. 7 Beyond Bureaucracy ................................ ................................ 8 Adaptive Leadership and Participation ................................ ..... 9 Promoting Collaboration and Reflection ................................ 1 4 Leadership for Learning ................................ ......................... 15 Conceptual Framework: S ervant Leadership ................................ 17 Researc h Question ................................ ................................ ............ 19 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ....... 20 Summary ................................ ................................ ......................... 2 1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ....................... 23 Historical Influences of Public School ................................ ............ 2 4 Historical Influences of Employee Empowerment ........................ 27 Empowered Employees Adapt ................................ ............... 29 To Encourage Adaption: Leaders listen ................................ 3 0 Schools by Nature are Bureaucratic: Then So Are Their L eaders .. 3 2 Scientific Management Spurs Fragmented Learning ............. 3 4 Bureaucratic Learning: Conformity and Oppression .............. 3 4
viii Vision of the Future: Less Policy, More Learning ............................. 36 A Better School from Within: Team, Team, Team ................. 39 Leadership Adapts to the Context ................................ ............ 4 0 Transformational and Transactional Leadership Models ................. 4 3 Transformational Leadership and Sustainability ..................... 46 Contingency Theory: The Right Leader For The C ontext ..... 47 Conceptual Framework: Servant Leadership ................................ ... 47 Servant Lea dership and Transformational Leadership ........... 49 Leaders and Followers Adapt Together ................................ ... 50 Measuring Servant Leadership ................................ ............... 51 Summary ................................ ................................ ......................... 52 III. METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................ 54 Survey De velopment ................................ ................................ ........ 55 Instrument Development ................................ ................................ 59 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ........ 60 Survey Reliability ................................ ................................ ... 63 Participants ................................ ................................ ............. 64 Survey Implementation ................................ ........................... 72 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................ 73 Initial Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ........ 74 Summary ................................ ................................ ......................... 79 IV. FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ........................... 80 Presentation of Re sults ................................ ................................ .... 90
ix Su mmary ................................ ................................ ....................... 101 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 103 Demographic Analysis ................................ ................................ ... 10 4 Variable Analysis ................................ ................................ .......... 105 Survey Eff ectiveness ................................ ................................ ...... 107 Leadership and Achievement ................................ ......................... 108 Limitati ons ................................ ................................ ..................... 109 Future Rese arch ................................ ................................ .............. 111 Summary ................................ ................................ ........................ 112 REFERENCE S ................................ ................................ ............................... 11 4 APPENDIX A. Research Variables, Definition s and Associated Survey Items .......... 140 B. School Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ......... 148 C. Correlations : Servant and Bureaucratic ................................ ............... 154
x L IST OF TABLES TABLE 1 How We Talk Can Change the Way We Work ................................ .... 4 2 2 Examples of Servant Variable Characteristics ................................ ...... 57 3 Examples of Bureaucratic Variable Characteristics .............................. 58 4 Denver West School District Data ................................ ........................ 6 6 5 Mean L eadership and T est S cores by S chool (N = 12) ......................... 77 6 SPSS C orrelation A nalysis for S ervant L eadership V ariables .............. 81 7 SPSS C orrelation A nalysis for B ureaucratic V ariables / TCAP Scores .. 82 8 Servant and Bureaucratic Variables and Means ................................ .... 8 4 9 Summary of Schools, Leadership and TCAP Scores ............................ 89 10 Serva n t Leadership, Growth and FRL ................................ ................... 91 11 Servant Lea d ership, Growth Gaps and FRL ................................ ......... 94 12 Servant Le a dership, Achievement and FRL ................................ .......... 96 13 Bureaucrat i c Leadership, Growth and FRL ................................ ........... 97 14 Bureaucratic Leadership, Growth Gaps and FRL ................................ .. 98 15 Bureaucratic Leadership, Achievement and FRL ................................ 100
xi L IST OF FIGURES F IGURE 1 TCAP g rowth and p rincipal s tyle. ................................ .......................... 6 0 2 Servant l eadership, g rowth & FRL. ................................ ....................... 9 2 3 Servant l eadership, g rowth & FRL (school G removed) ..................... 9 3 4 Servant l eadership, g rowth g aps & FRL ................................ ............... 9 5 5 Servant l eadership, a chievement & FRL ................................ .............. 96 6 Bureaucratic leadership, growth & FRL ................................ ................ 98 7 Bureaucratic leadership, growth gaps & FRL ................................ ....... 99 8 Bureaucratic l eadership, a chievement & FRL ................................ .... 100
1 C HAPTER I INTRODUCTION Based upon the professional literature circulated widely among school leaders today, one might think a revolution in school leadership is underway or, at the very least, on the horizon. Yet despite the constant reform conversations, for many school leaders little has changed in the ir daily routines. "The ossification of school leadership is the result of deeply rooted social, cultural, and economic pa tterns" (Mulford, 2008 p.1). As a result, the organizations they lead do not look remarkably different from those of the last 100 ye ars (Bain, 2007; Marzano, 2003; Senge, Cambron McCabe, Lucas, Smith, & Dutton, 2000). As principal of a comprehensive high school, I rely on the efficient and predictable functioning of my organization to manage the learning environment with teachers for students. Without the academic structures of the curriculum (Reeves, 2006 ), the daily routines (Senge et al. 2000), the blind commitment to conformity (Senge et al. 2000), and the yearly resolutions to support new programs (Marzano, 2003), disorder mig ht reign Conversely, my reliance on these structures also serves as an obstacle to innovation and to a greater or lesser degree limits my ability to accelerate the rate of learning for students and staff. Such internal conflicts creat e a significant conundrum. That is, the forces for change in education; the growing diversity of students, parents, and teachers; and the challenge of meeting the needs of all students while working in a system that places a premium on accountability, conf ormity, and efficiency severely challenge contemporary
2 principals like me. As a result, I chose to investigate these issues through this dissertation. Connecting School Leadership and Performance Throughout the 20 th C entury the US ranked first in the w orld in high schoo l completion rates ( DuFour, 2006 ). The United States now ranks 21 st out of 27 advanced economies ( DuFour, 2006 ). Further, the US ranks near the bottom of industrialized count r ies in completion rates after students have enr olled in colle ge ( DuFour, 2006 ). The challenges presented nationally appeared locally for Colorado in a special report prepared by the n Commissioner of Education Dwight Jones ( Colorado Department of Education [CDE] 2009 ) The Final Report of the Colorado Commission f or High School Improvement reviewed a plethora of school quality indicators while specifically focusing on the outcome of high school completion (p. 1) Completed in December of 2005, the results of this study by a group of community and educational leaders sought to illustrate a path of rejuvenation for all high schools in the s tate. In the r eport s opening remarks, the authors make the following statement: The comprehensive high school s that now educate almost all young people in Colorado and elsewhere in the United States were designed in a different era for a different economy. American comprehensive high schools were intended to provide a basic education in reading, writing, and arithmetic, preparing most studen ts for work and some for college. These high schools were the workhorses of our democracy and economy throughout much of the 20 th century. In the global economy, however, this traditional design allows too many students to drop out or simply get by and e nter adulthood without the skills needed to thrive (p. 1) The Commission's report challenges educators to reconstruct the high school environment, specifically so that students experience a personalize d educational experience with an individualized plan post graduation. The collective reality of
3 Colorado schools is grim for a large segment of our school's population according to these 2007 statistics: Graduation rates are extremely low 74 percent H uge gaps exist in achievement when students a re compared by race and ethnicity Many of those who enter college do not complete their education (CDE, 2009, p. 10 ). Clearly, the results for both the nation and Colorado need to reflect the significant investment of communities, educators, and legislatur es Unfortunately, the treadmill calls to action, commitment to reform, and push for accountability and control have yet to break the continuous and seemingly i nventible cycle of poor results The Coleman Report (1966), A Nation at Risk (1983), and Schoolhouse Politics: Lessons from Sputnik (1991) all describe a crisis in education one of underperformance and the inability of the system to respond to the educational needs of all students while in a dynamic environment of economic and technical change Despite persuasive arguments for reform and a variety of singular transformative efforts, the system has demonstrated that it lacks the capacity, in its current model, to produce remarkably different results. The educational mythology of schools (Reeve s, 2006) serve s as one of the primary impediments to change and is in part responsible for the demographic performance disparit ies in our schools Such disparities are illustrated by the previous statistics from the Commission's report (CDE, 2009) The P rincipal as Hero Mythology, both in the research and school culture, also plays a role in limiting the evolution acceptance or successful implementation of non Bureaucratic leadership
4 par adigms. According to Spillane (2006), "heroism continues to have a stranglehold on how man y people think about leadership ( as cited by Mulford, 2008 p. 38 ). This restrictive view of leadership which assign s authority to a solitary person negatively influences all aspects of school culture (Lambert, 2003 ). Such mythology leaves the other adults in the school passively on the sidelines unable to capitalize on their education and daily experience to enhance a path to improvement. When examining research on transactional and transformational leadership, little discussion appears about the nuances of leadership and the specific context in which leadership is practiced. Understanding this context and recognizing the limits inherently imp osed in educational environments is critical to comprehending the challenges of leadership in public schools. For instance, the impact of union rules, contracts, and traditions are significant: Changes often occur mainly as a consequence of political tr ade offs among powerful coalitions . much leadership is substituted for by organization al processes" (Bass, 1985, p. 160). Other impediments to leadership are exemplified by a principal's daily calendar, which is often overrun with the responsibilitie s of attending to committee details, agenda setting, reporting out, and coalition building, all of which limit the possibilities for focus on the work of continuous improvement and larger organizational challenges. Moreover, the individualization of leader ship and the lack of co mmitment to building and expanding leadership capacity (Lambert, 2003 ) are also evident in the absence of agreement among practitioners on what constitutes effective leadership For example, the f our models of leadership instruction al, transformational, distributed, and sustainable a re the conceptual frameworks most often discussed in the literature
5 (Mu lford, 2008 ). These frameworks are explored in detail later in this paper, but it is important to note that each historical developm ent of a model represents an evolution in understanding the school environment, the behaviors of participants, and the nature and role of leadership. For instance, research has found that "t ransformational leadership behavior elicits second order changes in employee efforts and is more highly associated with effectiveness than the traditional first order changes resulting from transactional behaviors ( Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam 1996, p. 27 ). The expectations and behaviors of organizational participants in school environments vary significantly with multiple levels of engagement. Principal as Bureaucrat Other challenges also exist in the practices of today's schools due to compromises made in the willingness to understand, examine, and then implement non traditional leadership models and or the associated behaviors. For instance, the tendency to reduce challenges to a few, specific, and measureable variables which may produce [quick] resul ts, when adjusted by the leader in a bureaucratic system, exacerbates the tendency in education to examine complex problems of practice with a simplistic linear reductionist lens (Toulmin, 2001). The practice of examining "problems" with a singular focus limits an educator's problem solving skills and ability to act as an agent of change among complex interdependent variables all exacting influence. Past efforts at school reform have produced a steady decline in performance of American schools relative t o other industrialized nations and are indicative of reform efforts that have simply renegotiate d the system's facade (Bain, 2007; Senge et al. 2000). At worst, these efforts have appeared as tempting strategies that elude fulfillment of the
6 desire for o rganizational transformation For schools to make an innovative leap and produce remarkably different results a new leadership paradigm must be cultivated while acknowledging the limitations of the principal as a heroic leader. Creating this environment requires deft leadership that is able to maintain control of the present ensure leadership status, and embrace conflict As Mary Parker Follett states "Of course we should exercise authority, but always the authority of the situation. I do not say that we have found the way to a frictionless existence, far from it, but we now understand the place of which we need to give to friction" ( Follett, 1926, as cited in Shafritz, Ott, & Jang 2005 p. 155). The willingness to engage conflict a nd initiate a path away from familiar bureaucratic educational structures is a requirement of the 21 st century school leader who embraces the simple axiom of leadership for learning which include s the sharing of information, decentralization of decision making authority, and the widespread use of teams" ( Lowe et al. 1996, p. 26 ). The successful principal who strives to meet the contemporary demands of accountability is not able to go it alone; they must reframe the traditional role of principal in order to achieve meaningful results. The leadership needed for schools to thrive must be based, according to Brumley (2012), on a values driven, auth entic, and competency model of the principalship Good principals are not the chief or the president of their s chools, but instead are the lifeblood and the oil that greases the wheel ( p 9 ) A new model of principal leadership is in order : T he time has come for the era of principal as boss to be swept away and a new construct of principal as servant leader to be ushered into the mindset of every aspiring principal, practicing principal, and princi pal preparation specialist in America (p. 11) Calls for action have become too burdened
7 with technical and programmatic efforts rather than a thoughtful and thoroug h examination of the assumptions that organize our schools of which leadership is central The change that has occurred to date in schools has produced only superficial and erratic results at best. Statement of the Problem T his study seeks to understand leadership characteristi cs found in high performing schools and the extent that leadership is associated with lower levels o f bureaucratic characteristics. The hypothesis that I test follows: D o principal leadership behaviors in high performing schools re flect servant leadership models of leadership? Servant leadership (Greenleaf 1970) is a model of leadership that seeks to serve the needs of followers in the pursuit of the organizations vision, rather than a leader first model that narrows the definitio n of leader to one person acting on the whole. I bel ieve that few, if any principals have specifically implemented servant leadership comprehensively. However, effective building leaders will likely exhibit many servant leadership characteristics. If so, I am curious to know with what frequency these occur in high achieving schools and whether these behaviors are associated more often with higher levels of student achievement. The ultimate aim of exploring the relationship between principal leadership be haviors and student a chievement is to determine if a connection exists between a specific style of leader and higher (or lower) studen t performance and therefore establish the need for further investigation : Specif ically, how principals are trained and th eir ongoing professional development may be influenced so that bureaucratic styles of leadership are mitigated and servant leadership behaviors supported and expanded.
8 Beyond Bureaucracy To move beyond singular reform events so that schools intentionall y prepare all students for success in a global economy (Pink, 2005), school leaders must generate new learning environments (Bain, 2007) that break away from the bureaucratic model of school (Senge et al. 2000) that values predictability and conformity (M arzano, 2003) over individualized and personalized educational approaches A break from tradition is essential if schools and their leaders are to meet the learning needs of their diverse students ( Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock 2001 ). Technical reform e fforts ( e.g. dress code s block scheduling, middle to high transition programs, school improvement plans, etc.) that seek to renegotiate routines and behaviors within existing structures will not produce transformation in our school systems (Bain, 2007) b ecause changing forms here and there does not chang e culture (Heifetz, 1994; Kegan & Lahey, 2001 ). Moreover, technical efforts fail to account for the complex variables that impact organizational performance. T he subsequent complex array of details with in the framework of a single problem such as the academic performance of a school's specific identified group "can actually distract us from seeing patterns and major relationships" (Senge et al. 2000, p. 442). These relationships, which play out in a no n linear fashion, require a tempered willingness to examine the subtle cause and effect interplay unfolding in the organization (Senge et al. 2000). Additionally as leadership behaviors are lived in a school setting characterized by a push and pull of varying internal and external power structures, politics as usual, and occasional technical adjustments, a building principal stands in a wasteland between the revolving door of new district man dates and controls (Reeves, 2006 ) and the
9 unpredictability a nd fickleness of public sensibilities regarding education (Senge et al. 2000 ). According to Senge et al. (2000), Policies and rules did not create the problems in schools today, nor will they eliminate them. The difficulties faced by schools (as in all organizations) are deeply influenced by the kinds of mental models and relationships at large in the system at every level. If you want to improve a school system, before you change the rules, look first to the way that people think and interact together. Otherwise, the new policies and organizational structure will simply fade away, and the organization will revert, over time, to the way it was before (p. 19) Based on the foregoing, I argue that transformative school change cannot occur without elimina ting or greatly downsizing th os e traditional bureaucratic structures that too often squ eeze innovation out of educators (Osborne & Plastrik 2007). Adaptive Leadership and Participation To eliminate these bureaucratic structures, t ransformation of the system can only occur with the implementation of a new leadership foundation (Heifetz, 1994). At its simplest appl ication, schools as they currently exist in the context of districts and communities are not capable of producing the results needed for change : T he bureaucracy control s most input s proces s, and thus outputs (Senge et al. 2000 ). We are asking school leaders to become chief instructional officer s, shift ing the bulk of their attention from technical, business, and political administration to the key activity that is the lifeblood of the organizations, namely, learning of students, the learning of faculty, the learning of their fellow administrators (Bain, 2007 p. 232) Moreover, the current factory model of schooling and the subsequent pu sh to reduce learning to a few measurable, quantifiable procedures in an environment burdened with external mandates eventually crushes the spirit of the people within the system (Osborne & Plastrik 1997). Hostile environments are not inviting, and syste ms that use
10 compliance and conformity as measures of involvement (Etzioni, 1961) are incapable of spurring creativity and innovation (Senge et al. 2000). Insufficient effort has been given to discussion of a new vision of school leadership that can break down and limit the control of bureaucratic influences. However, Heifetz's (1994) Leadership w ithout Eas y Answers provides a foundation to support a principal's understanding of the difference between the n eed for adaptive change and overreliance on iterative technical adjustments. Heifetz explores the tools necessary to understand the nature of the work that is needed and challenges leaders to introduce a leadership paradigm that of adaptive leadership by categorizing problems into the following areas: Type I situations are somewhat mechanical; one can actually go to somebody and get it fixed. Type II situations, the problem is definable but no clear cut solution is available. Type III situations are even more difficult; the problem definition is not clear cut, and technical fixes are not available (Heifetz 1994 p. 75). This framework provides an important filter for understand ing the kind of work that is needed for transformative school reform. I assert that part of what can be attributed to the lack of transformation in public education is the failure of school leadership to recognize its complicity in the crises of education and therefore serve as a primary impediment to reform and innovation. In addi tion, school leadership has failed to recognize and act in concert knowing the challenges which beset schools today are adaptive problems. School leadership has typically recognized the crises in the performance of identified students, in faculty resistan t to change, or in labeled schools
11 ( e.g., high poverty rates, high dropouts, turn around schools, etc.). However, "everyone shares responsibility for problems generated by the system. That does not necessarily imply that everyone involved can exert equal leverage in changing the system" (Senge et al. 2000, p. 444) The system's success in diagnosing, targeting, and assigning resources to the problems of a school, then generating a label and an action plan via a school or district improve ment process has been a reasonable response to underperformance given the current design of public education Yet, this pattern "experiment, quantification, repetition, prediction, and restriction of complexity to a few variables that can be controlled and manipulated (Brunner, 2009, p. 9 ) has not produced the necessary rupture of past practice required to produce better performance. However, those schools which have successfully broke n a pattern of poor performance and create d change via a crises such as Reeves (200 6) 90/90/90 schools (90 percent free and reduced lunch, 90 percent ethnic minorities, and 90 percent of students met or achieved high academic standards) should serve as the model for all schools as they revealed the flaws in their antiquated leadersh ip mo del that were incapable of evolving with and meeting the needs of a changing environment. As a by product of the assembly line model (Taylor, 1916), schools are best characterized as systems that constrain individuals who may want to do something differ ent, such as seek innovations that will improve outcomes. Such constraint is in part due to the intention of bureaucratic systems to ensure that individuals conform and do not use discretion and judgmen t when making decisions (Ouchi, 1981 as cited in Sha fritz et al. 2005, p. 434 ). Public schools borrowed heavily from scientific management, calling for leaders to select the appropriate inputs and systems (curriculum, schedules, materials) and
12 for workers (that is, teachers) to adhere to the decisions mad e by others. This legacy has created a tradition in which schools are structured to reinforce continuity, not conti nuous improvement. ( DuFour, 2006 p. 192) Prescriptions that constrain such efforts often take the form of job descriptions, procedures, routines, or rules (Mintzberg, 1979 as cited in Shafritz et al. 2005 ). Formal constraints can be burdensome, lead to apathy, absenteeism, and resistance (Argyris, 1957, 1964), but they help ensure predictability, uniformity, and reliability ( Etzioni, 19 6 1) However, t o suggest that school hierarchy, the bureaucracy of school, is the sole villain in the underperformance of our nation's school is too limiting Rather, many educators and school leaders act with good intentions but, knowingly or unknowing ly, exhibit behaviors that do not match their good intentions or their rhetoric They need reflexive, or self organizing systems, to serve as check s and balance s in naturally bureaucratizing structures (Bain, 2007) The parasite that is bureaucracy creat es the devaluation of leadership that contravenes its rules and its complicity in maintaining a ubiquitous reign over all school matters. This self perpetuating system maintains itself instead of directing energies toward the initial purpose: educate chil dren. Even though forms of leadership other than command and control can exist within a bureaucracy, bureaucracies require order, control, and autocratic leadership (Weber, 1922) to support a belief structure that underperformers whether students, employe es, or schools (Reeves, 2006) can be coerced into performing well. These elements, beliefs, structures, and processes are entirely antithetical to the chaos, flexibility, and transformative leadership required to disrupt bureaucracy and change schools into
13 learning organizations from within (Bain, 2007; Reeves, 2006). Effective change does not occur through external mandates (Osborne & Plastrik, 2007.) While it would be short sighted to identify any one variable as the potential analytic solution, the effor ts by Marzano (2003) and DuFour (2007) shine light on the intersection of key tensions in the challenge : district l eadership and the command a nd control model of its subordinate, the school. For example, it has been demonstrated that where teachers' trust in principals is undermi ned by perceptions of top down system change initiatives, especially when unsupported by teachers, it results in teacher alienation and feelings of disempowerment, often result ing in teacher resistance ( Mulford 2008, p. 15). This is a critical point in that the principal is at times forced to serve as mediator between two distant parties ; their staff and their district superiors. Change, when accompanied by this polarization, is put at risk not by the potential impact of th e initiative but rather by the perception of responsibility for implementation. Simply put, faculty are far more resistant to change when that change is initiated ext ernally (Osborne & Plastrik, 199 7). Educators have become more results focused and hav e more discussions about quality instruction and the need to establish rigor, relevance, and relationships in the classroom. These are admirable efforts. Nevertheless if you were to select any high school in America, you would still walk the halls of a la rge comprehensive high school and see rows of seats, isolated classrooms, isolated learning, and little or no available technolog y or use of technology in the hands of students ( DuFour, 2006 ) Furthermore, the isolation of learning is also reflected in th e isolation of teachers who exist typically in seclusion (Elmore, 2000). In environment s committed to maintaining the status quo or at
14 the very least intolerant of innovation in classroom s, something more fundamental ly inimical to the learning and working environment of school leadership is present Promoting Collaboration and Reflection With greater accessibility to student performance data, school leaders can reframe their organizations to monitor and use student progress dat a ( DuFour, 2006 ), ensure that quality instruction is supp orted (Marzano, 2003), and eliminate the bureaucratic sorting mechanisms traditionally associated with school Such actions can ensure access to tailored curriculum and high expectations and therefo re high achievement (Villa & Thousand, 1995). In order to do the adaptive work (Heifetz, 1994) of school reform, leadership model s need to be implemented to create and sustain these efforts. Thus, creat ing an environment for adaptive work is the first ta sk that school leaders must address (Heifetz, 1994). The machine metaphor for school and the command and control model of leadership needed to attend to each fixed part is a stark contrast to the vision of a professional learning community ( DuFour, 2006 ) that creates a collaborative school environment. Efforts to promote collaboration and engage teachers as the principal players in school reform are strategies that signify a significant shift in school culture Bain 's (2007) The Self Organizing School illuminates this disconnect and explores the impact of comprehensive school reform on school culture, practice, and outcomes He found mixed results even out of the best of the best schools for these efforts large and small and most have not generated sy stem wide transformation. Bain cite s the need for comprehensive school reform to be transformative in the lives of educators and most occur at the foundational or design level. "Comprehensive school
15 reform must genuinely reconcile the reform with teacher s' preexisting roles and responsibilities, rather than graft a larger than normal set of reform agendas on top of the status quo" ( Bain 2007 p. 29). While Bain's work focuses on the need to design self organizing efforts so that feedback can be used to transcend the limits of individual capabilities, the central component in implementing this kind of design still rests on school leaders who lack knowledge of or choose to ignore the leadership research on manag ing change. Ultimately, the previous decade' s commitment to accountability and the race toward instructional standar dization to promote achievement have been cosmetic, only reaffirming that bureaucratic structures in schools use technical efforts to manage outcomes and employee behaviors. Leadersh ip for Learning Quantifying leadership and its impact on organizational effectiveness is challenging. Moreover, when taking into consideration the role of the school in a larger system such as a district the variables affecting performance increase perhaps exponentially. For example research has found the key player influencing achievement, direct ly or indirect ly, is the building principal "It is widely believed that leadership creates the vital link between organizational effectiveness and peopl e's performance at an organizational level ( Jing & Avery 2008, p. 68). Some researchers take the role of the principal even further calling the principal the linchpin for success in any school change initiative ( Marzano, 2003 p. x ). The impact of t he principal on student learning could be considered the single most important aspect of effective school reform (Bain 2007; Marzano, 2003 ; Reeves, 2006). Principal leadership is mentioned in the early research on school effectiveness and continues to be a staple in the research that intrusive forms of
16 governance (bureaucracy) are negatively associated with leader principal effectiveness and school performance (Bain, 2007 p. 29 ). Schools need sustainable reform to meet the challenges of rap id and constant change and higher community expectations. The educational mythology that Reeves (2006) references is a by product of the entrenched bureaucracies working to preserve order, undermine good intentions, and maintain the status quo. The extent to which the position of principal is transformed, the more likely the organization of school will evolve and bureaucratic functioning will be reduced or largely eliminated. Currently, principals serve as mediators among tremendous forces vyin g for stability while at the same time trying to negotiate external pressures from the district and the state S erving diverse people in a dynamic global environment requires leaders who can promote participatory learning environments that honor individua ls, encourage social constructivism, and facilitate widespread leadership among all participants with common vision, purposes, and goals Belenky, Bond, and Weinstock (1997) describe the drawbacks of organizations that rely on paternalistic forms of leadership in A Tradition That Has No Name Differences need to be capitalized on, discussed, and shared so that more informed understanding surfaces. As society diversifies, schools must revise their traditional power and authority approach to leadership (Bain, 2007; Lamb ert, 2003) Further, learning is a social construct, and command and control mechanisms of the assembly line classroom inherently devalue the level of participation, inquiry, and collaboration (21 st C entury S kills 2009 ) needed to excel a s postgraduates in an economy flooded with information. For p erhaps the first time in history, people have the capacity to create far
17 more info rmation than anyone can absorb and create change far faster than anyone's ability to keep pace Certainly the scale of c omplexity is without precedent ( Senge et al. 2000, p. 441 ). To move effectively into the 21 st century, the work of schools must be reorganized to recognize and capitalize on the scale to which transformation is occurring around them; surely, this is a difficult task when functioning as a closed system. Yet, This challenge may be able to be met i n education and elsewhere by focusing on a change strategy we're learning comes to be seen as the single most important resource for organizational renewal in the postmodern age" ( Silins et al., 2000 p. 24). The principal, while in a highly accountable p ublic environment, must work to avoid or recast command and control measures exerted by the district and state. Thus, given the contemporary demands placed upon organizations and their leaders today, a new model of leadership needs to be infused into seco ndary schools that has the ability to eliminate the bureaucratic structures of school and promote the participatory atmosphere needed to sustain and promote innovation long term. District/school leadership needs to shift focus and resources away from mana ging the inputs and structures of the organization ( e.g., bell schedules registration process assemblies, centrally delivered professional development rituals etc. ). The model needs to transcend the complexity of diverse inputs and limited resources an d ensure that high expectations are met from a position of strength in stead of staying mired in the rituals of education's stubborn bureaucratic nature. Conceptual Framework: Servant Leadership The importance of matching the right leader and style to th e appropriate context is critical. With increased pressures for Bureaucratic efficiency and effectiveness as a
18 key lever for reform of public institutions" and political desires for "greater and greater control" ( Mulford 2011, p. 1 ) it would be easy to overlook the leadership variable and rely on systems and structures and thereby recapitulate the bureaucracy of education. However, developing an effective leadership performance relationship ( Jing & Avery 20 08 p. 68) necessitates ta king into account the full landscape of the organization and the context in which it exists. The historical patterns and assumptions of leadership and the pressures for performance and accountability and their subsequent interaction with the times have no t changed. Servant Leadership (Greenleaf, 1970, 1977) emphasizes the role of leader as servant and the expression of concern for followers as the primary function of leaders secondary to the pursuit of organizational objectives. Greenleaf (1970, 1977) argue s that leadership is bestowed on a person who is by nature a servant of their followers ( Spears & Lawrence, 2002). In fact, the way a person emerges as a leader is by first becoming a servant. Such leaders enrich others by their presence and actions By using less institutional power and positional authority as a means to accomplish tasks and investing in the full development and potential of each participant, responsibility can then be shared with collaborators and therefore enhance the productivit y and effectiveness of everyone (Bass, 2000). Some have argued that servant leaders, as stewards of the vision, are best able to promote an organization's ability to address complex problems. True servant leaders will have created a stable enough foundat ion for others to extend themselves and solve comp lex problems interdependently Therefore, the organization's ability to engage a dynamic external environment is accelerated. Developing this sense of participation and independence
19 while under the umbrel la of the organization's mission is a distinctive characteristic of servant leadership and other participatory leadership approaches R esearch Questions T his study seek s to understand leadership characteristi cs found in high performing schools and the extent to which that leadership has intentionally reduced the traditionally bureauc ratic characteristics of school. The hypothesis that I test is as follows: D o principal leadership behaviors in high performing s chools reflect servant leadership models of leadership? This study test s the positions of the leadership theorists who advocate openness, mutuality, listening, coaching, participation, and empowerment in the existing structures of high performing districts Is the amount of bureaucratic controls in the organization related to student performance? Additionally, in schools that are considered high performing and therefore most likely t o be less oriented to a command and control model, do servant leaders lea d them? I argue that those school leaders who demonstrate attributes of servant leadership are likely to be in schools with greater success in student achievement for all students. These leaders will act as facilitators and catalysts that motivate and emp ower subordinates so they can unhinge their organization from the antiquated bu reaucratic model of education. In contrast, underperforming schools will be more likely to appear, function and speak to command and control models of leadership and still mai ntain the deeply held, invisible assumption that guided b ureaucratic efforts for centuries: workers had no rights beyond a paycheck; their duty was to work hard and follow orders" (Bolman & Deal 2003, p. 114). Servant leadership will argue that the industrial age leadership values were "unfair, and it was bad psychology . that peoples' skills,
20 attitudes, energy, and commitment are vital resources that can make or break an enterprise" (Bolman & Deal 2003, p. 114). P urpose of the Study The purp ose of this study is to test the hypothesis of servant leadership as the means to break the constraints of the curr ent model of school leadership. I examine how the leader ( principal ) can create the kind of adaptive change needed to break the bonds of the current antiquated educational model and therefore implement a higher performing system for a broader audience of learners. While a reactive tendency for organizations to assert more control in the face of ever increasing diversity described above seems to exist it is clear that an inverse relationship between increased control and increased performance exists Accepting Chubb and Moe's (1990) assertion that the more district level control or constraints put on a school, the lower the chances of the sch ool being organized in an effective manner and Marzano's (2003) assertion that leadership could be considered the single most important aspect of effective sc hool reform illuminates two com peting pressures which may impact school performance "Throughout the twentieth century, continuing to today, administrators have believed that professional staff members need management, manipulation, and control. Classical organizational theory told them that the world can be understood and manipulated much like a ma chine" (Rettig, 2004, p. 61). The nature of the problem at hand in education requires that a new authority be given to teachers and students. The structures, relationships, and resources need to be defined within a context of a learning environment that values the individual learners as the sole purpose for the organization's existence. "Openness to improvement, trust and
21 respect, teachers having knowledge and skills, supportive leadership, and socialization are more critical to the development of profe ssional community than structural conditions" and for too long received too little attention (Byrak & Schneider, 2003, p. 40). T he tools leaders have which would encourage others to assume more responsibility rest in their ability to shift from local auth ority structures to a decentralized structure in which individuals have an opportunity to collaborate on a variety of valued outcomes. In Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity Etienne Wenger (1998) states "communities of practice are the prime context in which we can work out common sense through mutual engagement" (p. 47). Any approach to leadership that utilizes a power structure based in authority and command control mechanisms will produce alienation of the participants and a loss of community and ultimately a prime opportunity for individual ownership of community problems. Furthermore, as Linda Lambert states in Building Leadership Capacity (2003 ) When we equate the powerful concept of leadership with the behaviors of one person, we are limiting the achievement of broad base d participation by a community or society" (p. 5). Lambert's definition dramatically expands the concept to include all professionals in the building, and thus the potential for change. This, in theory provides the organization with the most diverse set of data to base its decisions. It provides the members who will participate in change the oppo rtunity to shape their future. Summary Chapter I provided the foundation to explore the leadership environ ment of the contemporary principalship and outlined a rationale for this study; n amely, the relationship between the bureaucratic tendencies of public education and the continual calls for action
22 amid an environment filled with constraints imposed on leade rship By examining those leadership behaviors which positively influence student achievement and the extent to which these behaviors can be characterized as servant l ike, this study might begin to challenge the assumptions made of the principal as solit ary hero who can transform today's educational environment through transactional management of existing structures.
23 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE School s, as a defining institution of American society exists in their current form as much the result of cultural economic, and political compromises of the present as of the historical forces that have left their mark over time Specifically, the early American desire to limit the power of external authorities, such as th e church and monarchy, as well as the rise of early American bureaucracies to provide the order and gain necessary (Gatto, 1998) for an expanding economic democracy (Zunz, 1990) have influenced the challenges contemporary public education face These two tensions the preservation of individual rights (Gatto, 1998) and the need for gov ernment to establish legitimacy (Senge, 2000; Zunz, 1990) have yet to find a resolution in the existing structures of public education My review of literature in the followi ng sections explores the factory model design of school s (Seng e, 2000; Bain, 1997 ) and the subsequent requirements of school leadership as bureaucratic (Lambert, 2003) The need for order, predictability and performance that were the hallmarks of high pe rforming organizations of the past reasserted the power of external authorities in schools as a means to provide a prescriptive learning environment in which a students were sorted and given access based upon external criteria (Gatto, 1998) As the policy procedures and culture became more centralized the complex problems facing today's school inevitably mirrored those of the first settlers seeking to reassert themselves and form a community without fear of persecution from a distant power. The tension s of the present, between local control and standardized performance expectations, for example necessitate a reexamination of these
24 early American values and the literature which speaks to the need for establishing an interdependent organizational model of school as the gateway to higher performance for all. Historical Influences of Public School The preservation of individual rights was the singular vision of the new America. Not surprisingly this belief played a critical role in establishing the purpose of the nation's first schools. As John Gatto (1998) expressed In Defense of Original Sin: The Neglected Genius of American Spirit uality t he American genius was to locate wisdom in ordinary people, whereas every other gover nment on earth located it in an aristocracy, theocracy, military class, merchant class, or counterfeit meritocracy (p 11 ). A rad ical principle at the time and remains a source of conflict over the expansive nature of government and the need to preserve a society in which an empowered individual can excel or fail on their own merits. "Salvation" for the last three hundred years can be found in the individual (G atto, 1998) ultimately sowing the seeds for a revolution and culture that elevated the role of dissent and individuality as society's cornerstones. In early America, Protestant dissent came in many different forms: Congregational, Presbyterian, Quaker, a nd so on. From these independent interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and the stories of a long dead Jewish carpenter came the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, documents virtually without precedent in his tory. The Bill of Rights alone conferred powers on ordinary citizens such as the right of free assembly, right to free speech, the right to own weapons, and the right to deny the state access to one's home, that where unique on the planet. Out of these ri ghts, derived both by accident and by design from the American Christian tradition of dissent, came the curriculum of early schooling in this country up until the Civil War. (p. 11) These revolutionary acts transferred power to individual s and their community in a manner that represented an unparalleled shift in Western society. Localism as a
25 defining principle would be tested as the new nation expanded. Gatto (1998) speaks of the false need for expert intervention, the lack of trust in o thers and their ability to act thoughtfully to solve complex problems as systemic failures of today's schools. According to Gatto, "nearly a century and a half of increasingly suffocating expert intervention in our schools and elsewhere has left us thinkin g that, to decide anything important, we have to call in Harvard, or Stanford, or Yale, or the Carnegie C orporation all humble institutions, but also outsiders, strangers" (p. 11). This shift, away from the belief in both the individual and a community to solve complex problems, has altered both the capacity of local authorities to address challenges and concurrently undermined confiden ce in community institutions. This shift has empowered the need for bureaucratic measures rooted in the scientific method to solve deficiencies of schools. Another challenge would take root, less apparent and obvious with the expansion of government across distances in the early days of the new nation. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that the new American democracy faced a c hallenge : T he centralization of power in the state and that this "centralized power would take the form not of any sort of personal tyranny or dictatorship. What is to be feared, is not a perverse individual, and not a mob it is a bureaucratic tyranny tha t would make possible the weakness of the individual" (Kennan, 1993, p. 118). The first bureaucracy to acquire substantial power in America were the railroads which, as their financial and political success mounted, created a critical regulatory challenge for the federal government. The threat of giant corporations represented that same centralized power against which the founding fathers had fought the Revolution. "Perhaps inevitably, American business provoked a powerful regulatory response culminating in 1890 with the Sherman Antitrust
26 Act" (McCraw, 1984, p. 65). These first American bureaucracies were designed to meet specific corporate goals. Additionally, they also pr ovided a societal model of leadership, the bureaucrat in a large bureaucracy. McGraw termed these as capitalist bureaucracies that spread as the railroads moved west and built towns based upon a programmatic approach to government and society blended wit h corporate goals for efficiency and profit (McCraw, 1984). Schools having acquired the principles of Taylor's ( 1916 ) scientific management and Weber's ( 1922 ) bureaucracy would assume greater influence and even greater tendencies to centralize and consoli date power as the nation expanded in both geography and population. The interplay between the principle of wisdom residing in the individual as a keystone of early American education and government's expansive bureaucratic tendencies challenged the surviv al of both. The following sections examine elements of the leadership literature with an emphasis on the context of school in a dynamic environment resistant to change (Taylor, 1916; Weber, 1922), the need to create interdependent leadership behaviors (Fo llett 1926; Greenleaf, 1970; Lambert, 2003) and therefore ensure that schools can function as both adaptive organizations (Heifetz, 1994) and self learning environments ( Bain, 2007; DuFour, 2006 ). A particular investigation of leadership models of transa ctional and transformational leadership theories contribute s to a deeper understanding of the nature of the problems of school leadership. It is my belief that school leadership has succumbed to the power of bureaucracy as a means of survival during a rev olutionary period of a technical and information expansion. In the sections that follow I will explore the further solidification of school leadership's bureaucratic tendency in the absent of an
27 integrated approach to support school leaders during tremend ous social and economic change. Historical Influences of Employee Empowerment The works of Follett (1922), Heifetz (1994) and Roethisberger (1941), serve as the initial building blocks for my literature review as it relates to the contemporary public school. First, as illustrated in a review of Follett's work in the Prophet of Management (Graham, 1995), a series of critical perspectives to better understand the nature of leadership is offered. According to Follett, three fundamental principles guide us in our study of social situations: "1) that my response is not to a rigid, static environment but to a changing environment; 2) to an environment which is changing because of the a ctivity between it and me; 3) that function may be continuously modified by itself, that is, the activity of the boy going to school may change by the activity the boy going to school (Graham, 1995 p. 49 ). Accordingly, Follett has established principles for leaders to consider their work in a non linear fashion and more imp ortantly antithetical to a scientific and predictive approach. Variables interacting with each other, to greater or lesser degrees, better reflect a living system rather than a static mechanical, predictable system. Furthermore, Follett has illustrated a central conflict of the bureaucratic model of the principalship: the task of knowing all aspects of the organization, understanding all variables, and predicting all the outcomes is too great for one person especially during periods of change Follett be lieved in the importance of democratic organizations' capacity to unlock the potential of the individual. Further, she saw the loss of human potential when the creative power of every person was not valued. As she said, "The potentialities of the
28 in divid ual remain potentialities until th ey are released by group life" (Graham, 1995, p. 18). The sense of inter connectedness fundamentally altered the bossing pattern as Follett described in the thinking of the worker. She believed the more you were bossed the more your activity of thought w ill take place within the bossing pattern, and your part in that pattern seems usually to be opposition to boss" (Graham 1995, p. 154 ). Therefore, every occurrence every situation and every idea is to be examined in i ts totality in the context of the organization and their relation to one another. Social changes continue to undermine the assumptions of scientific management, specifically the public's growing disdain of technically rationalized one size fits all policie s to solve local, national, and global challenges (Osborne & Plastrik, 1997). Additionally, beyond thinking of leadership as a heroic solitary position, other leadership attributes that may have been more commonplace for the leader in a bureaucratic syste m, such as an aggressive master of policy, would according to Follett militate directly against the leadership needed in an interdependent world" (Graham, 1995, p. 164 ). According to Follett, as this version of leadership and problem solving leads to the "fallacy that we can solve problems in any final sense. The belief that we can do so is a drag upon our thinking. What we need is some process for meeting problems. When we think we've solved one, well, by the very process of solving new elements or f orces come into the situation and you have a new prob lem on your hands to be solved" (Graham 1995 p. 222). Follett also captured the human dynamic between employer and employee. She argued against technical t hinking in an irrational world and underst anding of the subject object relationship in a circular inst ead of the two way reciprocal paradigm Essentially,
29 Follett challenge s leaders to speak of the total situation and recast their idea of what total ity means : The business world is never again to be directed by individual intelligence, but by intelligences interacting and ceas elessly influencing one another" ( Follett, 1922, p. 233 ). Also, in order to achieve that totality of understanding the responsibility for the whole enterprise becomes a sh ared endeavor and therefore expands the possibility of success ( Fol lett, 1922). Empowered Employees Adapt Additionally, the work of Heifetz (1994) and his studies of both adaptive change and ethical leadership align well with Follett. Heifetz's conceptual ization of leadership is altogether different than leader as bureaucratic In a crisis we tend to look for the wrong kind of leadership. We call for someone with answers, decision s strength, and the map of the future, someone who knows where we ought to be going in short, someone who can make our problems go away. Instead of looking for saviors, we should be calling for leadership that will challenge us to face problems for which there are no simple, painless solutions to problems that require us to lea rn new ways. (p. 2) Altogether Heifetz (1994) conceptualization of leadership during times of change is about cultivating the adaptive capacities of the organization rather than entertaining inappropriate expectations of authority. Heifetz's vision of leadership is organized around two key distinctions: between technical and adaptive problems, and between leadership and authority. "Imagine the differences in behavior when people operate with the idea that leadership means influencing the community to f ollow the leader's vision versus leadership means influencing the community to face its problems" (p. 14). Additionally, Heifetz also identifies contingency theory that posits "the appropriate leadership style is contingent on the requirements of the part icular situation" (p. 17). Consideration of all variables in a situation will inevitably require different leadership
30 behaviors. Essentially, the work for the organizations is to establish ongoing structures and a commitment to learning and therefore imp rovement. The challenges schools face today fall into the Type III category, or adaptive where no technical fix is available, as described by Heifetz (1994). While Heifetz (1994) is articulating an alternative vision of leadership he is also reframing th e role of the subordinates in the organization. The transition from a passive working relationship to higher levels of engagement between employee and employer may not come easy. "In public life, people generally look to their authorities to solve proble ms with a minimum of pain, and where pain must be endured, they often expect their officials to find somebody else to bear the costs" (p. 183). Heifetz has an appreciation for the particularly intense challenge a Type III adaptive situation would require of a leader when he illustrates that in these situations disorder might occur before order and capturing threats and conflict need be seen as opportunities. To Encourage Adaptation: Leaders Listen While Follett and Heifetz cast a broader conceptualization of leadership and the nature of the organization during times of change, Roethlisberger (1941) posits an important framework for unde rstanding the needs of employees in the Hawthorne Experiments. He found the behavior of workers could not be understood apart from their feelings or sentim ents and they conclusively demonstrated t he importance of employee attitudes and sediments in the li fe of the organization (Roethlisberger, 1941 as cited in Shafritz et al. 2005) The relationship between employee s and their physical environment impacted productivity and opened a new lens into understanding the capacity of employee s to take part, engag e, and produce innovation. These experiments cast a light
31 on a fundamental principle of leadership : A ttending to the needs of followers as it relates to the problems of the workplace is a paramount leadership activity. To better understand contemporary s chool and associated leadership models, it is important to examine the foundation that influenced the design of today's learning environment s The values clash of the industrial age of schooling and today's information rich technology environment create c onfusion and anxiety a mong teachers and students which can lead to apathy and distrust. "These traumas occur because conformity is a cor e value of the industrial age: a n assembly line that produced continuous variety would not be considered efficien t" ( Senge et al., 2000, p. 35). In contrast, successful contemporary organizations employ a variety of methods to align systems, commitments, and resources in order to navigate the deman ds of the gl obal environment. Marzano (2003 ) and Lambert ( 2003 ) identify building trust and capacity as a critical function of the effective school leader. While relying on resource dependent technical adjustments, typically delivered in a command control model may produce improved performance on the periphery of the organiz ation, transformative sustained change cannot occur without an examination of the comp eting commitments at all levels. For example, as principal I have implemented a several grass roots school improvement efforts to promote inclusion in the general educati on classrooms with the on site support of Richard Villa (1995). These efforts included identification of specific curriculum essentials to be mastered based upon individual learning goals co teaching as a n additional classroom resource addition of stude nts as peer mentors for special educations students, and embedded professional development to support differentiation efforts with direct feedback However, this work was largely dependent upon the participation and
32 support of a small group of committed t eachers Once this work began to intrude upon the values structures of general education teachers our inclusion initiatives were doomed to fail as it upset the traditional balance of power in the classroom and among faculty While we are able to deliver results in a few select classrooms we were unable to create substantive transformative results for our special education students across the entire school as we lacked the ability to capture the attention and support of faculty who remained commi tted to th e sorting function of high school. School s by Nature are Bureaucratic: Then So Are Their L eaders School reform efforts seem to underestimate or fail to acknowledge the fundamental bureaucratic principles that have impeded transfo rmative efforts. Max Weber (1922 ), a German sociologist, summed up the principles by which these bureaucracies are structured: T hey are centralized and hierarchical, ordered by rules, which are standardized and impersonal, offering the same treatment of service to everyone, using a dministrative processes (i.e., their own staffs rather than contractors or market mechanisms) to achieve their goals, and ch o ose their staffs on the basis of examinations, not subjective criteria. Essentially, every "cog" is equivalent and interchangeable so professionalism based in expertise is discouraged, because professionalism, to be effective, negates the boundaries imposed by bureaucracies ( Osborne & Plastrik 1997 ) In a static environment, the manager in a bureaucratic system do es the thinking, tasks are assigned to produce behaviors to ensure stability, and inspectors ensure compliance. Clearly, these characteristics serve as an obstacle to transformation "In a world of rapid change centralized, top down monopolies are simply
33 too slow, too unr esponsive, and too incapable of change or innovation" (Osborne & Plastrik 1997, p. 17). Yet, bureaucracies still reign in today's schools. For Weber (1922) principles of office, organization, implementation an d accountability are basic tenets of bure aucracies Weber speaks of fixed laws of operation governed by rules or regulations. Weber's conception of bureaucracy quell s the over politicized and in some cases rampant fraud he saw in European government and was intended to supply the stability need ed for communities to build effective and dependable systems of government and other organizations In every sense, the rules and modus opernadi of organization s were meant to be immune from human judgment, error, or susceptibility to their own personal gain and coercion. The official discharge of duties in six areas lay the groundwork for regular continuous fulfillment of duties, by qualified employees, in which higher offices supervise lower offices, that is prescribed in written documents and procedures, predicated by expert training, and exhaustive rules and intended to preserve the greater good. According to the work of Weber and his work in the late 19 th Century, the characteristics of bureaucracy involve a clear cut division of integrated activities (labor) which are regarded as duties inherent in an office. The assignment of roles occurs in the basis of technical qualifications that are predetermined through formalized procedures. The generality of the rules requires the constant use of categorization, whereby the individual problems and cases are classified on the basis of designated criteria and are treated accordingly ( Merton, 1957, p. 103 as cite d in Shafritz et al. 2005). Weber's organizational structures, while effective and efficient, over time brought to bear on society a complete set of controls and systems which established workers as members of
3 4 a social and work hierarchy dependent on con formity and predictability adapted later by Fredrick Taylor (1916) Scientific Management Spurs Fragmented Learning Additionally, the influences of Fredrick Taylor (1916) as described in the Principles of Scientific Management, have serve d since the 1920s as an organizing principle of the modern school. Taylor began his work by studying the act of moving pig iron with shovels and how through the thorough study of these repetitive motions both the employer and employee could increase produ ctivity and therefore profitability. By reframing the conversation between employer and employee to data analysis time and motion, and efficiency, Taylor hoped that the antagonism which had existed between labor and management would be resolved Seeki ng the proper remedy for the specific action meant that b oth sides would gain (Taylor, 1916 ). Overtime, s cientific management set off a national efficiency movement that led to the establishment of a new pattern of governance (Brunner 2009 ) The eventual fragmentation and technical rationalization of work significantly impacted both government and industry through the 20 th century. Uncertainty tends to be avoided, rather than making comprehensive assessments of risk and probabilities, decisions are made with relatively short horizons ( Pfeffer, 1981, p. 296 as cited in Shafritz et al. 2005). Bureaucratic Learning: Conformity and Oppression Edward Deming a renowned organizational theorist, called "the prevailing system of management" in schools as the machine world of teacher in control, students dependent on teachers' approval, and learning defined as getting an A on the test (Senge et al., 2000, p. 34). The current system of schooling produces conformity, predictability,
35 and control as key va lues and stands in direct contrast to required 21 st century skills of independent thinking, collaboration, problem solving, and analysis sought by so many employers across the world (Senge et al. 2000). While this is only one facet of the what that needs to change, altering the view of instruction from one that is traditional and considered closed to an open model (rooted in 21 st century learning skills) illustrates the kind of systemic change schools need to produce The real need is to change the parad igm such that student learning is at the center and teachers and everyone else are facilitators of learning including the building leader the principal. P aulo Freire (1970) in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed wrote of the assembly line model of education and the subsequent impact on the student teacher relationship Freire writes of the compartmentalization and predictability of the learning process. The task according to Freire is to "fill the students with the contents of this narration contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance" (p. 72). Additionally, the isolation of the learning process, the inability of teachers to escape the efficiency mode of their daily routines and pressures to complete the curriculum in a predictable period, ensure individual potentiality faces tremendous pressure to conform. Worse yet, it turns them into containers, into receptacles to be filled by the teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are. Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is a deposi tor (Freire, 1970, p.72) These same sets of pressures described by Freire also impact and limit the individual potential for school leadership. For example, the bureaucratic nature of school actively suppresses transformational leadership (Bass, 198 5). The procedural nature of
36 bureaucracies also tend s to provide substitutes for leadership in the form of structures and procedures rather than creating leadership opportunities. Follett in particular was well aware of the implications of leader as bureaucra t s who believe they plan, organize, command, coordinate, and control are not technically wrong, they are just misguided (Graham, 1995, p. 202) Furthermore, Follett describe s bureaucrat s who operate with a fundamental narrative opposed to the long term growth and sustainability of their own organizations. These are not the bureaucrats who see themselves in the role of facilitating the work of other adult human beings or who build organ izations predisposed to flexible learning, or who are open to interesting thoughts unfol ding in their own peculiar ways" (Graham, 1995, p. 202). Her description of the passive role of bureaucrat s in a fixed position accurately represented the need of orga nizations to establish and maintain the predictability and control so desired. Vision of the Future: Less Policy, More Learning Portions of the research literature identify productive high schools in specific ways. For example, t he behavior of the adul ts in school s is significantly different than that of those who accept a proscribed approach to learning with an over reliance of conformity. This research identifies productive high schools as those that educate all of their students well, have a clear vision of their teaching and l earning goals, and have teachers who take action to solve problems (Hodges, 2000). They also have high expectations for all students. The marriage of seeing students as individual learners and an organization that promote s t he individual learning of staff is a significant departure from the machine model of schooling. This customization of the learning process, for both student and educator, can ensure the highest quality learning experience for all. The
37 path to achieve thi s goal generally rel ies on the engagement of student s in the process and the willingness of educator s to embrace the relational nature of the learning process. The challenges school leaders face are significant, but become less so when they are willing an d ready to examine their problems of practice with a new lens. Regrettably, many organizations are unable to respond to rapid change because they find themselves stymied by old fashioned hierarchal management structures . caught up in rigid policies and procedures" (Seifter & Economy, 2001, p. 6). While the medium may look different, providing students with both meaning and relevance are not new c oncepts. Schools now function, albeit haltingly, in the information age (Senge et al. 2000). The pater nalistic structures that gave the principal and the principal's leadership team authority in years past often conflict with current research which shows that creating a learning culture that places a premium on th e relationship between student and educator can produce favorable quantitative results (Mehan, 1994). "Students say they are motivated by solving real world problems. They often express a preference for doing rather than listening" (Lombardi, 2007, p. 3). Authentic learning historically has been a difficult instructional method until the emergence of a variety of technologies that make communications, simulations, community discussions, and observation more easily available. With these tools, "learning becomes as much social as cognitive, as muc h concrete as abstract, and becomes intertwined with judgment and exploration" (Lombardi, 2007, p. 4). Most importantly, these tools that dominate the social life and free time of studen ts support the basic human need to connect and build a relationship a s new information is processed The work of making interpersonal connections as the foundation of learning experience s breathes energy and o pportunity into the classroom.
38 Command and control cultures need to be replaced with cultures that support widespread use of increased information, employee participation, empowerment for individuals and teams (Ouchi, 1981, p. 415 as cited in Shafritez et al. 2005). Therefore, for sc hools to succeed in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world, it is vital that schools grow, develop, adapt and take charge of change so that they can control their own futures (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). This is a paradigm shift in which the power and authority for change has historically been located outside of school. To the extent that teachers take charge, are involved in decision making, and are empowered rather than controlled by what is going on around them ( Goddard, 2002; Stoll, Fink & Earl 2003) the more likely they are to improve as effective teachers when compared to those with less participatory and collaborative mission driven practices. Se ng e et al. 's Schools That Learn (2000) proscribe s a path towards ongoing improvement through s ystems thinking, pers onal mastery, mental models, team learning, and shared vision building. Ultimately, this commitment to learning makes the organization more relevant and aligned towards the achievement of f ixed goals through planning and continuous development. Seng e contends "that if schools are to be successful in an increasingly competitive world and if educators are to help students overcome systemic inequities then schools must become organizations sta ffed by individuals who know how to learn and grow" (Intrator, 2006, p. 39). When people begin to sense forward momentum and the organization is on the right track' innovation is likely to occur. The essence of the discipline of systems thinking lies i n a shift of mind : Seeing interrelationships rather than linear cause and effect chains, and seeing processes of change rather than snapshots" (Senge et al. 2000, p. 443).
39 A Better School from Within: Team, Team, Team The task of today's educational leade rs is to reinvent antiquated systems of school into entrepreneurial systems. "It is about creating public organizations and systems that habitually innovate, they continually improve their quality, without having to be pushed from outside. It is about cr eating a public sector that has a built in drive to improve what some call a self renewing system" (Osborne & Plastrik, 1997, p, 14). Additionally, Osborne and Plastrik illustrated a critical historical shift marked by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's w ar on government in the 1980s and not soon thereafter Vice President Al Gore's downsizing work of government in the 1990s. The end of scientific management's monopoly on government had arrived when Gore wrote of the importance of banishing bureaucracy wit h the aim of building the adaptive capacity of public servants. Focusing only on efficiency as a terminal goal is now insufficient for the task. Rather, expanding the adaptive capacity of these organizations to meet an endless array of problems with fewer resources was sought. "In a world of rapid change, ecological revolution, global economic competition, demystified markets, educated work forces, demanding customers, and severe fiscal constraints, centralized, top down monopolies are simply too slow, too unresponsive and to incapable of change or innovation" (Osborne & Plastrik, 1997, p. 17). Osborne and Plastrik focused on the five C's : core strategy, consequences strategy, customer strategy, control strategy, and culture strategy as tools for reinventing governme nt. These strategies have much in common with the eight principles of the Orpheus Process described by Harvey Seifter and Peter Economy in the Leadership Ensemble (2001) such as (a) put power in the hands of the people doing the work, (b)
40 encourage indivi dual responsibility, (c) create clarity of roles, (d) share and rotate leadership, (e) foster (f) horizontal teamwork, (g) learn to listen, (h) learn to talk, (i) seek consensus (build creative structures that favor consensus), and (j) dedicate passionatel y to your mission. Each of these strategies requires an adaptive leader to navigate the multiple layers of the organization and develop the capacity of an ever increasing network of participants to advance the organization's mission. Osborne & Pla s trik ( 1997 ) also makes a finer point not to be missed before focusing solely on leadership in identifying the tendency of organizations, when pressed to change by external pressure. Often these tools connect only to the peripheral behavior of the organization o r require only slight modification of current behaviors rather than, as Osborne describes, changing the basic DNA of the organization. One such example illustrated is the rush towards Total Quality Management (TQM). They create quality improvement teams for example, without fundamentally decentralizing the organizational power structure. This is not only ineffective, it breeds cynicism decisions about more important issues are still made upstairs despite the fact t hat the employees know best how to fix them. As a result, employees soon write TQM off as b ut one more in a long chain of c rusades, all of which involve a new set of bugles and bangles. (Osborne & Platrik 1997, p. 65) The implications for leadership i n Osborne and Plastrik's (1997) model is the identification of both a process for reinvention as well as the courage to closely examine the culture of the organization. The willingness of employees to potentially face loss before any quick gains requires support from leadership outside the scope and sequence of a bureaucrat Leadership Adapts to the Context P revi ous scholars (e.g., Bass, 1985) have focused on a limited range of leadership paradigms (e.g. transactional visionary). Classical and organic paradigms have been
41 omitted when researching leadership performance relationship s While Bass claimed that visionary leadership is almost always more effective than transactional leadership, other researchers (e.g ., Avery, 2004) argu e there is no single leadership paradigm that is the most effective. Instead, an organization should adopt the leadership style that suits the context in which the leadership and followe rs interact. Thus future research should be extended to encompass a broad conceptu alization of leadership. The leader is one who organize s the experience of the group The leader makes the team. When leadership rises to genius it has the power of transforming The great leader creates as well as direct power. He must see the evolving situa tion, the developing situation" (Graham, 1995, p. 168 ). Understanding the leadership performance relationship is critical in furthering the work of school leadership. Prior research has examined a restricted number of leadership paradigms (e.g. visionary and transactional paradigms), while ignoring the potential role o f other paradigms (e.g. classical and organic). N o one best way of thinking about leadership may exist School leadership's responsibility to unlo ck the potential of each teacher and facilitat e the achievement of school goals requires a specific skill set particularly when consideration is given to the internal and external forces which define the today's school experience. Facilitation of learning as the primary vehicle for school achievement should not be consider as the abdication of management, the absence of leadership, the lowering of standards, or the other characteristics usually as sociated with the soft approach" ( McGregor 1957, p. 183, a s cited in Shafritz et al. 2005). In many respects, the work of school leadership is a quasi athletic endeavor that requires the willingness to expand the available options to solve long standing problems. There is no doubt that
42 principals (and their te ams) work hard and dedicate themselves to solving long standing social and complex cultural challenges. The journey of the principalship is as much an academic effort as it is one that requires tremendous emotional and physical stamina. The heroic, athle tic vision of leadership would not be let go of easily as it is a source of pride for school leaders who try to do it all. Beyond a consideration of the context the attributes of leadership is the amassing and deployment of a particular skill set in a sp ecific arena. Too often the mental model associated with leadership is too limiting and out of alignment with the task. "The problems that solve us are those from which we genuinely learn. They change how we think. These are what we call good problems, the one we are wise not to pass through too quickly (Kegan & Lahey, 2001, p. 44). Kegan further expanded on this notion by making the following observations found below. Empathy and perspective permit the leader to take the pulse of the organization at any time. The challenge of leadership is to not only change the behavior, but to determine the behaviors that need to be changed. Table 1 : How We Talk Can Change the Way We Work Leading inevitabl y involves trying to effect significant change It is very hard to bring about significant changes in any human group without changes in individual behaviors. It is very hard to sustain significant changes in behavior without si gnificant changes in individuals' underlying meanings that may give rise to t heir behaviors. It is very hard to chang e people's underlying ways of making meaning without considering the possibility that we ourselves must also change. Note: Kegan & Lahey (2001 )
43 Transformational and Transactional Leadership Models Burns (1978) identified two types of leadership styles, transformational an d transactional leadership. "The transformational leader has been characterized as one who articulates a vision of the future that can be shared with peers and subordinates, intellectually stimulate subordinates, pays high attention to individual differences among people ( Lowe et al. 1996, p. 1) Supporting the adaptive and ongoing capacity of followers to tackle an ongoing series of challenging problems is the central task of school leadership today. This v iew of leadership also includes structuring the school to facilitate the achievement of its vision and goals: ensuring continuous improvement programs of instruction: building and mai ntaining high levels of support and providing a support for the achievement of the school's vision goals (Mulford & Silins 2011 p. 4 ). Burns consider ed the transformational leader as significantly different from the tran sactional leader. The transformational leader encourages and supports followers to rise to higher levels of motivation, morality, and performance (Lowe et al. 1996 ). Challenging followers to create new models of organizational possibility is no easy task Transformational leaders do not merely react to environmental circumstances they attempt to shape and create them ( Lowe et al. 1996, p. 3 ). Transformational leaders are willing to examine all aspects of the organization including the moral dimension Building teacher efficacy as a primary task of transformational leader ship can occur through specific organizational structures such as teams, sharing problems and work ing towards their resolution, and the opportunity to build consensus and commitment to achieve the goals (Jing & Avery, 2008, p. 39). Effective team leadership
44 direc tly impact s the effectiveness of a team ( Zaccaro Rittman & Marks 2001) Research on the ef fectiveness of organizational teams have suggested that the use of teams has led to greater productivity, more effective use of resources, better decisions and problem solving, better quality products and services, and gre ater innovation and creativity" (L eithwood et al. 1999, p. 221) The transactional relationship of the leaders to their subordinates relies on the exchange of consequences a nd rewards as the incentives. This model of leadership is incongruent with the need to cultivate the leadership le arner relationship among colleagues and of equal challenge of the modeling ideal relationship s among teacher and students. Transactional, command and control forms of leadership on the part of principals further manifests itself in the close supervision o f teachers, specification of the one best model of instruction' which all teachers must use, centralized decisions about how time in the classroom is to be used, together with very long lists of curriculum standards or expectations which teachers are requ ired to cover with students. Teachers are allowed little autonomy over their work in classrooms; their voices are, at best, heard weakly in school wide decision making and yet they are held almost entirely acco untable for student achievement. ( Mulford 2008, p. 24) The transactional leader is most effective in a consistent and stable environment where performance expectations are clear and the needs of followers are met by fulfillment through a reward system (Bass, 1985; Gra en & Cashman, 1975). Further the adaption of a consultant st yle for making decisions which tacitly may appear to provide some limited opportunity for empowerment through the expression of please give me your opinion on this, therefore you matter, provides little long term benefit when the relationship is defined by this one way exchange. The transactional leader still relies on rewards, agreements, and expectations as the primary toolbox to achieve their organizational aims vs. the classical fear based model from antiquity (Avery 2004, p.
45 34). Both the classical leadership model and transactional leader are faced with the inability to manage multiple variables. They cannot command control every action, particularly as situations become more complex and beyond the capacity of on e person; or when additional commitment from followers is needed to get the job done, such as in reacting to changing circumstances; or when ideas about leadership change and followers no longer accept domination, or follower commitment starts to wane for other reasons (Jing & Avery, 2008, p. 71) The importance of leadership as a key force to improve organizational performance is signi ficant (e.g. Zhu, Chew, & Spangler, 2005). However, there are differences between the establishment of objectives and providing a system of rewards, a transactional approach to leadership, and that of the v isionary leaders Some scholars (e.g. Zhu et al., 2005) suggest that visionary leadership result s in higher levels of cohesion, commitment, trust, motivation, and performance in organizational environments. Avery (2004) suggested that both transactional and visionary leadership are valid forms of leadership, but visionary leadership may be app licable more broadly, including in situations where insufficient resources are available for the bureaucratic to supply external rewards (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) or where the situation is complex and ambiguous and rel ies strongly on follower knowledge and c ommitment. Avery (2004) also suggests that in other situations transactional leadership is the appropriate form of leadership, such as when followers are unwilling or unable to commit to the leader's vision. One of the more remarkable results of our rese arch was that even in the highly accountable policy contexts intended to deal with such uncertainty, successful principals assiduously avoided a command and control form of leadership. Our successful principals, on the whole, appeared to hold a deep, if ta cit, conception of their organiz ations as organic, living systems, rather than as machines. So what they believed was required of them as leaders, we infer from our evidence, was the provision of help to their colleagues in finding meaningful direction for their
46 work, protection from the harsher elements of the schools' wider environments, nurturance, attention, excitement and stimulation. If the organiz ation needed oiling', it was increased mutual trust, not more policy an d regulation that was applied. (D ay & Leithwood (Eds.), 2007, p. 1) School leaders who can orient staff towards collective action around a common vision share the responsibility for student learning with a professional community. The formation of collaborative work teams creates a prime opportunity for the innovative principal to create a participatory learning environment and diffuse leadership activities. "Research has shown that schools would perform better if teachers worked i n focused, supportive teams" (Schomaker, 1999, p.10). Further, t eaching in a large secondary school filled with independent departments can be isolating. The schedule, the structure of the building, and the pace of the day often leave adults little time to reflect and communicate their needs or ideas to each other let alone to the administrators. Transformation Leadership and Sustainability Additionally, the work of school leadership faces both the pressing challenges of the present along with the factor of carrying forward sustainably especially with high attrition rates for building leadership and the needed work to enhance leadership practices in their buildings. Sustainable leadership was first articulated by Lester Brown in the early 1980s (Su zuki, 2003). Satisfying the needs of the present while looking towards the future has since been taken up and applied to educational leadership by both Fullan (2005) and Hargreaves and Fink (2003, 2006). These principals are able to make the connections internally to understand the challenges of the organization as well as able to step away and see the big picture. The principal acting only as an instructional leader is not only too simplified, he or she fails to recognize additional variables, structure s, and systems which influence performance. Engagement in a sustainable quest towards
47 continuous improvement is the primary task of today's school leader (Fullan, 2005) Regardless of whether school leaders feel that they are the expert to lead all aspec ts of instruction it is a primary task of their leadership and the professionalization of schools from the 1990s until today. Contingency Theory: The Right Leader For The Context According to Fiedler, c ontingency theory the matching of the leader to the appropriate situation in relation to the context they are leading is essential. Certain leadership styles will be more effective than others given the environmental conditions and demands placed in their control (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987, as cited in N orthouse 2007, p. 113) People who are relation ship motivated are effective in moderately favorable situations, that is, situations in which there is some degree of certainty that things are neither co mpletely under their control or out of their control ( Northouse 2007, p. 115 ) By bringing clarity, removing obstacles, coaching, and providing direction will likely lead to more satisfying work. Understanding the capability and sense of control and commitment employees bring to their work is a significa nt aspect of the leader's ability to understand. More specifically, participatory leadership consists in inviting subordinates to the table and beyond consulting them decisions and sharing ideas and opinions, but integrate them into the decision (Northous e, 2007). This requires subordinates who have expressed the desire to participate in such a level. Conceptual Framework: Servant Leadership Servant Leadership (Greenleaf, 1970, 1977) emphasizes the role of leader as servant and the express ion of concern f or followers. Greenleaf (1970, 1977) argued that leadership was granted to those who work with others is most like a servant of the
48 organization as a whole. "T he way a person emerges as a leader is by first becoming a servant. Servant leader focuses on the needs of followers and helps them to become more knowledgeable, more free, more autonomous, and more like service themselves. They enrich others by their presence (Northouse, 2007, p. 349). By using less institutional powe r and control and shifting authority to the subordinate greater organization strength and productivity is developed. The role of the servant leader attending to others is clearly evident in the writings of Greenleaf (1977), Gilligan (1982), B lock ( 1993 ) Covey ( 1990 ), all of whom maintain that attending to others as a primary building block of moral leadership (Northouse, 2007, p. 352). Some have argued that the servant leader, as the steward of the vision, is best able to promote the organization's ab ility to address complex problems as the leader will have created a stable enough foundation for others to extend themselves and solve complex problems themselves. It is worth noting the development of the servant leadership model in the 1970s by Greenle af paralleled his almost 40 year career at AT&T, a substantial bureaucracy. "Greenleaf spent most of his organizational life in the field of management research, development, and education at AT&T" (Spears & Lawrence, 2002, p. 2). The focus of servant le adership is on others rather than upon self, and on an understanding of the role of the leader as servant (Greenleaf, 1977). "Servant leaders develop people, helping the m to strive and flourish (McMillan & Schumacher 2001). Servant leaders provide visio n, gain credibility and trust from followers, and influence others so that the organizational objectives are achieved through followers" (Stone, Russell, & Patterson 2003, p. 4). Serva nt Leadership and Transformational Leadership
49 T ransformational leadershi p as defined by Leithwood (2005) is a form of facilitative power that is manifested though other people rather than over other people. Transformational leadership is composed of three elements: ( a) a collaborative, shared decision making approach ; ( b) an emphasis on teacher professionalism and empowerment ; ( c) and an understanding of change, including how to encourage change in others. One such transformative leadership approach explored by Greenleaf (1970, 1977) is servant leadership. The attributes of servant leadership will better inform educators to address the diverse needs of their students and access opportunities to push forward attempts at innovation that can break long standing traditions of teaching and learning gaps. As a leadership model that falls within the realm of ethical leadership, servant leadership, even with a limited research base, speaks resoundingly to the need to educate all children and see differences as opportunities rather than deficits. In addition to serving, the servan t leader has a social responsibility to be concerned with the have nots and to reconcile them as equal stakeholders in the life of the organization. "Where inequalities and social injustices exist, a servant leader tr ies to free them (Graham, 1991) (Nort house, 2000, p. 349). In a sense, the position of leadership in the servant leadership model is made more diffuse as no one person is in possession of a position with a fixed vantage point (Cuilla, 2005). In many respects, the qualities of the servant l eader are those that would be attributed to the unassuming characteristics of a person leading quietly (Bass, 2008), often from "behind," and therefore in stark contrast to the "out front" "brashness" of the charismatic leader (Collins, 2001). Serving lea ders are more concerned with producing
50 results with like minded others rather than inflating or protecting their own ego (Page & Wong, 2011). Leaders and Followers A dapt Together How do leaders differ from non leaders in the servant leadership context? "Some people who hold positions of leadership do not lead, whereas some people who lead do not hold positions of leadership" (Cuilla, 2005, p. 324). Examining leadership and in particular effective leadership requires consideration of the context. As a p rocess with no specific start or end point, acts of leadership occur in the nexus between leader and follower. Servant leadership, then, takes into account the inadequacies of traditional forms of leadership, the typical organizational pyramid with bureau cratic at the helm making all of the decisions. Instead, leadership looks more collaborative and people act together to accomplish the institution's mission and demonstrate the willingness, when appropriate, to challenge organizational mandates. The se rvant leadership model, on the other hand, challenges the structures associated with traditional leadership models and the organizational pyramid. By creating an environment in which information is more fluid and employees collaborate, the organizational pyramid can then be flipped over (Page & Wong, 2011). The servant leader possesses the intent of transforming those served to grow personally and professionally, become more autonomous, and increase the likelihood of becoming servants themselves (Spears & Lawrence, 2002). Servant leadership involves valuing of people and their development while concurrently remaining committed to sharing power, status, and control of the organization with members. According to Greenleaf, "a serva nt leader must pass this
51 test: D o those served grow as persons? Do they while being served become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely the mselves to become servants?" (C u i lla, 1995, p 17). Migrating away from autocratic and hierarchical modes of leadership to a model based upon a collective commitment to organizational outcomes, servant leaders navigate the interstices with a steady focus on the development of followers as the primary means to achieve collective outcomes. Measuring Servant Leadership Developing the autonomous capability of followers ( Black, 2010; Page & Wong, 2011; Spears & Lawrence, 2002) at its core is a transformational approach to life and work that can maximize the underutilized potential of employees locked in fixed positions with fixed re sponsibilities and limited decision making capability. Servant leadership emphasizes the power of persuasion and of seeking c onsensus as superior to the top down form of leadership. In addition, Spears and Lawrence (2002) emphasizes the leadership skills of listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment, and community building. Laub (2000) tested the servant leadership model through the valuing of people, developing people, building community, di splaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership. According to Black (2010), Laub was able to validate these values as a basis of leadership. Finally, Patterson (2003) added agape love, and humility as distinctive characteristics. Further, Irving (2004 ) illustrated the importance of servant leadership as a means to support organizations excel rather than succumb to increased global competition and increased information. Also, Lambert (2003 ) identified a relationship between servant
52 leadership and school climate and overall academic success. Lambert's study revealed a significant relationship between servant leadership and school climate (Black, 2010). Others have examined the role of the p rincipal in their work environment in consideration for a new approach to school leadership. Principals everywhere have auxiliary priorities ranging from school safety to dissatisfied parents. This is unlikely to change in the near future. Principals will continue to be overloaded with a combination of both important goals as well as trivial goals unrelated to furthering instruction. Also, unlikely to change is the layering of new responsibilities unrelated to teaching and learning. Furthermore, they will continue to face new constraints by new government mandates. The compensation will not match the total responsibilities, long hours nor the stresses and strains in the environment within which they must lead. The unending paperwork, the increasing role of politics in the system and 15 hour workdays rubs salt in wounds. The result is a serious shor tfall of principals. (Bass, 2000 p. 36) Servant leadership offers the opportunity to redirect the conflicting priorities of faculty, administrators, and district officials to create reciprocal relationships among parties focused on larger institutional goals and potentially transform the institutional conversation into a more integrated dialogue. Servant leadership is worthy of more exploration as a potential lev er to more effective school leadership. The at tributes of servant leadership may better inform educators ability to address the diverse needs of their students and create opportunities to push forward attempts at innovation that can break long standing tr aditions that perpetuate teaching and learning gaps. Summary In Chapter II, the primary works of Follett (1926), Gatto (1998), Greenleaf (1970), Heifetz (1994), Taylor (1916), and Weber (1922) facilitated my understanding of varying conceptualizations of leadership through both time and context. The shift from early American efforts to decentralize authority and the subsequent transition to
53 bureaucratization driven by the values of industry established the underpinnings of the tension associated with s chool leadership today: Bureaucrats thrive in a bureaucracy while transformational leaders face constraints. The uncertainty of early American s who thrived on localism ceded power over time to the profits of industrialization and the need for control and predictability Presently, the interdependence that Follett (1926) identified and the adaptive demands (Heifetz, 1994) placed on leadership today reflect a return to values found in Gatto's ( 1998 ) analysis of early America (distrust of authority and self reliance). Greenleaf's vision of leadership serve s as a m ore sophisticated approach to leadership which is analyzed in Chapter III as a potential model for today's school s which further s Chapter II 's analysis of leadership
54 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This exploratory study examines leadership characteristics found in high performing schools Additionally, this study examines whether these leadership characteristics reflect behaviors associated with servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970). A secondary aim is to explore those leadership behaviors that may be related to traditiona l bureaucratic structures of school as well as student achievement. The tested hypothesis is, Do principal leadership behaviors in high performing schools reflect se rvant leadership models of leadership? Based upon size, staff characteristics, and structures of the organization the hypothesis is most applicable to the staff of the secondary environment. I am also interested in the dependent variable of student achi evement as determined by State's Department of Education's T ransitional C olorado A ssessment P rogram (TCAP) growth analysis that is determined on a scale of 0 to 99. I am particularly interested in this publicly available data because growth rate analysis will attempt to control for socio economic factors that may influence student achievement. The Colorado G rowth Model ( CDE, 2012 ) measures an individual student s progress on state standards from year to year and compares this to like students in the state. "T hese schools or districts may not be ones with the highest test scores every year as growth level is completely independent of achievement level for i ndividual students" (CDE, 2014 ) More specifically, student test scores are used as the basis for a growth calculation, using a statistical model called quantile regression, which then reports a student gro wth percentile. The percentile reports performance in comparison to similar students across the state who had a similar
55 test score the previous year. "This process can be understood as a comparison to members of a student's academic peer group. So, Colo rado's measure of growth is a normative rather than an absolute one" ( CDE, 2014 ). Given that my hypothesis considers leadership as the overall independent variable, principal leadership behaviors are analyzed on a range from 4 (maxi mum b ureaucratic beha vior) to "4 (professional pole) as defined servant leadership characteristics. The bureaucratic pole is based upon respondents' determination of the principal's reliance on authority, centralization, and compliance. The servant leadership pole focus es o n determinates of empowerment, engagement, and servant nature (shared responsibility, perceptions of principal's reliance on authority, interdependence, development of individual strengths and potential, willingness to serve others, level of community, con sensus, and focus on the future). Survey Development To test the primary hypothesis a questionnaire was given to teacher respondents in twelve secondary schools The questionnaire attempts to determine whether servant leadership attributes dem onstrated by principals positively correlate with student growth It is also hypothesized that bureaucratic leadership behaviors will negatively relate to growth As already discussed in previous chapters this research seeks to provide an alternative explanation for student growth and achievemen t beyond efforts to control the learning environment through external measures state mandates Further, the survey developed for this study examines whether altern ative leadership styles can mitigate bureaucratic characteristics of school organization s, correlat ing positive ly with individual
56 (teacher) and group performance (students) Thus the significance of this study is twofold in that application of the findin gs to contemporary issues about student performance is central in developing a broader conceptual understanding of the principalship as well as the work experiences of teachers. A third reason for developing and implementing this survey is the need for an instrument that examines servant leadership effectively and can be used to provide data for change efforts in secondary schools. The design of this survey also took into consideration those bureaucratic elements that, according to both research and my pr ofessional experiences, can impede the rate of innovation in a school. Exploring relationships between leadership and achievement require a survey that could also examine factors, as reported by faculty, which may affect the work environment. For the ser vant leadership pole, the following variables were examined relative to principal behaviors and organizational characteristics: adaptive, autonomous, authentic, collaboration, empathy, empowerment, innovation, interdependence, and servant Items specific to the b ureaucratic pole sought information on leadership and organizational behaviors for the following variables: apathy, autocratic, bureaucratic, coercion, compliance, impersonal, isolated, predictability and procedural. Table 2 below provides examples of each of the characteristics associated with the variables. The variables list of variables account for both the need to understand the nature of leadership and the historical influences of the relationships among licensed staf f in buildings today. The phrase servant leader used throughout this study represents the
57 T able 2 : Examples of Servant Variable C haracteristics Adaptive The ability of organizations to adapt to changing environments. Autonomous A servant leader supports followers grow more autonomous and increase their likelihood of becoming servants themselves by sharing responsibility and trust in the accomplishment of the organization's mission. Authentic Serving leaders are more concerned with producing resu lts with like minded others rather than inflating or protecting their own ego. Collaboration Teacher collaboration is a necessary element for improved student achievement. Empathy Greenleaf (1970, 1977) argues a servant leader focuses on the needs of fol lowers and helps them to become more knowledgeable, more autonomous, more like servants themselves. Empowerment Command and control cultures need to be replaced with cultures that support widespread use of increased information, employee participation, e mpowerment for individuals and teams (Shafritez et al. 2005, p 415). Innovation Transformative school change cannot occur without eliminating or greatly downsizing the traditional bureaucratic structures that too often squeeze innovation out of employees (Osborne, 1997). Interdependence Follett (1926) challenges leaders to speak of the total situation and recast their idea of what totalness means. Servant Greenleaf's vision for the servant leader is dedicated to the achievement of short and lo ng term organizational goals through the construct of leader as servant and therefore steward of the organization (Greenleaf 1970, 1977).
58 T able 3: Examples of B ureaucratic V ariable C haracteristics Autocratic Ronald Heifetz (1994) argues that authority can impede effective leadership. Apathy Formal systems which take the form of job descriptions, procedures, routines, and rules often lead to burnout, apathy, and absenteeism. Impersonal Given teacher efficacy and engagement are key components of innovat ion the attributes of the impersonal bureaucratic stand in opposition to just such needs. Coercion Bureaucracies support the belief structure that underperformers can be coerced into performing well through fear, intimidation, and risk of alienation. C ompliance Compliance leads to stability and predictability in contrast to innovation. Procedural The bureaucratic nature of public institutions and specifically education actively suppress es leadership and specifically the transformational leadership styl e (Bass, 1985). Bureaucratic Both the classical and transactional leadership models are faced with the inability to manage multiple variables. Isolated Research has shown that schools would perform better if teachers worked in focused, supportive teams (Schomaker, 1999, p.10). Predictability The current faculty model of schooling and the subsequent push to reduce learning to a few measureable, quantifiable procedures in a standardized curriculum in an environment burdened with external mandates, eventually crushes the spirit of the people within the system (Osborne, 1997). influences of all nine variables derived from Greenleaf (1970,1977). Table 3 has a summary of the bureaucratic variables and associated examples. The summary of bureaucratic variables serves as the foundation of my attempt to understand the bureaucratic underpinnings of the schools in this study primarily driven by Taylor (1916)
59 and Weber (1 922). All of these variables represent a combination of influences, both past and present, that play out in school today and therefore serve as the arena today's principals' must negotiate. Instrument Development Given that my hypothesis considers leadership as the overall independent variable, I measured prin cipal leadership behaviors quantitatively on a continuum from 4 (maxi mum b ureaucratic behavior) to "4 ( maximum servant behavior ) This range was generated based upon participant responses and analysis of the eight een variable s in the two scales (see Figure 1 below). The servant leadership pole of the scale focus es on the primary variables of Empowerment, Engagement, and Servant nature (shared responsibility interdependence, and w illingness to serve others ). Examples of surv ey items for the servant leadership variable include, In my school, mistakes provide opportunities to learn (Innovation) and In my school, we design lessons together (Collaboration). The b ureaucratic pole was based upon respondents' determination of the p rincipal's reliance on the primary variables of Authority, Centralization, and Compliance Examples of survey items for the Bureaucratic leadership pole include, My principal asks others to follow standard rules and regulations (Compliance), and My principal enforces her/his expectations (Coercion). Figure 1 below is an example of the representation I will use in Chapter IV to plot school performance and leadership. The y axis reflects the TCAP score (Growth, Growth Gaps, or Achievement) and the x axis illustrates the leadership pole. The graphic representation of plotting TCAP scores such as a schools growth (y axis) and the assignment of a leadership value (either bureaucratic or servant) produces a
60 series of plots for all participating schools. Once all of the schools TCAP and Figure 1 TCAP growth and principal style leadership scores are plotted, a trend line can be developed to examine potential projections of any potential relationship between the two in Chapter IV. Survey Design A surve y research instrument standardizes the research process to ensure that all participants are exposed efficiently to the same questions in the same way. The aim is to try to ensure that differences in responses to questions can be interpreted as reflecting differences among respondents, rather than differences in the proce sses that produced the answers" ( Siniscalco & Auriat 2005, p. 9). Advantages of survey design are the production of specific, manageable data sets, which are easy to code. In terms of time and convenience, the efficiency of using a survey is the most appropriate tool given the limited resources of the re searcher. In addition, a survey permit s the inclusion of more variables in a research study because the format enables respondent s to respond to more !" #$" $!" %$" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" !"#$"%&'()*+,-"* !"#$"%&'()*#.$*/0',,-*+"%1,%2#.0"* 345+*/0,%"*
61 questions in the sa me time required to complete open ended questions ( Siniscalco & Auriat, 2005, p. 29). Conversely, one of the disadvantages of the survey with closed questions is the potential introduction of bias from limiting alternatives or qualification of responses. Thus, more complex in depth analysis is limited, and respondents are not allowed to qualify their responses with explanations, as in an interview or open ended question. Respondents may also elect to choose their responses based upon the most efficient, socially acceptable, or convenient way of completing the task. Respondents were ask ed to mark on a Likert type scale how frequently always, often, occasionally, and never they observed certain leadership behaviors Likert scales use fixed choice response formats and are designed to measure attitudes or opinions ( Burns & Grove, 2007, p 236), measure agreement or disagreement with a particular topic and statement, and assume that attitudes can be measured and articulated in a linear manner with only equal variance among points. N o assumption is made however, that equal intervals exist bet ween the points on the scale; rather they are designed to indicate the relative ordering of an individual's response to an item. While this is perhaps too simplistic, it is a relatively easy and appropriate method to use in social science research (O ppenheim 1992 ). The survey is organized into five sections (see Appendix B) as stated in the previous section. To understand participant responses with a n informed perspective questions in sections A to C solicit general demographi c information: name of school gender, and length of service in education. In order to ensure confidentiality, the demographic items were limited. Section D questions 1 to 21 seek information about
62 respondent observations of their principal. Specifically, given their dire ct experiences with t heir principal and the extent this relationship can their principal be categorized as either coercive or supportive ba sed upon attributes related to E mpathy (My principal cares about my well being) C ompliance ( My principal asks other s to follow standard rules and regulations) E mpowerment ( My principal encourages me to contribute to the food of the organization) I mpersonal (My principal is available to support me with any issue) and I nte rdependence ( In my school, we have a say in wh at happens) Section E quest ions 22 to 40, addresses respondent observations of the work of the faculty as a common or divergent unit focused on student learning. This section also seeks to understand the level of autonomy felt by the staff and wheth er they collaborate with their professional peers or are disengaged from the teaching lea r ning process Examples from this section include In my school, we are optimistic about the future and In my school, we establish professional goals aligned with our mission. Section F questions 41 to 55, seek s additional information about the relationship of faculty to their work but also ask for observations specific to the operation of the school such as experiences at faculty meetings, rules and routines, and th e sharing and flow o f information. Examples from this section include In my school, information flows only one way from the principal's office and In my school, others make decisions that negatively affect my students. Last Section H questions 56 to 70, asks for respondents' level of participation in the school improvement processes, access to leadership positions in the building, and ability to use their professional judgment to support student learning. Examples from this
63 section include As a teac her in this school I act as a supportive team player and As a teacher in this school I know I can take a role in the solution of any problem. In placement of the items in the survey, I took into consideration the positional errors that could result from proximity (rate based upon being near to each other), central tendency (desire to rate items in the middle), leniency (providing agreeable favorable responses to avoid conflict), and severity (to express their dislike for the principal as a personal expre ssion). Non threatening questions were placed at the beginning, followed by the primary area of interest; sensitive items were placed last. All efforts were made to reduce variations in the survey questions or error such as variation between administrati ons. Survey Reliability The rival hypothesis in this research would be validated if the results can be explained by a multitude of other variables A variety of factors could be influencing student growth from testing conditions, either the purposeful or random assignment of special ly trained faculty to groups of under performing students and so forth. While these factors plus countless others likely occur in a random nature from year to year. However, their influence from school to school is mitigate d by the variety of schools participating in this study principals with different agendas, and in particular in this school district a heavy reliance on site based management. Additional tools to support the validity of the questionnaire used are the re sult of the standardization of survey implementation. All participants received the same survey under the same conditions in that they were able to choose their own time and place to
64 complete the survey. Attempts to control for measurement error were tak en and care with the coding process as well so that errors made by data entry would be minimized. In construction of the survey, Siniscalco and Auriat (2005) provided an appropriate framework. Acronyms, abbreviations, jargon, technical terms or other abstract concepts, which may be unfamiliar to teacher respondents, were avoided. In addition, double barreled or ambiguous questions were avoided given t he potential of compounding results. Last, specific examples were generated based upon both my thirteen years of administrator experience at the secondary level at the time of the study as well as potential friction points between leadership and teachers discussed in the literature. Other considerations provided by Siniscalco and Auriat (2005) such as the willingness of the respondents to answer questions truthfully, data generated in a format to address the hypothesis, and simple concise item constructio n also were taken into account. Participants Secondary schools were selected as the unit of analysis because of their complexity and, based upon my professional experiences, the potential for finding rich data given the size of the organization and the presence of extensive operational structures. The study focus es on secondary schools as the unit of analysis to test the leadership construct and illicit data regar ding the question Later in Chapter IV I discuss the challenges, given the nature of the q uestions, to ensure a sufficient number of participants to make generalizations from the data collected and analyzed. In addition, the challenges of measuring complex huma n variables in dynamic settings require
65 appropriate caution when examining the resul ts as the impact of situational elements on any research outcom es inherently moderate findings (Muth, 2014) The random ly selected sample of teachers was completed through convenience sampling. That is, I chose schools that were available and would partic ipate I gained preliminary approval for distributing the survey to all middle and high schools in three Denver Metro Area School Districts Unfortunately, the Planning and Assessment Offices of two of these districts said that they would be unable to pa rticipate late in the process. Additionally, School District West provided all middle and high school principals with the choice to participate in the study, so each principal was given an opportunity to review the survey and then confirm their willingnes s to participate. U pon review of the survey, only 8 of 19 middle school principals expressed a willingness to participate in the study and only 6 of 13 high school principals confirmed the ir willingness to participate. In my conversations with principals they cited lack of time for faculty (too many surveys) and being uncomfortable with the nature of the questions. Once the Planning and Assessment Office received confirmation from participating schools, they selected a random 20% sample of each school's total licensed staff. I was then provided with their district email addresses to send the inv itation to participate. Table 4 below provides a list of participating schools and the associated 2013 Colorado Department of Education accreditation status, nu mber of students, and Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) 2013 mean sco res for Achievement and Growth. The response rate is represented as a percent of all employees in the building that completed the survey. Response rates range from a low o f 10.23% to a high of 21.62%. Additionally, the TCAP Growth score in the last column represented the
66 mean rate of student growth for all students in the building (this is cohort figure from year to year; how much growth was achieved math, reading, writing from the previous year). Any score above 50, which is the Colorado a verage, represents the students in the school growing at a higher rate than other middle or high schools in the state. Table 4 : School District West Data High Schools School # of S taff P lan Students Response % Growth 1 F 78 Performance 715 19.23% 66.7 2 K 67 Performance 468 14.93% 75 3 A 119 Performance 955 13.45% 55 4 B 89 Performance 751 19.10% 63.3 5 M 39 Performance 129 10.23% 64.7 6 G 27 Performance 112 14.81 % 35 Middle Schools 7 H 45 Performance 522 13.33% 60 8 J 43 Performance 418 13.95% 43.3 9 K 42 Performance 550 14.93% 53.3 10 E 40 Performance 590 20% 60.4 11 L 40 Performance 494 15% 76.7 12 I 39 Performance 137 10.23% 64.7 13 D 37 Performance 523 21.62% 79.2 14 C 43 Performance 537 13.98% 72.9 On the School District West Website, a school profile was available for all participating schools. Included in the profile was standardized information as well as illustrations by each school of its individual characteristics to its respective communitie s.
67 Below is a summary of this information and highlights from these school profiles to provide readers with an overview of each school. School A. This school offers the International Baccalaureate (IB) World School curriculum and program designed as a course of study for highly motivated students, to promote higher level critical thinking skills while mastering a curriculum that meets worldwide sta ndards and criteria. Participation in the IB program is voluntary. The school's total enrollment for 2013 is listed at 1,902 and class size of 22 students to 1 teacher. School A is committed to providing a rigorous academic program in a supportive atmosp here which will challenge all students to perform quality work and develop their creative and critical thinking skills; desire to be life long learners; and productive and responsive international citizens. Highlights from the school's mission and vision include a desire to promote an accepting and supporting culture while encouraging students to move through a challenging academic experience to become well educated, well rounded human beings. School B. The characteristics listed as important for this sch ool are: a closed campus, modified block and late start on Wednesdays for faculty development, and the use of extensive technology in the classroom as the district's pilot program for its "one to one" initiative. The total enrollment for the school is lis ted as 1,506 students and a 20.7 to 1 student teacher ratio. Additionally, students have access to a variety of Advanced Placement courses and an extensive business program. Highlights from the mission and vision include the staff and students fostering a n atmosphere of respect for diversity and nurturing a sense of ownership and belonging in the school willing developing responsible technological skills.
68 School C. This particular school has a tradition of high academic standards and outstanding student a chievement. The middle school has a 2013 enrollment of 537 and student to teacher ratio of 18.5 to 1 Th e school expresses tremendous pride in forming academic skills in a caring and nurturing environment. Core values described in the school profile incl ude creativity and growth, friends, and laughter, and most importantly mastery learning. Additionally, the profile describes an academic environment as the best among middle schools in Colorado and an expansive SPED support and co teaching/mentoring prog ram. The mission of the school is to provide students with challenges and opportunities for success. School D. Two types of programming in this school are provided for students: the conventional middle school program with an interdisciplinary approach as well as the CHOICE program. The combined enrollment for the school is 645 students with a student to teacher r atio of 19.9 to 1. The former program implements the middle level philosophy and affective advisory with targeted interventions. The program's listed objectives are to meet the unique needs of middle school students intellectually, physically, and emotio nally. Those students who opt into the CHOICE program will experience the same program with a more hands on approach, multi age grouping, integrated subjects, and alternative assessments. Keys values listed in the mission and vision describe a school wh ich strives to find a proper balance between academic and personal social development and the development of personal responsibility and expectancy. School E. This school focuses on both high academic standards and involvement in an extensive array of ext racurricular activities. Enrollment for the school is listed as
69 629 in 2013 with a student to teacher ratio of 19.6 to 1. As a neighborhood school with a pre Advanced Placement program, 90 percent of the student body participates in extracurricular progr amming. The following belief statements are found in the vision and mission: find strength in individual differences; foster a collaborative partnership among students, staff, and parents; and balance high academic standards with emotional support. School F. This particular school describes itself as a community school that thrives on extensive parent and community support. The total enrollment for the school in 2013 is listed as 1,396 and class size as 20.3 students to 1 teacher. Additionally, as a comp rehensive high school on the far east edge of the district the school draws enrollment heavily from neighboring school districts. The school offers a variety of Advanced Placement (AP) courses and vocational programming. Highlights from the mission and v ision of the school include the following: "Together, the school and community discuss and solve issues that can improve the high school experience for all students," and "Our mission at School F is to further develop the intellectual, vocational, creative aesthetic, and physical capabilities of our students." School G. The total enrollment of 350 and a studen t to teacher ratio of 17.1 to 1 is a "choice enrollment" school with a focus on extensive community involvement and flexibility in academic programm ing. Use of capstone projects, hands on learning experiences, a nd a quarter system provide students and staff with the ability to innovate in a flexible non traditional learning environment Graduation requirements for students are derived from both state requirements and enrichment. Highlights from the school's profile include a focus on building a diverse, supportive, and respectful community of
70 learners and combining the creativity and commitment of teachers, parents, and students with the resources of the broader community. School H. This school has a total enrollment 611 students and a 13.5 student to 1 teacher ratio. The school focuses on student achievement and the implementation of the middle school philosophy so that the unique needs of the whole child are addressed in an integrated approach. Additionally, the school is a leader in the implementation of a standards based curriculum and grading system in the district. Highlights from the mission include the following: promote the creative, intel lectual, emotional, social and physical well being of all students as they transition from childhood to adolescence. Of secondary schools in the district, School H has the largest free and reduced lunch population at 47%. School I This is the middle s chool in a small mountain community that is combined with the high school (School M) under one principal. The 2013 enrollment of the school was 337 with a student teacher ratio of 12.8 to 1. The school profile describes a collaborative effort of students, faculty, staff, and parents as key to success. The mission of the sc hool reads as follows: School I will provide an academically rigorous and nurturing environment for every student: (1) utilizing a variety of strategies to address each student's educa tional, social, and physical needs; (2) allowing opportunities for choices in academic and extra curricular activities; (3) furthering staff, student, parent, and community involvement; and (4) emphasizing our unique mountain environment. School J. School J is in the center of the City in a new, state of the art, energy efficient facility. The school offers an expansive program to support students attain
71 academic success in high school and beyond, especially those students who will be the first in their fa mily attend college; it has the only bilingual program among district middle schools. The school receives high marks for its student climate as well as its efforts to connect students to a multilingual and global society. The enrollment for 2013 was 583 students with a student to teacher ratio of 16.1 to 1. Highlights from the mission and vision include a focus on developing creative and critical thinking skills and connections to a global society. School K. This school provides both the comprehensive high school experience and the ability for students to self select into the only engineering academy in the district. The total enrollment for the 2013 school year is listed at 1,050 students and an average class size of 16.9 students to 1 teacher. Addi tionally, the school provides (a) an extensive AVID (Advancement via Individual Determination) program to assist first generation students attend college as well as (b) access to the International Baccalaureate (IB) World School curriculum and program. Th e school's motto is "Unity in Diversity." The school profile cites a central school improvement initiative as the expansion of student success in advanced course work with an extensive support network. Highlights from the school's vision and mission inc lude "honoring a tradition of outstanding academics and superior athle tics and co curricular programs and the desire to ensure "upon graduation every student will be confident of his or her abilities to compete and thrive in a pluralistic world." School L. This school is the only middle school in the district with a focus art program. The school has a total enrollment of 497 students with a student teacher ratio of 16.5 to 1. Additionally, the school was the first in the district to establish a No Plac e
72 for Hate partnership with the Anti Defamation League to prevent bullying and celebrate differences. The school profile lists inclusion, safety, and caring as core values. Highlights from the mission and vision of the school state that students are prou d of their accomplishments and encouraged to contribute to their school, community and the nation's democratic ideals. They are respectful of differences and values. Staff members are committed to providing a rich curriculum that challenges students to a chieve, to prepare for further academic rigors, and engage in the responsibilities of American citizenship. School M. This school is a small mountain school (combined with School I the middle school) with grades 6 12 and an AP program in core areas, post secondary options, and a unique homeroom advisory. The 2013 enrollment of the school was 337 with a student teacher ratio of 12.8 to 1. The school profile describes a collaborative effort of students, faculty, staff, and parents as key to success. The mission of the school reads as follows: School M will provide an academically rigorous and nurturing environment for every student: (1) utilizing a variety of strategies to address each student's educational, social, and physical needs; (2) allowing opportunities for choices in academic and extra curricular activities; ( 3 ) furthering staff, student, parent, and community involvement; and (4) emphasizing our unique mountain environment. S urvey Implementation The selected licensed staff, minus administ ration, in each building were provided with an opportunity to participate and their confidentiality was maintained according to university research protocols Instructions for par tici p a tion were consistent and t he purpose and objectives of the survey we re detailed in a brief cover letter. The survey
73 pilot revealed the duration of the survey to be less than eight minutes on average and only the last section of the questionnaire proved to create confusion based upon layout and word choice. As a result, t his section was removed from the version used in this study The low participation rate also created a particular problem for Schools I and M. These two schools, School I a middle school and School M a high school, are combined in the same building unde r the same leadership. The response rate from both schools was initially low and therefore I elected to combine the schools into one response set because both faculty work with the same leadership team and to address the low response rate. From this poin t forward in the study School I and School M are no referred to as School M only. Su rvey participants were as ked to complete the survey with in a two week window and they received a short reminder after one week. All items were designed to s upport analysi s of two categories of leadership behavior: b ureaucratic and servant like Data Collection The surveys were disseminated through Survey Monkey (surveymonkey.com). This is a familiar tool used in this district to solicit teacher responses or input on a variety of topics. The software platform was easy to use and the survey fit naturally int o provided templates. Consent F orms, introductory letters, and survey items were designed based upon Internal R eview B oard (IRB) expectations and to maximize partici pant efficiency Survey Monkey also served as the data collector during the two week period the survey was available Survey Monkey additionally provided a means to contact participants for the necessary reminders.
74 Participants provided their informed consent to the research with a full explanation of purpose with an opportunity to terminate at any time Upon reading the first screen that summarized all protective measures and described potential risks, participants selected "next page" to begin the su rvey. The study imposed no risks as participation was voluntary and anonymous. No data were linked to individual sub jects through email addresses or other means. In addition, participants were provided with an oppor tunity to leave the study at any time. Initial Data Analyses Upon conclusion of the survey period, all information collected using the Survey Monkey platform was then transferred into an Excel spreadsheet. I then began the work of coding the survey information for each of the eighteen varia bles. This work was conducted simply by using the Excel sorting function to pair results from each participant to the organizing structure I would need to analyze the data. For example, each variable had four survey items so I initially sorted all questi ons so that four columns for each variable were next to each other with the 105 responses for each item below. I then repeated this process for all variables. Once I completed this process, I then began the work of sorting and organizing the info rmation so the data was viewable based upon the demographic information. For example, I sorted each of the responses by gender so that correlations could be run with these items and their variables I then repeated the process for free and reduced lunch and len gth of service. All of this work resulted in the descriptive statistics appearing later in this chapter.
75 Also, associated with each of the participant's responses was the TCAP testing information. This information remained associated with each of the r esponses as the above sorting and organizing took place. The small N of 105 limited my ability to conduct more sophisticated statistical examinations. I decided that the best method to present the findings from descriptive statistics was to use the Excel graphing function. These graphs appear in Chapter IV. Additionally, I was able to upload the Excel worksheet containing the data set I had already coded into SPSS. In SPSS, I was then able to run correlation analyses easily. Again, this information is presented later in this chapter and in Chapter IV In addition to the measures of central tendency, the scoring of individual 's responses produced a building score for b ureaucratic leadership and the other for servant leadership long a c ontinuum of 4 to 4 T he maximum servant leader score was generated by assigning each servant lea dership item with a maximum of 4 points and a minimum of 1 Similarly, a maximum b ureaucratic score was generated by assigning each b ureaucratic item with a minimum o f 4 points to a maximum of 1 T hus the instrument has a leadership continuum from 4 to 4 with 0 being a neutral score : neither b ureaucratic nor professional. As stated previously, 105 participants responded to this 70 item survey which produced a me an leadership score to illustrate the leadership environment of each of the twelve participating schools. Analysis of the survey results began w ith a frequency analysis of demographic variables. Next, I analyzed the standard deviations and mean of each o f the servant leadership and bureaucratic variables as well as the outcome variables from the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) scores (Achievement,
76 o Growth, and Growth Gaps). TCAP is administered each spring to all students in public school s in Colorado. To conclude the res ults of the survey analysis, I studied the relationship between each of these variables by using Pearson correlations in the SPSS system. Frequency analysis of the 105 respondents' demographics provided the following results: 11% of respondents were in their first 2 5 years of teaching, 22% had 6 10 years of experience and 65% had service of 11+ ye ars in the field of education. Frequency analysis of gender indicated th at, of the 105 responses, 71% were female and 29% were male. Frequency analysis of participation rates revealed a total participation rate of 15% across all participating schools with a high of 20% and a low of just over 10%. The implications of this dem ographic information will be discussed in more detail in Chapter IV. Frequency analysis reveals that among the servant leadership variables the behavior of Empathy scores the highe st amongst respondents at 2.82 for the mean and the E mpowerment scores the lowest at 1.26 The greatest mean score of 2.82 for the Empath y variable is closely followed by the variables of Autonomous at 2.68, and Adaptive at 2.61. Additionally, the E mpowerment variable at 1.26 is reported by participants as occurring less often than the next lowest variable of Innovation at 2.30. Frequency analysis reveals that among the bureaucratic variables the Coercive behaviors ( 2.3 7) occur most frequently among reports and Bureaucratic behavi ors score the lowest ( 1.53 ). The greatest mean score of 2.3 7 for the C oercion variable is closely followed by the variable of Impersonal at 2.35. The standard deviation among variables ranges from a high of 1.08 for Autocratic behaviors and low of Procedural .837.
77 An examination of schools an d their data sets reveals the following frequency information. The high servant leadership score is 3.44 at School E and the low at 2.07 is also at School H. The lowest bureaucratic score is also at School H at 1.53 and the high of 2.68 is shared by bo th School L and M. Among combined scores, only School B demonstrated a leadership score that was more bureaucratic than servant like at 1.05. School L is the school with the highest combined leadership score of 1.04 and has the second highest growth sco re and the second highest growth gaps score. Table 5 below provides summary information by school. Frequency analysis T able 5: Mean L eadership and T est Scores by S chool (N = 12) School Servant Score Bureaucratic Score TCAP Ach ievement TCAP Growth TCAP Gaps FRL Size E )*(( #*( +%*$ +)*) %,*% ,#. M )*&. #*,+ %&*. ,#*$ ,! &,))% G #*.& #*&+ %! (&*% )%*$ &%)$! K #*. &*.+ ,+*+ %&*( ,! ))&!$! A #*$% &*.# .. $$ $)*, .&.!# C #*$) &*+) .. ++*) +$*( $$)% J #*#( &*.( %$ ,(*) $&*% ),$+) D #*#) &*,& .. %$ ,#*$ &&,($ F #*&, &*%, %$ ,,*% $$ &+&)., L #*!. #*,+ %$ ,,*% $)*) #.(.% H #*!% &*$) ,#*$ %$ %$ (%,&& B &*!( #*!. %$ ,,*% $,*% ,&$!, Averages #*($ &*,$ %.*+& ,+*!$ ,!*,# &.*.#+),*.#
78 of testing information illustrates the overall success of all schools, in all test categories, as compared to like schools in the state of Colorado with one exception and that is School G with the only score (37.5 in Growth Gaps) below the state median score of 50. The overall high achievement of students in these schools reflects the school district's status as the highest performing district in the state of Colorado. With the mean free and reduced lunch status of these schools shows a range of FRL percenta ges from a low of 5% at School C to a high of 47% at school H. This range likely reflects both the size and diversity of communities contained within the school district's substantial geographic area. Finally, the range of school enrollments from a low o f 337 students to a high of 1,902 reflects the diversity of the schools as organizations. In Chapter IV more analysis and discussion of this information will be presented. Overall, Table 5 provides a snapshot of the overall success of the school district and overall trend towards servant leadership behaviors with the mean of all variables as .49. Additionally, T able 5 illustrates four anomalies in the dat a which are telling. School D has one of the three highest Achievement scores of 99 yet is mid range of both servant and bureaucratic leadership scores. To some degree, it appears the leadership scores in this school in effect neutralize each other and the result is high student achievement. Also, School G has the second highest servant leadership scor e of 2.91 yet the lowest of Growth scores at 47% of all twelve schools. How long has the principal served in this school and other factors, such as community investment in standardized tests discussed in Chapter IV, illustrate the additional factors which are brought to bear on these outcomes. Finally, the range of student Growth and Growth Gaps for the twelve schools provides an interesting source of discussion : the range for Growth and Growth
79 Gap scores for the top six servant leadership schools is 37. 5 to 88.3 and for the lower six 53.3 to 66.7. Does the existence of servant leadership generate less consistency but more opportunity for high perfor mance on standardized tests? Or, does the inconsistency in scores result from the larger range of bureau cratic scores from the bottom six schools which is 2.68 to 1.53 opposed to the top six servant schools with a smaller range of 2.68 to 1.83? Finally, w ith a range of 4 to 4, only two of the serva nt leadership scores are higher than 3.00 (3.44 and 3.19 ) and most are in the 2+ range (with one just being above 1.00), while none of the bureaucratic scor es are lower (higher) than 2.68. Therefore, it appears that while there is the existence of servant leadership behaviors in these high performing schools w hat is potentially more telling is the lack of reliance on bureaucratic structures. It appears that s ervant leadership as a potential transformative leadership paradigm has to some degree lessoned the impact of the traditional bureaucratic forces present in the organization. Summary In summary, Chapter III illustrated the framework for this exploratory r esearch to test the hypothesis Do principal leadership behaviors in high performing schools reflect servant leadership models of leadership? The survey design and selection of participating schools was presented along with the survey methods. The introdu ction of the graph concept to report findings was presented along with the background of the standardized tests to correlate student achievement and leadership style. Overall, the methods I intended to use f or this exploratory study were met with the exce ption of a smaller than anticipated number of participants which will limit the implications of the findings to exploratory status only.
80 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter presents the findings from the analyses in this exploratory study. It is important to recall that the analyses here comprise a first step in understanding how the variables in this study might be understood. An exploratory study can only do that: explore. The first set of analyses explores the usefulness of the survey in its ability to address the hypothesis. The second sent of analyses examines the data and in relation to the hypothesis, Do principal leadership behaviors in high performing schools reflect servant leadership models of leadership? Correlation analyses were conducted, us ing the SPSS sof tware ( Leech, Barrett et. Al., 2005 ) on both the servant and b ureaucratic variables. This analysis revealed the items associated with the servant variables correlations all were greater than p = .750 (see Table 6 below) with the leadership variables. I nterdependent had the most with six of nine correlations above .9 ranging from .909 with Innovation and .939 with Servant. Additionally, the Servant variable had the next greatest number of correlations at .9 or above ranging from Autonomous at .951 to Innovation .907. All of the remaining variables ( Adaptive, Collaboration, Empathy, and Interdependent) had similar high correlations with the exception of Empowerment that had only one correlation at .829 and the rest ranging from .7 5 to .794. The survey overall did serve the purposes of this exploratory st udy particularly when seeking t o understand those principal behaviors associated with servant leadership. The consistency amongst the studied variables is strong given the limited number of participants (105) in this data set. Further application to larger populations in other settings that also demonstrate the high correlation amongst
81 servant variables will further establish the strength of these survey items. Table 6 : SPSS C orr elation A nalysis for Servant L eadership V ariables Servant Empowerment Adaptive Autonomous Collaboration Empathy Innovation Interdependent Servant 1 .795** .867** .951** .920** .926** .907** .939** Empowerment .795** 1 .756** .829** .782** .752** .794** .794** Adaptive .867** .756 1 .874** .881** .839** .873** .910** Autonomous .951** .829** .874** 1 .905** .893** .916** .940** Collaboration .920** .782** .881** .905** 1 .933** .831** .936** Empathy .926** .752** .839** .893** .933** 1 .831** .912** Innovation .907** .794** .873** .916** .831** .831** 1 .909** Interdependent .939** .794** .910** .940** .936** .912** .909** 1 Correlations were not able to be made with the dependent variables in mind. Achievement, Growth, and Growth Gaps correlations with all variables were insignificant with no trends apparent Further, no correlations were found at Sig (2 Tailed) less than or equal to .05 level. Correl ations ranged from .122 for Achievement and Collaboration to .148 for Growth Gaps and the Servant variable. When reviewing the correlations of Achievement with the nine servant variables, while none of the findings significant, five of the nine variables did change to have a slight, although insignificant, negative correlation. While there are no direct conclusions that can be drawn from this given both the limited number of participants it does raise the question as to whether there is any favorable imp act of servant leadership variables on student achievement as measured by TCAP Achievement (all students). The potential less than favorable impact of servant
82 leadership on achievement is also made visible in the graphs in which slopes are either flat, or if certain outliers' were removed, may become negative (these graphs are available below ). Table 7 : SPSS C orrelation A nalyses with B ureaucratic V ariables and TCAP S cores. Bureaucratic Autocratic Coercion Apathy Impersonal Compliance Procedural Predictability Isolated Bureaucratic 1 .813** .483** .806** .752** .543** .810** .823** .881** Autocratic .817** 1 .690** .906** .897** .615** .706** .886** .842** Coercion .483** .690 1 .660** .809** .749** .558** .602** .537** Apathy .806** .906** .660** 1 .912** .639** .727** .896** .860** Impersonal .752** .897** .809** .9 12 ** 1 712 ** 695 ** 858 ** 798 ** Compliance 543 ** 615 ** 749 ** 639 ** 712 ** 1 734 ** .627 ** 620 ** Procedural 810 ** .706 ** 558 ** 727 ** 695 ** 734 ** 1 771 ** 835 ** Predictability 823 ** 886 ** 602 ** 896 ** 858 ** 627 ** 771 ** 1 .865** Isolated .881** .842** .537** .860** .798** .620** .835** .865** 1 The B ur ea ucratic and I solated variables had the largest number of correlations (5 out of 9) at .800 or above. It appears that Coercion with a range of correlations from .537 to.809 and Procedural with a range of .695 to.835 had the next lowest number of correlations below .750. Addit ional analysis of this information will be presented in Chapter 4 in a series of graphs. Correlations were not able to be made with the dependent variables in mind for bureaucratic variables either. Achievement, Growth, and Growth Gaps correlations with all variables were insignificant with no trends apparent. Further, no correlations were found at Sig (2 Tailed) less than or equal to .05 level. Correlations ranged from .125 for Coercion and Growth Gaps to .179 for Growth Gaps and the
83 Bureaucratic vari able. The survey on the whole did serve the purposes of this exploratory study particularly in when seeking to understand those pri ncipal behaviors associated with servant leadership. It appears based upon the consistency in responses that it is also a l eadership style which is pervasive throughout the district given the most response all acknowledge the presence of these behaviors. The bureaucratic items do need more work. Given the less robust correlation figures it is important that some of the ques tions were not as effective given they were targeted at principal behaviors, observations of the organization as a whole, and some items intended to draw out self reflection. I would have anticipated far greater consistency in responses given the bureaucr atic nature of each school was likely influenced by the same set of fa ctors external to that building given all schools were located in the same district. As stated in Chapter III, the demographic information provided little insight into the survey's results beyond the overall trend that 87% of respondents had six or more years of experience and 71% of respondents were female. That is, neither overall experience nor gender explained any of the achievement or other results better than leadership or it s variants. District level data was not available for comparison analysis regarding length of experience in the district or years of total experience in education. However, from the Colorado Department of Education website (2013) demographic, ethnicity, and gender information of staff was available. The overall gender distribution of participants in this study closely reflects proportions district wide. Of the 1,194 teachers in this district 74% are female and 26% male compared to study participants of 71% female and 29% male. Correlation analyses did not link these demographics to
84 student achievement or indicate any trends associated with preferences in leadership style. Table 8 illustrates the SPSS correlations for the bureaucratic variables. Analysis of the correlations with the bureaucratic items revealed mixed results. While several of the correlations were at the p =.750 level or higher, as many correlations only ac hieved a p value of .483 or higher. Only A utonomous and A pathy and A pathy and I mpersonal demonstrated correlations above .900. Table 8 below provides a summary of mean scores for each of the eighteen variables presented (9 for Servant, 9 for Bureaucrat ic ) in rank order. Those variables that were reported to occur most frequently came at the top and so on so forth until the last mean variable score is presented at the bottom. The frequency analysis below provides an opportunity to begin my discussion o f the results immediately following the tables. Table 8 : Servant and Bureaucratic Variables and Means Servant Variable s Mean Bureaucratic Variables Mean Empathy 2.83 Coercion 2.37 Authentic 2.79 Impersonal 2.35 Autonomous 2.69 Compliance 2.10 Servant 2.68 Autocratic 1.98 Adaptive 2.61 Apathy 1.95 Interdependent 2.51 Predictability 1.76 Collaboration 2.45 Isolated 1.76 Innovation 2.31 Procedural 1.70 Empowerment 1.26 Bureaucratic 1.53 Note: Response scale: 0 = n o r esponse; 1 = never; 2 = o ccasionally; 3 = o ften 3; 4 = a lways
85 E mpathy is the most commonly identified trait by all respondents. A leader's ability to demonstrate E mpathy is described as a critical component of servant leaders throughout Chapter II. The survey items solicited responses regarding how faculty perceive their principal cares about their well being and whether the principal listens to the needs of staff. O ver all, the data indicates these are frequently observed principal behaviors by staff; however, given the magnitude of these means, the analysis provides only a snap s hot of principal behaviors that on the whole appear servant like. More analysis is needed t o further understand the extent and significance of these means. Empathy is a key indicator of servant leadership in that Empathy gets at the willingness of others to serve both colleagues and building leadership. In the servant leadership model, leaders hip's capacity to infuse a shared responsibility in achievement of the mission among all employees is a guiding principle. Further, Empathy as the most commonly reported variable (among both servant and bureaucratic variables) illustrates the value teache rs place on this characteristic. Examples of survey items for this variable are My principal cares about my wel l being ", and My principal listens to the needs of his/her teachers ." The empathic capacity of educators appears to be an easily identifiable trait and likely value of those who chose to work in the field of education. The second most commonly reported servant trait was Authentic (2.79). My principal demonstrates his/her first priority is the success of our schoo l", and As a teacher in this school, I act as a supportive team player are exa mple survey items for this variable. Greenleaf (1970) spoke of this trait as the ability of leaders to separate themselves from their drive to achieve their professional aspirations and instead genuinely lead as organizational servants. The ordinary nature (Collins, 2001) of leaders
86 in these schools, that is those who are less ego driven, is an important indicator of a servant leadership trend amongst the group of principals in this study. Acting as a su pportive team player, the celebration of achievements, and the principal's priority being the success of the school were all survey items that captured this staff experience of their principal acting in an authentic manner. Among the servant variables, A utonomous (2.69) was the third most commonly reported variable. Example survey items for this variable are In my school, we are trusted to make decisions in the best interest of our students and My principal is the only decision make r in this school I t is important to provide clarity around this variable as the first impression of the word does not reflect the intended use in this study. Autonomous in this context reflects the transformative capacities of teachers and their ability to share goals and responsibilities in support of the mission of their school. Thus, a collective effort emerges to organically solve those challenges which staff face, knowing they are encouraged by their leader to engage in such work. Teachers in these schools are free t o solve challenges they encounter in their work and are less r eliant on seeking permission fro m a superior. It is difficult to discern why Empowerment scored as the least observed trait amongst building leaders, especially given the frequency with which re spondents cited the Autonomous variable discussed in the preceding paragraph. Empowerment survey items sought teacher responses on the frequency principals encourage their staff to contribute to the organization and how often staff have led a professional development activity or building committee. Specific survey examples for this variable are My principal encourages me to contribute to the good of the organization and In my
87 school, others make decisions that negatively affect my student ." Additiona lly, responses addressed how staff felt others made decisions for them in the classroom and therefore potentially eroded their instructional authority. External mandates and district organizational pressures that serve as the locus of authority on key ins tructional issues may be a significant compounding factor in this variable. Further, these external forces may serve as an impediment for the principal and teacher relationship in their attempts to negotiate freely. The most common ly reported Bureaucrat ic principal behavior was Coercion ( 2.37), closely followed by Impersonal ( 2.35). Coercion in Chapter 2 is described as forces used in organizations to establish control and ensure predictable behaviors. Items such as my principal works to build trust and my principal enforces her/his expectations were used to solicit this information. Almost as frequently as Coercion, Impersonal ( 2.35) behaviors are reported to occur in these buildings. In my school, we can share with our principal what we beli eve is working or needs to be fixed ," or I am reluctant to ask questions during faculty meetings ." The frequency of Impersonal may have much to do with the size and complexity of these organizations. Throughout Chapter 2, the discussions about schools a s bureaucracies coercive and impersonal were key descriptors of such organizations so their frequency in the data was not a surprise. It is likely that all organizations with groups of adults attempting to collaborate and accomplish complex goals will hav e these elements present. The question is, what can mitigate these natural tendencies, and to what extent does that reduction positively impact student achievement?
88 Additionally, Compliance ( 2.10) behaviors, while less frequent than the other Bureaucrati c behaviors, appeared to have a somewhat frequent place in the daily experience of respondents. The reporting of Compliance as a one of the top three behaviors observed of both the principal (i.e., My principal asks others to follow standard rules and re gulations ") and the organization (" In my school, rules take a priority in decision making ") does indicate a trend towards keeping the school "tightly" managed and maintaining the status quo. Compliance however, does stand in direct opposition to innovati on. Regulations, policies, and uniformity are hallmark characteristics of schools as bureaucracies. More information is needed on what specific principal Compliance behaviors are staff characterized of their principal. I am curious know whether these be haviors are specific to the principal or the overall organizational climate. Finally, Bureaucratic ( 1.53) was reported as the least common Bureaucratic variable amongst staff. This variable was intended to explore the hierarchical structures of the organization and efforts to exert control of the organization. Survey items inquired about the frequency of lunch duty, teaching to the state test, and the use of assessments to gauge student performance. On my first impression of these data it appears that principals and faculty have successfully navigated the operation of their schools as a colla borative endeavor such that the r e is a sense of shared ownersh ip of what needs to be done. Additionally, the use of assessments may in fact represent a purposeful use of data to gauge the effectiveness of instruction. Table 9 below provides a summary of mean leadership scores, TCAP scores, and FRL status for each of the twelve participating schools. This table provides an important
89 reference before I begin discussion of any potential relationship between leadership and achievement. Some highlights from Table 9 extend the discussion of descriptive statistics for v ariables to the school level. School E has both the highest servant leadership score (3.4) and the second highest Growth Gap score of 76.7. School B was the only school with a 1.0 combined leadership score, a score in the bureaucratic category, and test scores in the middle (75 for Growth) or lower category (56.7 for Growth Gaps) for all areas. Analysis of the means for the servant and bureaucratic variables indicates that trends cannot be predicted by either school size or a school's free and reduce d lunch status. The highest average servant leadership score for a school is 3.44 at School E with an enrollment over 600 and 1 2% FRL population (see Table 9 below .) The lowest servant leadership score is 2.07 at School H with an enrollment of 600. Attemp ting to p redict either the frequency of b ureaucratic or servant leadership behaviors as result of enrollment size (both staff size and student population) proved unsuccessful. Table 9 : Summary of S chools, L eadership and TCAP S cores Item A B C D E F G H J K L M AVG Servant Leadership #*, &*! #*$ #*# )*( #*& #*. #*& #*# #*. #*& )*# #*($ Bureaucratic Leadership &*. #*! &*+ &*, #*( &*% #*# &*( #*! #*! &*% #*% #*!$ Combine d Leadership !*,$ &*! !*% !*,# &*! !*( !*%) !*,( !*) !*.# !*(# !*$& *(. Achieve .. %$ .. .. +%*$ %$ %! ,#*$ %$ ,+*+ %$ %&*. %.*+& Growth $$ ,,*% ++*) %$ +)*) ,,*% (&*% %$ ,(*) %&*( ,,*% ,#*$ ,+*!$ Growth Gap $)*, $,*% +$*( ,#*$ %,*% $$ )%*$ %"$ $&*% ,! $)*) ,! ,!*,# FRL ." ," $" &&" " &+" &%" (%" )," ))" #." #(" &.*.#"
90 Additionally, when examining the larger high schools such as School A (servant leadership score of 2.57 and bureaucratic score of 1.92) and School B, with the next highest enrollment of 1,506 students, the smaller school (School B) has a lower servant leadership score of 1.04 than School A, and a higher b ureaucratic score of 2.09 (School A = 1.92). Interesting, it is onl y School B that demonstrated a combined leadership score that was more bureaucratic than servant like at 1.05. The range of leadership styles and student populations indicates the choice of leadership behavior is more likely driven by the overt or defaul t leadership style of the principal than environmental factors associated with organizational size. Additionally, the frequency of servant and b ureaucratic behaviors was not predictive of FRL percentages; that is, the rank order of the schools and the level of F R L do not correspond. The two schools with the highest FRL rates, School H (47%) and School J (36%) both scored in the middle range of servant scores (2.07, 2.24) and Bureaucratic ( 1.53, 1.94) behaviors respectively in this data set. Those schools with the lowest FRL populations demonstrated vastly different servant and manger scores: School C with 5% FRL had a servant leadership score of 2.53 and a manger score of 1.83 while School B with 6% FRL had a servant leadership score of 1. 04 and a manger score of 2.09. It appears in this data set FRL population does not correspond to the type of leadership found in these buildings. Presentation of the Results The following series of eight tables and graphs illustrate the relationship be tween leadership behaviors and student perf ormance. These data provide the visual representation of leadership and achievement (Figure 1) discussed in Chapter 1 In each
91 of the graphs, a trend line is calculated to determine the line of best fit based up on an Excel calculation of the data points (slopes y = mx + b). A trend line is associated with a data series and represents a forecast of future data based up on the slope of the existing data if the trend was expanded to a larger population (which is usu ally the case when projecting from a sample to its probably population) The tend line serves as the best possible tool to maximize the limited results of the survey given the smaller t han anticipated N. In Figures 2 8 survey results for leadership and test scores are presented for each of the participating schools. The size of each of the data plots (circles) represents the percent of the total stu dent population which is Free and Reduced L unch (FRL) t he larger the bubble the more FRL students. In Fi gure 2 the initial trend line appears to move in a negative direction those schools that demonstrated higher student growth (y axis) reflected a lower servant leadership score (x axis). Table 10: Servant Leadership, TCAP Growth, and FRL /01223 /456789" : ;52<91 =>: ? #*, $$ ." @ & ,,*% ," A #*$ ++*) $" B #*# %$ &&" C )*( +)*) " = #*& ,,*% &+" ; #*. (&*% &%" D #*& %$ (%" E #*# ,(*) )," F #*. %&*( ))" : #*& ,,*% #." G )*# ,#*$ #(" Ta ble 10 above and Figure 2 present analysis for schools based upon their servant leadership score an d TCAP Growth Score. Figure 2 shows that for all 12 schools their
92 servant leadership score remains to the right of 1.75 on the servant pole. All respondents reported their principals demon strates servant like behaviors. Nine of the ten schools Figure 2 Servant leadership, growth & FRL also demonstrated their TCAP Growth is greater than the state average (50 or more on the y axis). This is an important factor in these data in that student growth, the measure of how much each student in each school grew from one yea r compared to other like students in the state, is not a static measure. Rather, it is intended to measure the value added by each school's academic program compared to o ther schools across the state. School G is the exception. The reason for this lower than average score may be the result of a combination of multitude factors such as leadership style, adherence to c urriculum standards, and commitm ent of the community to a state test for example ?" @" A" B" C" =" ;" D" @HEI:" F" G" !" &!" #!" )!" (!" $!" ,!" %!" +!" .!" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" 345+** *6%,78'* !"#$"%&'()* /"%9#.8*!"#$"%&'():*6%,78'*;*<=!*
93 Figure 3 Servant l eadership, g rowth & FRL ( s chool G removed) As a community school, designed to be a choice school differentiated from the district's more traditional schools, this school provides an environment that is inte nded to counter the traditional compr ehensive high school experience High academic performance on state tests is reportedly not a priority for the community. The graph in Figure 2 is presented again in Figure 3 with School G removed. With School G removed, it is apparent that a positive slope towards higher achievement now correlates with those principals who demonstrate servant leadership characteristics. Additionally, it appears that no predictable pattern with servant leadership, g rowth, and FRL status exists. Only those schools with a larger FRL status remain more closely a ssociated with the trend line. This may indicate stronger alignment ?" @" A" B" C" =" E" D" F" G" !" &!" #!" )!" (!" $!" ,!" %!" +!" .!" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" 345+** *6%,78'* !"#$"%&'()* /"%9#.8*!"#$"%&'():*6%,78'*#.$*<=!* >/0',,-*6*%"2,9"$?*
94 servant leadership behaviors and student growth in schools with larger FRL populations (in this data set 18%, 33%, and 36% FRL populations remain close to the trend line). In the next table and graph, Table 11 and Figure 4 the same information is presented as the prior graph (servant leadership score and FRL); however, in this scenario the data points are correlated with a school's Growth Gap score. Clearly, as in Figure 2 School G appears as a significant outlier. As stated previously, Growth Gap scores Table 11: Servant Leadership, Growth Gaps and FRL /01223 /456789": ;52<91";7JK =>: ? #*, $)*, ." @ & $,*% ," A #*$ +$*( $" B #*# ,#*$ &&" C )*( %,*% " = #*& $$ &+" ; #*. )%*$ &%" D #*& %$ (%" E #*# $&*% )," F #*. ,! ))" : #*& $)*) #." G )*# ,! #(" represent a school's ability to increase student achievement, compared to like groups across the state, from year to year for identified student populations. While the information appears to be somewhat less predictive of servant leadership and growth gaps scores nonetheless the trend line is still similar School H, with 47% FRL population, in this case represents an interesting outlier with a much better than average rate of closing Growth Gaps than most schools. It is possible that these high Growth Gaps scores represent successful implementation of special programming such as AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) combined with a leadership style that is characterized as servant like.
95 Figure 4 Servant l eadership, g rowth g aps & FRL Additionally, the work of leading in an AVID school, per various site improvement plans and trainings, requires a close partnership among faculty and building leadership. There is the possibility of reinforcement among servant leadership styles, which are complimentary of expectations established by AVID. Below is the last table and graph f or Servant Leadership, Table 12 and Figure 5 which present Servant Leadership with A chievement scores In this graph the trends seem to hold in general, with a positive slop to the righ t, however it appears that more variance exists in the plots. The majority of schools with FRL populations above 15% appear below the line. In this graph, Servant Leadership is plotted with Achievement scores; all students in each school as measured agai nst the state TCAP mean. ?" @" A" B" C" =" ;" D" @HEI:" F" G" !" &!" #!" )!" (!" $!" ,!" %!" +!" .!" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" 345+*** 6%,78'*6#)&* !"#$"%&'()* /"%9#.8*!"#$"%&'():*6%,78'*6#)&:*#.$*<=!*
96 Table 12: Servan t Leadership, Achievement and FRL /01223 /456789": ?01L464M489 =>: ? #*, .. ." @ & %$ ," A #*$ .. $" B #*# .. &&" C )*( +%*( " = #*& %$ &+" ; #*. %! &%" D #*& ,#*$ (%" E #*# %$ )," F #*. ,+*+ ))" : #*& %$ #." G )*# %&*. #(" Additionally, greater variability in the results appears and no plots actually fall on the trend line. Therefore, these results should be considered with caution. There is more variability in these results than in the pr eceding graphs when plotting achievement. Figure 5 Servant l eadership, a chievement & FRL ?" @" A" B" C" =" ;" D" @HEI:" F" G" !" &!" #!" )!" (!" $!" ,!" %!" +!" .!" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" 345+*** 50'("9"2".8* !"#$"%&'()* /"%9#.8*!"#$"%&'():*50'("9"2".8*#.$*<=!*
97 Table 13 and Figure 6 below represent a measure of each school's Bureaucratic Leadership, TCAP Growth and FRL populations. The trend line in this case repeats the positive association with servant like leadership behaviors associated with higher student performance. Those schools with a FRL lunch population tend to remain more tightly Table 13: Bureaucratic Leadership, Growth and FRL /01223 @N547N0579L0 : ;52<91 =>: ? &*. $$ ." @ # ,,*% ," A &*+ ++*) $" B &*, %$ &&" C #*( +)*) " = &*% ,,*% &+" ; #*# (&*% &%" D &*( %$ (%" E # ,(*) )," F # %&*( ))" : &*% ,,*% #." G #*% ,#*$ #(" associated with the trend line with School G serving as the outlier below the state mean of student growth as it has in the previous graphs. On the whole, the information in this graph appears to show, from a low of just above 43 as a mean TCAP score to a high Grow th score just over 80, the potential negative weight bureaucratic leadership behaviors may have on student achievement. Additionally, for those eight scores which are plotted directed on the trend line the slope towards higher student achievement with le ss frequency of reported bureaucratic leadership behaviors is evident. Table 14 and Figure 7 below presents the same Bureaucratic Leadership style plotted with student Growth Gaps. The range of both Growth Gap scores and Bureaucratic leadership behavio rs in this case appears to be more expansive and less predictive than in other models.
9 8 Figure 6 Bureaucratic le adership, g rowth & FRL Further, this analysis presents an interesting question regarding what appears to be the largest range of reported bureaucratic behaviors of all the graphs The majority of leadership scores cluster from 3.0 to 1.0. This range of bureaucratic scores illustrates a Table 14: Bureaucratic Leadership, Growth Gaps and FRL /01223 @N547N0579L0 : ;52<91";7JK =>: ? &*. $) *, ." @ # $,*% ," A &*+ +$*( $" B &*, ,#*$ &&" C #*( %,*% " = &*% $$ &+" ; #*# )%*$ &%" D &*( %$ (%" E # $&*% )," F # ,! ))" : &*% $)*) #." G #*% ,! #(" ?" A" B" C" =" ;" D" @HEI:" F" G" !" &!" #!" )!" (!" $!" ,!" %!" +!" .!" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" 345+*** 6%,78'* !"#$"%&'()* @A%"#A0%#B0*!"#$"%&'():*6%,78'*#.$*<=!*
99 wide spectrum of leadership styles with an even less predictive association with student success. Bureaucratic scores reflect both aspects of the principal's leadership behavior, but also the general climate of the organization as a whole. Therefore, the rea der must take into consideration that bureaucratic scores represent both organizational (district) and leadership (principal) values of the organization. Figure 7 Bureaucratic l eadership, g rowth g a ps & FRL In Tables 15 and Figure 8 below bureaucratic l eadership and Achievement (overall performance of all students) demonstrates the same patter n that was evident in the servant leadership and achievement graph above. Schools do not plot closely with the trend line and those FRL school s are all below the trend line. Therefore, the line is relatively flat when compared to graphs which plot leadership with Growth or Growth ?" A" B" C" =" ;" D" @HEI:" F" G" !" &!" #!" )!" (!" $!" ,!" %!" +!" .!" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" 345+*** 6%,78'*6#)&* !"#$"%&'()* @A%"#A0%#B0*!"#$"%&'():*6%,78'*6#)&*#.$*<=!*
100 Gaps. However, this is one of the clearest distinctions amongst all of the graphs regarding the relationship of Ach ievement and Leadership. Table 15: Bureaucratic Leadership, Achievement and FRL /01223 @N547N0579L0": ?01L464M489 =>: ? &*. .. ." @ # %$ ," A &*+ .. $" B &*, .. &&" C #*( +%*( " = &*% %$ &+" ; #*# %! &%" D &*( ,#*$ (%" E # %$ )," F # ,+*+ ))" : &*% %$ #." G #*% %&*. #(" This graph, more than all others, demonstrates the achievement gap that exists in these schools and the strong relationship between Achievement and FRL status. Figure 8 Bureaucratic l eadership, a chievement & FRL ?" A" B" C" =" ;" D" @HEI:" F" G" !" &!" #!" )!" (!" $!" ,!" %!" +!" .!" &!!" '(" ')*$" ')" '#*$" '#" '&*$" '&" '!*$" !" !*$" &" &*$" #" #*$" )" )*$" (" 345+*** 50'("9"2".8* *!"#$"%&'()* @A%"#0%#B0*!"#$"%&'():*50'("9"2".8:*#.$*<=!*
101 Summary Chapter IV reviewed the data generated from both the survey and analysis of TCAP scores. The following findings were apparent in the data. The correlation analysis showed that the servant items have strong correlations with the bureaucratic items less so. Additionally, correlations were not found with either the servant or bureaucratic variables or the Achievement, Growth, or Growth Gap scores. In the presentation of results, the graphed leadership style on the cont inuum and te st scores revealed higher Growth and Growth Gaps scores with increased reported frequency of servant leadership behaviors. Additionally lower reported bureaucratic behaviors also revealed the same trend but with more fluctuation in test results. In all of the f igures the less frequent principal behaviors appear to be bureaucratic (with a b ureaucratic score trending towards 0 or neutral to the right) the more likely student Growth will be higher. The trends for all graphs shows regardless of th e demographics the more servant like the leader and organizational beha viors, the more likely higher student achievement is found
102 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS This exploratory study examined leadership characteristics found in high performing schools and tested the hypothesis -Do principal leadership behaviors in high performing schools reflect servant leadership models of leadership? My interest in this topic stems from both my professional experiences as a high school administrat or for the past thirteen years and my desire to extend my studies of leadership into my professional experiences. Additionally, with the extension of bureaucratic efforts to control inputs and outputs of the learning e nvironment could there be the potentia l of a reduction in student achievement for some or all groups? Therefore, I also wanted to answer the question do leadership styles which mitigate bureaucratic influences on the school organization correlate with a positive influence on individual (teach er) and group performance (students)? Thus the significance of this study is twofold in that the application of the findings to contemporary issues about student performance are central in developing a broader conceptual understanding of the principalship and the experience of teachers as well. More importantly, as a high school principal I want to better understand my environment and expand my tool kit so I can better support students and teachers grow. My focus on the Colorado Growth Model as an outcome measure to correlate leadership with student achievement was intended to provide an avenue to move my research away from the challenges associated with examining student achievement across such divergent communities. Examining student progre ss on state standards from ye ar to yea r with ot her like students in the state appealed to me as the most rationale means to understand any potential relationship with leadership and student achievement.
103 Demographics Analysis As stated in Chapter III, the demographic information of respondents provided little insight into the survey's results beyond the overall trend that 87% of respondents had six or more years of experience and 71% of respon dents were female. Some of the consistency in the responses is l ikely the result of the homogenous nature of the participants. However, I am uncertain to what extent the majority female and veteran responses influence the outcom e of this exploratory work. On the school level demographic information, given the small N of 105 in this study, also proved to provide little insight into the outcomes. There is a pattern of overall high achievement in this district given all schools, with the exception of School G, are exceeding the state averages in all three test areas ( achieveme nt, growth, and growth gaps). In Chapter IV two trends became apparent: those schools with larger FRL populations tended to hold to the trend line on all graphs for Growth and Growth Gaps. However, when the same information was applied to Achie vement the model quickly fall apart and reverted back to achievement gaps that were predictable by FRL (see Figures 2 8). The only difference in the se graphs is the testing cohort and therefore more research is needed to understand why, when extended to t he entire school population, the relationship if any between servant leadership and student achievement weakens Finally, the range of school enrollme nts from a low of 337 students to a high of 1,902 reflects the diversity of the schools. I was surpris ed there was not a clearer relationship between school size and leadership in these buildings. Additionally, there was no predictable pattern with student achievement and enrollment. The second highest performing School A with 1,902 students 99% Achievem ent follows School C with 537
104 students, and School D with 645 students both with 99% Achievement. However, there is a greater variance in their Growth scores as School A with 55% growth and Schools C and D with 88.3 and 75 respectively. Upon review of tw elve schools test ed performance, it appears the larger schools outperform smaller schools. More investigation would be needed to understand this trend and its associated influences. Variable Analysis Participant reports of all eighteen variables examin ed in this study the top seven are servant leadership behaviors Empathy (2.828) Authentic (2.79) Autonomous (2.686) Servant (2.676) Adaptive (2.614), Interdependent (2.51), and Collaboration (2.45) before the first bureaucratic variable Coercion ( 2.37). This trend towards a servant leadership style, across schools of varying demographics, among the twelve principals in this district is revealing. Either knowingly or unknowingly this school district strives to hire and support those leaders with a servant leadership orientation. Because this study was only a snapshot in time at twelve schools in one district it is difficult to extrapolate the results to other systems. I am pleased to find the results of an overall preference for servant leaders hip styles in these buildings combined with higher then typical test scores. Empathy is the most commonly identified trait by all respondents and is a key indicator of servant leadership in that Empathy gets at the willingness of others to serve both colle agues and building leadership. The second most commonly reported servant trait was Authentic (2.79). Greenleaf (1970) and Collins (2001) both explore the success of leaders as those who do not need to be the center of the organizations focus. Rather, su ccessful leaders over the long term contribute to the organizational success by working behind the scenes and establishing a foundation for the success of their e mployees to
105 excel. The higher than average report from participants in this study of Empathy and Authentic helps define the overall leadership style in this district as trending towards servant leadership. Additionally, th e research does show those schools with lower bureaucratic scores as whole trend to have more positive achievement results fo r students for Growth and Growth Gaps. For example, across all schools the Isolated variable was 1.759 (the second lowest) and across all schools Interdependent was reported to be present on a frequent basis (2.5095). It does appear at least in these sc hools that teachers both perceived reliance on team members and an overall sense of engagement with others am ong their colleagues, which may indicate less reliance on formal structures. As previously mentioned in Chapters III and IV the lack of reported sense of Empowerment (1.26) among participants was intriguing as this variable is an important indicator of the presence of servant leadership. Interestingly the third highest reported bu reaucratic variable among principal behaviors was Compliance ( 2.05 ). Given the small N the challenge in this data is to determine to what extent the reported perception of a culture of Compliance and Coercion can be attributed to the principal or to exte rnal district or state mandates and therefore play a significant role in the lower Empowerment score In Chapter I, the principal as h ero concept (Mulford, 2008) was explored. Interestingly, in the lower middle of bureaucratic results it was reported that principals behave in an Autocratic ( 1.97) manner. Conversely, the importance of sharing leadership (Lambert, 2003 ) is a prominent value among servant variables ( Interdependent 2.509 and Adaptive, 2.61). However, the low score of Empowerment
106 (1.264) is confounding. The examination of these results reveals a possible paradigm shift For example, some of these schools are in their first four years of implementing the PLC (Professional Learning Communities) model. More examination, possibly through inter views, would be helpful to better understand these mix results along with a closer examination of the impetus behind efforts for school improvement and whether it is a shared endeavor of the entire faculty or that of smaller sub group. Overall, given the o verall combined mean for Servant Leadership is 2.41 and for the Bureaucratic variables 1.93 it is important to very cautious about the interpretation of these variables. Only one school, School E had a servant leadersh ip score of 3.44 Given the consist ent overall nature of the results it is important to recognize that these results raise more questions than they answer and it appears that servant leaderships only mitigates the traditional bureaucratic factors of school rather than eliminate them or answ er more substantial claims about leadership and achievement. Another words, it is appears from the data that what has been successful in these schools is a combin ation of both leadership forces: that of bureaucratic and that of servant that contributes to student success. Survey Effectiveness Overall, the correlation analysis rev ealed the survey was rather rob ust for the servant variables and more mixed for the manger items. As previ ously mentioned, the servant variables correlations all were greater than p =.750 (see Appendix C ) with the leadership variables. Analysis of the correlations with the bureaucratic items revealed mixed results wi th several of the correlations at the p =.750 level or higher but as many correlations only achieve at the p value o f .483 or higher. Only Autonomous, Apathy and
107 Impersonal demonstr ated correlations above .900. Therefore, the reader must take into consideration that bureaucratic scores represent both organizational and leadership values of the organization. Additiona lly, there is a strong likelihood that those elements of the organization that a teacher may perceive to be bureaucratic like may not be associated with the principal but rather district or state mandates. The survey is a viable tool to measure servant leadership behaviors in schools. Likely, the items associated with bureaucratic items need to be made more explicit so that their is an equal dispersion of questions which seek responses on principal behavior the survey participant as a member of a team, and then larger organizational questions designed to elucidate feedback on the bureaucratic nature of the organization. Unfortunately, in my attempt to be efficient with survey items it appears the mixture o f the item questions from self, to principal, to the school at large likely contributed to the lack of stability of the bureaucratic variables in the end analysis. Leadership and Achievement It is clear that on the whole the participating schools in thi s study have higher than typical achievement for their students. More variance is evident in each school's ability to close gaps and catch students up who have fallen behind. Nine of the ten schools demonstrate their TCAP Growth is greater than the state average (50 or more on the y axis). Certainly there are a multitude of factors that are contributing to the overall success of these schools. While there is little success in predicting the relationship between servant leadership and all students achie vement their does appear to be a relationship with servant leadership and a school's success on Growth and Growth Gap TCAP scores. In all graphs which plot a schools Growth or Growth Gap scores those
108 with higher servant leadership scores tend to outperfo rm their peers with less reliance on servant l eadership princip l e s. Slight differences in servant leadership appear to account for significant increases in student achievement. Limitations The limitations of the study acknowledge the challenges of measuri ng complex human variables in dynamic settings The impact of situational elements on any research outcom es inherently moderate findings In this study there are several issues that limit the impact of these findings to a broader context. O ne of the dis advantages of the survey with closed questions was the inability of the respond ents to explain fully the rationale for their response Respondents may have elected to choose the easiest most socially acceptable response as a way to get the survey done. W hile the survey process is efficient it limits adequate depth to fully explain the findings and therefore much is left to interpretation. Thus, more complex in depth analysis is limited. This is likely due to the manner in which items were designed. Spec ifically, those items in category D of the survey which required participants to respond to questions via a self report of their own behavior may have been better served with a qualitative approach. Further, these items were also designed for reports rega rding the leadership environment and the organization as whole. Higher correlation rates may have been found had the design of the survey remain focused on the principalship rather than self reports and reports of behaviors of the group as a whole. The lack of consistency in the correlations of the burea u cratic variables could be due to the nature of these items which primarily sought information related to the work environment and organization. The expansive nature of the questions may have proved challenging for respondents as it
109 related to the assessment of the organization rather than one person. Additionally, some of these items required an element of self refl ection and therefore sought to elicit responses specific to the individual responden t. This change in focus, from one person, to a larger focus on either the whole organization or self reflection likely resulted in the mixed p values. Additionally, external influences regarding the level of bureaucracy in the organization likely had roo ts outside of the principal's ability to mitigate these factors. It was acknowledge d in Chapter III the convenience sampling was the method to determine the unit of analysis. Be cause this survey was only completed in one district there is no opportunity to compare school level data on a district level. Fu r ther, those schools that did participate elected to opt into the study based upon their review of the survey questions again half of middle and high school principal opted out of the study once they reviewed the survey. Therefore, it is possible that those schools which di d participate in the study did so becau s e there was already a high comfort with servant leadership in those buildings and possibly introduced bias into these results Most importan tly, because schools were able to opt into the study in one of the three districts contacted the small number of participants limited the opportunity to run more sophisticated analysis. This study is also limited by both the limited duration of time and the small number of participants. Future research should look at these results over time to determine if both the trend to servant leadership and favorable student achievement res ults holds from year to year. The limited nature and duration of this study limit larger
110 implications beyond suggestive as a favorable trend among servant leadership characteristics and student performance is just that: a favorable trend. Fu ture R esearch This study does not examine whether principals were intentional in their implementation of servant leadership values. It appears the data does indicate a f avorable influence on student achievement in high performing schools when leadership refle cts servan t leadership values Further, research could examine through interviews school performance and leadership results with background regarding the training and professional experiences of these leaders. Richer data to analyze the hypothesis -Do principal le adership behaviors in high performing schools reflect servant leadership models of leadership? -may have been generated if there were more participants especially outside of this one school district so that a more careful analysis of any potential relation ship among leadership style and school performance could be completed. Also, more in depth qualitative data would have been helpful in understanding what respondents proved to be valuable leadership behaviors beyond the survey results and do these beliefs structures change over time and to what extent do more senior faculty st ill crave bureaucratic behaviors. T hese results are limited by the small sample size and ability of a survey to glean this information but also from the mental models associated with leadership. Is servant leadership a pre existing preference of staff in these buildings and how does servant leadership complement existing building cultures? A follow up survey would be to explore to what extent do teachers understanding of
111 leadership s tructures i nfluence the type of leadership that is determi ned to be of success in schools Finally, the incorporation of a student perspective and their preferences and experiences as it relates to their perceptions of leadership in schools, particularly at the secondary level, could expand the understanding of how the servant leadership st yles impacts their view of the learning environment. Additionally, knowing those behaviors that respondents deemed as Coercive and learning more about their roots could help understand whether these behaviors have roots at the district or state level. Also, given the demographic information of the participant set does indicate a trend towards a more veteran staff further analysis regarding their length of service and t he length of service of the principal would help illustrate whether the servant leadership behaviors are systemic to the district and therefore have origins beyond the principal's office. The larger schools as defined by enrollment (600 or above) appear t o exhibit a gr e ater frequency of servant principal behaviors. Additionally, an understanding of where principals in this district received their training would be valuable If so, further conversation with affiliated principal prep programs could be adva ntageous to supporting long term growth and development of future successful leaders. Summar y While quantifying leadership and its impact on organizationa l effectiveness is challenging this study does elicit a possible relationship with a specific leadership type and increased student performance that could be worthy of more study Clearly, further research is needed to truly understand the relationship between leadership and student achievement. In the face of consistent and unpredictable external change returning
112 public schools to their bureaucratic roots will likely not result in the transformative change in the educational experience students need today Further, alternative leadership paradigms such as servant leadership need to be explore d a s opportunities to better support principals, staff, and students ac hieve their educational goals. Overall, this study has produced a survey with a promising design for the servant variables. Servant Leadership does appear to hold some promise in closing gaps and pr omoting student growth. In summary, the survey was particularly effective with analysis of the principalship as it relates to the demonstration of servant leader behaviors in the organization and less so when it sought answers to larger questi ons regarding the nature of bureaucracy in schools.
113 R EFERENCES Argyris, C. ( 1957 ) Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the Individual New York NY : Harper. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization New York, NY: Wiley. Arlestig, H. (2007). Principals' communication inside schools: A contribution to school improvement. Education Forum 71 (2), 262 272. Avery, G. C. (2004) Understanding leadership: Paradigms and cases. London England : Sage Publications Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. Hunt, B. Bagl ia, H. Dachler & C. Schreischiem (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29 50). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Bain, A. (2007). The self organizing school: Next generation comprehensive school reforms. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Baker, R., & Dellar, G. (1999). If it's not one thing it's another: Issues of concern to school principals. International Studies in Educational Administration 27 (2), 12 21. Bandura, A. (1983). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Ed ucational Psychologists, 28 (2), 117 148. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York NY : Free Press.
114 Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives of charismatic leadership. In J. Conger & R. Kanungo (E ds. ), Charismatic leade rship: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 56 84). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bass, B. M. (2000). The fut ure of leadership in learning organizations Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7 (3), 18 40. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, & general satisfaction relate to ratings & ra nkings of transformational & transactional leadership constructs. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 49 509 527. Beachum, F., & Dentith, A. (2004). Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. Educational Forum 68 (3), 276 286. Beare, H. (2007). Four decades of body surfing the breakers of school reform: Just waving, not drowning. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 27 40). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Belenky, M. F ., Bond, L. A., & Weinstock, J. S. (1997). A tradition that has no name. New York NY : Basic Books. Bennett, N., Wise, C., & Woods, P. (2003). Distributed leadership. Nottingham, England: National College for School Leadership. Bensimon, E., & Neumann A. (1993) Redesigning collegiate leadership. Baltimore, MD: John s Hopkins University Press.
115 Bensimon, E., & Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989) Making s ense of a dministrative l eadership: The L' word in higher education. Washington, DC: George Washington Uni versity Press. Binning, J. F., Zaba, A. J., & Whattam, J. C. (1986). Explaining the biasing effects of performance cues in terms of cognitive categorization. The Academy of Management Journal, 29 (3) 521 535. Bishop, P., & Mulford, B. (1999). When will the y ever learn? Another failure of centrally imposed change. School Leadership and Management, 19 (2), 179 87. Black, G. L. (2010). Correlational a nalysis of s ervant l eadership and s chool c limate Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practic e 13 (4), 437 466. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Bureaucratic grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. Blanchard, K. H. (1985). SLII: A situational approach to managing people. Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development. Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of ef fective school based leadership: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly 29 (2), 142 163. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999 a ). Effective instructional leadership: Teacher perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 130 141. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999 b ). Principals' instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers' perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (3), 349 378.
116 Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Implementation of shared governance for instructional improvement: Principals' perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration 3 7 (5), 476 500. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3 rd ed.). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Bruml e y C. (2012) Leadership Standards in Action: The school principal as servant leader. Boulder, Co: Rowman and Littlefield Education Brunner, R. (2009, October). Adaptive g overnance as a r eform s trategy. Paper presented at the 28 th Policy Sciences Annual Institute, Boulder, C O Bryk, A.S. & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: a core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6) Bryman, A. E. (1992) Charisma & l eadership in o rganizations. London England : Sage Publications Burns J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York NY : Harper & Row. Burns, N. & Grove, S.K. (1997). The Practice of Nursing Research Conduct, Critique, and Utilization. W.B. Saunders and Co.: Philadelphia. Chubb J. E., & Moe, T. M. ( 1990) Politics, markets, and American's schools Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institute. Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leaders hip e thics: Mapping the territory Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (1) 5 28. Ciulla, J. B. (2005). The state of leadership ethics and the work that lies before us. Business Ethics: A European Review 14 (4), 323 335.
117 Clarke, M. A. (2003). A place to stand: Essays for educators in troubled times. Ann Arbor MI : University of Michigan Press. Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve Harvard Business Review Retrieved from http://www.tree4health.org /distancelearning/si tes/www.tree4health.org.distancelearning/files/readings/ Collins.%20Five%20Leadership%20Levels.pdf Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors : Why business thinking is not the answer Boulder, CO : HarperCollins Collins, J. (2006). Good to great and the social sectors. London England : Random House. Colorado Children's Campaign (2005). High school reform in Colorado: meeting the expectations of a new era Final report of the Colorado Commission for High School Improvement. Denver, CO. Retrieved from http://www.coloradokids.org/data/publications/pastpublications.html Colorado Department of Education (2014 ). School view [ www.cde.org ] Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leaders hip in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review 12 (4): 637 647. Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., & Stavros, M. (2005). Appreciative i nquiry h andbook: The first in a series of AI w orkbooks for leaders of change. Brunswich, OH: Crown Custom Publishing.
118 Cranston, N., Mulford, B., Keating, J., & Reid, A. (2010). Primary school principals and the purposes of education in Australia: The results of a national survey. Journal of Educational Administration 48 (3), 517 539. Cuban, L. (2004). The blac kboard and the bottom line: Why schools can't be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuilla J.B. (2005) Integrating leadership with ethics: is good leadership contrary to human nature? In Doh, J.P. and Stump, S.A. Eds.), Handbook on Res ponsible Leadership and Governance in Global Business: 159 179. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd. Dantow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (1998). Educational reform implementation: A co constructed process. Santa Cruz, CA: Ce nter for Research on Education. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.) (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective. London, England: Springer. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Lea ding schools in times of change Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. DelliCarpini, M. (2008). Teacher collaboration fo r ESL/EFL academic success. Internet TESL Journal 14(8) Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/DelliCarpini TeacherCollaboration.html Den Hartog, D N Van Muijen, J. J. & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 70 19 34.
119 Drath, W. H. (2001) The d eep b lue s ea: Rethinking the s ource of l eadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learing by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. DuF our R., Marzano, R. (2011 ) Leaders of Learning: How district, school, and cl assroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Duke, D., Grogan, M., Tucker, P., & Heinecke, W. ( E ds.). (2003). Educational leadership in an age of accountability: The Virginia experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. English, F. W. (2002). On the intractability of the achievement gap in urban schools and the discursive practice of continui ng racial discrimination. Education and Urban Society, 34 298 311. Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher 31 (8), 21 24. Etizoni A. (1961) A comparative analysis of complex, organizations. New York: Free Press. Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277 298.
120 Evans, M. G. & Dermer, J. (1974) What does the least preferred co wo rker scale really measure? A cognitive interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (2) 202 206. Farling M. L., Stone, A.G., & Winston, B.E. (1999). Servant Leadership: Setting the Stage for Empirical Research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6 (1), 50 67. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher 31 (8), 4 14. Fiedler, F. E. (1995). Reflections by an accidental theorist. Leadership Quarterly, 6 (4), 453 461. Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York NY : Wiley. Field, A. (2003). Designing a q uestionnaire Retrieved from www.statisticshell.com/docs/designing_questionaires.pdf Freire P. (1970). Pedagogy of the o ppressed. New York NY : Continuum International Press. Follett M.P. (1996). The giving of orders. In Shafritz, J.M. & Ott, J.S. (eds.). Classics of organizational theory (pp. 156 162). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Fullan, M. (1999). Change f orces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousan d Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Toronto Principals Council.
121 Gardenswartz, L. & Rowe, A. (1994) Diverse t eams at w ork: C apitalizing on the power of diversity. Chicago IL : Irwin Professional Gardner, H. E. (1996). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York NY : Basic Books. Gatto, J. (1998). In d efense of o riginal s in: The neglected genius of American spirituality. The Sun 10 14. Retrieved from http://thesunmagazine.org Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., & Van Den Berg, R. (1999). Transformational leadership and the implementation of large scale innovation programs. Journal of Educational Administration 37( 4), 309 328. Glickman, C. D. (1998). Revolutionizing America's schools San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Goddard, R. (2002). Collective efficacy and school organization: A multilevel analysis of teacher influence in schools. Theory and Research in Educational Administration, 1 169 184. Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33 (3), 1 13. Goodwin, B (2005). The future of schooling: Educating America in 2014. Aurora, C O : Mid continent Research for Education and Learning. Gould, S. J., (1989). Wonderful l ife: The Burgress Shale and the n ature of h istory. New York NY : W.W. Norton. Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly, 8 (2), 153 170.
122 Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. Hunt & L. Larson ( E ds.), Leadership frontiers (pp 32 58 ). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graham, J. W. (1988). Transformational leadership: Fostering follower autonomy, not automatic followership. In J. Hunt, B. Baglia, H. Dachler, & C. Schreischiem ( E ds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 295). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Graham, P. (1995). Mary Park er Follett: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Graves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). Seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership 61 (7), 8 13 Greenleaf R.K. (1970) The Servant as Leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center. Greenleaf R.K. (1977) Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Guiney, E. (2001). Coaching isn't just for athletes: The role of teacher leaders. Phi Delta Kappan 82 740 743. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (3), 329 351. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 (3), 1 20. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980 1995. School Effectiveness and School Im provement 9 (2), 157 191.
123 Hargreaves, A. (1995). Renewal in the age of paradox. Educational Leadership, 52 (7), 14 19. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (9), 693 700. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Hausman, C. (2000). Principal role in magnet schools: Transformed or retrenched? Journal of Educational Administration 38 (1), 25 46. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers Cambridge, MA: Belkna p Press. Hirschhorn, L. (1997) Reworking a uthority: Leading and f ollowing in the p ost m odern o rganization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hodges, A. (2000, April). Web of support for a personalized, academic foundation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Holland, J. (1973) Making v ocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood C liffs NJ: Prentice Hall. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321 328. House, R. J., & Dressler, G. (1974). The path goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. Hunt & L. Larson ( E ds.), Contingency approaches in leadership (pp. 29 55). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Hyman, P. (2005). One out of 10: From Downing Street to classroom reality London England : Vintage.
124 Intrator, S. M. & Kunzman R. (2006). Starting with the soul. Educational Leadership, 63 (6), 39 42. Irving, J. (2004). Utilizing the o rganizational l eadership a ssessment as a s trategic t ool for i ncreasing the e ffectiveness of t eams within o rganizations. Journal of Marketing Research 111 124. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08064.pdf Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. L. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA). International Journal of Leadership Studies 2 ( 2 ) 98 113. Javidan M., Dorman P W., Gupta V., & Associates (Eds.) Overview of GLOBE, Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 9 28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Jing, F. & Avery, G. (2008). Missing l inks in u nderstanding the r elationship between l ead ers and o rganizational p erformance. International Business & Economics Research Journal 7 (5) 67 78. Judge, T. A., & Illies, R. (2002) Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 7 97 807. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (5) 755 768.
125 Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Illies, R. & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002) Personality & leadership: A qualitative & quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4) 765 780. Kanter, R. (1989). When g iants l earn to d ance. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: T he mental demands of moder n life Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Keller, R. T. (2006) Transformational leadership, initiating structure & substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research & development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (1) 202 210. Kennan, G. (1993). Around the Cragged Hill: A personal and political philosophy. New York NY : W.W. Norton. Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., & Mulford, B. (2010). Schools and social capital. In E. Baker, B. McGaw & P. Peterson ( E ds ) International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 5, pp. 113 119) Oxford: Elsevier. Kotter, J. P. ( 1990 ) A f orce for c hange: How l eadership d iffers from m anagement New York NY : Free Press. Kuhnert, K. W & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648 657.
126 Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G. & Wright, P. (1992) A competency based model of sustainable competitive advantage: Toward a conceptual integration. Journal of Management, 18 (1) 77 91. Lambert, L. (2003). Building leadership capacity in schools Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, C. E. (2001). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Laub, J. (2000). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument [Executive Summar y] OLA Group, 2 30. Executive Summary retrieved from www.olagroup.org. Leadbeater, C. (2004 a ). Learning about personalization: How can we put the learning at the heart of the education system? London England : UK Department for Education and Skills. Lea dbeater, C. (2004 b ). Personali s ation through participation. London England : DEMOS. Leadbeater, C. (2005). The shape of things to come : personalized learning through collaboration London England : DES Innovation Unit. Retrieved January 31, 2008 from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk Leech, N., Barrett, K. & Morgan, G. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and interpretation. 2 nd Ed Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century's quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on e ducational administration (pp. 561 612) Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
127 Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research: 1996 2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6 (1), 177 199. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999 a ). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable San Francis co, CA: Jossey Bass. Limerick, B., & Nielsen, H. (Eds.). (1995). School and community relations. Sydney Australia : Harcourt Brace. Lombardi M. (2007) Authentic l earning for the 21 st c entury: An overview. E dcause Learning I nitiative. Retrieved from ne t.educase.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf. Louis, K. S. (1998). Effects of teacher quality of work life in secondary schools on commitment and sense of efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9 (1), 1 27. Lowe, K., Kroeck, K. & Sivasubramania m, N. (1996). Effectiveness c orrelates of t ransformational and t ransactional l eadership: A meta analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7 (3), 385 415. Mankin, D., Cohen, S. G., & Bikson, T. K. (1996). Teams and technology. Boston MA : Harvard Business School Press. March, J. (1984). How we talk and how we act : Administrative theory and administrative life. In T. Sergiovanni & J. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and pra ctice (pp. 18 35). Chicago IL : University of Illinois Press.
128 Marks, W., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19 245 275. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: T ranslating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R., Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom in struction that works: Research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mawhinney, H., Hass, J., & Wood, C. (2005). Teachers' collective efficacy beliefs in professional le arning communities. Leading and Managing, 11 (2), 12 45. McCraw, T. K. (1984). Prophets of r egulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McGrath, G. R & MacMillan, I. C. (2000) Entrepreneurial m indset: Strategies for c ontinuously c reating o pportu nity in an a ge of u ncertainty. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Books. McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in e ducation: A conceptual introduction. New York NY : Longman Press. McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. A. (2000) Organizational b ehavior. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw Hill. Mehan, H. (1992). Untracking and college enrollment Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
129 Mehan, H. (1994). Tracking untracking: The co nsequences of placing low track students in high track classes. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Meindl, J. R. (1998) Invited r eaction: Enabling visionary leadership. Human Resource Developm ent Quarterly, 9 (1) 21 24. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1978). Notes on the structure of educational organizations [Revised Version ] Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Reported in J. Hannaway, Administrative struct ures why do they grow? Teachers College Record 79 (3). 416 417. Moore Johnson, S. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in schools. San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Mulford, B. (1994). Shaping tomorrow's schools [ Monograph No. 15 ] Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Administration. Mulford, B. (2008). The leadership challenge: Improving learning in schools Camberwell, Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research Australian Education Review #53. Mulford, B. (2010 a ). An overview of educational leadership and management. In E. Baker, B. McGaw & P. Peterson ( E ds ) International e ncyclopedia of e ducation (Vol. 4, pp. 695 703) Oxford England : Elsevier. Mulford, B. (2010 b ). Recent developments in the field of educational leadership: The challenge of complexity. In D. Hopkins, M. Fullan, A. Hargreaves, & A Leiberman ( E ds ). Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 187 208). Netherlands: Springer.
130 Mulford, B. (2011). Teacher and school leader quality and sustainability. Australian Government Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Canberra: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/201 1/ctgc rs05.pdf Mulford, B., & Edmunds, B. (2009). Successful school principalship in Tasmania. Launceston, Tasmania: Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania. Mulford, B., & Edmunds, B. (2010). Educational investment in Australian schooling: Serving public purposes in Tasmanian primary schools. Launceston, Tasmania: Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2010). Organizational learning in schools. In E. Baker, B. McGaw & P. Peterson ( E ds ). International e ncyclopedia of e ducation ( Vol. 5, pp. 143 150) Oxford England : Elsevier. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualization of successful school principalship that improves student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management 25 (1), 61 82. Nadler, D. A. & Tuschman, M. L. (1990) Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership & organizational change. California Management Review, 32 (2) 77 97. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage OECD Publishing (2006). Thin k scenarios rethink education. Paris: Author. Olson, D. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in the search for what works': A response to Slavin Educational Researcher, 33 (1), 24 26.
131 Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, Mass: Addison Weekly. Pace, C. & Stern, C. (1958). An approach to the measures of psychological characteristics of college environments. Jou rnal of Educational Psychology, 49 269 277. Page, D., & Wong, P. T. (2011). A Conceptual Framework for Measuring Servant Leadership. Retrieved from www .wiki.hci.edu.sg/file/view/ Conceptual + Framework .pdf Patterson, K.A. (2003). Servant Leadership: A theoretical model. Doctoral Dissertation, Regent University (UMI No. 3082719). Pervin, L. & Rubin, D. (1967) Student dissatisfaction with college and the college dropout: A transactional approach Journal of Social Psychology, 7 2 285 295. Pervin, L. (1978) Theoretical approaches to the analysis of individual environment interaction I n L. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds ) Perspectives in i nteractional p sychology. New York NY : Plenum. Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. Thousand Oaks, C A : Corwin Press. Pring, R., Hayward, G., Hodgson, A., Spours, K., Johnson, J. Keep, E., & Rees, G. (2009). Education for all: the future of education and training for 14 19 year olds Milton Park: Ro utledge.
132 Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. & Swart, J. (2004) Understanding the p eople & p erformance l ink: Unlocking the b lack b ox [ Research Report ]. London, England: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Raelin, J. (2003) Creating l eadership o rganizations: How to b ring out l eadership in e veryone. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Rattray, J. & Jones, M. (200 5 ). Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16 234 243. Reeves D B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement better results Alexandria, V A : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rehm, R. (1999). People in charge: Creating self managing workplaces Gloucestershire, Great Britain: Hawthorn Press Reitzug, U. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational Research Journal 31 (2), 283 307. Rettig, P. (2004). Beyond organizational tinkering: A new view of school reform. Horizons 82 (4), 260 265. Ro binson, V., Lloyd, C., Hohepa, M. & Rowe, K. (2007 April ). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of effects from international research. Paper presented at the meeting of AERA, Chicago. Rogoff, B. (2003). Thinking with the tools and institutions of culture In I. Editor (Ed.) The cultural nature of human development (pp. 236 281) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
133 Rothschild, J. & Whitt, J. (1986) The c ooperative w ork p lace: Potentials & d ilemmas of o rganizational d emocracy & p articipation. Cambridge England : Cambridge University Press. Rowe, W. G. (2001) Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive 15 81 94. Rowe, W. G., Cannella Jr., A. A., Rankin, D. & Gorman, D. (2005). Leader succession & organizational performance: Integrating the common sense, ritual scapegoating & vicious circle succession theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2) 197 219. Rusch, E. (2005). Institutional barriers to institutional learning in school systems: T he power of silence. Education Administration Quarterly 41 (1) 83 120. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Schmoker, M., (1999). Results: the key to continuous school improvement. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. & Dechurch, L. A. (2006) An investigation of path goal & transformational leader ship theory predictions at the individual level of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (1) 21 38. Schwahn, C. J., & Spady, W. G., (1998). Total leaders: Applying the best future focused strategies to education. Alexandria, VA: American Association of S chool Administrators. Seifter, H., & Economy, P. (2001). Leadership e nsemble: Lessons in collaborative management from the world famous conductorless orchestra. New York NY : Times Books.
134 Sendjaya, S. (2003 August ). Development and v alidation of s ervant l eadership b ehavior s cale. Presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable of the School of Leadership Studies: Regent University. Retrieved f rom www.regent.edu/acad/sls Publications/conference_proceedings_roundtable/2003pdf/sendjaya_development _validation. pdf. Senge, P., Cambron McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York NY : Doubleday. Senge, P. M. (1990). The f ifth d iscipline: The a rt and p ractice of the l earning o rganization. New York NY : Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling: Excellent schools need freedom within boundaries. Educational Leadership, 41 (5), 4 14. Sergi ovanni, T. (1990). Value added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in schools. London England : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Shafritz, J., Ott, J. & Jang, Y. (2005). Classics of o rganizational t heory (6 th ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning. Sh amire, B. & Howell, J. M. (1999) Organizational & contextual influences on the emergence & effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2) 257 283. Silins, H. C., & Murray Harvey, R. (2000). Students as a central concern. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (3), 230 246 Siniscalco, M. & Auriat, N. (2005). Questionnaire Design Paris, France: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved from www.iiep.unesco
135 org/fileadmin/user_upload/Cap_Dev_Training/Trai ning_Materials/Quality/Qu_ Mod8.pdf. Skinner, D., & Kritsonis, W. (2006). How to implement the ways of knowing through the realms of meaning as ethical decision making process to improve academic achievement ten recommendations. National Journal for Publi shing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research 3 (1), 1 9. Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research Educational Researcher, 31 (7), 15 21. Smith, F. (1998). The book of learning and forgetting. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. E. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children Washington, DC: National Academy Press National Research Council. Somech A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participation management: An investigation of multiple dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 341 371. Southworth, G., & Du Quesnay, H. (2005). School leadership and system leadership. Educational F orum 69( 2), 212 220. Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (2002). Tracing the past, present, and future of servant leadership Hoboken, NJ: John Wily. Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed l eadership. San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham England : Open University Press.
136 Stoll, L. Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2003). It's about learning: It's about time. London England : Falmer Press. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F ., & Patterson, K. (2003 August ). Transformational versus s ervant l eadership: A d ifference in l eader f ocus. Presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable of the School of Leadership Studies Regent University Virginia Beach Virginia Stone, D., Patton B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most New York, NY: Penguin Press. Strachan, J. (1999). Feminist educational leadership in a New Zealand neo liberal context. Journal of Educational Administration 37 (2), 121 138. Suzuki, D. (2003). The David Suzuki reader: A lifetime of ideas from a leading activists and thinker. Vancouver British Columbia : Greystone Books. Swetland, S., & Ho, W. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Towards an organiz ational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 36 (5), 703 729. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities & strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7) 509 533. Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Veen, W. (2003). A new force for change: Homo Zappiens. The Learning Citizen, 7 (1), 5 7. Vergugo, R., Greenberg, N., Henderson, R., Uribe O., & Schneider, J. (1997). School governanc e regimes and teachers' job satisfaction: Bureaucracy, legitimacy, and community Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (1), 38 66.
137 Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Waldman, D. A, Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology 60 177 186. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identify. N ew York NY : Cambridge University Press. Westerman, S. (1994) How total quality management initiatives can inspire leadership New Directions for Higher Education 87 73 81 Wheatley, M. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco CA : Berrett Koehl. Winger, T. (2009). Grading what matters. Educational Leadership 67 (3), 7 3 75. Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn't always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Press. Yamashita, K., & Spataro, S. (2004). Unstuck: A tool for yourself, your team, and your world New York, NY: Penguin Press. Yukl, G. (1999) An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8 (1) 33 48. Yukl, G. (2002) Leadership in organizations ( 5 th ed .) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Marks, M. A., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Assessment of leader problem solving capabilities. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1) 37 64.
138 Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451 483. Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. & Spangler, W. D. (2005) CEO transformational leadership & organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human capital enhancing human resource management. Leadership Quarterly, 16(1) 39 52. Zunz, O. (1990). Making America c orporate. Chicago IL : The University of Chicago Press.
139 APPENDIX A R ESEARCH VARIABLES AND DEFINITIONS Servant Variables Adaptive The design of and lack of reflective information in a bureaucracy inhibits innovation and therefore adaptability. Additionally, the ability of a school to establish control of evolving inter nal and external environments further challenges a school's ability to perform given bureaucratic limits. Osborne (1997) considers centralized, top down monopolies as too slow, too unresponsive, and too incapable of change much less innovation. Heifetz (1 994) establishes the need for adaptive work in scho ols where no set procedures, no experts, and no pre developed responses exist to meet current challenges. ( cf Bain, 2007; Follett, 1922; Osborne, 2007; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). o In my school we use data to assess what students say about our school (37) o As a teacher in this school I adjust my teaching based upon what students need (57) o As a teacher in this school I use student assessments to inform my instruction (68) o In my school we talk abou t what we want the future to look like (36) Innovation Transformative school change cannot occur without eliminating or greatly downsizing the traditional bureaucratic structures that too often squeeze innovation out of employees (Osborne, 1997 ). Furthe r, innovation (Senge et al. 2000) rather than reform e xternally imposed (Osborne, 1997 ) is what is needed for schools to make the transformation steps to serve all students (Reeves, 2006). Variables interacting with each other, to greater or lesser degre es, better reflect a living system rather than a static predictable system. The tendency to reduce challenges to a few, specific, and measureable variables which may produce [quick] results, when adjusted by the leader in a bureaucratic system, acerbates the tendency in education to examine complex problems of practice with a simplistic linear reductionist lens (Toulmin, 2001). This often results in change efforts which "involve the use of inappropriate measures of success, especially when they are merely procedural illusions of effectiveness" and change efforts towards a "facade of orderly purposefulness" (Senge et al. 2000 p. x ). ( cf. Brunner, 1987; Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Sergiovanni, 1990; Toulmin, 2001). o In my school mistakes provide opportunities to learn (47) o In my school new ideas are valued (49) o As a teacher in this school I take risks in my teaching with the support of my principal (67) o My principal supports me find the materials necessary to support new ideas and approaches (16) Interdependence
140 Essentially, Follett (1926) challenges leaders to s peak of the total situation and recast their idea of what totalness means. "The business world is never again to be directed by individual intelligence, but by intel ligences interacting and ceaselessly influencing one another." In addition, Follett wrote, "In today's world, independence is increasingly recognized as an illusionary and even ineffective as an organizing principle. Instead, interdependence is emerging at the forefront as the key to successful management, not only in the workplace, but in every form of human endeavor" (Follett, p. 30 p. x ). o My principal invests in my development (7) o In my school we have a say in what happens (31) o In my school we share in the responsibility for success of all students (35) o As a teacher in this school I reach out to support my colleagues (65) Empowerment "Stoll, Fink & Earl (2003) argue that teachers and schools that are able to take charge, to be empowered rather than be controlled by what is going on around them, have been shown to be more effective and to improve more rapidly than ones that do not" (Mulford, 2008, p. 29). Command and contr ol cultures need to be replaced with cultures that support widespread use o f increased information, employee participation, empowerment for individuals and teams (Shafritez et al. 2005, p. 415). Marzano (2003) and Lambert (2003 ) identify building trust and capacity as a critical function of the effective school leader. While r elying on resource dependent technical adjustments, typically delivered in a command control model to the instructional model may produce improved performance on the periphery of the organization, transformative sustained change cannot occur without an exa mination of the competing commitments at all levels of the organization. "Other research has shown that teacher empowerment increases not only the quality of school decisions, teachers' work lives, their commitment and instructional practice (Somech, 2002) but it also positively impacts students' academic achievement" (Marks & Louis, 1997 p. x ). ( cf. Lambert, 2003 ; Ma rks & Louis, 1997; Marzano, 2003 ; Stoll, Fink & Earl, 2003; ). o My principal encourages me to contribute to the good of the organization (4) o In my school others make decisions that negatively affect my students (51) o In my school faculty assist in planning our professional development activities (42) o As a teacher in this school I have led a building committee (60) Collaboration Teacher collaboration is a necessary element for improved student achievement. Collaboration can challenge the traditional organizational structure as information becomes more fluid. Understanding the totalness of the situation creates opportunities for shared responsibility and therefore enhanced likelihood of success. Collaboration, and especially teacher collaboration, is a key ingredient in attempts at school innovation. Furthermore, a strong link between collective teacher efficacy and shared belief s has a positive effect on achievement. "Several studies have documented a strong link between collective teacher efficacy (CTE) will have a positive effect on students, and differences in student achievement (Follett, 192 2; Mawhinney, Hass & Wood, 2005 ) ( cf. D elliCarpini, 2008; Follet, 1926; Lambert, 2003 ; Page & Wong, 2010).
14 1 o My principal seeks input on important school decisions (14) o In my school, we design lessons together (28) o In my school we participate in hiring new staff (34) o In my school we est ablish professional goals aligned with our mission (30) Empathy Spears (2002 ) emphasizes the servant leadership skills of listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment, and community building. G reenleaf (1970, 1977) also argues a servant leader focuses on the needs of followers and helps them to become more knowledgeable, more autonomous, more like servants themselves. "Successful principals, on the whole, appeared to hold a deep, if tacit, con ception of their organizations as organic, living systems, rather than as machines. If the organization needed oiling', it was increased mutual trust, not more policy and regulation that was applied" (Mulford, 2008). ( cf. Day & Leithwood, 2007; Gre enleaf 1970, 1977; Spears, 2002 ). o My principal cares about my well being (1) o In my school we want our principal (leadership team) to be successful (39) o In my school we want new teachers to achieve success (38) o My principal listens to the needs of his/her teachers (11) Servant Graham (1995 ) stressed the inspirational and moral dimensions of the servant leadership model and argued that self identity, capacity for reciprocity, relationship building, and the occupation with the future were cornerstones of th e leadership model. The paternalistic structures that gave the principal and her/his leadership team authority in years past often conflict with current research which shows that creating a learning culture that places a premium on the relationship between student, teacher, and employer can produce favorable quantitative results (Mehan, 1994). In sum, Greenleaf's vision for the servant leader is dedicated to the achievement of short and long term organizational goals through the construct of leader as serv ant and therefore steward of the organization (Greenleaf, 1970, 1977). In becoming a servant leader, "a leader uses less institutional power and less control while valuing everyone's involvement in community life because it is within a community that one f ully experiences respect, trust, and individual strength" (Greenleaf, 1970, 1977). Effective principals are aware of the needs of followers as much as the need for accountability. This awareness of the need to attend to relationships in the organization is as important as the operational processes for the servant leaders who invest in building up the individual as a means to accomplish organizational goals. ( BlasÂŽ & BlasÂŽ, 1994 as cited in Silins, 2000 p. 4). Silins describes effective principals as th ose that are above all else people centered (Silins, 2000 ). In order to accomplish the task of building effective teams, leadership needs to foster an environment in which relationships, based on honesty, openness, consistency, and respect (Larson & LaFasto, 2001) are valued. Laub (2000 ) tested the servant leadership model through the valuing of people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership. Servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970, 1977) emph asizes the role of leader as servant and the concern for followers as the primary function of management, secondary to the pursuit of organizational objectives.
142 o In my school we work to help others succeed (40) o My principal listens to the needs of students (12) o In my school I have seen teachers take on important leadership roles (45) o My principal will do any job needed to be done to support students or our school (17) Autonomous Developing the autonomous capability of followers (Black, 2010; Page & Wong, 2010; Spears, 2002) at its core is a transformational approach to life and work that can maximize the underutilized potential of employees locked in fixed positions with fixed responsibilities and limited decision making capability. A servant leader supp orts followers grow more autonomous and increase their likelihood of becoming servants themselves by sharing responsibility and trust in the accomplishment of the organization's mission. ( cf. Black, 2010; Page & Wong, 2010; Spears, 2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2004). o My principal encourages staff to take the lead in school improvement work (5) o In my school we are trusted to make decisions in the best interest of our students (23) o As a teacher in this school I have my principal's support to use my professional judgment (61) o My principal is the only decision maker in this school (9) Authentic Serving leaders are more concerned with producing results with like minded others rather than inflating or protecting their own ego. Greenleaf (1970, 1977) wrote of the authentic nature of leaders and the need to develop a servant orientation amongst followers; ego and self interest on the part of the leader stands in opposition to the characteristics needed to maximize the potential of participants. Collins (2001) wrot e of the ordinary nature of great leaders, as did Gardner (1995). The authentic nature of these leaders enabled them to do extraordinary work without detraction from their mission with attributes that would be characterized as self centered. ( cf. Gardner 1995; Greenleaf 1970, 1 970; Page & Wong, 2010). o My principal demonstrates his/her first priority is the success of our school (3) o In my school, we celebrate staff achievements (27) o As a teacher in this school I act as a supportive team player (56) o My principal works to support the professional development of others (19)
143 Bureaucratic Variables Autocratic Ronald Heifetz (1994) argues that authority can impede effective leadership. "Authority constrains leadership because in times of dis tress, people expect too much. They form inappropriate dependencies that isolate their authorities behind a mask of knowing" (p. 337). Leadership that is constrained by the bureaucratic model such as an aggressive master of policy would according to Foll ett (1926) "militate directly against the leadership" needed in an interdependent world (p. 164). Moreover, the individualization of leadership and the lack of commitment to building and expanding leadership capacity (Lambert, 2003 ) is in opposition to jus t the behaviors needed to transform schools into innovative cultures. Public schools borrowed heavily from scientific management, calling for leaders to select the appropriate inputs and systems (curriculum, schedules, and materials) for workers (teachers ) to adhere to the decisions made by others. This legacy has created a tradition in which schools are structured to reinforce continu ity, not continuous improvement ( DuFour, 2006 p. 192) The current system of schooling that produces conformity, predictab ility, and control as key values stands in direct contrast to required 21 st century skills of independent thinking, collaboration, problem solving, and analysis sought by so many employers across the world (Senge et al. 2000). o As a teacher in this school I participated in the development of our school improvement goals (64) o As a teacher in this school, I have the primary role in determining what material I teach (62) o In my school, the principal is the primary influence as to how I teach (54) o In my school, we believe our school would perform better if student behavior improved (25) Apathy Formal systems which take the form of job descriptions, procedures, routines, and rules often lead to burnout, apathy, and absenteeism. The rigidity of the bureaucr atic system is passed on to member s who often prefer autonomy and professionalism. This dissonance can lead to teacher passivity, apathy or rebelliousness. ( cf. Argyris, 1957, 1964; Etzioni, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979; Mulford 2010). o In my school, we discuss leaving the school (29) o In my school, we are optimistic about the future (22) o As a teacher in this school, I know I can take a role in the solution of any problem (63) o In my school, we believe our principal ignores the challenges we face (24) Impersonal Follett's (1926) concepts of integration, constructive conflict, cross functioning, collective responsibility, and reciprocal modification, have little meaning for these people (mangers). "Instead, they see themselves perche d atop metaphorical hierarc hies there to impose the control of their superior minds over everyone else, the subordinates" (p. 202).
144 Social changes continue to undermine the assumptions of scientific management specifically the public's growing disdain of technically rationalized one size fits all policies to solve local, national, and global challenges (Osborne, 1997). Given teacher efficacy and engagement are key components of innovation the attributes of the impersonal bureaucratic stand in opposition to just such needs. o In my sch ool, we can share with our principal what we believe is working or needs to be fixed (26) o As a teacher in this school, I work to support the individual needs of my learners (69) o My principal is available to support me with any issue (8) o In my school, I am reluctant to ask questions during faculty meetings (43) Coercion Bureaucracies support the belief structure that underperformers can be coerced into performing well through fear, intimidation, and risk of alienation. "Coercion is defined as a force that compels or intimidates an individual to act because of the anxiety it creates" (Etzioni, 1961 ; Reeves 2006). This view of leadership applied broadly to the leadership of an entire organization stands in contrast to a professional orientation of a mo dern school sharing and collaborating on new information to define goals and actions. Weber (1922) outlined the official discharge of duties in a bureaucracy into six key areas. The supervision of the lower offices by the higher offices prescribed in wri tten documents and procedures, predicated by expert training, exhaustive rules, intended to preserve the greater good that values predictability and conformity (Marzano, 2003) and therefore uniformity of operation and thought. o My principal works to build trust (18) o My principal responds well to feedback (13) o My principal enforces her/his expectations (6) o My principal values honesty Compliance Compliance and conformity will not produce innovation. Further, the blind commitment to conformity in schools furthers bureaucratic underpinnings and prevents the development of professionalism amongst teachers. Compliance leads to stability and predictability in contrast to innovation. "These traumas occur because conformity is a core value of the industrial ag e: an assembly line that produced continuous variety would not be considered efficient" (Senge et al., 2000, p. 35). (Etzioni, 1961). o My principal asks others to follow standard rules and regulations (21) o My principal demands uniform teaching practices (2) o In my school, rules take a priority in decision making (53) o My principal sets rules that are never questioned (15) Procedural
145 The bureaucratic nature of public institutions and specifically education ac tively suppress leadership and the transformat ional leadership style (Bass, 1985). The procedural nature of bureaucracies would tend to provide substitutes for leadership in the form of structures and procedures rather than creating leadership opportunities. Follett (1926) was well aware of the impl ications of leader as bureaucrat who believe they "plan, organize, command, coordinate, and control are not technically wrong, they are just misguided" (p. 202). o As a teacher in this school, the primary way I work with my colleagues is through email (70) o In my school, information flows only one way from the principal's office (46) o My principal, is the only one who can make decisions in this school (20) o In my school, most answers to how things work can be found in the faculty/staff handbook (48) Bureaucr atic The bureaucratic underpinnings of school preclude any attempt at reform. The hierarchical structures and authority limit responses to change based upon specific categories immune from human judgment. External mandates for reform are unlikely to find success (Osborne, 1997). Weber (1922) summarized the principles of bureaucracies as impersonal, standardized and mechanical and therefore will likely lead to dissent when the system becomes overwhelmed with new information and change ( cf. Chubb & Moe, 1990; Mulford, 2011; Osborne, 1997; Weber, 1922). Both the classical and transactional leadership model are faced with the inability to manage multiple variables. They "cannot command and control every action, particularly as situations become more comp lex and beyond the capacity of one person. Or, when additional commitment from followers is needed to get the job done, such as in reacting to changing circumstances; or when ideas about leadership change and followers no longer accept domination, or foll ower commitment starts to wane for other reasons" (Jing, 2011 p. x ). o As a teacher in this school, I am assigned to various duties such as lunch and hallway coverage during my planning periods (58) o In my school, we mainly teach to the state test (32) o In m y school, routine duties interfere with my teaching (52) o In my school, others design the assessments I use with my students to gauge student progress (50) Isolated Elmore (2000) states that teaching as a vocation is often characterized by a sense of s eclusion, claiming that "individual teachers invent their own practice in isolated classrooms, small pots of like minded practitioners operate in isolation from their colleagues within a given school, or schools operate as exclusive enclaves of practice in isolation from other schools" (p. 21). "Research has s hown that schools would perform better if teachers worked in focused, supportive teams" (Schomaker, 1999, p.10).
146 Teaching in a large secondary school filled with independent departments can be isola ting. o My principal is the only person who talks at faculty meetings (10) o As a teacher in this school, I am unclear about the rationale behind my principal's decisions (59) o As a teacher in this school, I spend much too much of my time completing paperwork ( 66) o In my school, I collaborate with my colleagues on the design and implementation of summative assessments (44) Predictability Additionally, as a by product of the assembly line model (Taylor, 1916), schools are best characterized as systems that constrain individuals who may want to do something different such as seek innovations that will improve outcomes. Such constraints are in part due to the intention of bureaucratic systems to ensure individuals conform and do not use discretion and judgment when making decisions (Shafritz et al. 2005). Moreover, the current factory model of schooling and the subsequent push to reduce lea rning to a few measurable, quantifiable procedures in a standardized curriculum in an environment burdened with external mandates, eventually crushes the spirit of the people within the system (Osborne, 1997). o In my school, the past seems to guide our decisions (55) o In my school, we only discuss the operation of the school at faculty meetings (33) o In my school, a student's grade will most often reflect their classroom behavior (41) o In my school, what worked in our school in t he past plays in important role in determin in g what will happen in the future (55)
147 APPENDIX B SCHOOL QUESTIONAIRE This survey examines aspects of your experience as a teacher in your school. Your participation is greatly appreciated. It should take you 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Please note that your participation in this research is completely voluntary; you may terminate your participation at any time. Also, this survey is completely confidential, and you will not be identified in any way. Please provide the name of your school and department for analysis purposes only. Your school _________________________ For all of the items below, mark the circle to the left of the response that most accurately reflects your orientation or opinion. Your gender Female Male The number of years you have been working in education less than 1 year 2 5 years 6 10 years more than 11 years Please read each of the statements below carefully and mark only one response for each. My principal 1. Cares about my well being 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 2. Demands uniform teaching practices 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 3. Demonstrates his/her first priority is the success of our school 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasi onally 0 Never 4. Encourages me to contribute to the good of the organization 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 5. Encourages staff to take the lead in school improvement work 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 6. Enforces her/his expectations 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 7. Invests in my development 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 8. Is available to support me with any issue
148 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 9. Is the only decision maker in this schoo l 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 10. Is the only person who talks at faculty meetings 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 11. Listens to the needs of his/her teachers 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 12. Listens to the needs of students 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 13. Responds well to feedback 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 14. Seeks input on important school decisions 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 15. Sets rules that are never questioned 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 16. Supports me find the materials necessary to support new approaches 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 17. W ill do any job needed to be done to support students or our school 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 18. W orks to build trust 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 19. W orks to support the professional development of others 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 20. I s the only one who can make decisions in this school 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 21. A sks others to follow standard rules and regulations 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never In my school, we 22. Are optimistic about the future 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 23. A re trusted to make decisions in the best interest of our students 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 24. B elieve our principal ignores the challenges we face
149 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 25. B elieve our school would perform better if stu dent behavior improved 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 26. C an share with our principal what we believe is working or needs to be fixed 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 27. C elebrate staff achievements 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 28. D esign lessons together 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 29. D iscuss leaving the school 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 30. E stablish professional goals aligned with our mission 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 31. H ave a say in what happens 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 32. M ainly teach to the state test 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 33. O nly discuss the operation of the school at faculty meetings 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 34. P articipate in hiring new staff 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 35. S hare in the responsibility for success of all students 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 36. T alk about what we want the future to look like 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 37. U se data to assess what students say about our school 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 38. W ant new teachers to achieve success 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 39. W ant our principal (leadership team) to be succes sful 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 40. W e work to help others succeed 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never
150 In my school, 41. A student's grade will most often reflect their classroom behavior 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 42. Faculty assist in planning our professional development activities 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 43. I am reluctant to ask questions during faculty meetings 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 44. I collaborate with my colleagues on the de sign and implementation of summative assessments 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 45. I have seen teachers take on important leadership roles 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 46. Information flows only one way from the principal's office 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 47. Mistakes provide opportunities to learn 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 48. Most answers to how things work can be found in the faculty/staff handbook 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 49. New id eas are valued 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 50. Others design the assessments I use with my students to gauge student progress 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 51. Others make decisions that negatively affect my students 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 52. Routine duties interfere with my teaching
151 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 53. Rules take a priority in decision making 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 54. The principal is the primary influence as to how I teach 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 55. The past plays in important role in determining what will happen in the future 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never As a teacher in this school, I 56. Act as a supportive team player 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 57. Adjust my teaching based upon what students need 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 58. Am assigned duties such as lunch and hallway coverage during my planning periods 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 59. A m unclear about the rationale behind my principal's decisions 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 60. Have led a building committee 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 61. My principal's support to use my professional judgment 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 62. The primary role in determining what material I teach 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 63. Know I can take a role in the solution of any problem 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never
152 64. P articipated in the development of our school improvement goals 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 65. Reach out to support my colleagues 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 66. Spend much too much of my time completing paperwork 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 67. Take risks in my teaching with the support of my principal 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 68. Use student assessments to inform my instruction 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 69. Work to support the individual needs of my learners 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never 70. I work with my colleagues most often through email 0 Always 0 Often 0 Occasionally 0 Never
153 APPENDIX C C orrelations: Servant and Bureaucratic