Citation
Selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools in selected California school districts

Material Information

Title:
Selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools in selected California school districts
Creator:
Harter, Susan
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 149 leaves : illustrations, forms ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
School superintendents -- California ( lcsh )
School superintendents -- Evaluation -- California ( lcsh )
School superintendents ( fast )
School superintendents -- Evaluation ( fast )
California ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education, School of Education and Human Development.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan Harter.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
25739139 ( OCLC )
ocm25739139
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1991d .H37 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF
SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS
IN SELECTED CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS
by
Susan Harter
B.A., California State University, Humboldt, 1967
M.A., University of San Francisco, 1976
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
.University of Colorado I in partial fulfillment
i
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of
Education
School of Education
1991
*3


This thesis for the Doctor of Education
degree by
Susan Harter
has been approved for the
School of
Education
by
W.' Michael Martin
Richard Koeppe
5-%^!
Date


Harter, Susan (Ed.D., Education)
Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools
in Selected California School Districts
Thesis directed by W. Michael Martin
The purpose of this study was to identify from the
criteria found in the literature those items judged to
be the most important to presidents of boards of
education and superintendents of schools in selected
California school districts for the selection and .
evaluation of superintendents and to compare those
criteria with the trait and skill criteria in the
literature on leadership theories.
A questionnaire was developed based on 58 criteria
found in the research literature on superintendent
selection and evaluation. Participants in the study
included all superintendents and board presidents in
144 school districts in five southern California
counties.
Data were analyzed by means of multivariate and
univariate analysis of variance (MANOVA and ANOVA).
Significant differences were determined to exist
between the criteria identified by presidents of boards
of education and criteria identified by superintendents
as most important for the selection of superintendents
of schools. Superintendents placed greater emphasis on
iv


the ability to handle conflict and the ability to solve
problems than did board presidents.
No significant differences were identified in the
criteria identified by board presidents and
superintendents for superintendent evaluation.
No significant differences were identified in the
criteria identified by superintendents for
superintendent selection and evaluation.
No significant differences were identified in the
criteria identified by board presidents for
superintendent selection and evaluation.
Within the body of research on superintendent
selection and evaluation there is a core set of
criteria viewed as most important by board presidents
and superintendents of schools. Nineteen criteria were
consistently ranked in the top ten by board members and
superintendents. These 19 criteria include both traits
and skills supported by the leadership literature.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I
recommend its publication.
v


CONTENTS
Tables................................. ix
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.......................... 1
Background of the Study................ 1
Statement of the Problem............... 4
Significance of the Study.............. 6
Limitations............................ 8
Delimitations.......................... 9
Definitions............................ 9
2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE...... 12
Organization of Chapter 2............. 12
Superintendent Selection Criteria.... 12
Superintendent Evaluation Criteria... 27
Leadership Theory................... 38
Traits and Skills..................... 42
Leadership Typologies................. 44
Leadership Style..................... 4 6
Leadership Behavior................... 47
Situational Leadership................ 49
Chapter Summary....................... 50
3. METHODOLOGY.......................... 55
Overview
55


Procedures............................ 57
Questionnaire Development............. 57
Pilot Test of Questionnaire........... 58
Study Design.......................... 60
Data Analysis......................... 62
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA....................... 68
Population............................ 69
Selection and Evaluation Criteria.-... 75
Research Question 1.................. 76
Research Question 2.................. 79
Research Question 3.................. 82
Research Question 4.................. 84
' Research Question 5.................. 87
Research Question 6.................. 91
Research Question 7...................94
Research Question 8.................. 96
Research Question 9................. 99
Leadership Traits.....................100
Leadership Skills.....................103
Other Criteria........................106
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................10 8
Summary...............................108
Specific Research Questions...........109
Literature Review.....................110
Design of the Study...................112
Vll


Summary of Findings...................113
Conclusions...........................118
Recommendations for Future Study.....121
APPENDIX
A. TABLE A-l: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION/
EVALUATION OF SUPERINTENDENTS..........125
B. QUESTIONNAIRES AND COVER LETTERS.......128
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................140
viii


TABLES
Table
1. Response Rate by Superintendents and
Board Presidents........................... ... 70
2. Response Rate by Group Assignment and
Respondent Position................'.......... 70
3. Respondents by Group Assignment and
District Size................................. 71
4. Superintendents Years of Service............ 72
5. Number of Superintendencies Held by
Selection Group Superintendents............... 72
6. Board Presidents' Years of Service............ 73
7. Board President Participation in
Superintendent Selection...................... 74
8. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked
by Presidents of Boards of Education.......... 7 8
9. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked
by Superintendents of Schools................. 80
10. Most Important Evaluation-Criteria as Ranked
by Presidents of Boards of Education.......... 83
11. Most Important Evaluation Criteria as Ranked
by Superintendents of Schools................. 85
12. Most Important Criteria for Selection of
Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by
Board Presidents and Superintendents.......... 88
13. Comparison of Superintendents' and Board
Presidents' Selection Criteria.............. 91
14. Most Important Criteria for Evaluation
of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked
by Board Presidents and Superintendents
93


15. Most Important Criteria for Selection and
Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools as
Ranked by Presidents of Boards of
Education.................................... 95
16. Most Important Criteria for Selection and
Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools
as Ranked by Superintendents........................ 98
17. Traits Identified in the Literature
on Leadership................................101
18. Leadership Traits Identified by
Superintendents and Board Presidents as
Most Important for the Selection and
Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools.... 103
19. Leadership Skills and the Three-Skill
Typology .................................... 104
20. Most Important Selection and Evaluation
Criteria Categorized by the Three-Skill
Typology.................................. 105
21. Selection and Evaluation Criteria Added
by Superintendents and Board Presidents...... 106
\
X


CHAPTER 1
^ INTRODUCTION
Few actions taken by Boards of Education are more
important than that of selection of a superintendent of
schools. The superintendent provides the leadership
for the district and for the translation of Board
policies into the programs and services for the
students of the district. The intent of this study was
to identify from the criteria found in the literature
those items judged to be the most important to
presidents of boards of education and superintendents
of schools in selected California school districts for
the selection and evaluation of superintendents and to
compare these criteria with the trait and skill
criteria found in the literature on leadership.
Background of the Study
Fullan (1982) noted that the tenure of
superintendents in the United States is two to three
years. Flandi (198.4) found that California
superintendents leave after 3.7 years. The selection
process, therefore, is not an isolated occurrence for


board members. They can expect to participate in this
process at least once during their tenure on a school
board. The selection process can be a costly, time
consuming activity and, according to the turnover data,
it occurs with some predictability.
In a recent study Giles (1990), reported that
468 out of 1,002 superintendencies in California were
vacated between 1986 and 1989. This is a turnover rate
of 46.7 percent. Twenty percent of those who vacated a
superintendency accepted other positions as
superintendents of schools. Sixty-six percent of those
who accepted a new superintendency noted that there was
"disharmony between their predecessor and their boards
at seat vacating time" (p. 46).
Lau, Newman and Broedling (1980) examined the
selection,; development and evaluation processes used
within the public sector with executive staff. They
concluded that "the selection, development, and
performance appraisal processes within the public
sector are frequently conducted independently of one
another, with differing sets of criteria being
employed" (p. 209). Educational Research Service
(1990) reported that "the vast majority of school
districts evaluate their superintendent at least
annually, yet only 7 percent had explicit criteria
2


outlined at the time the superintendent was hired"
(p. 44) Perhaps with more agreement between the
selection and evaluation criteria used by boards of
education, there would be better understanding of the
expectations of the position by superintendents, fewer
opportunities for disagreement and disharmony caused by
such disagreement, and less turnover in the
superintendencies. Sarbaugh (1982) suggested that the
advantages of clear expectations were: 1) better
understanding by the superintendent of what the board
expects of him or her; 2) a more harmonious working
relationship between board and superintendent; and,. 3)
better understanding by the board members of the role
of the superintendent (p. 121).
The 1980's focused national attention on
education. With this attention came the demand for
educational reforms and increased accountability for
school district performance. At the same time, there
was a renewed interested in and emphasis on leadership.
The superintendent of schools, as no other individual,
associated with public education, provides the
leadership necessary for the challenges facing the
educational community. Boards of education are
responsible for the selection and evaluation of those
hired to provide this leadership.
3


Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to identify from
the criteria found in the literature those items judged
to be the most important to presidents of boards of
education and superintendents of schools in selected
California school districts. for the selection and
evaluation of superintendents and to compare these
criteria with the trait and skill criteria found.in the
literature on leadership theories. The research
questions follow:
1. What do presidents of boards of education in
selected school districts in California identify as the
most important criteria for the selection of
superintendents of schools?
2. What do superintendents of schools in selected
school districts in California identify as the most
important criteria for the selection of superintendents
of schools?
3.. What do presidents of boards of education in
selected school districts in California identify as the
most important criteria for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
4. What do superintendents of schools in selected
4


school districts in California identify as the most
important criteria for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
5. Are the 10 most important criteria identified
by superintendents for selection of superintendents of
schools significantly different from the 10 most
important criteria identified by presidents of boards
of education for selection of superintendents of
schools?
6. Are the 10 most important criteria identified
by superintendents for evaluation of superintendents of
schools significantly different from the 10 most
important criteria identified by presidents of boards
of education for evaluation of superintendents of
schools?
7. Are the criteria identified by presidents of
boards of education as the most important for the
selection of superintendents significantly different
from the criteria identified by presidents of boards of
education as the most important for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
8. Are the criteria identified by superintendents
as the most important for the selection of
superintendents of schools significantly different from
the criteria identified by superintendents as the most
5


important for the evaluation of superintendents of
schools?
9. Are the criteria identified by presidents of
boards of education and superintendents as the most
important for the selection and evaluation of
superintendents of schools congruent with the
literature on leadership traits and skills?
Significance of the Study
Superintendents of schools translate the policies
of boards of education into goals for the school
district. These goals drive the services and programs
designed for the students. Mines (1980) suggested that
the success of an organization depends in large part on
the people who lead it (p.48). Stability in the
superintendency provides continuity for programs and
services and provides an environment that can support
the change process and the development of new services
and programs. Organizations with constant change at
the top may experience a leadership void that causes
the organization to emphasize maintenance of services
and programs because they are comfortable and familiar
and to avoid those new directions that are
uncomfortable.
Every three years, nearly one half of the school
6


districts in California experience the disruption
caused by the change in the superintendency (Giles,
1990). This disruption may shift attention and focus
from the primary responsibility of school districts,
the education of students.
Sendor (1981) noted that boards of education had a
sincere desire to hire the "most highly qualified" and
"best available" candidate to lead their school system
(p. 30) At the same time, there is no one best way to
select a superintendent, primarily because localities
vary in their specific idiosyncracies, values, and
expectations (Anderson & Lavid, 1985) .
The research on selection and evaluation of
superintendents of schools was reviewed for this study
in order to determine the criteria previously
identified for superintendent selection and evaluation.
Through a search of the Educational Resources
Information Center (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts
International, 15 studies were found to contain
criteria applicable to this study. There were none
relating the two areas to one another and to leadership
theories. This study added to the field by providing
data about the criteria judged as most important by
boards of education and superintendents, themselves,
for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of
7


schools. In addition, it compared these criteria to
the literature on leadership theories with respect to
the traits and skills identified in the research
(Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1981; House & Baetz, 1979).
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations need to be considered
when drawing conclusions from the study:
1. The population was limited to boards of
education and superintendents in selected school
districts in California.
2. The population was limited to those holding
the positions of president of a board of education and
superintendent at the time of the study.
3. The survey was a self-reporting instrument and
its validity is limited by the honesty, accuracy, and
clarity of the respondents.
4. The literature provided 15 research-based
lists of the criteria for selection and evaluation of
superintendents. Important selection and evaluation
criteria may have been omitted from the questionnaire
and all respondents may not have added items to the
list when invited to do so.
8


Delimitations
Situational leadership theory is discussed in the
literature review in Chapter 2. This theory, however,
was not considered in the analyses completed for this
study. The unique leadership situations present in the
144 school districts in this study were not factored
into the results.
Definitions
Definitions used in this study were selected
specifically for the purposes of this study, the
selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools.
They are not intended as general definitions.
Board of education: The duly elected body charged
with the responsibility of establishing school district
policy to be administered by the superintendent.
Criteria: Characteristics, categories, job
functions, job expectations, job descriptions,
management tasks, duties, responsibilities, roles,
functions, performance standards, or domains used as
the basis for selection or evaluation (Bolton, 1980, p.
44; Sonedecker, 1984, p.102; Pringle, 1989, p. 75-78).
9


Evaluation: The systematic procedure for
collecting information based on predetermined
objectives and/or criteria set at the local level,
which includes provisions for the analysis and sharing
of that information with the evaluatee (Conley, 1986) .
Leadership: Inducing followers to act for certain
goals that represent the values and the motivations,
the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations,
of both the leaders and followers (Burns, 1978, p. 19) .
Leadership behavior and skills: The actions of
leaders that have been described in terms of managerial
roles or behavioral categories (Mintzberg, 1973; Yukl,
1979) .
Leadership style: The action disposition, or set
or pattern of behaviors, displayed by a leader in a
leadership situation (Immegart, 1988, p. 262) .
Leadership traits: Physical characteristics,
personality features, or psychological characteristics
of the individual that have been suggested for the
identification of leaders (Yukl, 1988, p. 67; House &
Baetz, 1979) .
Management: The scientific art of attaining
intended organizational objectives by working
effectively with and through the human and material
resources of the organization (Cribben, 1972, p.2) .
10


Functions of management include: setting of goals and
objectives; organizing, classifying and analyzing
actions; motivating and communicating with subordinates
and others in the organization; measuring results; and
developing people (Drucker, 1974, p. 16) .
Superintendent of schools: Chief executive
officer of a school district responsible to the board
of education and for the administration of the district.
11


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Organization of Chapter 2
Since the purpose of this study was to examine the
criteria identified as most important by presidents of
boards of education and superintendents of school for
the selection and evaluation of superintendents and to
compare these criteria with those found in the
literature on trait and skill-based leadership
theories, the chapter is divided into three major
sections supporting the research questions: (1)
superintendent selection criteria; (2) superintendent
evaluation criteria; and, (3) leadership theory.
Superintendent Selection Criteria
Selection of a superintendent may be one of the
most important actions taken by a Board of Education
and Hemphill (1962) noted the increased attention to
selection criteria. Much of the research since that
time has focused on the criteria in use in school


districts and issues of the relevance and validity of
particular criteria for the selection decision. Many
of these research studies are presented in this section
of the literature review.
Superintendents of schools as chief executive
officers of their organizations are commonly regarded
as the standard by which the organization is measured.
An organization is only as strong as its top management
and has no broader vision nor performance than its
executive personnel (Dale, 1970, p 69). The managerial
functions identified by Koontz, O'Donnell & Werhrich
(1986), while intended as universal management
fundamentals, apply equally well for superintendents of
schools (Pringle, 1989, p. 17). These functions
provide a broad framework for the superintendent
selection process:
1. Leading: Influencing people so that they will
strive willingly and with enthusiasm toward achievement
of the organizational goals (Koontz et al, p. 360);
2. Planning: Selecting from among alternative
future courses of action for the organization (Koontz
et al., p. 73);
3. Organizing: Establishing a formal system of
roles that people can perform so that they may work
13


best together to achieve organizational objectives
(Koontz et al., p. 161);
4. Staffing: Filling positions in the
organizational structure by identifying workforce
requirements, recruitment, selection, appraisal,
compensation, and training of people (Koontz et al., p.
275) ;
5. Controlling: Closely related to planning
where the process involves establishing standards,
measuring performance against standards and plans
(Koontz et al., p. 448).
Another framework for examining what managers do
is provided by Mintzberg (19'73) Mintzberg identified
10 roles of the manager. These roles are also
applicable to superintendents of schools. The roles
were grouped into three categories: interpersonal,
informational, and decisional. The interpersonal roles
included those of figurehead, leader and liaison and
focused on interactions and relationships with others.
The informational roles included those of monitor,
disseminator, and spokesman and included all aspects of
sending and receiving both internal and external
information to staff, the public, and the board of
education. Pitner and Ogawa (1981) observed that
14


50% of the superintendent contacts were for this
purpose (p. 59). The decisional roles included
entrepreneur, disturbance handler, negotiator, and
resource allocator. These roles included the
investigation and management of threats to and
opportunities for the organization.
Gerla (1988) examined superintendent selection
from the theoretical framework of Mintzberg's role
categories for managers. Among the skills and
competencies related to the decisional roles, the
ability to manage the district's resources, the ability
to make high-quality decisions and get things done, the
ability to solve problems and resolve conflict, and
emphasis on the school district's quality service to
the community were identified. Factors related to the
interpersonal role included: being honest and
trustworthy, projecting a positive image, demonstrating
concern for academic excellence, possessing effective
motivational skills, and appearing confident and
poised. Informational roles that were important in the
selection process centered on communications skills:
oral communications, the ability to process and
dispatch information, and maintenance and improvement
of the current program (p. 129).
Cuban (1988) turned the examination of roles
15


directly to the superintendent of schools and extended
them beyond management. Cuban depicted the core roles
of superintending as political, managerial, and
instructional. City superintendents spend 58% of their
time on administrative (managerial) activities, 31% on
instructional supervision, and 11% on community/public
relations (political). Rural superintendents had
slightly less time on administration (55%) and slightly
more time for instructional issues (35%) (p. 128) .
The managerial role has been the most time
consuming. Whether the role of the superintendent is
primarily managerial in nature or one of educational
leadership (instructional) was addressed by Duignan
(1980) Verbal contacts of superintendents were with
policy makers and school district administrators 70% of
the time compared to 9% with teachers and.pupils.
Seventy-two percent of the contacts were categorized as
administrative (managerial) compared to 25% that were
educational. Guthrie and Reed (1986) also documented
the managerial nature of the superintendency.
The identified roles of the superintendent have
helped define the criteria noted in the literature for
superintendent selection. These criteria can be
grouped as professional, functional, personal
characteristics, skills, and knowledge as they relate
16


to the roles. Research on professional criteria has
identified the following items: previous experience,
preparation, and competence (Dylewski, 1975; Wing,
1975) .
In addition to the professional criteria, various
skills have been identified as important in the
assessment of candidates for administrative positions:
human relations skills, organizational ability,
communications skills, and the ability to elicit
cooperation (Powell, 1984; Robertson, 1984). Joines
(1986) advocated the use of the assessment center
approach to superintendent selection as it focused on
the skills the superintendent is believed to need on
the job: delegation, monitoring of work objectives,
decision making, speaking ability, interaction with
diverse personalities, leadership, ability to develop
cohesiveness on critical issues. He also suggested
personal characteristics, persuasiveness, and several
areas for assessment of general knowledge: budget and
finance, personnel and staff development, union
relations, political forces in the community,
supervision, and curriculum and instruction (p. 32).
Personal characteristics that have been identified
as important in the selection of administrators include
judgment, personality, character, openmindedness,
17


physical and mental health, poise, intelligence, sense
of humor, voice, and cultural background (DeFrahn,
1974, p. 1445) .
White and DeVries (1990) explored the issue of
private sector senior-level manager selection. They
pointed to the high turnover rate in the private sector
and noted that an estimated one-third of those chosen
for senior executive positions are seen as a
disappointment to the organizations that hired them.
Based on anecdotal information they received at the
Center for Creative Leadership, they estimated that the
number is more likely to be 50% and suggested that the
turnover rate is, in part, due to selection on overly
narrow grounds such as the candidate's ..personal
qualities and track record (p. 1). They supported
these components as one part of the criteria for
selection, but suggested that the demands of the
position being filled and the specific job challenges
each candidate has faced also be Considered. As
superintendents occupy the most senior position in
school districts and perform many of the same functions
as the chief executive officer in private sector
organizations, suggestions for the private sector
selection process make a contribution to the selection
considerations in the public sector.
18


White and DeVries (1990) highlighted the typical
selection qualities: knowledge, skills, and abilities.
They contended that technical mastery in a candidate
often overshadows qualities that are more important
such as executive resilience and personal values.
Executive resilience they defined as the capacity to
learn (p. 2). The executives they studied all made
mistakes, but the critical difference between
successful and unsuccessful executives was the fact
that the successful executives were able to acknowledge
and accept their mistakes. Bennis (1985) supported
this characteristic.in successful executives (p. 189) .
Personal values of senior-level managers have not
received a great deal of emphasis in the literature.
Pearson (1989) identified several: "giving better
value than your competitors do (competitiveness); a
reasoned approach to investment (judiciousness);
looking for the simplest ways to do things
(efficiency); and- an understanding that you can get
the most impact by concentrating on a few things at a
time (selectivity)" (pp. 94-101).
Though there is little research on what values are
crucial to leadership in senior-level positions, some
consideration of the values of the candidates in
comparison with those of the organization is an area
19


suggested as appropriate in the selection process
(Pearson, 1989, p. 101).
The criteria in use in school districts for
administrator selection are often based on managerial
stereotypes (Briner, 1959) and tend to be global rather
than specific (Bessent, 1962). Examination of the
candidates' track record is a good example. The
candidates considered for superintendencies are, almost
by definition, successful and accomplished. The
skills and attributes that contributed to success in
previous positions are investigated for the new
position. The demands of the position being filled,
however, must be identified in a specific rather than
global way to enable those involved in the selection
process to consider the job-person fit; that is, how
well each candidate is matched to the position being
filled (White and DeVries, 1990, pp. 3-4) .
Estes (1979) cited the following essential
qualities that superintendents should have to meet the
challenges of the position:
1. Possession of a sound conceptual and
theoretical basis for educational programming;
2. Appreciation of the dynamics of local
communities and the establishment of responsive
20


management practices and structures to address the
needs of local constituents;
3. Ability to engage in constructive dialogue
with local boards of education and to assist boards in
exercising leadership in their respective communities;
4. Political astuteness and ability to interact
with local, state, and federal government structures in
a constructive manner;
5. Ability to formulate and monitor effective
regulatory policy and procedure which will facilitate
efficient school operations;
6. Ability to direct management including an
ability to assemble an effective management team, and
to assure productivity and harmony in the school
district;
7. Ability to provide the emotional and spiritual
support and leadership for the school district;
8. Awareness of resources and knowledge necessary
for doing the job of running the schools (p. 26).
Hoyle, English, & Steffy (1985) cited basic and
essential skills for school administrators. Included
were skills related to the following: designing,
implementing, and evaluating school climate; building
support for schools; developing school curriculum;
instructional management; staff evaluation; staff
21


development; allocating resources; and educational
research, evaluation, and planning (p. iii). Based on
these performance areas and skills identified by Hoyle
(1985), Sclafani (1987) determined the top six skills
for effective superintending to be:
1. Demonstrates a broad array of leadership
skills;
2. Demonstrates sound principles of personnel
administration;
3. Employs sound financial planning and cash flow
management;
4. Employs effective school/community public
relations, coalition building, and related activities;
5. Provides for effective evaluation of teacher
performance;
6. Uses cost-effective techniques and sound
program budgeting (p. 70) .
The important areas of performance as seen by
Texas superintendents were identified by Collier
(1987) The areas were similar to the national list
generated by Sclafani: finance, climate, curriculum,
management, evaluation, instruction, support, and
research (p.69-70).
Marshall (1959) found that in the educational
arena agreement on selection criteria is more likely to
22


occur at the level of principle rather than in specific
application. Powell (1984), however, found that there
was moderate agreement between superintendents and
school board presidents on the importance of various
general criteria used to select superintendents (p.61).
The criteria were ranked in the following manner:
1. Courage
2. Decision-making
3. Board operations
4. Organizational ability
5. Board-Superintendent relations
6. Fiscal management
7. Ability under pressure
8. Belief in children (p. 58) .
Powell examined superintendent evaluation criteria, as
well, and concluded that the criteria considered most
important in the selection of the superintendent may
not be considered the most important in evaluating the
superintendent's performance (p. 62) .
Personal qualities and skills learned as a result
of training or experience were ranked by board
presidents in a selection survey reported by Alkire
(1988) The personal qualities considered important
included.: leadership ability, personal
attitudes/morals, organizational ability, school
23


activities, discipline, and experience as a principal
and superintendent. The training and experience
characteristics included: public relations,
communications skills, personnel management, budgetary-
knowledge, evaluation skills, curriculum planning,
staff recruitment, supervision of facilities, time
management, and buildings and grounds (p.38).
Desirable competencies of superintendents for.
selection purposes as perceived by board members and
superintendents were contrasted by Haugland (1987).
Board members ranked the following competencies as they
were perceived as desirable for successful selection:
1. Personnel management
2. School finance
3. Curriculum development
4. Accomplish goals set by the board
5. Superintendent/board relations
6. Public relations
7. Policy formulation
8. School construction
9. Collective negotiations (p. 41).
Superintendents ranked the competencies in the
following order:
1. Superintendent/board relations
2. Personnel management
24


3.
Public relations
4. School finance
5. Accomplish goals set by the board
6. Curriculum development
7 . Policy formulation
8. School construction
9. Collective negotiations (P- 41) .
One of the most recent studies of the selection
criteria for superintendents of schools is that
reported by Pringle (1989) School board presidents
identified the following as the most important skills
for the selection process:
1. Provides appropriate information to all board
members regarding school operations;
2. Actively recruits, screens for quality, and
selects the most qualified candidates for each
professional position;
3. Builds a climate of trust and mutual respect
with board members;
4. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the
respective roles of the board and the superintendent;
5. Staffs the central administration team with
appropriate and adequate personnel that have technical
knowledge commensurate with the position assignments
(p. 202) .
25


In selecting superintendents, board presidents focused
on the ability of the applicant to build a positive
relationship with the board. Two of the top five
components were related to the board relationship
domain.
The research on selection criteria in the
educational setting hasn't progressed much beyond that
of Hemphill (1962) in terms of identification of a
specific list of criteria for superintendent selection.
What is agreed is that the "work of administrators is
multidimensional and that multiple selection criteria
should be used. What those criteria might be has
remained elusive" (Miklos, 1988, p. 55). Haugland
(1987) stated:
"Most public school board members and their
superintendents get along in a professional
manner, but a rift sometimes occurs when the
board members and superintendents perceive
their respective roles differently. It is,
therefore, important that the role of the
superintendent be clarified and the
responsibilities be defined (p. 40)."
The review of the literature on selection of the
superintendent leads to the conclusion that the board
must find some method of keeping its list of selection
criteria within limits. They must guard against having
such extensive lists that it would be humanly
impossible to meet them. Horkan (1986) presented the
26


following quotation about the selection of a Yale
president to provide perspective:
He had to be a leader, a magnificent speaker
and great writer, a good public relations man
and fund raiser, a man of iron health and
stamina, married to a paragon a best
dressed woman of the year a man of the
world, but with great spiritual qualities, an
experienced administrator who can delegate
authority, a Yale man and a great scholar,
and a social philosopher who has at his
fingertips a solution to all of the world's
problems. I don't doubt that you have
concluded that there is only One who has most .
of these qualifications. But, we ask
ourselves, is God a Yale man? (p. 59)
Subsequent to the selection of the superintendent,
the board must evaluate both their selection and the
performance of the superintendent they selected.
"Validation of the selection process through evaluation
is a purpose of evaluation that is often overlooked.
The relationship of the criteria for selection to that
of evaluation should be consistent" (Pringle, p. 51) .
Superintendent Evaluation Criteria
With over 15,000 school superintendents in the
United States, it would be logical to assume that there
would be a wealth of information on the evaluation
criteria for assessing the performance of these school
leaders. A search of the Educational Resources
Information Center (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts
27


International for research studies on superintendent of
schools evaluation criteria identified only 29 studies.
Given the emphasis on educational reform that has taken
the country by storm since the early 1980's and the
increased demand by the public and the politicians for
accountability, it is surprising to find so few studies
that address the effectiveness of the chief executive
officer of the school district. This finding, however,
is consistent with a similar one in the private sector.
An American Management Association (AMA) research study
(1984) found that though performance appraisal is
considered one of the most important management
processes, fewer than half of the 581 companies
surveyed conducted performance appraisals of their top
officers. Of those companies that do evaluate top
managers, the CEO's are given extra latitude in the
means used for their evaluation (p. 35). Conley (1986)
concluded that the impact of a 1984 Colorado law
regarding formal, certificated personnel performance
evaluation was, perhaps, greatest in the area of
administrator evaluation, but also noted that few
Colorado school districts had formal written plans for
the evaluation of the superintendent (p. 179). Roberts
(1988) reported that of 250 randomly selected
superintendents in California, slightly over half
28


received comprehensive, written evaluations (p. 1611-
A). In an earlier California study, less that 50% of
the 100 school districts surveyed had written policies
and procedures and evaluation instruments for
appraising, the superintendent. Almost 30% did not
possess superintendent evaluation documents of any sort
(Barbot, 1986, p. 135-136).
Carol's study (1972) is cited as the benchmark in
all of the studies on superintendent evaluation. Carol
surveyed 207 school districts in New Jersey regarding
evaluation of the superintendent. Three percent of the
districts surveyed used formal evaluation procedures;
62 percent used informal procedures; and 29 percent
used no specific procedure. The method favored by the
school boards was discussion followed by observation
and interaction at meetings and work sessions. The
criteria used by the,majority of the boards included:
(1) relationship with staff, community, and students;
and, (2) general effectiveness of the superintendent.
Jones (1981) confirmed these findings and provided
additional data on the superintendent evaluation
procedures in use in New Jersey. Jones found that 75
percent of the school board members were still using
informal, verbal appraisals. Formalizing the
29


evaluation of the superintendent was listed as the most
significant method of improving the process (p.4).
McGrath (1972) examined the procedures, processes,
and criteria used to evaluate superintendents in
California school districts. Though the school
districts reported formal evaluation procedures in use,
only 43 percent of those districts could provide the
written instruments when requested. McGrath concluded
that formal evaluation was not widespread in
California. Other findings of the McGrath study
included: (1) school board chairs and superintendents
agreed on community, board, and staff relations as the
most important function of the superintendent; (2) 60
percent of the evaluation policies in the districts
where they existed were initiated by the
superintendent; (3) 64 percent of the survey districts
used checklists; and (4) salary determination was the
primary reason for evaluation with contract renewal,
continued employment, and improved functioning of the
superintendent next in importance.
Two additional studies in the early 70's stressed
the importance of the evaluation process for the
district superintendent. Sitter (1972) found in a
study of factors affecting the dismissal of
superintendents in Indiana and Illinois, that six of
30


the seven boards studied did not conduct any objective
evaluation of the superintendent. Brinkman (1973)
found that in California school districts where
superintendent evaluation procedures were judged to be
working well, the relationship between the board and
the superintendent had improved over time. Studies by
Reopelle (1974) and Roelle (1983) also supported
board/superintendent relationship as a primary concern
of superintendent evaluation systems.
The Michigan Association of School
Administrators (MASA) surveyed their superintendents
during the 1974-75 school year. They found that 45
percent of the responding districts did not have any
type of formal evaluation, 36 percent had some kind of
formal evaluation, and 19 percent had no evaluation
procedures. Superintendents responding to this study
expressed a high interest in having an organized
program to evaluate their performance (p. 12).
Job descriptions enter as a component in
administrative evaluation practices in a study
conducted by Bolton (1980) in Washington. Job
descriptions were considered the most important factor
and the most common factor in use in Washington for.
evaluation purposes. They specified the job functions
(criteria) that were the basis for measuring job
31


performance. Cunningham & Hentges (1982), however,
found that over 40 percent of the superintendents who
had job descriptions were not evaluated in terms of
those descriptions. In 1976, Brown found in New York
state that 50 percent of the 450 superintendents
participating in his study had formalized job
descriptions as part of their contract or in written
board policy. Seventy-five percent of the participants
had contract language that detailed the procedures for
their evaluation.
Educational Research Service (1975) reported on
the evaluation of administrative performance, the
superintendent, and school boards. They found four
types of superintendent evaluation procedures: (1)
evaluations based on performance objectives, (2)
checklists and rating scales, (3) general
administration forms used with all administrative staff
including the superintendent, and (4) informal
evaluations. The report indicated the emergence of
more formal procedures for the evaluation of the
superintendent (p. 2-7).
Buchanan (1981) surveyed superintendents, board
presidents, and the most senior member of the boards of
education in school districts in Indiana. He found
that board presidents reported educational leadership
32


as the most important evaluation criteria, a finding
quite different from that reported by McGrath nine
years earlier. Other conclusions reported by Buchanan
included:
1. The most important source of information
regarding the superintendent's performance was
administrator input.
2. The most important means of obtaining
information about the superintendent's performance were
his/her reports and presentations.
3. The least important criterion for evaluating
the superintendent was personal characteristics.
4. The superintendent was evaluated annually,
continuously, and informally and in closed or executive
meeting.
5. The most important purpose for evaluation was
to identify weak areas (pp. 81-87).
Yates (1981) surveyed all of the public school
superintendents and board of education presidents in
Illinois regarding the procedures used for evaluating
the chief executive officers in that state. Fifty-nine
percent of the superintendents and 26 percent of the
board presidents responded. Findings included:
33


1. Nearly all of the responding districts
evaluated the superintendent with varying degrees of
formality.
2. More formalized evaluation practices were
utilized in districts where the superintendent was
employed on a multi-year contract, had previous
experience with a formal evaluation procedure, or was a
member of the state administrators' association.
3. Superintendents believed evaluations should be
closely related to their job descriptions, should be
annual, and the results discussed in executive session
(p.05-A) .
Miller (1982, p. 171) in a study of the working
relationship between the chief executive officer and
the board of education concluded that despite a body of
literature suggesting the need for and value of
evaluation as a component of an effective working
relationship between boards and superintendents, little
evaluation of the chief executive officers was
occurring in Colorado at the time of his study. He
concluded that superintendent evaluation in Colorado
was no more prevalent than it had been 10 years earlier
as identified by Carol (1972) .
Eggers (1984) examined the evaluation of South
Dakota public school superintendents. Though his
34


findings supported many of those presented above, the
issue of those to be involved in the evaluation process
was discussed. Eggers found that 26 percent of the
South Dakota superintendents supported the idea of
involving persons other than board members in their
evaluation. This compared to less than two percent in
the earlier Cunningham study (1982) Fenster (1985)
found in mid-size Nebraska school districts that
teachers, patrons, and students were rarely asked to
provide a written evaluation of the superintendent's
performance. Principals, however, were involved in the
process by 31 percent of the districts.
Sonedecker (1984), Snavely (1984), Barbot (1986),
and Intress (1985) each concluded that superintendent
evaluation was not very widespread. Despite the
recognized importance of thorough and valid
evaluations, it seems that board members are not
strongly committed to personnel evaluation. In fact,
school boards in Kansas did not identify superintendent
evaluation as a critical issue (Anderson & Lavid, 1988,
p. 29). Fifty percent of the school boards surveyed
held an executive session superintendent evaluation
discussion without the superintendent present (p. 31).
School boards involved in the evaluation process
often have similar criteria for the evaluation,
35


although the terminology may be slightly different.
Dittloff (1982) reported that one Wisconsin board cited
the areas of people management, task management, and
personal competencies as the areas to be evaluated. The
people management component included the relationship
with the board, as well as with the community, staff,
and students. Task management included leadership
skills, issues management, and efforts directed at the
instructional program. The personal competencies
focused on the superintendent's creative and analytic
abilities and an ability to handle conflict (p. 41).
Braddon (1986) identified the following criteria
developed by an Ohio school board: people management,
goal achievement, personal qualities, finances,
communications, ethics and time management (p. 28-29),
and Kowalski (1976) listed the following categories:
1. Board-Superintendent Relationships
2. Community Relations
3. Personnel Relations
4. . Fiscal Management
5. Plant Management
6. Learning Opportunities-Curriculum and
Instruction
7. Student Performance and Demeanor
8. Long-Range Planning
36


9. Routine Management (p.33)
Shroyer (1988) focused on the emergence of
financial management as an evaluation criteria for
superintendents. Of 24 criteria identified as skills
necessary for effective superintending, board
presidents selected three of their top five criteria
from the area of finance. The criteria included the
utilization of all appropriate revenue sources,
developing the budget based on district priorities, and
ensuring that the school district financial
transactions are properly handled (p. 2215-A).
In Texas, state mandated appraisal of
administrators, including the superintendent, is
underway. Initial criteria for this state-directed
process include:
1. School Climate
2. School Improvement
3. Instructional Management
4. Personnel Management
5. Administration and Fiscal/Facilities
Management
6. Student Management
7. Professional Growth and Development
8. School/Community Relations (Pringle, 1989,
p. 67-71).
37


The research indicates some strong similarities
between the criteria used for the selection and
evaluation of the superintendent of schools.
Throughout the literature the following criteria were
consistently described: financial management,
personnel management, board superintendent
relationship, community relations and facility planning
and management. The evidence in the literature
suggests that a strong relationship exists.
Leadership Theory
The superintendent of schools is responsible for
achieving the objectives established by the board of
education effectively and efficiently. In leadership
terms the superintendent is both strategist and
tactician. The superintendent translates the board's
objectives into a vision and direction for the district
and oversees the day-to-day operations designed to move
the district ever closer to that vision. "Many
organizations are paralyzed by situations in which
people appeal for direction, feeling immobilized and
disorganized by the sense that they are not being led"
(Smircich & Morgan, 1982, p. 257). Bennis (1989)
argued that leaders are vitally important for three
basic reasons: 1) the success or failure of all
38


organizations rests on the perceived quality of the
people at the top; 2) the change and upheaval of past
years has led to the desperate need for visionary
navigators; and 3) the alarming erosion of the
integrity of our institutions (p.2-3) .
The questions of what constitutes leadership,
how leadership can be identified, and how it can be
measured continue to be debated widely (Blake & Mouton,
1982; Bennis, 1985; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).
Leadership theories, as advanced in the literature, are
the topic of this section of the literature review.
Bennis (1959) surveyed the leadership literature
and concluded: "Always, it seems, the concept of
leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to
taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity.
So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms
to deal with it . and still the concept is not
sufficiently defined" (p. 259) Stogdill (1974)
concluded that "there are almost as many definitions of
leadership as there are persons who have attempted to
define the concept" (p. 259). Leadership has been
defined in terms of traits, behavior, influence,
interaction, and style. "In research, the operational
definition of leadership will depend to a great extent
on the purpose of the researcher. The purpose may be
39


to identify leaders, to train them, to discover what
they do, to determine how they are selected, or to
compare effective and ineffective leaders" (Yukl,
1981, p. 5).
The selection of appropriate criteria of leader
effectiveness depends on the objectives and values of
the person making the evaluation. "The different
criteria are often uncorrelated, and may even be
negatively correlated" (Yukl, 1981, p. 6).
Nearly all of the research on leadership can be
classified into one of the following approaches: (1)
power-influence approach; (2) trait approach, (3)
behavior approach, and (4) situational approach. The
power-influence approach attempts to explain leader
effectiveness in terms of the source and amount of
power available to leaders and the manner in which
leaders exercise power over followers. The trait
approach emphasizes the personal qualities of leaders.
The.behavior approach examines what leaders do instead
of their traits or source of power and describes the
typical duties and activities of managers. The
situational approach emphasizes the importance of
situational factors such as the nature of the task
performed, the leader's authority and discretion to
act, role expectations, and the nature of the external
40


environment. In the situational model, the relevance
of leader traits, skills, and behavior is determined by
the specific situation ( Yukl, 1981, pp. 6-8) .
The power influence approach addresses leader
effectiveness in terms of the source and amount of
power available to leaders and the manner in which
leaders exercise power over followers. Most of the
research studies have used the power typology proposed
by French and Raven (1959) as a framework. The bases
of power are defined as: (1) reward power; (2)
coercive power; (3) legitimate power; (4) expert power;
and (5) referent power (Yukl, 1981, p.38). The
discussions of how a leader uses power effectively
reflect an assumption that there are two fundamentally
different approaches to the use of power. One approach
seeks to dominate subordinates and to keep them
dependent on the leader. The other seeks to build the
skills and self-confidence of subordinates. In the
first instance, the leader would create a highly
centralized organization with little delegation or
participation and, as a result,, little creativity,
initiative, or commitment. The other approach used by
leaders is to build commitment to the organization by
delegation of authority, shared information, and
41


participation in decision making (McClelland, 1970,
pp. 29-47).
Traits and Skills
One of the earliest approaches for studying
leadership was the trait approach. Underlying this
approach is the assumption that leaders are born not
made. Initial research on the trait theory of
leadership examined the physical characteristics,
personality, and ability of leaders. Stogdill (1974)
suggested that the following trait profile is
characteristic of successful leaders: adaptable to
situations, alert to social environment, ambitious and
achievement-oriented, assertive, cooperative, decisive,
dependable, dominant, energetic, persistent, self-
confident, tolerant of stress, and willing to assume
responsibility (p. 81).
Trait theory has played a significant role in
leader selection. The assessment center approach to
leader selection draws heavily on methodology for
measuring traits and skills of prospective managers.
The term assessment center refers to a standardized set
of procedures used to identify managerial (leader)
potential. Assessment center methodology includes the
42


use of projective and situational tests, written and
spoken exercises. Projective tests often include
incomplete sentences to be completed by the candidate.
Situational tests include the in-basket and leaderless
group exercises (Yukl, 1981, p. 71-72).
One of the most successful and most studied
assessment center programs is that of American
Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). Bray, Campbell
and Grant (1974) conducted an eight year longitudinal
study and found significant correlations between
individual traits and skills and success of the leader.
The following traits and skills were those most
predictive of success: oral communication skill, human
relation skill, need for advancement, resistance to
stress, tolerance of uncertainty, organizing and
planning, energy, creativity, and range of interests.
"Despite long argument, the consistency with
which some traits have been linked to leaders
and leadership situations indicates that
certain traits are associated with leaders in
leadership situations. The traits of
intelligence, dominance, self, confidence, and
high energy level are most often mentioned
and are commonly agreed on across research
reviewers" (Immegart, 1988, p. 261).
43


Leadership Typologies
The most widely accepted approach for classifying
leadership skills is in terms of a three-skill typology
initially proposed by Katz (1974) The skill
categories were defined as technical skills, human
relations skills, and conceptual skills. The technical
skills are related to knowledge about methods,
processes, procedures and techniques related to a
particular activity. The human relations skills focus
on human behavior and interpersonal processes such as
ability to understand feelings and attitudes, to
communicate clearly and effectively, and to establish
effective and cooperative relationships (pp. 33-42) .
A more recent model for classifying leadership
skills was proposed by Sergiovanni (1984), the 10-P
Model of Leadership. Sergiovanni suggested that
leadership skills are the tactical requirements of
quality leadership and should be considered the
prerequisites for leadership competence. These skills
are the technical and human skills which have dominated
the literature. Such skills include mastery of various
situational leadership theories, conflict management
tactics, team management principles, shared decision-
44


making models, and group process techniques. These
skills are the basics and once mastered enable the
leaders to move beyond routine competence.
Perspective enables the leader to differentiate
between the tactical and the strategic, moving to a
broader, more long-range view. This strategic view of
the organization is characterized by leader actions
that Sergiovanni labels as symbolic and cultural.
Beliefs about education, school organization and
operation, and how people should be treated are the
principles governing the perspective. Platform is the
ability to articulate the principles into an
operational framework, and politics enables the leader
to influence others to achieving specified goals.
Leadership meaning is the third aspect of
Sergiovanni's model. The leader possesses the skills
to help others interpret their contributions to the
organization, to motivate. In addition, a plan of
action is developed and the leader can be seen as the
embodiment of the plan by actions taken. Growth and
development of the individuals in the organization is a
priority.
Leaders of the nature described by Sergiovanni
have the ability to bring people together to work on
behalf of the organization. Workers share a set of
45


common beliefs and reach agreements about both what
will be done and how it will be done (Sergiovanni,
1984, p. 3-14).
Findings from research on leader traits and skills
have the most direct application to the selection of
administrators. When analyzed together with
information about the prior experience and performance
of candidates, it is possible to make reasonably good
predictions about likely success in higher level
managerial positions (Yukl, 1981, p. 89).
Leadership Style
A second approach to the study of leadership is
the examination of leader style. Style is defined as
"the action disposition, or set or pattern of
behaviors, displayed by a leader in a leadership
situation" (Immegart, 1988, p. 262). The early
studies of style that focused on finding the right or
best style have been abandoned. It is now apparent
that effective or successful leaders demonstrate style
variability. They exhibit a repertoire of styles and
that style is related to situation, both context and
task. Effective leaders, therefore, score high on all
style dimensions employed in studies (Immegart, 1988,
p. 262; Stogdill, 1974, p. 140).
46


Leadership Behavior
The third approach to the study of leadership is
the examination of leader behavior and comparisons of
behavior patterns for effective and ineffective
leaders. The behavior approach emphasizes what leaders
do instead of their traits or source of power (Yukl,
1981, p.92). In addition, there is a fine line between
much of the research on leadership style and the
inquiry into leader behavior. "The behavioral research
refers to attempts to focus on the effects of specific
leader behaviors as opposed to the pattern type
definition of style" (Immegart, 1988, p. 263). Leader
behavior research has revealed that leaders who exhibit
a variety of behaviors are more effective than those
who do not (Stogdill, 1974, p. 104). Just what those
behaviors are, however, has been elusive.
Mintzberg (1973) developed content categories to
define managerial roles. Three of the managerial roles
dealt with interpersonal behavior, three with
information processing behavior, and four with
decision-making behaviors of managers. All of the
roles and behaviors are relevant for any administrator
(Yukl, 1981, p. 99).
47


The two broadest and most widely studied
dimensions of leadership behavior are consideration and
initiating structure (Bass, 1985) The relationship-
oriented behaviors are instrumental for establishing
and maintaining good relationships with subordinates
and include supportiveness, friendliness, consultation
with subordinates, openness of communication, and
recognition of subordinate contributions. The task-
oriented behaviors include directing subordinates,
clarifying roles, planning, and problem solving. They
are instrumental for efficient utilization of resources
for the attainment of organizational goals (p.38).
In order to fill the conceptual void in leadership
behavior studies, Yukl (1981) completed a four-year
research program to identify meaningful and measurable
categories of leader behavior. The effort was designed
to develop a taxonomy of leadership behavior categories
that were neither situation-specific nor overly broad
and abstract. The behavior categories in the taxonomy
were: performance emphasis, consideration,
inspiration, praise-recognition, structuring reward
contingencies, decision participation, autonomy-
delegation, role clarification, goal setting, training-
coaching, information dissemination, problem solving,
planning, coordinating, work facilitation,
48


representation, interaction facilitation, conflict
management, and criticism-discipline. Most of the
categories are components of more broadly defined
categories found in earlier research (Yukl, 1981,
p. 121-128).
Situational Leadership
The fourth and most current approach to the study
of leaders is the situational or contingency studies.
The earlier trait, style and behavioral research
studies concluded that leadership was situational.
Fiedler's studies from 1967 to 1974 initiated the era
of the situation or contingency models. Fiedler
hypothesized "that group productivity was dependent on
the match in leadership orientation (task versus
relationship) and situation favorableness (a mix of
person-trait, group, and situational variables). He
concluded that one cannot speak of effective or
ineffective leadership, only of effective or
ineffective leadership in one situation or another.
Fiedler challenged the idea that there was one best way
to lead (Immegart, 1988, p. 264).
Hersey and Blanchard (1982) described situational
leadership as based on an interrelationship among task
behavior, relationship behavior, and the maturity level
49


of the followers. Task behavior is characterized by
leadership behavior designed to establish well-defined
patterns of organization, channels of communication,
and ways of getting jobs accomplished. Relationship
behavior is defined by open, supportive, and
facilitative behaviors. The maturity level of the
followers is their readiness for carrying out a
specific task. According to situational leadership
theory, there is no one best way to influence people.
The approach taken by the leader (telling, selling,
participating, and delegating) is determined by
assessing the maturity level of the subordinate in
terms of the task and relationship dimensions of the
situation. Hersey and Blanchard provided little
research evidence in support of their theory.
Situational leadership theory, however, makes a
positive contribution in that it emphasizes flexible,
adaptable leader behavior that treats different
subordinates differently and the same subordinate
differently as the situation changes (Yukl, 1981, p.
143-144).
Chapter Summary
The research on superintendent selection criteria
is based on the management functions of leading,
50


planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling. These
functions have been expanded by examination of the
political, managerial, and instructional roles
specific to superintendents of schools, and by
professional and personal characteristics as they
relate to the roles. In the selection process,
experience and preparation are combined with various
skills, knowledge and abilities believed to be critical
on the job.
Essential skills for all school administrators
include those related to climate, building support,
curriculum and instructional management, staff
evaluation, staff development, and allocation of
resources. In addition, the skills needed by the
superintendent of schools are expanded to include
leadership., personnel administration, financial
planning, public relations, board-superintendent
relations, and communications skills. In the
educational arena, agreement on selection criteria
between boards and superintendents is more likely to
occur at the level of principle rather than in specific
application, on generic, commonly mentioned criteria,
rather than specific, detailed lists of skills. There
is no single list of criteria for superintendent
51


selection. There is, however, agreement that multiple
selection criteria should be used.
One research study (Pringle, 1989) concluded that
the relationship of the criteria for selection to the
criteria for evaluation of the superintendent should be
consistent. Research on superintendent evaluation
supported the conclusions that few superintendents
receive formal, comprehensive, written evaluations
based on specific, known criteria and that
superintendent evaluation is not very widespread.
There are four common types of superintendent
evaluation: performance objectives, checklists and
rating scales, general administration forms, and
informal evaluations.
School boards involved in the evaluation process
often have similar criteria for the evaluation,
although the terminology may be slightly different.
Three areas emerge from the research on superintendent
evaluation: people management, task management, and
personal competencies. People management includes
relationships with the board, community, staff, and
students. Task management includes leadership skills
and efforts directed at the instructional program. The
personal competencies encompass creative and analytic
52


abilities and the ability to handle stress and
conflict.
The research indicates some strong similarities
between the criteria used for selection and evaluation
of the superintendent of school. Throughout the
literature the following criteria were consistently
described: financial management, personnel management,
community relations, and board superintendent
relationship.
Research on leadership theory can generally be
classified into one of four principal approaches:
power-influence, trait, behavior, and situational. The
power-influence approach looks at leadership in terms
of five kinds of power: reward power, coercive power,
legitimate power, expert power, and referent power. The
trait approach explores leadership through the personal
qualities of the leader. The behavior approach
emphasizes what leaders do instead of their traits.
The situational approach examines leadership behavior
in relationship to the context of the situation.
Leadership skills have been divided into three
categories: technical, human relations, and
conceptual. Identification of the technical and human
relations skills have dominated the research
53


literature. To these skills of basic competence have
been added those of symbolic and cultural leadership.
Leadership style is the set or pattern of
behaviors displayed in leadership situations. Leader
behavior, like style, is most effective when varied.
The two key dimensions of leadership are consideration
and initiating structure. The first is instrumental for
establishing and maintaining good relationships, the
second for efficient utilization of resources for the
attainment of organizational goals.
The situational leadership theory has little
research evidence to support it. Its contribution is
the emphasis it places on the idea that flexible,
adaptable leader behavior is appropriate as the
situation.changes.
54


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Overview
This study was designed to identify from the
criteria found in the literature those items judged to
be the most important to presidents of boards of
education and superintendents of schools in selected
California school districts for the selection and
evaluation of superintendents of schools and to compare
these criteria with the trait and skill criteria found
in the literature on leadership theories. It
identified criteria seen as the most important by the
presidents of boards of education and superintendents
of schools and compared their ratings. The study,
based on the existing research on superintendent
selection and evaluation and leadership, theories
consisted of.three major areas of investigation:
1) ratings by presidents of boards of education and
superintendents of the importance of criteria
identified from the literature for the selection and'
evaluation of superintendents of schools; 2) comparison
of the. most important selection and evaluation criteria


as rated by presidents of boards of education and
superintendents; and, 3) comparison of the selection
and evaluation criteria identified as most important by
presidents of boards of education and superintendents
to the traits and skills criteria identified in the
leadership literature.
Participants in the study included all presidents of
the boards of education and all superintendents of
schools in the 144 school districts in the five
southern California counties of Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Imperial, and San Diego. The school
districts represented all types of public school
districts found in the state of California:
kindergarten through sixth grade or eighth grade
elementary districts, 7th grade through 12th grade or
9th grade through 12th grade secondary districts, and
unified school districts serving students from
kindergarten through grade 12. In addition, the school
districts represented school districts of under 1,000 .
students (small), 1,001 to 5,000 (medium), and over
5,000 (large), as categorized by the Association of
California School Administrators (ACSA).
56


Procedures
This study was designed with two components:
survey research and a comparison of the survey results
with the literature. It combined questionnaire data
with a descriptive analysis of the traits and skills
criteria found in the literature on leadership. It
included the following components: development of
research questions about superintendent selection and
evaluation criteria; review of the research literature
on superintendent selection, superintendent evaluation,
and leadership theories related to traits and skills;
development of a questionnaire based on the research .
questions; a pilot study of the questionnaire;
administration of the survey; and analysis of the
results.
Questionnaire Development
A review of the research identified, 15 studies
that focused on superintendent selection and evaluation
criteria. From these studies, 69 criteria considered
important in the selection and evaluation of
superintendents were identified. The resources and
authors in chronological order include: Carol. (1972);
Abbott (1975); Brown, (1976); California School Boards
57


Association (1975); Barbot (1986); Brown (1976); Booth
& Glaub (1978); American Association of School
Administrators (1980); Cunningham, (1982); Powell
(1984); Anderson & Lavid (1985); Horkan (1986);
Haugland (1987); Gerla (1988); Pringle (1989).
The criteria from these 15 studies formed the
empirical research basis for and were combined into one
questionnaire for this study.
Pilot Test of Questionnaire
A pilot test of the questionnaire containing all
69 criteria was conducted. School board members, deputy
and assistant superintendents, and central office
administrators not participating in the study were
selected as pilot test participants. The pilot test
participants consisted of the following individuals:
Dr. Carol Berg, Deputy Superintendent, Newport-
Mesa School District, Newport Beach, California;
Mr. Tom Burnham, President, Burnham & Associates,
Management Consultants, Newport Beach, California;
Dr. Robert Ferrett, Director of Research and
Evaluation, Riverside Unified School District,
Riverside, California;
58


Dr. Bruce Givner, Deputy Superintendent, Special
Services, Irvine Unified School District, Irvine,
California;
Ms. Mary Ellen Hadley, Board Member, Irvine
Unified School District, Irvine, California, past-
president Orange County School Boards Association.
Dr. Jean Holbrook, Deputy Superintendent, San
Mateo County Office of Education, Redwood City,
California;
Dr. Lynn Kelley, Director of Human Resources,
Littleton Public Schools, Littleton, Colorado;
Mr. Paul Reed, Deputy Superintendent, Business
Services, Irvine Unified School District, Irvine,
California.
The pilot test participants were asked to comment
on the clarity and adequacy of the survey instrument.
Based upon their suggestions, the survey instrument was
revised. Criteria that were similar in nature were
combined. The Likert scale was expanded from a four-
part to a seven-part scale to allow for finer
distinctions by participants and more refined
statistical analysis. The seven-part interval scale
allowed participants to select from three numbers
representing various degrees of high importance, a
neutral middle position, and from three numbers
59


representing various degrees of low importance. The
final survey instrument contained 58 criteria to be
rated on a scale from 1 to 7. One represented low
importance and 7 represented high importance.
Study Design
School districts in the five California counties
identified for the study were categorized first by type
of district, K-6, K-8, 7-8, 7-12, K-12. They were also
categorized by district size of small, medium, and
large. Districts were then systematically assigned to
the superintendent selection or the superintendent
evaluation group for.the study. Seventy-eight school
districts were assigned to the selection group. Sixty-
six districts were assigned to the evaluation group.
Superintendents and board presidents in each of
the districts responded to the questionnaire developed
for their group. Both the selection and the evaluation
group questionnaires contained the same 58 criteria.
The questionnaire was titled Criteria for the
Selection of Superintendents of Schools for the
superintendents and board presidents in the selection
group. The questionnaire was titled Criteria for the
Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools for the
superintendents and board presidents in the evaluation
60


group. The superintendents and board presidents
constituted four groups for the purposes of this study:
(1) superintendents responding to criteria for
superintendent selection, (2) board presidents
responding to criteria for superintendent selection,
(3) superintendents responding to criteria for
evaluation of superintendents of schools, and (4) board
presidents responding to criteria for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools.
The sampling frame for the survey was all school
districts in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
Imperial and San Diego counties of California. The
school districts and their superintendents were
identified through the California Directory of Public
Schools, 1990. Board presidents in these school
districts were identified through the Directory of the
California School Boards Association, 1990. Surveys
were coded to include information regarding school
district type and school district size along with the
designation of the respondent as a superintendent or a
board president and the participants frame of
reference, selection or evaluation, to assist with data
analysis.
The questionnaire packet sent to each participant
was organized as follows:
61


1. A cover letter with solicitation for
participation. Superintendents received a request for
their input from David Brown, President of the
Association of California School Administrators and
Superintendent of Schools in the Irvine Unified School
District. Board presidents received a request for
their participation and support from Mary Ellen Hadley,
past-president of the Orange County School Boards
Association and Orange County representative to the
California School Boards Representative Assembly. The
cover letters explained the purpose of the study, the
importance of the study to superintendents and boards
of education, and contained an invitation to receive
the findings of the study.
2. The questionnaire included specific directions
for completing the survey along with directions for
return of the document to the researcher in the
enclosed, postage paid envelope.
Data Analysis
The following nine questions provide the framework
for the data analysis:
What do presidents of boards of education in
selected school districts in California identify as the
62


most important criteria for the selection of
superintendents of schools?
What do superintendents of schools in selected
school districts in California identify as the most
important criteria for the selection of superintendents
of schools?
What do presidents of boards of education in
selected school districts in California identify as the
most important criteria for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
What do superintendents of schools in selected
school districts in California identify as the most
important criteria for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
The responses of presidents of boards of education
and superintendents of schools were analyzed through
the use of procedures available in the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The results
are presented for the four groups: (1) superintendents
responding to selection criteria, (2) board presidents
responding to selection criteria, (3) superintendents
responding to evaluation criteria, and (4) board
presidents responding to evaluation criteria. The
results were compiled in two ways. For each
participant group, a mean score was calculated for each
63


of the 58 criteria. The criteria were ranked in
descending order of importance, from highest mean score
to lowest. This measure of central tendency was
accompanied by the standard deviation, the measure of
variability among the items. Rank was presented for
each criteria. Criteria that received the identical
mean score were assigned the identical rank.
The top ten criteria identified by each group were
presented with mean score, standard deviation, and
rank. Because of tied scores, more than 10 criteria
are presented for each group. Board presidents
identified 13 criteria as most important for
superintendent selection. Superintendents identified
14 criteria as most important for superintendent
selection. Board presidents identified 11 criteria as
most important for superintendent evaluation.
Superintendents identified 12 criteria as most
important for superintendent evaluation.
Are the 10 most important criteria identified by
superintendents for the selection of superintendents of
schools significantly different from the 10 most
important criteria identified by presidents of boards
of education for the selection of superintendents of
schools?
64


Are the 10 most important criteria identified by
superintendents for the evaluation of superintendents
of schools significantly different from the 10 most
important criteria identified bv presidents of boards
of education for the evaluation of superintendents of
schools?
Are the 10 most important criteria identified bv
presidents of boards of education for the selection of
superintendents of schools significantly different from
the most important criteria identified bv presidents of
boards of education for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
Are the criteria identified bv superintendents as
the most important for the selection of superintendents
of schools significantly different from the criteria
identified bv superintendents as the most important for
the evaluation of superintendents of schools?
Data for the analysis of the differences between
the groups were derived from the mean ratings of the
importance assigned by each group to their top ten
criteria. The data were analyzed by using a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to produce a
composite* score for the dependent variables to be
compared. Variations in the mean composite scores were
65


compared to chance fluctuations by using Wilks' Lambda
criteria available on SPSS/ MANOVA, 1990.
Univariate analyses were conducted using ANOVA.
Differences in the ratings of each of the criteria
identified as most important by superintendents and
presidents of boards of education were determined. The
criteria identified by superintendents as most
important for selection were compared with the
criteria identified by board presidents as most
important for selection. Each was also compared with
the criteria identified by superintendents as most
important for evaluation. Criteria identified by board
presidents as most important for selection were
compared to those identified as most important for
evaluation. Significant differences at the p<.05 level
are reported.
Are the criteria identified by presidents of
boards of education and superintendents as the most
important for the selection and evaluation of
superintendents of schools congruent with the
literature on leadership traits and skills?
Stogdill (1974), Yukl (1981), and House & Baetz
(1979) have identified lists of traits associated with
leaders. The criteria identified as most important by
board presidents and superintendents for selection and
66


evaluation of superintendents of schools were
categorized into two groups, traits and skills. The
traits were compared to those found in the literature.
The most widely accepted approach for classifying
leadership skills is in terms of the three-skill
typology of technical, human, and conceptual categories
(Katz, 1974). Sergiovanni(1990) offered another
typology with five components: technical, human,
educational, symbolic, and cultural. The skill
criteria identified as most important for
superintendent selection and evaluation were examined
in terms of the three-skill typology.
The intent of the study was to begin with an
expansive list of criteria found in the literature for
the selection and/or evaluation of superintendents of
schools and to identify those that were viewed to be of
highest importance by boards of education and
superintendents. In addition, the study design allowed
for comparison of the criteria identified as of highest
importance to the criteria found in the leadership
literature on traits and skills.
67


CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of this study was to identify from1 the
criteria found in the literature those items judged to
be the most important to presidents of boards of
i
i
education and superintendents of schools in selectejd
i
California school districts for the selection and |
i
evaluation of superintendents and to compare those
criteria with the trait and skill criteria found in the
literature on leadership theories. The study was based
on the existing research on superintendent selection,
superintendent evaluation and leadership theories.
Data to address the research questions were
collected by means of a survey of all of the
superintendents and presidents of the boards of
education in the public school districts located in
five California counties. Respondents were provided a
list of 58 criteria derived from the research
literature on superintendent selection and evaluation.
They were asked to rate each item as to its importance
for either selection or evaluation. The criteria
identified as the most important were then compared to


the trait and skill criteria found in the leadership
literature. Presentation of the findings is organized
around the research questions.
The Population
The population for this study included all 144
public school districts in the California counties of
Orange, San Diego, Riverside, Imperial and San
Bernardino. The school districts were categorized by
size and type of district, before assignment to the two
study groups: superintendent selection and
superintendent evaluation. This systematic sampling
resulted in 78 districts assigned to the superintendent
selection group. Sixty-six districts made up the
superintendent evaluation group. The superintendent
and board presidents in each of the districts were the
study participants. The overall response rate for all
participants was 63 percent. The respondents and their
response rates are presented in Table 1.
69


Table 1. Response Rate by Superintendents and Board
Presidents.
Respondents n Frequency Percent
Superintendents 144 100 69
Board Presidents 144 81 56
Total 288 181 63
Response rates were also calculated for the
participants by group assignment, selection and
evaluation, and they are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Respondent Response Rate by Group Assignment Position. and
Group Respondents Frequency Percent
Selection Superintendents 55 71
Board Presidents 42 54
Total Selection 97 62
Evaluation Superintendents 45 68
Board Presidents 39 59
Total Evaluation 84 64
The assignment of school districts to the two
groups, selection and evaluation, resulted in two
groups that were similarly based on school district
size. Responses from the two groups reflected this
similarity. Table 3 displays the responses by group
assignment and school district size.
70


Table 3. Respondents by Group Assignment and District
Size.
Group Size Frequency Percent
Selection Small 11 11
Medium 36 37
Large 50 52
Total Selection 97 100
Evaluation Small 13 16
Medium 27 32
Large 44 52
Total Evaluation 84 100
Superintendents participating in the selection
group had from less than one year to 32 years of
service as superintendents. Forty percent had three or
fewer years of service, 40 percent had 4 to 10 years of
service, and 20 percent had more than 10 years of
service. Superintendents participating in the
evaluation group had from one year of service to 28
years. Thirty-three percent had 3 or fewer years of
service, 40 percent had 4 to 10 years of service, and
27 percent had 11 or more years of service. Table 4
presents the superintendents by group and years of .
service.
71


Table 4. Superintendents' Years of Service.
Group Frequency Percent
Selection
I to 3 years
4 to 10 years
II or more years
Evaluation
I to 3 years
4 to 10 years
II or more years
22 40
22 40
11 20
15 33
18 40
12 27
The majority of the superintendents participating
in the selection group had served as superintendent
only in their current district or one other. Only 11
percent of the superintendents had held three or more
superintendencies. Table 5 displays the
superintendents and the number of districts served.
Table 5. Number of Superintendencies Held by Selection
Group Superintendents.
Superintendencies Frequency Percent
Current position only 35 64
1 other superintendency 13 24
2 other superintendencies 6 11
3 other superintendencies 1 0
Total 55 99
Board members in California serve four year terms
of office. Fifty-two percent of the Board.Presidents
72


who participated in the superintendent selection group
had served five or fewer years, one-third of them
nearing the end of their first term or just beginning
their second. Sixty-eight percent of the Board
Presidents who participated in the superintendent
evaluation group were in their first or second term.
Table 6 displays the years of service of the Board
Presidents responding to the surveys.
Table 6. Board Presidents' Years of Service.
Group Service Frequency Percent
Selection 1 year 3 7
2 years 5 12
3 to 5 years 14 33
More than 5 years 20 48
Evaluation 1 year 5 13
2 years 8 21
1 3 to 5 years 12 31
More than 5 years 13 33
Fifty-six percent of the Board Presidents
responding to the superintendent selection survey had
participated in the selection of at least one
superintendent. Twenty-three percent had participated
in more than one selection process. Table 7 provides
these data. Of the board presidents who had
participated in the selection of a superintendent, 29
percent of the selections were handled by a
73


superintendent search consultant, 26 percent handled
their own superintendent selection process.
Table 7. Board President Participation in
Superintendent Selection.
Participation
Percent
Selection of 1 Superintendent 33
Selection of 2 Superintendents 13
Selection of 3 or more Superintendents 10
Never Participated in Selection 44
Superintendents and board presidents participating
in the evaluation group responded to questions about
the frequency of superintendent evaluation, the purpose
of the evaluation, the source of the criteria used for
evaluation, and the format of the evaluation of the
superintendent in their districts. Eighty-five percent
of the superintendents and 89 percent of the board
presidents reported that the superintendent was
evaluated annually. Three major reasons for the
evaluation of the superintendent were supported by both
superintendents and board presidents: 46 percent
stated that superintendent evaluation was for the
purpose of measuring district progress; 21 percent for
the purpose of building and maintaining board-
superintendent relationships; 13 percent for contract
74


renewal. Only 7 percent noted that the purpose of the
evaluation was for needed improvement. Sixty-eight
percent of the board presidents and superintendents
reported that the superintendent's evaluation was
presented orally and in writing.
The response rates for superintendents and board .
presidents assigned to the two groups, superintendent
selection criteria and superintendent evaluation
criteria, were very similar. Seventy-one percent of
the superintendents in the selection group and 63% of
the superintendents in the evaluation group responded.
Fifty-four percent of the board presidents in the
selection group and 59% of the board presidents in the
evaluation group responded. Eighty-eight percent of the
superintendents have held one or two superintendencies;
40 percent of them have served as superintendent for 1
to 3 years. Twenty-six percent of the board presidents
have served 1 to 5 years on the board. Fifty percent
of the board presidents have participated in at least
one superintendent selection.
Selection and Evaluation Criteria in the Study
A review of the research on superintendent
selection and evaluation uncovered 15 studies
identifying criteria used in either the selection
75


process or the evaluation process for superintendents
of schools. Criteria that were similar were combined
for the purpose of this study and the resulting
questionnaire contained 58 criteria, a composite of the
original 15 studies (see Appendix B-l for
questionnaires). The respondents were categorized by
group, selection or evaluation, and by position, board
president or superintendent. Data are presented and
analyzed for each of the four groups: 1) board
presidents-selection; 2) superintendents-selection;
3) board presidents-evaluation; 4) superintendents-
evaluation. Mean scores, standard deviation and rank
were computed for each criteria by group and position
(see Appendix A, Table A-l) The 10 criteria ranked as
most important by each group were the subject of the
following analysis. The criteria were identified
following research questions 1-4. They were compared
as groups and individually following research questions
5-8. Following question 9 the criteria were examined
from the perspective of the trait and skill criteria
found in the leadership literature.
Research Question 1
What do presidents of boards of education in
selected school districts in California identify as the
76


most important criteria for the selection of
superintendents of schools?
Presidents of boards of education identified the
following criteria as most important for the selection
of superintendents of schools: leadership skills,
ability to relate to others, decision making skills,
belief in children, moral character,
board/superintendent relations, motivating others,
ability under pressure, ability to analyze problems,
congruence with district goals, personal attitude,
ability to handle conflict, and personnel management
skills. Board/superintendent relations and motivating
others received the identical mean score and they were
assigned the same rank. Personal attitude and ability
to handle conflict have the identical score and rank.
Ability under pressure and ability to analyze problems
also produced the same mean score and were assigned the
same rank. As a result of the tied mean scores and
ranks, 13 criteria were included for the final
analysis. The data are presented in Table 8.
77


Table 8. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked
by Presidents of Boards of Education.
Criteria Mean StDv Rank
Leadership Skills 6.62 0.54 1
Ability to Relate to Others 6.43 0.63 2
Decision Making Skills 6.3 6 0.76 3
Belief in Children 6.34 0.69 4
Moral Character 6.33 0.82 5
Board/Superintendent Relations 6.31 0.84 6(1)
Motivating Others 6.31 0.78 6(2)
Ability Under Pressure 6.29 0.86 7(1)
Ability to Analyze Problems 6.29 0.74 7(2)
Congruence with District Goals 6.26 0.80 8
Personal Attitude 6.24 0.94 9(1)
Ability to Handle Conflict 6.24 0.73 9(2)
Personnel Management Skills 6.19 0.77 10
Board presidents selected five personal qualities
and eight skills as the most important of the criteria
for the selection of a superintendent. Personal
qualities included belief in children, moral character,
ability under pressure, congruence with district goals,
and personal attitude. Skills they believed to be the
most important included leadership, relating to others,
decision making, board/superintendent relationship,
78


motivating others, problem analysis, handling conflict,
and personnel management.
Research Question 2
What do superintendents of schools in selected
school districts in California identify as the most
important criteria for the selection of superintendents
of schools?
Superintendents in the selection group identified
the following criteria as the most important for the
selection of superintendents of schools. They were:
board/superintendent relations, leadership skills,
decision making skills, personal attitude, ability to
analyze problems, conflict resolution skills, self
confidence, ability to handle conflict, initiative,
ability to relate to others, oral communications,
organizational ability, motivating others and belief in
children. Because of identical mean scores for four
sets of criteria, there were 14 criteria incuded in the
analysis. These data are presented in Table 9.
79


Table 9. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked
by Superintendents of Schools.
Criteria Mean . StDv Rank
Board/Superintendent Relations 6.78 0.50 1
Leadership Skills 6.64 0.59 2
Decision Making Skills 6.58 0.74 3(1)
Personal Attitude 6.58 0.71 3(2)
Ability to Analyze Problems 6.56 0.60 4(1)
Conflict Resolution Skills 6.56 0.66 4(2)
Self Confidence 6.54 0.67 5
Ability to Handle Conflict 6.51 0.61 6
Initiative 6.49 0.72 7(1)
Ability to Relate to Others 6.49 0.70 7(2)
Oral Communication 6.38 0.83 8(1)
Organizational Ability 6.38 0.68 8(2)
Motivating Others 6.33 0.80 9
Belief in Children 6.31 1.03 10
Superintendents included the following personal
qualities among those they ranked as the most important
for the selection of superintendents of schools:
personal attitude, self confidence, initiative, belief
in children. Ten skills were included on their list:
board/superintendent relations, leadership, decision
making, problem analysis, conflict resolution, handling
conflict, relating to others, oral communication,
organizational ability, and motivating others.
80


Both board presidents and superintendents selected
a combination of personal qualities (traits) and skills
in their most important criteria. Skills selected
include those of a technical nature (problem analysis,
organizational ability), interpersonal skills
(board/superintendent relations, communications,
decision making, conflict resolution), and the
conceptual skill of leadership. Superintendents and
board presidents both identified the traits of belief
in children and personal attitude among their top ten
criteria for selection. The superintendents added
initiative and self confidence to this list of traits.
Board presidents added moral character, ability to work
under pressure and congruence with district goals.
Superintendents emphasized a confident, self-starter
with a strong belief in children. Board presidents
combined the strong belief in children with moral
character and goal congruence. Superintendents and
board presidents agreed on the importance of the
following skills: board/superintendent relations,
leadership, decision making, problem analysis, ability
to relate to others, and motivating others.
Superintendents added conflict resolution and ability
to handle conflict, oral communications and
organizational ability. Board presidents added
81


personnel management skills. The superintendents
stressed conflict and communications. Board presidents
stressed the more general concept of the personnel
function. Statistical analysis of the selected criteria
is presented in research question 5.
Research Question 3
What do presidents of boards of education in
selected school districts in California identify as the
most important criteria for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
Presidents of boards of education identified the
following criteria as most important for the evaluation
of superintendents of schools: decision making skills,
leadership skills, board/superintendent relations,
moral character, initiative, organizational ability,
self confidence, belief in children, ability to analyze
problems, motivating, others, and personal attitude.
Board/superintendent relations and moral character
received the identical mean score and were assigned the
same rank. Eleven criteria, therefore, were included
in the analysis. The data are presented in Table 10.
82


Table 10. Most Important by Presidents of Boards of Evaluation Education Criteria as Ranked
Criteria Mean StDv Rank
Decision Making Skills 6.58 0.64 1
Leadership Skills 6.51 0.72 2
Board/Superintendent Relations 6.49 0.89 3(1)
Moral Character 6.49 0.85 3(2)
Initiative 6.44 0.68 4
Organizational Ability 6.41 0.72 5
Self Confidence 6.39 0.72 6
Belief in Children 6.38 1.02 7
Ability to Analyze Problems 6.36 0.71 8
Motivating Others 6.31 0.73 9
Personal Attitude 6.31 0.83 10
Board Presidents in the evaluation group
identified five personal qualities and six skills as
those that were the most important for the evaluation
of superintendents of schools. Three were identified
as most important to the board presidents in the
selection group: moral character, belief in children,
and personal attitude. Board presidents in the
evaluation group identified self confidence and
initiative, as well. Skills identified as most
important included decision making, leadership,
83


board/superintendent relations, organizational ability,
problem analysis, and motivating others.
Research Question 4
What do superintendents of schools in selected
school districts in California identify as the most
important criteria for the evaluation of
superintendents of schools?
Superintendents identified the following criteria
as most important for the evaluation of superintendents
of schools: board/superintendent relations, leadership
skills, decision making skills, ability to handle
conflict, ability under pressure, motivating others,
ability to analyze problems, congruence with district
goals, conflict resolution skills, self confidence,
oral communication, and planning ability. Twelve
criteria were included in the analysis as a result of
identical mean scores and ranks. Data are presented in
Table Hi Superintendents identified the personal
qualities of ability under pressure, congruence with
district goals, and self confidence as the most
important.
84


Table 11. Most Important Evaluation Criteria as Ranked
by Superintendents of Schools.
Criteria Mean StDv Rank
Board/Superintendent Relations 6.73 0.50 1
Leadership Skills 6.69 0.56 2
Decision Making Skills 6.64 0.57 3
Ability to Handle Conflict 6.51 0.84 4
Ability Under Pressure 6.49 0.73 5
Motivating Others 6.44 0.66 6
Ability to Analyze Problems 6.42 0.69 7(1)
Congruence with District Goals 6.42 0.66 7(2)
Conflict Resolution Skills 6.40 0.72 8(1)
Self Confidence 6.40 0.78 8(2)
Oral Communication 6.38 0.65 9
Planning Ability 6.36 0.80 10
In summary, board presidents and superintendents
identified only self confidence as a most important
personal quality or trait to consider in the evaluation
of a superintendent. Problem analysis was the
technical skill the two groups had in common. Decision
making, board/superintendent relations, and motivating
others were the interpersonal skills identified by both
groups. Leadership was the conceptual skill found on
both lists.
Boards of education are responsible for both the
selection and the evaluation of the superintendent of
85


schools. As a result, the comparison of the criteria
they identified for selection and evaluation is
especially interesting. Board presidents participating
in this study identified five personal qualities and
eight skills as most important for superintendent
selection. They identified five personal qualities and
six skills as most important for superintendent
evaluation.
The personal qualities that appeared on both the
board presidents' selection and evaluation lists
included: belief in children, moral character, and
personal attitude. At the time of hire they also
looked for congruence with district goals and ability
to work under pressure. At the time of evaluation,
they added initiative and self confidence to their list
of personal qualities. Board presidents seemed to seek
and retain positive superintendents with strong
beliefs. Individuals who were confident, self-
starters.
Skills identified by board presidents for
selection carried forward to evaluation. They were:
leadership, decision making, board/superintendent
relations, motivating others, problem analysis. At the
time of hire they added interpersonal criteria: the
ability to relate to others, to handle conflict, and to
86


manage personnel. At the time of evaluation, they
dropped the emphasis on interpersonal skills and added
organizational ability, an emphasis on getting the job
done.
Research Question 5
Are the criteria identified as most important by
superintendents for the selection of superintendents of
schools significantly different from the most important
criteria identified by presidents of boards of
education for the selection of superintendents of
schools?
Table 8 and Table 9 display the criteria
identified as most important by boards of education and
superintendents for the selection of superintendents of
schools. As a result of identical mean scores for
several items, board presidents identified 13 criteria
as the most important and superintendents identified 14
criteria. The criteria for each group are presented in
Table 12.
Eighteen items made up the composite set of
criteria identified as most important for the selection
of superintendents of schools: board-superintendent
relations skills, leadership skills, decision making
87


skills, ability to handle conflict, ability to work
under pressure, motivating others, ability to analyze
problems, congruence with district goals, conflict
resolution skills, self confidence, oral communications
skills, ability to relate to others, moral character,
initiative, organizational ability, belief in children,
personal attitude, and personnel management skills.
Table 12. Most Important Criteria for Selection of a
Superintendent of Schools as Ranked by Board Presidents
and Superintendents.
Rank Board Presidents Superintendents
1 Leadership Skills Board/Supt. Relations
2 Ability to Relate to Others Leadership Skills
3 , Decision Making Skills Decision Making Skills Personal Attitude
4 Belief In Children Ability to Analyze Prob. Conflict Resolution
5 Moral Character Self Confidence
6 Board/Supt. Relations Ability to Handle Conflict
7 Ability Under Pressure Ability to Analyze Prob. Initiative Ability to Relate to Others
8 Congruence with Dist. Goals Oral Communications Organizational Ability
9 Personal Attitude Ability to Handle Conflict Motivating Others
10 Personnel Management Skills Belief in Children
To complete the first analysis, data were derived
from the superintendents and board presidents
88


arrangement of criteria. The superintendents' and
school board presidents' mean ratings of the importance
of the 18 criteria were used as data points. Table 8
and Table 9 display the mean ratings for the two
groups.
The data were submitted to an unweighted means
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for the
identification of a composite of the 18 dependent
variables. Each component was associated with effect
and error matrices that produced a linear composite of
the dependent variables. The magnitude of variation in
mean composite scores associated with effect was
compared to chance fluctuation using Wilks' Lambda
criteria. Generation of effect and error matrices with
probability indices were facilitated by a computer
routine, SPSS, MANOVA, 1990.
The mean composite ratings of the two groups were
different at the pc.OOl level (Wilks' Lambda=.602,
F=2.72, df=18/74, pc.OOl). The composite associated
with the difference between the two groups was (2 times
the ability to act under pressure + 2 times congruence
with district goals minus board/superintendent
relation skills minus ability to handle conflict
minus 2 times conflict resolution skills).
89


The composite appeared to be focused upon a
discrepancy. In terms of criteria for the selection of
superintendents of schools, superintendents tended to
rate the importance of board/superintendent relation
skills much higher than the ability to work under
pressure and being congruent with district goals.
Board presidents, on the other hand, rated
board/superintendent relations, ability to handle
conflict, and conflict resolution skills lower than
ratings assigned by the superintendents.
Univariate analyses were conducted using ANOVA.
Differences in the ratings of each of the following
selection criteria by superintendents and board
presidents failed to exceed chance expectations:
leadership skills, decision-making skills, ability to
work under pressure, motivating others, congruence with
district goals, oral communication skills, ability to
relate to others, moral character, initiative,
organizational ability, belief in children, personal
attitude, and personnel management skills.
Five variables did produce significant
differences. Superintendents rated the.following
selection criteria higher in importance than board
presidents: board/superintendent relation skills
(F=11.16, df=l/91, pc.001), ability to handle conflict
90


(F=4.17, df=l/91, p<.04), ability to analyze problems
(F=4.28, df=l/91, p<.04), conflict resolution skills
(F=15.14, df=l/91, pc.0001), and self confidence
(F=7.09, df=l/91, p<.009). Table 13 displays these
data.
Table 13. Comparison of Superintendents and Board
Presidents Selection Criteria.
Criteria Significance
Board Superintendent Relations .001*
Leadership Skills .890
Decision Making Skills .176
Ability to Handle Conflict .044*
Ability Under Pressure .952
Motivating Others .810
Ability to Analyze Problems .041*
Congruence with District Goals .592
Conflict Resolution Skills .0001*
Self Confidence .009*
Oral Communication .291
Ability to Relate to Others .550
Moral Character .829
Initiative .051
Organizational Ability .101
Belief in Children .628
Personal Attitude .052
Personnel Management Skills .858
Research Question 6
Are the criteria identified bv superintendents as
most important for the evaluation of superintendents of
schools significantly different from the most important
criteria identified by presidents of boards of
education for the evaluation of superintendents of
schools?
91


Full Text

PAGE 1

SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS IN SELECTED CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS by Susan Harter B.A., California State University, Humboldt, 1967 M.A., University of San Francisco, 1976 A thesis submitted to the I Faculty of the GraGuate School of the I .University of Coloradolin partial fulfillment I i Of the requirements for the degree of I Doctor of1Education I School of Education 1991

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Doctor of Education by susan Harter has been approved for the School of Education by Richard Koeppe Date'

PAGE 3

Harter, Susan (Ed.D., Education) Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools in Selected California School Districts Thesis directed by w. Michael Martin The purpose of this study was to identify from the criteria found in the literature those judged to be the most important to presidents of boards of education and superintendents of schools in selected California school districts for the selection and of superintendents and to compare those criteria with the trait and skill criteria in the literature on leadership theories. A questionnaire was developed based on 58 criteria found in the research literature on superintendent selection and evaluation. Participants in the study included all superintendents and board presidents in 144 school districts in five southern California counties. Data were analyzed by means of multivariate and univariate analysis of variance (MANOVA and ANOVA). Significant differences were determined to exist between the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education and criteria identified by superintendents as most important for the selection of superintendents of schools. Superintendents placed greater emphasis on iv

PAGE 4

the ability to handle conflict and the ability to solve problems than did board presidents. No significant differences were identified in the criteria identified by board presidents and superintendents for superintendent evaluation. No significant differences were identified in the criteria identified by superintendents for superintendent selection and evaluation. No significant differences were identified in the criteria identified by board presidents for superintendent selection and evaluation. Within the body of research on superintendent selection and evaluation there is' a core set of criteria viewed as most important by board presidents and superintendents of schools. Nineteen criteria were consistently ranked in the top ten by board members and superintendents. These 19 criteria include both traits and skills supported by the leadership literature. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Signed v

PAGE 5

CONTENTS Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background of the Study .............. 1 Statement of the Problem ............. 4 Significance of the Study ............ 6 Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .... Delimitations. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Definitions....................... . 9 2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ...... 12 Organization of Chapter 2 ............ 12 Superintendent Selection Criteria .... 12 Superintendent Evaluation Criteria ... 27 Leadership Theory ............... .... 38 Traits and Skills .................... 42 Leadership Typologies ................ 44 Leadership Style ..................... 46 Leadership Behavior .................. 47 Situational Leadership ............... 49 Chapter Summary ...................... 50 3. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

PAGE 6

Procedures ........................... 57 Questionnaire Development ............ 57 Pilot Test of Questionnaire .......... 58 Study Design... . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . . . . . 68 Population .. ; . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Selection and Evaluation Criteria. ... 75 Research Question 1 .................. 76 Research Question 2 .. ................ 79 Research Question 3 .................. 82 Research Question 4 .................. 84 Research Question 5 .................. 87 Research Question 6 .............. 91 Research Question 7 .................. 94 Research Question 8 .................. 96 Research Question 9 .................. 99 Leadership Traits .................... 100 Leadership Skills .................... 103 Other Criteria ....................... 106 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 108 Summary .............................. 108 Specific Research Questions .......... 109 Literature Review .................... 110 Design of the Study .................. 112 vii

PAGE 7

Summary of Findings .................. 113 Conclusions .......................... 118 Recommendations for Future Study ..... 121 APPENDIX A. TABLE A-1: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION/ EVALUATION OF SUPERINTENDENTS .......... 125 B. QUESTIONNAIRES AND COVER LETTERS ....... 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................. 140 viii

PAGE 8

TABLES Table 1. Response Rate by Superintendents and Board Presidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7 0 2. Response Rate by Group Assignment and Respondent Position .............. .'. . . . . . 7 0 3. Respondents by Group Assignment and District Size ................................ 71 4. Superintendents Years of Service ........... ... 72 5. Number of Superintendencies Held by Selection Group Superintendents .... ......... 72 6. Board Presidents' Years of Service ........... 73 7. Board President Participation in Superintendent Selection ..................... 74 8. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked by Presidents of Boards of Education ......... 78 9. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked by Superintendents of Schools ................ 80 10. Most Important Evaluation-Criteria as Ranked by Presidents of Boards of Educ_ation. . . . . 83 11. Most Important Evaluation Criteria as Ranked by Superintendents of Schools ................ 85 12. Most Important Criteria for Selection of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by Board Presidents and Superintendents ......... 88 13. Comparison of Superintendents' and Board Presidents' Selection Criteria ............... 91 14. Most Important for Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by Board Presidents and Superintendents ...... 93

PAGE 9

' 15. Most Important Criteria for Selection and Evatuation of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by Presidents of Boards of Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 16. Most Important Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by Superintendents ................. 98 17. Traits Identified in the Literature on Leadership ................................ 101 18. Leadership Traits Identified by Superintendents and Board Presidents as Most Important for the Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools .... 103 19. Leadership Skills and the Three-Skill Typology._ ................................... 104 20. Most Important Selection and Evaluation Criteria Categorized by Three-Skill Typology ............................... . . 105 21. Selection and Evaluation Criteria Added by Superintendents and Board Presidents ...... 106 X

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Few actions taken by Boards of Education are more important than that of selection of a superintendent of schools. The superintendent provides the leadership for the district and for the translation of Board policies into the programs and services for the students of the district. The intent of this study was to identify from the criteria found in the literature those items judged to be the most important to presidents of boards of education and superintendents of schools in selected California schoQl districts for the selection and evaluation of superintendents and to compare these criteria with the trait and skill criteria found in the literature on leadership. Background of the Study Fullan (1982) noted that the tenure of superintendents in the United States is two to three years. Flandi (1984) found that California superintendents leave after 3.7 years. The selection process, therefore, is not an isolated occurrence for

PAGE 11

board members. They can expect to participate in this process at least once during their tenure on a school board. The selection process can be a costly, time consuming activity and, according to the turnover data, it occurs with some predictability. In a recent study Giles (1990), reported that 468 out of 1,002 superintendencies in California were vacated between 1986 and 1989. This is a turnover rate of 46.7 percent. Twenty percent of those who vacated a superintendency accepted other positions as superintendents of schools. Sixty-six percent of .those who accepted a new superintendency noted that there was "disharmony between their predecessor and their boards at seat vacating time" (p. 46). Lau, Newman and Broedling (1980) examined the selection, development and evaluation processes used within the public sector with executive They concluded that "the selection, development, and performance appraisal processes within the public sector are frequently conducted independently of one another, differing sets of criteria being employed" (p. 209). Educational Research Service (1990) reported that "the vast majority of school districts evaluate their superintendent at least annually, yet only 7 percent had explicit criteria 2

PAGE 12

outlined at the time the superintendent was hired" (p. 44). Perhaps with more agreement between the selection and evaluation criteria used by boards of education, there would be better understanding of the expectations of the position by superintendents, fewer opportunities for disagreement and disharmony caused by such disagreement, and less turnover in the superintendencies. Sarbaugh (1982) suggested that the advantages of clear expectations were: 1) better understanding by the superintendent of what the board expects of him or her; 2) a more harmonious working relationship between board and superintendent; and,. 3) better understanding by the board members of the role of the superintendent (p. 121). 1980's focused national attention on education. With this attention came the demand for educational reforms and increased accountability for school district performance. At the same time, there was a renewed interested in and emphasis on leadership. The superintendent of schools, as no other individual. associated with public education, provides the leadership necessary for the challenges facing the educational community. Boards of education are responsible for the selection and evaluation of those hired to provide this leadership. 3

PAGE 13

Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to identify from the criteria found in the literature those items judged to be the most important to presidents of boards of education and superintendents of schools in selected California school districts for the selection and evaluation of superintendents and to compare these criteria with the trait and skill criteria found.in the literature on leadership theories. The research questions follow: 1. What do presidents of boards of education in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? .2. What do superintendents of schools in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? 3.. What do presidents of boards of education in selected school districts in California identify as the most important cr.iteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 4. What do superintendents of schools in selected 4

PAGE 14

school districts in identify as the most important criteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 5. Are the 10 most important criteria identified by superintendents for selection superintendents of schools significantly different from the 10 most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education .for selection of superintendents of schools? 6. Are the 10 most important criteria identified by superintendents for evaluation of superintendents of schools significantly different from the 10 most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for evaluation of superintendents of schools? 7. Are the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education as the most important for the selection of superintendents significantly different from the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education as the most important for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 8. Are the criteria identified by superintendents as the most important for. the selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the criteria identified by superintendents as the most 5

PAGE 15

important for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 9. Are the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education and superintendents as the most important for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools congruent with the literature on leadership traits and skills? Significance of the Study Superintendents of schools translate the policies of boards of education into goals for the school These goals drive the services and programs designed for the students. Mines (1980) suggested that the success of an organization depends in large part on the people who lead it (p.48). Stability in the superintendency provides continuity for programs and services and provides an environment that can support the change process and the development of new services and programs. Organizations with constant change at the top may experience a leadership void that causes the organization to emphasize maintenance of services and programs because they are comfortable and famili.ar and to avoid those new directions that are uncomfortable. Every three years, nearly one half of the school 6

PAGE 16

districts in california experience the disruption caused by the change in the superintendency (Giles, 1990) This disruption may shift attention and focus from the primary responsibility of school districts, the education of students. Sendor (1981) noted that boards of education had a sincere desire to hire the "most highly qualified" and "best available" candidate to lead their school system (p. 30) At the same time, there is no one best way to select a superintendent, primarily because localities vary in their specific idiosyncracies, values, and expectations (Anderson & Lavid, 1985). The research on selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools was reviewed for this study in order to determine the criteria previously identified for superintendent selection and evaluation. Through a search of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts International, 15 studies were found to contain criteria applicable to this study. There were none relating the two areas to one another and to leadership theories. This study added to the field by providing data about the criteria judged as most important by -.boards of education arid superintendents, themselves, for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of 7

PAGE 17

schools. In addition, it compared these criteria to the literature on leadership theories with respect to the traits and skills identified in the research (Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1981; House & Baetz, 1979) Limitations of the Study The following limitations need to be considered when drawing conclusions from the study: 1. The population was limited to boards of education and superintendents in selected school districts in California. 2. The population was limited to those holding the positions of president of a board of education and superintendent at the time of the study. 3. The survey was a self-reporting instrument and. its validity is limited by the honesty, accuracy, and clarity of the respondents. 4. The literature provided 15 research-based lists of the criteria for selection and evaluation of superintendents. Important selection and evaluation criteria may have been omitted from the questionnaire and all respondents may not have added items to the list when invited to do so. 8

PAGE 18

Delimitations Situational leadership theory is discussed in the literature review in Chapter 2. This theory, however, was not considered in the analyses completed for this study. The unique leadership situations present in the 144 school districts in this study were not factored into the results. Definitions Definitions used in this study were selected specifically for the purposes of this study, the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools. They are not intended as general definitions. Board of education: The duly elected body charged with the responsibility of establishing school district policy to be administered by the superintendent. Criteria: Characteristics, categories, job functions, job expectations, job management tasks, duties, responsibilities, roles, functions, performance standards, or domains used as the basis for selection or evaluation (Bolton, 1980, p. 44; Sonedecker, 1984, p.102; Pringle, 1989, p. 75-78) 9

PAGE 19

Evaluation: The systematic procedure for collecting information based on predetermined objectives and/or criteria set at the local level, which includes provisions for the analysis and sharing of that information with the evaluatee (Conley, 1986). Leadership: Inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations, the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations, of both the leaders and followers (Burns, 1978, p. 19). Leadership behavior and skills: The actions of leaders that have been described in terms of managerial roles or behavioral categories (Mintzberg, 1973; Yukl, 1979) Leadership style: The action disposition, or set or pattern of behaviors, displayed by a leader in a leadership situation (Irnrnegart, 1988, p. 262). Leadership tiaits: Physical characteristics, personality features, or psychological characteristics of the individual that have been suggested for the identification of leaders (Yukl, 1988, p. 67; House & Baetz, 1979). Management: The scientific art of attaining intended organizational objectives by working effectively with and through the human and material resources of the organization (Cribben, 1972, p.2). 10

PAGE 20

Functions of management include: setting of goals and objectives; organizing, classifying and analyzing actions; motivating and communicating with subordinates and others in the organization; measuring results; and developing people (Drucker, 1974, p. 16). Superintendent of schools: Chief executive officer of a school district responsible to the board of education and for the administration of the district. 11

PAGE 21

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Organization of Chapter 2 Since the purpose of this study was to examine the criteria identified as most important by presidents of boards of education and superintendents of school for the selection and evaluation of superintendents and to compare these criteria with those found in the literature on trait and skill-based leadership theories, the chapter is divided into three major sections supporting the research questions: (1) superintendent selection criteria; (2) superintendent evaluation criteria; and, (3) leadership theory. Superintendent Selection Criteria Selection of a superintendent may be one of the most important actions taken by a Board of Education and Hemphill (1962) noted the increased attention to selection criteria. Much of the research since that time has focused on the criteria in use in school

PAGE 22

districts and issues of the relevance and validity of particular criteria for the selection decision. Many of these research studies are presented in this section of the literature review. Superintendents of schools as chief executive officers of their organizations are commonly regarded as the standard by which the organization is measured. An organization is only as strong as its top management and has no broader vision nor performance than its executive personnel (Dale, 1970, p 69) The managerial functions identified by Koontz, O'Donnell & Werhrich (1986), while intended as universal management fundamentals, apply equally well for superintendents of schools (Pringle, 1989, p. 17). These functions provide a broad framework for the superintendent selection process: 1. Leading: Influencing people so that they will strive willingly and with enthusiasm toward achievement of the organizational goals (Koontz et al, p. 360); 2. Planning: Selecting from among alternative future courses of action for the organization (Koontz et al., p. 73); 3. Organizing: Establishing a formal system of roles that people can perform so that they may work 13

PAGE 23

best together to achieve organizational objectives (Koontz et al., p. 161); 4. Staffing: Filling positions in the organizational structure by identifying workforce requirements, recruitment, selection, appraisal, compensation, and training of people (Koontz et al., p. 275); 5. Controlling: Closely related to planning where the process involves establishing standards, measuring performance against standards and plans (Koontz et al., p. 448). Another framework for examining what managers do is provided by Mintzberg (1g73). Mintzberg identified 10 roles of the manager. These roles are also applicable to superintendents of schools. The roles were grouped into three categories: interpersonal, informational, and decisional. The interpersonal roles included those of figurehead, leader and liaison and focused on interactions and relationships with others. The informational roles included those of monitor, disseminator, and spokesman and included all aspects of sending and receiving both internal and external information to staff, the public, and the board of education. Pitner and Ogawa (1981) observed that 14

PAGE 24

50% of the superintendent contacts were for this purpose (p. 59). The decisional roles included entrepreneur, disturbance handler, negotiator, and resource allocator. These roles included the investigation and management of threats to and opportunities for the organization. Gerla (1988) examined superintendent selection from the theoretical framework of Mintzberg's role categories for managers. Ainong the skills and competencies related to the decisional roles, the ability to manage the district's resources, the ability to make high-quality decisions and get things done, the ability to solve problems and resolve conflict, and emphasis on the school district's quality service to the community were identified. Factors related to the interpersonal role included: being honest .and trtistworthy, projecting a positive image, demonstrating concern for academic excellence, possessing effective skills, and appearing confident and poised. Informational roles that were important in the selection process centered on communications skills: oral communications, the ability to process and dispatch information, and maintenance and improvement of the current program (p. 129). Cuban (1988) turned the examination of roles 15

PAGE 25

directly to the superintendent of schools and extended them beyond management. Cuban depicted the core roles of superintending as political, managerial, and instructional. City superintendents spend 58% of their time on administrative (managerial) activities, 31% on instructional supervision, and 11% on community/public relations (political) Rural superintendents had slightly less time on administration (55%) and slightly more time for instructional issues (35%) (p. 128). The managerial role has been the most time consuming. Whether the role of the superintendent is primarily managerial in nature or one of educational leadership (instructional) was addressed by Duignan (1980) Verbal contacts of superintendents were with policy makers and school district administrators 70% of the time compared to 9% with teachers and pupils. Seventy-two percent of the contacts were categorized as administrative (managerial) compared to 25% that were educational. Guthrie and Reed (1986) documented the managerial nature of the superintendency. The identified roles of the superintendent have helped define the criteria noted in the literature for .superintendent selection. These criteria can be grouped as professional, functional, personal characteristics, skills, and knowledge as they relate 16

PAGE 26

to the roles. Research on professional criteria has identified the following items: previous experience, preparation, and competence (Dylewski, 1975; Wing, 1975) In addition to the professional criteria, various skills have been identified as important in the assessment of candidates for administrative positions: human relations skills, organizational ability, communications skills, and the ability to elicit cooperation (Powell, 1984; Robertson, 1984). Joines (1986) advocated the use of the assessment center approach to superintendent selection as it focused on the skills the superintendent is believed to need on the job: delegation, monitoring of work objectives., decision making, speaking ability, interaction with diverse personalities, leadership, ability to develop cohesiveness on critical issues. He also suggested personal characteristics, persuasiveness, and several areas for assessment of general knowledge: .budget and finance, and staff development, union relations, political forces in the community, supervision, and curriculum and instruction (p. 32) .. Personal characteristics that have been identified as important in the selection of administrators include judgment, personality, character, openmindedness, 17

PAGE 27

physical and mental health, poise, intelligence, sense of humor, voice, and cultural background (DeFrahn, 1974, p. 1445}. White and DeVries (1990} explored the issue of private sector senior-level manager selection. They pointed to the high turnover rate in the private sector and noted that an estimated one-third of those chosen for senior executive positions are seen as a disappointment to the organizations that hired them. Based on anecdotal information they received at the Center for Creative Leadership, they estimated that the number is more likely to be 50% and suggested that the turnover rate is, in part, due to selection on overly narrow grounds as the candidate's_personal qualities and track record (p. 1}. They supported these components as one part of the criteria for selection, but suggested that the demands of the position being filled and the specific job challenges each candidate has faced also be considered. As superintendents occupy the most senior position in school districts and many of the same functions as the chief executive officer in private sector organizations, suggestions for the private sector selection process make a contribution to the selection considerations in the public sector. 18

PAGE 28

White and DeVries (1990) highlighted the typical selection qualities: knowledge, skills, and abilities. They contended that technical mastery in a candidate often overshadows qualities that are more important such as executive resilience and personal values. Executive resilience they defined as the capacity to learn (p. 2). The executives they studied all made mistakes, but the critical difference between successful and unsuccessful executives was the fact that the successful executives were able to acknowledge and accept their mistakes. Bennis (1985) supported this characteristic. in successful executives (p. 189). Personal values of senior-level managers have not received a great deal of emphasis in the literature. Pearson (1989) identified several: "giving better value than your competitors do (competitiveness); a reasoned approach to investment (judiciousness); looking for the simplest ways to do things (efficiency); and anunderstanding that you can get the most impact by concentrating on a few things at a time (selectivity)" (pp. 94-101). Though there is little research on what values are crucial to leadership in senior-level positions, some consideration of the values of the candidates in comparison with those of the organization is an area 19

PAGE 29

suggested as appropriate in the selection process (Pearson, 1989, p. 101). The criteria in use in school districts for administrator selection are often based on managerial stereotypes (Briner, 1959) and tend to be global rather than specific (Bessent, 1962) Examination of the candidates' track record is a good example. The candidates considered for superintendencies are, almost by definition, successful and accomplished. The skills and attributes that contributed to success in previous positions are investigated for the new The demands of the position being filled, however, must be identified in a specific rather than global way to enable those involved in the selection process to consider the job-person fit; that is, how well each candidate is matched to the position being filled (White arid DeVries, 1990, pp. 3-4). Estes (1979) cited the following essential qualities that superintendents should have to meet the challenges of the position: 1. Possession of a sound conceptual and theoretical basis for educational programming; 2. Appreciation of the dynamics of local communities and the establishment of responsive 20

PAGE 30

management practices and structures to address the needs of local constituents; 3. Ability to engage in constructive dialogue with local boards of education and to assist boards in exercising leadership in their. respective communities; 4. Political astuteness and ability to interact with local, state, and federal government structures in a constructive manner; 5. Ability to formulate and monitor effective regulatory policy and procedure which will facilitate efficient school operations; 6. Ability to direct management including an ability to assemble an effective management team, and to assure productivity and harmony in the school district; 7. Ability to provide the emotional and spiritual support and leadership for the school district; 8. Awareness of resources and knowledge necessary for doing the job of running the schools (p. 26) Hoyle, English, & Steffy cited basic and essential skills for school administrators. Included were skills related to the following: designing, implementing, and evaluatingschool climate; building support for schools; developing school curriculum; instructional management; staff evaluation; staff 21

PAGE 31

development; allocating resources; and educational research, evaluation, and planning (p. iii). Based on these performance areas and skills identified by Hoyle (1985), Sclafani (1987) determined the top six skills for effective superintending to be: 1. Demonstrates a broad array of leadership skills; 2. Demonstrates sound principles of personnel administration; 3. Employs sound financial planning and cash flow management; 4. Employs effective school/community public relations, coalition building, and related activities; 5. Provides for effective evaluation of teacher performance; 6. Uses cost-effective techniques and sound program budgeting (p. 70) .. The important areas of performance as seen by superintendents identified by Collier (1987) The areas were similar to the national list generated by Sclafani: finance, climate, management, evaluation, instruction, support, and research (p.69-70). Marshall (1959) found that in the educational arena agreement on selection criteria is more likely to 22

PAGE 32

occur at the level of principle rather than in specific application. Powell (1984), however, found that there was moderate agreement between superintendents and school board presidents on the importance of various general criteria used to select superintendents (p.61). The criteria were ranked in the following manner: 1. Courage 2. Decision-making 3. Board operations 4. Organizational ability 5. Board-Superintendent relations 6. Fiscal management 7. Ability under pressure 8. Belief in children (p. 58). Powell examined superintendent evaluation criteria, as well, and concluded that the criteria considered most important in the selection of.the superintendent may not be considered the most important in evaluating the superintendent's performance (p. 62). Personal qualities and skills learned as a result of trairiing or experience were ranked by board presidents in a selection survey reported by Alkire (1988) The personal qualities considered important included; leadership ability, attitudes/morals, organizational ability, school 23

PAGE 33

activities, discipline, and experience as a principal and superintendent. The training and experience characteristics included: public relations, communications skills, personnel management, budgetary knowledge, evaluation curriculum planning, staff recruitment, supervision of facilities, time management, and buildings and grounds (p.38). Desirable competencies of superintendents for selection purposes.as perceived by board members and superintendents were contrasted by Haugland (1987) Board members ranked the following competencies as they were perceived as desirable for successful selection: 1 Personnel management 2. School finance 3 Curriculum development 4. Accomplish goals set by the board 5. Superintendent/board relations 6. Public relations 7 Policy formulation 8. School construction 9. Collective negotiations (p. 41). Superintendents ranked the competencies in the following order: 1. superintendent/board relations 2. Personnel management 24

PAGE 34

3. Public relations 4. School finance 5. Accomplish goals set by the board 6 Curriculum development 7. Policy formulation 8. School construction 9. Collective negotiations (p. 41) One of the most recent studies of the selection criteria for superintendents of schools is that reported by Pringle (1989) School board presidents identified the following as the most important skills for the selection process: 1. Provides appropriate information to all board members regarding school operations; 2. Actively recruits, screens for quality, and selects the most qualified candidates for each professional position; 3. Builds a climate of trust and mutual respect with board members; 4. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the respective roles of the board and the superintendent; 5. Staffs the central administration team with appropriate and adequate personnel that have technical knowledge commensurate with the position assignments (p. 2 0 2) 25

PAGE 35

In selecting superintendents, board presidents focused on the ability of the applicant to build a positive relationship with the board. Two of the top five components were related to the board relationship domain. The research on selection criteria in the educational setting hasn't progressed much beyond that of Hemphill (1962) in terms of ide-ntification of a specific list of criteria for superintendent selection. What is agreed is that the "work of administrators is multidimensional and that multiple selection criteria should be used. What those criteria might be has remained elusive" (Miklos, 1988, p. 55). Haugland (1987) stated: "Most public school board members and their superintendents get along in a professional .manner, but a rift occurs when the board members and superintendents perceive their respective roles differently. It is, therefore, important that the role of the superintendent be clarified and the responsibilities be defined (p. 40) ." The review of the literature on selection of the superintendent leads to the conclusion that the board must find some method of keeping its list of selection criteria within limits. They must guard against having such extensive lists that it would be humanly impossible to meet them. Horkan (1986) presented the 26

PAGE 36

following quotation about the selection of a Yale president to provide perspective: He had to be a leader, a magnificent speaker and great writer, a good public relations man and fund raiser, a man of iron health and stamina, married to a paragon -a best dressed woman of the year -a man of the world, but with great spiritual qualities, an experienced administrator who can delegate authority, a Yale man and a great scholar, and a social philosopher who has at his fingertips a solution to all of the world's problems. I don't doubt that you have concluded that there is only One who has most of these qualifications. But, we ask ourselves, is God a Yale man? (p. 59) Subsequerit to the selection of the superintendent, the board must evaluate both their selection and the performance of the superintendent they selected. "Validation of the selection process through evaluation is a purpose of evaluation that is often overlooked. The relationship of the criteria for selection to that of evaluation should be consistent" (Pringle, p. 51). Superintendent Evaluation Criteria With over 15,000 school superintendents in the United States, it would be logical to assume that there would be a wealth of information on the evaluation criteria for assessing performance of these school leaders. A search of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts 27

PAGE 37

International for research studies on superintendent of schools evaluation criteria identified only 29 studies. Given the emphasis on educational reform that has taken the country by storm since the early 1980's and the increased demand by the public and the politicians for accountability, it is surprising to find so few studies that address the effectiveness of the chief executive officer of the school district. This finding, however, is consistent with a similar one in the private sector. An American Management Association (AMA) research study (1984). found that though performance appraisal is considered one of the most important management processes, fewer than half of the 581 companies surveyed conducted. performance appraisals of their top officers. Of those companies that do evaluate top managers, the CEO's are given extra latitude in the means used for their evaluation (p. 35). Conley (1986) concluded that the impact'of a 1984 Colorado law regarding formal, certificated personnel performance evaluation was, perhaps, greatest in the area of administrator evaluation, but also noted that few Colorado school districts had formal written plans for the evaluation of the superintendent (p. 179). Roberts (1988) reported that of 250 randomly selected superintendents in California, slightly over half 28

PAGE 38

received comprehensive, written evaluations (p. 1611-A). In an earlier California study, less that 50% of the 100 school districts surveyed had written policies and procedures and evaluation instruments for appraising. the superintendent. Almost 30% did not possess superintendent evaluation documents of any sort (Barbot, 1986, p. 135-136). Carol's study (1972) is cited as the benchmark in all of the studies on superintendent evaluation. Carol surveyed 207 school districts in New Jersey regarding evaluation of the superintendent. Three percent of the districts surveyed used formal evaluation procedures; 62 percent used informal procedures; and 29 percent used no specific procedure. The method favored by the school boards was discussion followed by observation and interaction at meetings and work sessions. The criteria used by the majority of the boards included: (1) relationship with staff, community, and students; and, (2) general effectiveness of the superintendent. Jones (1981) confirmed these findings and provided additional data on the superintendent evaluation procedures in use in New Jersey. Jones found that 75 percent of the school board memb.ers were still using informal, verbal appraisals. Formalizing the 29

PAGE 39

evaluation of the superintendent was listed as the most significant method of improving the process (p.4). McGrath (1972) examined the procedures, processes, and ciriteria used to evaluate superintendents in California school districts. Though the school districts reported formal evaluation procedures in use, only 43 percent of those districts could provide the written instruments when requested. McGrath concluded that formal evaluation was not widespread in Calif.ornia. Other findings of the McGrath study included: (1) school board chairs and superintendents agreed on community, board, and staff relations as the most important function of the superintendent; (2) 60 percent of the evaluation policies in the districts where they existed were initiated by the superintenderit; (3) 64 percent the survey used checklists; and (4) salary determination was the primary reason for evaluation with contract renewal, continued employment, and improved functioning of the superintendent next in importance. Two additional studies in the early 70's stressed the importance of the evaluation process for the district superintendent. Sitter (1972) found in a study of factors affecting the dismissal of superintendents in Indiana and Illinois, that six of 30

PAGE 40

the seven boards studied did not conduct any objective evaluation of the superintendent. Brinkman (1973) found that in California school districts where superintendent evaluation procedures were judged to be working well, the relationship between the board and the superintendent had improved over time. Studies by Reopelle (1974) and Roelle (1983) also supported board/superintendent relationship as a primary concern of superintendent evaluation The Michigan Association of School Administrators (MASA) surveyed their superintendents during the 1974-75 school year. They found that 45 percent of the responding districts did not have any type of formal evaluation, 36-percent had some kind of formal evaluation, and 19 percent had no evaluation procedures. Superintendents responding to this study expressed a high interest in having an organized program to evaluate their performance (p. 12). Job descriptionsent,er as a component in administrative evaluation practices in a study conducted by Bolton (1980) in Washington. Job descriptions were considered the most important factor and the most common factor in use in Washington for. evaluation purposes. They specified the job functions (criteria) that were the basis for measuring job 31

PAGE 41

performance. Cunningham & Hentges (1982), however, found that over 40 percent of the superintendents who had job descriptions were not evaluated in terms of those descriptions. In 1976, Brown found in New York state that 50 percent of the 450 superintendents participating in his study had forma1ized job descriptions as part of their contract or in written board policy. Seventy-five percent of the participants had contract language that detailed the procedures for their evaluation. Educational Research Service (1975) reported on the evaluation of administrative performance, the superintendent, and school boards. They found types of superintendent evaluation procedures: (1) evaluations based on performance objectives, (2) checklists and rating scales, (3) general administration forms used with all administrative staff including the superintendent, and (4) informal evaluations. The report indicated the emergence of more formal procedures for the evaluation of the superintendent (p. 2-7). Buchanan (1981) surveyed superintendents, board presidents, and the most senior member of the boards of education in school districts in Indiana. He found that board presidents reported educational leadershi.p 32

PAGE 42

as the most important evaluation criteria, a finding quite different from that reported by McGrath nine years earlier. Other conclusions reported by Buchanan included: 1. The most important source of information regarding the superintendent's peiformance was administrator input. 2. The most important means of obtaining information about the superintendent's performance were his/her reports and presentations. 3. The least important criterion for evaluating the superintendent was personal characteristics. 4. The superintendent was evaluated annually, continuously, and informally and in closed or executive meeting. 5. The most important purpose for evaluation was to identify weak areas (pp. 81-87). Yates -(1981) suiveyed all of the public school superintendents and board of education presidents in Illinois regarding the procedures used for evaluating the chief executive officers in that state. Fifty-nine percent of the superintendents and 26 percent of the board presidents responded. Findings included: 33

PAGE 43

1. Nearly all of the responding districts evaluated the superintendent with varying degrees of formality. 2. More formalized evaluation practices were utilized in districts where the superintendent was employed on a multi-year contract, had previous experience with a formal evaluation procedure, or was a member of the state administrators' association. 3. Superintendents believed evaluations should be closely related to their job descriptions, should be annual, and the results discussed in executive session (p. 05-A) Miller (1982, p. 171) in a study of the working relationship between the chief executive officer and the board of education concluded that despite a body of literature suggesting the need for and value of evaluation as a component of an effective working relationship between boards and superintendents, little evaluation of the chief executive officers was occurring in Colorado at the time of his study. He concluded that superintendent evaluation in Colorado was no more prevalent than it had been 10 years earlier as identified by Carol (1972) Eggers (1984) examined the evaluation of South Dakota public school superintendents. Though his 34

PAGE 44

findings supported.many of those presented above, the issue of those to be involved in the evaluation process was discussed. Eggers found that 26 percent of the South Dakota superintendents supported the idea of involving persons other than board members in their evaluation. This compared to less than two percent in the earlier Cunningham study (1982) Fenster (1985) found in mid-size Nebraska school districts that teachers, patrons, and students were rarely asked to provide a written evaluation of the superintendent's performance. Principals, however, were involved in the process by 31 of the districts. Sonedecker (1984), Snavely (1984), Barbot (1986), and Intress (1985) each concluded that superintendent evaluation was not very widespread. Despite the recognized importance of thorough and valid evaluations, it seems that board members are not strongly committed to personnel evaluation. In fact, school boards in Kansas did riot identify superintendent evaluation as a critical issue (Anderson & Lavid, 1988, Pw 29) Fifty percent of the school boards surveyed held an executive session superintendent evaluation discussion without the superintendent present (p. 31) School boards involved in the evaluation process often have similar criteria for the evaluation, 35

PAGE 45

although the terminology may be slightly different. Dittloff (1982) reported that one Wisconsin board cited the areas of people management, task management, and personal competencies as the areas to be evaluated. The people management component included the relationship with the board, as well as with the community, staff, and students. Task management included leadership skills, issues management, and efforts directed at the instructional program. The personal competencies focused on the superintendent's creative and analytic abilities and an ability to handle conflict (p. 41). Braddon (1986) identified the following criteria developed by an Ohio school board: people management, goal achievement, personal qualities, finances, communications, ethics and time management (p. 28-29), and Kowalski (1976) listed the following categories: 1. Board-Superintendent Relationships 2. Community Relations 3. Personnel Relations 4. Fiscal Management 5. Plant Management 6. Learning Opportunities-Curriculum and Instruction 7. Student Performance and Demeanor 8. Long-Range Planning 36

PAGE 46

9. Routine Management (p.33) Shroyer (1988) focused on the emergence of financial management as an evaluation criteria for superintendents. Of 24 criteria identified as skills necessary for effective superintending, board presidents selected three of their top five criteria from the area of finance. The criteria included the utilization of all appropriate revenue sources, developing the budget based on district priorities, and ensuring that the school district financial transactions are properly handled (p. 2215-A). In Texas, state mandated appraisal of administrators, including the superintendent, is underway. Initial criteria for this state-directed process include: 1. School Climate 2. School Improvement 3. Instructional Management 4. Personnel Management 5. Administration and Fiscal/Facilities Management 6. Student Management 7. Professional Growth and Development 8. School/Community Relations (Pringle, 1989, p. 67-71). 37

PAGE 47

The research indicates some strong similarities between the criteria used for the selection and evaluation of the superintendent of schools. Throughout the literature the following criteria were financial personnel management, board superintendent relationship, community relations and facility planning and management. The evidence in the literature suggests that a strong relationship exists. Leadership Theory The superintendent of schools is responsible for achieving the objectives established by the board of education effectively and efficiently. In leadership terms the superintendent is both strategist and tactician. The superintendent translates the board's objectives into a vision and direction for the district and oversees the day-to-day operations designed to move the district ever closer to that vision. "Many organizations are paralyzed by situations in which _people appeal for direction, feeling immobilized and disorganized by the sense that they are n6t being led" (Smircich & Morgan, 1982, p. 257). Bennis (1989) argued that leaders are vitally important for three basic reasons: 1) the success or failure of all 38

PAGE 48

organizations rests on the perceived quality of the people at the top; 2) the change and upheaval of past years has led to the desperate need for visionary navigators; and 3) the alarming erosion of the integrity of our institutions (p.2-3). The questions of what constitutes leadership, how leadership can be identified, and how it can be measured continue t6 be debated widely (Blake & Mouton, 1982; Bennis, 1985; Hersey Blanchard, 1982) Leadership theories, as advanced in the literature, are the topic of this section of the literature review. Bennis (1959) surveyed the leadership literature and concluded: "Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to ta.unt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it . and still the concept is not sufficiently defined" (p. 259). Stogdill (1974) concluded that "there are almost as many definitions of leadership as-there are per:sons who have attempted to define the concept" (p. 259). Leadership has been defined in terms of traits, behavior, influence, interaction, and style. "In research, the operational definition of leadership will depend to a great extent on the purpose of the researcher. The purpose may be 39

PAGE 49

to identify leaders, to train them, to discover what they do, to determine how they are selected, or to compare effective and ineffective leaders" (Yukl, 1981, p. 5). The selection of appropriate criteria of leader effectiveness depends on the objectives and values of the person making the evaluation. "The different criteria are often uncorrelated, and may even be negatively correlated" (Yukl, 1981, p. 6) Nearly all of the research on leadership can be classified into one of the following approaches: (1) power-influence approach; (2) trait approach, (3) behavior approach, and (4) situational approach. The power-influence approach attempts to explain leader effectiveness in terms of the source.and amount of power available to leaders and the manner in which leaders exercise power over followers. The trait approach emphasizes the personal qualities of leaders. The behavior approach examines what leaders do instead of their traits or source of power and describes the typical duties and activities of managers. The situational approach emphasizes the importance of situational factors such as the nature of the task performed, the leader's authority and discretion to act, role expectations, and the nature of the external 40

PAGE 50

environment. In the situational model, the relevance of leader traits, skills, and behavior is determined by the specific situation ( Yukl, 1981, pp. 6-8). The power influence approach addresses leader effectiveness in terms of the source and amount of power available to leaders and the manner in which leaders exercise power over followers. Most of the research studies have used the power typology proposed by French and Raven (1959) as a framework. The bases of power are defined as: (1) reward power; (2) coercive power; (3) legitimate power; (4) expert power; and (5) referent power (Yukl, 1981, p.38). The discussions of how a leader uses power effectively reflect an assumption that there are two fundamentally different approaches to the use. of power. One approach seeks to dominate subordinates and to keep them dependent on the leader. The other seeks to build the skills and self-confidence of subordinates. In the first instance, the leader would create a highly centralized organization with little delegation or participation and, as a result,. little creativity, initiative, or commitment. The other approach used by leaders is to build commitment to the organization by delegation of authority, shared information, and 41

PAGE 51

participation in decision making (McClelland, 1970, pp. 29-47). Traits and Skills One of the earlie:st approaches for studying leadership was the trait approach. Underlying this approach is the assumption that leaders are born not made. Initial research on the trait theory of leadership examined tne physical characteristics, personality, and ability of leaders. Stogdill (1974) suggested that the following trait profile is characteristic of successful leaders: adaptable to situations, alert to social environment, ambitious and achievement-oriented, assertive, cooperative, decisive, dependable, dominant, energetic, persistent, selfconfident, tolerant of stress, and willing to assume responsibility (p. 81). Trait theory has a significant role in leader selection. The assessment center approach to selection draws heavily on methodology for measuring traits and skills of prospective managers. The term assessment center refers to a standardized set of procedures used to identify managerial (leader) potential. Assessment center methodology includes the 42

PAGE 52

use of projective and situational tests, written and spoken exercises. Projective tests often include incomplete sentences to be completed by the candidate. Situational tests include the in-basket and leaderless group exercises (Yukl, 1981, p. 71-72). One of the most successful and most studied assessment center programs is that of American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). Bray, Campbell and Grant (1974) conducted an eight year longitudinal study and found.significant correlations between individual traits and skills and success of the leader. The following traits and skills were those most predictive of success: oral communication skill, human relation skill, need for advancement, resistance to stress, tolerance of uncertainty, organizing and planning, energy, creativity, and range of interests. "Despite long argument, the consistency with which some traits have been linked to leaders and leadership situations indicates that certain traits are associated. with leaders in leadership situations. The traits of intelligence, dominance, self confidence, and high energy level are most often mentioned and are.commonly agreed on across research reviewers" (Immegart, 1988, p. 261). 43

PAGE 53

Leadership Typologies The most widely accepted approach for classifying leadership skills is in terms of a three-skill typology initially proposed by Katz (1974) The skill categories were defined as technical skills, human relations skills, and conceptual skills. The technical skills are related to knowledge about methods, processes, procedures and techniques related to a particular activity. The human relations skills focus on human behavior and interpersonal processes such as ability to understand feelings and attitudes, to communicate clearly and effectively, and to establish effective and cooperative relationships (pp. 33-42). A more recent model for classifying leadership skills was proposed by Sergiovanni (1984), the 10-P Model of Leadership. Sergiovanrti suggested that leadership skills are the tactical requirements of quality leadership and should be considered the prerequisites for leadership competence. These skills are the technical and human skills which have dominated the literature. Such skills include mastery of various situational leadership theories, conflict management tactics, team management principles, shared decision-44

PAGE 54

making models, and group process techniques. These skills are the basics and once mastered enable the leaders to move beyond routine competence. Perspective enables the leader to differentiate between the tactical and the strategic, moving to a broader, more long-range view. This strategic view of the organization is characterized by leader actions that Sergiovanni labels as symbolic and Beliefs about education, school organization and operation, and how people should be treated are the principles governing the perspective. Platform is the ability to articulate the principles into an operational framework, and politics enables the leader to influence others to achieving specified goals. Leadership meaning is the third aspect of Sergiovanni's model. The leader possesses the skills to help others.interpret their contributions to the organization, to motivate. In addition, a plan of action is developed and the leader can be seen as the emb.odiment of the plan by actions taken. Growth and development of the individuals in the organization is a priority. Leaders of the nature described by Sergiovanni have the ability to bring people together to work on behalf of the organization. Workers share a set of 45

PAGE 55

common beliefs and reach agreements about both what will be done and how it will be done (Sergiovanni, 1984, p. 3-14). Findings from research on leader traits and skills have the most direct application to the selection of administrators. When analyzed together with information about the prior experience and performance of candidates, it is possible to make reasonably good predictions about likely success in higher level managerial positions (Yukl, 1981, p. 89). Leadership Style A second approach to the study of leadership is the examination of leader style. Style is defined as "the. action disposition, or set or pattern of behaviors, displayed by a leader in a leadership situation" (Irrunegart, 1988, p. 262) The early studies of style that focused on finding the right or best style have been abandoned. It is now apparent that effective or successful leaders demonstrate style variability. They exhibit a repertoire of styies and that style is related to situation, both context and task. Effective leaders, therefore, score high on all style dimensions employed irt studies (Immegart, 1988, p. 262; Stogdill, 1974, p. 140). 46

PAGE 56

Leadership Behavior The third approach to the study of leadership is the examination of leader behavior and comparisons of behavior patterns for effective and ineffective leaders. The behavior approach emphasizes what leaders do instead of their traits or source of power (Yukl, 1981, p.92). In addition, there is a fine line between much of the research on leadership style and the inquiry into leader behavior. "The behavioral research refers to attempts to focus on the effects of specific leader behaviors as opposed to the pattern type definition of style" (Immegart, 1988, p. 263). Leader behavior research has revealed that leaders who exhibit avariety of are more effective than those who do not (Stbgdill, 1974, p. 104). Just what those behaviors are, however, has been elusive. Mintzberg (1973) developed content categories to define managerial roles. Three of the managerial roles dealt with interpersonal behavior, three with information processing behavior, and four with decision-making behaviors of managers. All of the roles and behaviors are relevant for any administrator (Yukl, 1981, p. 99). 47

PAGE 57

The two broadest and most widely studied dimensions of leadership behavior are consideration and initiating structure (Bass, 1985) The relationshiporiented behaviors are instrumental for establishing and maintaining good relationships with subordinates and include supportiveness, friendliness, consultation with subordinates, openness of communication, and recognition of subordinate contributions. The taskoriented behaviors include directing subordinates, clarifying roles, planning, and problem solving. They are instrumental for efficient utilization of resources for the attainment of organizational goals (p.38). In order to fill the conceptual void in leadership behavior studies, Yukl (1981) completed a four-year research program to identify meaningful and measurable categories of leader behavior. The effort was designed to develop a taxonomy of leadership categories that were neither situation-specific nor overly broad and abstract. The behavior categories in the taxonomy were: performance emphasis, consideration, inspiration, structuring reward contingencies, decision participation, autonomydelegation, role clarification, goal setting, training coachingi information dissemination, problem solving, planning, coordinating, work facilitation, 48

PAGE 58

representation, interaction facilitation, conflict management, and criticism-discipline. Most of the categories are components of more broadly defined categories found in earlier research (Yukl, 1981, p. 121-128). Situational Leadership The fourth and most current approach.to the study of leaders is the situational or contingency studies. The earlier trait, style and behavioral research studies concluded that leadership was situational. Fiedler's studies from 1967 to 1974 initiated the era of the situation or contingency models. Fiedler hypothesized "that group productivity was dependent on the match in leadership orientation (task versus relationship) and situation favorableness (a mix of person-trait, group, and situational variables) He concluded that one cannot speak of effective or ineffective leadership, only of effective or leadership in one situation or another. Fiedler challenged the idea that there was one best way to lead (Immegart, 1988, p. 264) Hersey and Blanchard (1982) described situational leadership as based on an interrelationship among task behavior, _relationship behavior, and the maturity level 49

PAGE 59

of the followers. Task behavior is characterized by leadership behavior designed to establish well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and ways of getting jobs accomplished. Relationship behavior is defined by open, supportive, and facilitative behaviors. The maturity level of the followers is their readiness for carrying out a specific task. According to situational leadership theory, there is no one best way to influence people. The approach taken by the leader (telling, selling, participating, and delegating) is determined by assessing the maturity level of the subordinate in terms of the task and relationship dimensions of the situation. Hersey and Blanchard provided little research evidence in support of their theory. Situational leadership theory, however, makes a positive contribution in that it emphasizes flexible, adaptable leader behavior that treats different subordinates differently and the same subordinate differently as the situation changes (Yukl, 1981, p. 143-i44) Chapter Summary The research on superintendent selection criteria is based on the management functions of leading, 50

PAGE 60

planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling. These functions have been expanded by examination of the political, managerial, and instructional roles specific to superintendents of schools, and by professional and personal characteristics as they relate to the roles. In the selection process, experience and preparation are combined with various skills, knowledge and abilities believed to be critical on the job. Essential skills for all school administrators include those related to climate, building support, curriculum and instructional management, staff evaluation, staff development, and allocation of resources. In addition, the skills needed by the superintendent of schools are expanded to include leadership, personnel administration, financial planning, public relations, board-superintendent relations, and communications skills. In the educational arena, agreement on selection criteria between boards and superintendents is more likely to occur at the level of principle rather than in application, on generic, commonly mentioned criteria, rather than specific, detailed lists of skills. There is no single list of:criteria for superintendent 51

PAGE 61

selection. There is, however, agreement that multiple selection criteria should be used. One research study (Pringle, 1989) concluded that the relationship of the criteria for selection to the criteria for evaluation of the superintendent should be consistent. Research on superintendent evaluation supported the conclusions that few superintendents receive formal, comprehensive, written evaluations based on specific, known criteriaand that superintendent evaluation is not very widespread. There are four common types of superintendent evaluation: performance objectives, checklists and rating scales, general administration forms, and informal evaluations. School boards involved in the evaluation process often have similar criteria for the evaluation, although the terminology may be slightly different. Three areas emerge from the research on superintendent evaluation: people management, task management, and personal competencies. People management includes relationships with the board, community, staff, and students. Task management includes leadership skills and efforts directed at the instructional program. The personal competencies encompass creative and analytic 52

PAGE 62

abilities and the ability to handle stress and conflict. The research indicates some strong similarities between the criteria used for selection and evaluation of the superintendent of school. Throughout the literature the following criteria were consistently described: financial management, personnel management, community relations, and board superintendent relationship. Research on leadership theory can generally be classified into one of four principal approaches: power-influence, trait, behavior, and situational. The power-influence approach looks at leadership in terms of five kinds of power: reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, expert power, and referent power. The trait approach explores leadership through the personal qualities of the leader. The behavior approach emphasizes what leaders do instead of their traits. The situational approach examines leadership behavior in relationship to the context of the situation. Leadership skills have been divided into three categories: technical, human relations, and conceptual. Identification of the technical and human relations skills have dominated the research 53

PAGE 63

literature. To these skills of basic competence have been added those of symbolic and cultural leadership. Leadership style is the set or pattern of behaviors displayed in leadership situations. Leader behavior, like style, is most effective when varied. The two key dimensions of leadership are consideration and initiating structure. The first is instrumental for establishing and maintaining good relationships, the second for efficient utilization of resources for the attainment of organizational goals. The situational leadership theory has little research evidence to support it. Its contribution is the emphasis it places on the idea that flexible, adaptable leader behavior is appropriate as the situation. changes. 54

PAGE 64

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Overview This study was designed to identify from the criteria found in the literature those items judged to be the most important to ,presidents of of education and superintendents.of schools in selected California school districts for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools and to compare these criteria with the trait and skill criteria found in the literature on leadership theories. It identified criteria seen as the most important by the presidents of boards of education and superintendents of schools and compared their ratings. The study, based on the existing research on superintendent selection and evaluation and leadership theories consisted of three major areas of investigation: 1) ratings by presidents of boards of education and superintendents of the importance of criteria identified from the literature for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools; 2) comparison of the most important selection and evaluation criteria

PAGE 65

as rated by presidents of boards of education and superintendents; and, 3) comparison of the selection and evaluation criteria identified as most important by presidents of boards of education and superintendents to the traits and skills criteria identified in the leadership literature. Participants in the study included all presidents of the boards of education and all superintendents of schools in the 144 school districts in the five southern California counties of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, and San Diego. The school districts represented all types of public school found in the state of California: kindergarten through sixth grade or eighth grade elementary districts, 7th grade through 12th grade or 9th grade through 12th grade districts, and unified school districts serving students from kindergarten through grade 12. In addition, the school districts represented school districts of under 1,000 students (small), 1, 001 to 5, 000 (medium), and over 5,000 (large), as categorized by the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) 56

PAGE 66

Procedures This study was designed with two components: survey research and a comparison of the survey results with the literature. It combined questionnaire data with a descriptive analysis of the traits and skills criteria found in the literature on leadership. It included the following components: development of research questions about superintendent selection and evaluation criteria; review of the research literature on superintendent selection, superintendent evaluation, and leadership theories related to traits and skills; development of a questionnaire based on the research questions; a pilot study of the questionnaire; administration of the survey; and analysis of the results. Questionnaire Development A review of the research identified 15 studies that focused on superintendent selection and evaluation criteria. From these studies, 69 criteria considered important in the selection and evaluation of superintendents were identified. The resources and authors in chronological order include: Carol. (1972); Abbott (1975); Brown, (1976); California School Boards 57

PAGE 67

Association (1975); Barbot (1986); Brown (1976); Booth & Glaub (1978); American Association of School Administrators (1980); Cunningham, (1982); Powell (1984); Anderson & Lavid (1985); Horkan (1986); Haugland (1987); Gerla (1988); Pringle (1989). The criteria from these 15 studies formed the empirical research basis for and were combined into one questionnaire for this study. Pilot Test of Questionnaire A pilot test of the questionnaire containing all 69 criteria was conducted. School board members, deputy and assistant superintendents, and central office administrators not participating in the study were selected as pilot test participants. The pilot test participants consisted of the following individuals: Dr. Carol Berg, Deputy Superintendent, NewportMesa School District, Newport Beach, California; Mr. Tom Burnham, President, Burnham & Associates, Management Consultants, Newport Beach, California; Dr. Robert Ferrett, Director of Research and Evaluation, Riverside Unified School District, Riverside, California; 58

PAGE 68

Dr. Bruce Givner, Deputy Superintendent, Special Services, Irvine Unified School District, Irvine, California; Ms. Mary Ellen Hadley, Board Member, Irvine Unified School District, Irvine, California, pastpresident Orange County School Boards Association. Dr. Jean Holbrook, Deputy Superintendent, San Mateo County Office of Education, Redwood City, California;Dr. Lynn Kelley, Director of Human Resources, Littleton Public schools, Littleton, Colorado; Mr. Paul Reed, Deputy Superintendent, Business Services, Irvine Unified School District, Irvine, California. The pilot test participants were asked to comment on the clarity and adequacy of the survey instrument. Based upon their suggestions, the survey instrument was revised. Criteria that were similar in nature were combined. The Likert scale was expanded from a fourpart to a seven-part scale to allow for finer distinctions by participants and more refined statistical analysis. The seven-part interval scale allowed participants to select from three numbers representing various degrees of high importance, a neutral middle position, and from three numbers 59

PAGE 69

representing various degrees of low importance. The final survey instrument contained 58 criteria to be rated on a scale from 1 to 7. One represented low importance and 7 represented high importance. Study Design School districts in the five California counties identified for the study were categorized first by type of district, K-6, K-8, 7-8, 7-12, K-12. They were also categorized by district size of small, medium, and large. Districts were then systematically assigned to the superintendent selection orthe superintendent evaluation group for the study. Seventy-eight school districts were assigned to the selection group. Sixtysix districts were assigned to the evaluation group. Superintendents and board presidents in each of the districts respondeq to the questionnaire developed for their group. Both the selection andthe evaluation group questionnaires the same 58 criteria. The questionnaire was titled Criteria for the Selection of Superintendents of Schools for the superintendents and board presidents in the selection group. The questionnaire was titled Criteria for the Evaluation of Superintendents Schools for the superintendents and board presidents in the evaluation 60

PAGE 70

group. The superintendents and board presidents constituted four groups for the purposes of this study: (1) superintendents responding to criteria for superintendent selection, (2) board presidents responding to criteria for superintendent selection, (3) superintendents responding to criteria for evaluation of superintendents of schools, and (4) board presidents responding to criteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools. The sampling frame for the survey was all school districts in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial and San Diego counties of California. The school districts and their superintendents were identified through the California Directory of Public Schools, 1990. Board presidents in these school districts were identified through the Directory of the California School Boards Association, 1990. Surveys were coded to include information regarding school district type and school district size along with the designation of the respondent as a superintendent or a board president and the participants frame of reference, selection or evaluation, to assist with data analysis. The questionnaire packet sent to each participant was organized as follows: 61

PAGE 71

1. A cover letter with solicitation for participation. Superintendents received a request for their input from David Brown, President of the Association of California School Administrators and Superintendent of Schools in the Irvine Unified School District. Board presidents received a request for their participation and support from Mary Ellen Hadley, past-president of the Orange County School Boards Association and Orange County representative to the California School Boards Representative Assembly. The cover letters explained the purpose of the study, the importance of the study to superintendents and boards of education, and contained an invitation to receive the findings of the study. 2. The questionnaire included specific directions for completing the survey along with directions for return of the document to the researcher in the enclosed, postage paid envelope. Data Analysis The following nine questions provide the framework for the data analysis: What do presidents of boards of education in .selected school districts in California identify as the 62

PAGE 72

most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? What do superintendents of schools in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? What do presidents of boards of education in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? What do superintendents of schools in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? The responses of presidents of boards of education and superintendents of schools were analyzed through the use of procedures available in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) The results are presented for the four groups: (1) superintendents respondirig to selection criteria, (2) board presidents responding to selection criteria, (3) superintendents responding to evaluation criteria, and (4) board presidents responding to evaluation criteria. The results were compiled in two ways. For each participant group, a mean score was calculated for each 63

PAGE 73

of the 58 criteria. The criteria were ranked in descending order of importance, from highest mean score to lowest. This measure of central tendency was accompanied by the standard deviation, the measure of variability among the items. Rank was presented for each criteria. Criteria that received the identical mean score were assigned the identical rank. The top ten criteria identified by each group were presented with mean score, standard deviation, and rank. Because of tied scores, more than 10 criteria are presented for each group. Board presidents identified 13 criteria as most important for superintendent selection. Superintendents identified 14 criteria as most important for superintendent selection. Board presidents identified 11 criteria as most important for superintendent evaluation. Superintendents identified 12 criteria as most important for superintendent evaluation. Are the 10 most important criteria identified by superintendents for the selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the 10 most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for the selection of superintendents of schools? 64

PAGE 74

Are the 10 most important criteria identified by superintendents for the evaluation of superintendents of schools significantly different from the 10 most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? Are the 10 most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for the selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of edtication for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? Are criteria identified by as the most important for the selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the criteria identified by superintendents as the most important for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? Data for the analysis of the differences between the groups were derived from the mean ratings of the importance assigned by each group to their top ten criteria. The data were analyzed by using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)to produce a composite-score for the dependent variables to be compared. Variations in the mean composite scores were 65

PAGE 75

compared to chance fluctuations by using Wilks' Lambda criteria available on SPSS, MANOVA, 1990. Univariate analyses were conducted using ANOVA. Differences in the ratings of each of the criteria identified as most important by superintendents and presidents of boards of education were determined. The criteria identified by superintendents as most important for selection were compared with the criteria identified by board presidents as most important for selection. Each was also compared with the criteria identified by superintendents as most important for evaluation. Criteria identified by board presidents as most important for selection were compared to those identified as most important for evaluation. Significant differences at the p<.OS level are reported. Are the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education and superintendents as the most important for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools congruent with the literature on leadership traits and skills? Stogdill (1974), Yukl (1981), and House & Baetz (1979) haVe identified lists of traits associated with leaders. The criteria identified as most important by board presidents and superintendents for selection and 66

PAGE 76

evaluation of superintendents of schools were categorized into two groups, traits and skills. The traits were compared to those found in the literature. The most widely accepted approach for classifying leadership skills is in terms of the three-skill typology of technical, human, and conceptual categories (Katz, 1974). Sergiovanni(1990) offered another typology with five components: technical, human, educational, symbolic, and cultural. The skill criteria identified as most important for superintendent selection and evaluation were examined in terms of the three-skill typology. The intent of the study was to begin with an expansive list of criteria found in the literature for the selection and/or evaluation of superintendents of schocils and to identify those that were viewed to be of highest importance by boards of education and superintendents. In addition, the study design allowed for comparison of the criteria identified as of highest importance to the criteria found in the leadership literature on traits and skills. 67

PAGE 77

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this study was to identify from the criteria found in the literature those items judged to be the most important to presidents of boards of i i education and superintendents of schools in I California school districts for the selection and evaluation of superintendents and to compare those criteria with the trait and skill criteria found in' the literature on leadership theories. The study was based on the existing research on superintendent selection, superintendent evaluation and leadership theories. Data to address the research questions were collected by means of a survey of all of the superintendents and presidents of the boards of education in the public school districts -located in five California counties. Respondents were provided a list of 58 criteria derived from the research literature on superintendent selection and evaluation. They were asked to rate each item as to its importance for either selection or evaluation. The criteria identified as the most important were then compared to

PAGE 78

the trait and skill criteria found in the leadership literature. Presentation of the findings is organized around the research questions. The Population The population for this study included all 144 public school districts in the California counties of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, Imperial and San Bernardino. The school districts were categorized by size and type of district, before assignment to the two study groups: superintendent selection and superintendent evaluation. This systematic sampling resulted in 78 districts assigned to the superintendent selection group. Sixty-six districts upthe superintendent evaluation group. The superintendent and board presidents in each of the districts were the study participants. The overall response rate for all participants was 63 percent. The respondents and their response rates are presented in Table 1. 69

PAGE 79

Table 1. Response Rate by Superintendents and Board Presidents. _Respondents Superintendents Board Presidents Total n 144 144 288 Frequency 100 81 181 Percent 69 56 63 Response rates were also calculated for the participants by group assignment, selection and evaluation, and they are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Response Rate by Group Assignment and Respondent Position. Group Selection Evaluation Respondents Superintendents Board Presidents Total Selection Superintendents Board Presidents Total Evaluation Frequency 55 42 97 45 39 84 Percent 71 54 62 68 59 64 The assignment of school districts to the_two groups, selection and evaluation, resulted in two groups that were similarly based on school district size. Responses from the two groups reflected this similarity. Table 3 displays the responses by group assignment and school district size. 70

PAGE 80

Table 3. Respondents by Group Assignment and District Size. Group Size Frequency Percent Selection Small 11 11 Medium 36 37 Large 50 52 Total Selection "97 100 Evaluation Small 13 16 Medium 27 32 Large 44 52 Total Evaluation 84 100 Superintendents participating in the selection group had from less than one year to 32 years of service as superintendents. Forty percent had three or fewer years of service, 40 percent had 4 to 10 years of service, and 20 percent had more than 10 years of service. Superintendents participating in the evaluation group had from one of service to 28 years. Thirty-three percent had 3 or fewer years of service, 40 percent had 4 to 10 years of service, and 27 percent had 11 or more years of service. Table 4 presents the superintendents by group and years of service. 71

PAGE 81

Table 4. Superintendents' Years of Service. Group Frequency Percent Selection 1 to 3 years 22 40 4 to 10 years : 22 40 11 or more years 11 20 Evaluation 1 to 3 years 15 33 4 to 10 years 18 40 11 or more years 12 27 The majority of the superintendents participating in the selection group had served as superintendent only in their current district or one other. Only 11 percent of the superintendents had held three or more superintendencies. Table 5 displays the superintendents and the number of districts served. Table 5. Number of Superintendencies Held by Selection Group Superintendents. Superintendencies Current position only 1 other superintendency 2 other superintendencies 3 other superintendencies 'l'otal Frequency 35 13 6 1 55 Percent 64 24 11 0 99 Board members in California serve four year terms of office. Fifty-two percent of the Board.Presidents 72

PAGE 82

who participated in the superintendent selection group had served five or fewer years, one-third of them nearing the end of their first term or just beginning their second. Sixty-eight percent of the Board Presidents who participated in the superintendent evaluation group were in their first or second term. Table 6 displays the years of service of the Board Presidents responding to the surveys. Table 6. Board Presidents' Years of Service. Group Service Frequency Percent Selection 1 year 3 7 2 years 5 12 3 to S years 14 33 More than 5 years 20 48 Evaluation 1 year 5 13 2 years 8 21 3 to 5 years 12 31 More than 5 years 13 33 Fifty-six percent of the Board Presidents responding to the superintendent selection survey had participated in the selection of at least one superintendent. Twenty-three percent had participated in more than one selection process. Table 7 provides these data. Of the board presidents who had participated in the selection of a superintendent, 29 percent of the selections were handled by a 73

PAGE 83

superintendent search consultant, 26 percent handled their own superintendent selection process. Table 7. Board President Participation in Superintendent Selection. Participation Percent Selection of 1 Superintendent 33 Selection of 2 Superintendents 13 Selection of 3 or more Superintendents 10 Never Participated in Selection 44 Superintendents and board presidents participating in the evaluation group responded to questions about the frequency of superintendent evaluation, the purpose of the evaluation, the source of the criteria used for evaluation, and the format of the evaluation of the superintendent in their districts. Eighty-five percent of the superintendents and 89 percent of the board presidents reported that the superintendent was evaluated annually. Three major reasons for the evaluation. of the superintendent were supported by both superintendents and board presidents: 46 percent stated that superintendent evaluation was for the purpose of measuring district progress; 21 percent for the purpose of building and maintaining board-superintendent relationships; 13 percent forcontract 74

PAGE 84

renewal. Only 7 percent noted that the purpose of the evaluation was for needed improvement. Sixty-eight percent of the board presidents and superintendents reported that the superintendent's evaluation was presented orally and in writing. The response rates for superintendents and board presidents assigned to the two groups, superintendent selection criteria and superintendent evaluation criteria, were very similar. Seventy-one percent of the superintendents in the selection group and of the superintendents in the evaluation group responded. Fifty-four percent of the board presidents in the selection group and 59% of the.board presidents in the evaluation group responded. Eighty-eight percent of the superintendents have held one or two superintendencies; 40 percent of them have served as superintendent for 1 to 3 years. Twenty-six percent of the board presidents have served 1 to 5 years on the board. Fifty percent of the board presidents have participated in at least one superintendent selection. Selection and Evaluation Criteria in the Study A review of the on superintendent selection and evaluation uncovered 15 studies identifying criteria used in either the selection 75

PAGE 85

process or the evaluation process for superintendents of schools. Criteria that were similar were combined for the purpose of this study and the resulting questionnaire contained 58 criteria, a composite of the original 15 studies (see Appendix B-1 for questionnaires) The respondents were categorized by group, selection or evaluation, and by position, board president or Data are presented and analyzed for each of the four groups: 1) board presidents-selection; 2) superintendents-selection; 3) board presidents-evaluation; 4) superintendents-evaluation. Mean scores, standard deviation and rank were computed for each criteria by group and position (see Appendix A, Table A-1) The 10 criteria ranked as most important by each group were the subject of the following analysis. The criteria were identified following research questions 1-4. They were compared as groups and individually following research questions 5-8. Following question 9 the-criteria were examined from the perspective of the trait and skill criteria found in the leadership literature. Research Question! What do presidents of boards of education in school districts in California identify as the 76

PAGE 86

most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? Presidents of boards of education identified the following criteria as most important for the selection of superintendents of schools: leadership skills, ability to relate to others, decision making skills, belief in children, moral character, board/superintendent relations, motivating others, ability under pressure, ability to analyze problems, congruence with district goals, personal attitude, ability to handle conflict, and personnel management skills. Board/superintendent relations and motivating others received the identical mean score and they were assigned the same rank. Personal attitude and ability to handle conflict have the identical score and rank. Ability under pressure and ability to analyze problems also produced the same mean score and were assigned the same rank. As a result of the tied mean scores and ranks, 13 criteria were included for the final analysis. The data are presehted in Table 8. 77

PAGE 87

Table 8. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked by Presidents of Boards of Education. Criteria Leadership Skills Ability to Relate to Others Decision Making Skills Belief in Children Moral Character Board/Superintendent Relations Motivating Others Ability Under Pressure Ability to -Analyze Problems Congruence with District Goals Personal Attitude Ability to Handle Conflict Personnel Management Skills Mean 6.62 6.43 6".36 6.34 6.33 6.31 6.31 6.29 6.29. 6. 26 6.24 6.24 6.19 StDv 0.54 0.63 0.76 0.69 0.82 0.84 0.78 0.86 0.74 0.80 0.94 0.73 0.77 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 (1) 6(2) 7 (1) 7(2) 8 9(1) 9(2) 10 Board presidents selected five personal qualities and eight skills as the most important of the criteria for the selection of a superintendent. Personal qualities included belief in children, moral character, ability under pressure, congruence with district goals, and personal attitude. Skiils they believed to be the most important included leadership, relating to others, decision making, board/superintendent relationship, 78

PAGE 88

motivating others, problem analysis, handling conflict, and personnel management. Research Question 2 What do superintendents of schools in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? Superintendents in the selection group identified the following criteria as the most important for the selection of superintendents of schools. They were: board/superintendent relations, leadership skills, decision making skills, personal attitude, ability to analyze problems, conflict resolution skills, self confidence, ability to handle conflict, initiative, ability to relate to others, oral communications, organizational ability, motivating others and belief in children. Because of identical mean scores for four sets of criteria, there were 14 criteria incuded in the analysis. These data are presented in Table 9. 79

PAGE 89

Table 9. Most Important Selection Criteria as Ranked by Superintendents of Schools. Criteria Mean .StDv Rank Board/Superintendent Relations 6.78 0.50 1 Leadership Skills 6.64 0.59 2 .. Decision Making Skills 6.58 0.74 3 (1) Personal Attitude 6.58 0.71 3 (2) Ability to Analyze Problems 6.56 0.60 4 ( 1) Conflict Resolution Skills 6.56 0.66 4 (2) Self Confidence 6.54 0.67 5 Ability to Handle Conflict 6.51 0.61 6 Initiative 6.49 0. 72 7 ( 1) Ability to Relate to Others 6.49 0.70 7 (2) Oral Communication 6.38 0.83 8 ( 1) Organizational Ability 6.38 0.68 8 (2) Motivating Others 6.33 0.80 9 Belief in Children 6.31 1.03 10 Superintendents included the following personal qualities among those they ranked as the most important for the selection of superintendents of schools: personal attitude, self confidence, initiative, belief in children. Ten skills were included on their list: board/superintendent relations, leadership, decisJon making, problem analysis, conflict resolution, handling conflict, relating to others, oral communication, organizational ability, and motivating others. 80

PAGE 90

Bothboard presidents and superintendents selected a combination of personal qualities (traits) and skills in their most important criteria. Skills selected include those of a technical nature (problem analysis, organizational ability), interpersonal skills (board/superintendent relations, communications, decision making, conflict resolution), and the conceptual skill of leadership. Superintendents and board presidents both identified the traits of belief in children and personal attitude among their top ten criteria for selection. The superintendents added initiative and self confidence to this list of traits. Board presidents added moral character, ability to work under pressure and congruence with district goals. Superintendents emphasized a confident, self-starter with a strong belief in children. Board presidents combined the. strong belief in children with moral character and Superintendents and board presidents agreed on the importance of the following skills: board/superintendent relations; leadership, decision making, problem analysis, ability to relate to others, and motivating others. Superintendents added conflict resolution and ability to handle conflict, oral communications and organizational ability. Board presidents added 81

PAGE 91

personnel management skills. The superintendents stressed conflict and communications. Board presidents stressed the more general concept of the personnel function. Statistical analysis of the selected criteria is presented in research question 5. Research Question 3 What do presidents of boards of education in selected school distiicts in California identify as the most important criteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? Presidents of boards of education identified the following criteria as most important for the evaluation superintendents of schools: decision making skills, leadership skills, board/superintendent relations, moral character, organizational ability, self confidetice, belief in children, ability to analyze problems, motivating others, and personal attitude. Board/superintendent relations and moral character received the identical mean score and were assigned the same rank. Eleven criteria, therefore, were included. in the analysis. The data are presented in Table 10. 82

PAGE 92

Table 10. Most Important Evaluation Criteria as Ranked by Presidents of Boards of Education. Criteria Mean StDv Rank Decision Making Skills 6.58 0.64 1 Leadership Skills 6.51 0. 72 2 Board/Superintendent Relations 6.49 0.89 3 (1) Moral Character 6.49 0.85 3(2) Initiative 6.44 0.68 4 Organizational Ability 6.41 0. 72 5 Self Confidence 6.39 0.72 6 Belief in Children 6.38 1. 02 7 Ability to Analyze Problems 6.36 0. 71 8 Motivating Others 6.31 0.73 9 Personal Attitude 6.31 0.83 10 Board Presidents in the evaluation group identified five personal qualities and six skills as those that were the mostimportant for the evaluation of superintendents of schools. Three were identified as most important to the board presidents in the selection group: moral character, belief in children, and personal attitude. Board presidents in the evaluation group identified self confidence and initiative, as Skills identified as most important included decision making, leadership, 83

PAGE 93

board/superintendent relations, organizational ability, problem analysis, and motivating others. Research Question 4 What do superintendents of schools in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? Superintendents identified the following criteria as most important for the evaluation of superintendents of schools: board/superintendent relations, leadership skills, decision making skills, ability to handle conflict, ability under pressure, motivating others, ability to analyze problems, congruence with district conflict resolution skills, self confidence, oral communication, and planning ability. Twelve criteria were included in analysis as a result of identical mean scores and ranks. Data are presented in Table 11, Superintendents identified the personal qualities of ability unde:z;pressure, congruence with district goals, and self confidence as the most important.

PAGE 94

Table 11. Most Important Evaluation Criteria as Ranked by Superintendents of Schools. Criteria Board/Superintendent Relations Leadership Skills Decision Making Skills Ability to Handle Conflict Ability Under Pressure Motivating Others Ability to Analyze Problems Congruence with District Goals Conflict Resolution Skills Self Confidence Oral Communication Planning Ability Mean 6.'73 6.69 6.64 6.51 6.49 6.44 6.42 6.42 6.40 6.40 6.38 6.36 StDv 0.50 0.56 . 0.5'7 0.84 0.'73 0.66 0.69 0.66 0. '72 0.78 0.65 0.80 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 ( 1) '7(2) 8 ( 1) 8 (2) 9 10 In summary, board presidents and superintendents identified only self confidence as a most important personal quality or trait to consider in the evaluation of a superintendent. Problem analysis was the technical skill the two groups had in common. Decision making, board/superintendent relations, and motivating others were the interpersonal skills identified by both groups. Leadership was the conceptual skill fotind on both lists. Boards of education are responsible for both the selection and the evaluation of the superintendent of 85

PAGE 95

schools. As a result, the comparison of the crite.ria they identified for selection and evaluation is especially interesting. Board presidents participating in this study identified five personal qualities and eight skills as most important for superintendent selection. They identified five personal qualities and six skills as most important for superintendent evaluation. The personal qualities that appeared on both the board presidents' selection and evaluation lists included: belief in children, moral character, and personal attitude. At the time of hire they also looked for congruence with district goals and abiiity to work under pressure. At the time of evaluation, they added initiative and self confidence to their list of personal qualities. Board presidents seemed to seek and retain positive superintendents with strong beliefs. Individuals who were confident, selfstarters. Skills identified by board presidents for selection carried forward to evaluation. They were: leadership, decision making, board/superintendent relations, motivating others, problem analysis. At the time of hire they added interpersonal criteria: the ability to relate to others, to handle conflict, and to 86

PAGE 96

manage personnel. At the time of evaluation, they dropped the emphasis on interpersonal skills and added organizational ability, an emphasis on getting the job done. Research Question 5 Are the criteria identified as most important by superintendents for the selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for the selection of superintendents of schools? Table 8 and Table 9 display the criteria identified as most important by boards of education and superintendents for the selection of superintendents of schools. As a result of identical mean scores for several items, board presidents identified 13 criteria as the most important and superintendents identified 14 criteria. The criteria for each group are presented in Table 12. Eighteen items made up the composite set of criteria identified as most important for the selection of superintendents of schools: board-superintendent relations skills, leadership skills, decision making 87

PAGE 97

skills, ability to handle conflict, ability to work under pressure, motivating others, ability to analyze problems, congruence with district goals, conflict resolution skills, self confidence, oral communications skills, ability to relate to others, moral character, initiative, organizational ability, belief in children, personal attitude, and personnel management skills. Table 12. Most Important Criteria for Selection of a Superintendent of Schools as Ranked by Board Presidents and Superintendents. Rank Board Presidents 1 Leadership Skills 2 Ability to Relate to Others 3 Decision Making Skills 4 Belief In Children 5 Moral Character 6 Board/Supt. Relations 7 Ability Under Pressure Ability to Analyze Prob. 8 Congruence with Dist. Goals 9 Personal Attitude Ability to Handle Conflict 10 Personnel Management Skills Superintendents Board/Supt. Relations Leadership Skills Decision Making Skills Personal Attitude Ability to Analyze Prob. Conflict Resolution Self Confidence Ability to Handle Conflict Initiative Ability to Relate to Others Oral Communications Organizational Ability Motivating Others Belief in Children To complete the first analysis, data were derived from the superintendents and board presidents 88

PAGE 98

arrangement of criteria. The superintendents' and school board presidents' mean ratings of the importance of the 18 criteria were used as data points. Table 8 and Table 9 display the mean ratings for the two groups. The data were submitted to an unweighted means multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for the identification of a composite of the 18 dependent variables. Each component was associated with effect and error matrices that produced a linear composite of the dependent variables. The magnitude of variation in mean composite scores associated with effect was compared to chance fluctuation using Wilks' Lambda criteria. Generation of effect and error matrices with probability indices were facilitated by a computer routine, SPSS, MANOVA, 1990. The mean composite ratings of the two groups were different at the p<.OOl level (Wilks' Larnbda=.602, F=2.72, df=18/74, p<.OOl). The composite associated with the difference between the two groups was (2 times the ability to act under pressure + 2 times congruence with district goals minus board/superintendent relation skills minus ability to handle conflict minus 2 times conflict resolution skills) 89

PAGE 99

The composite appeared to be focused upon a discrepancy. In terms of criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools, superintendents tended to rate the importance of board/superintendent relation skills much higher than the ability to work under pressure and being congruent with district goals. Board presidents, on the other hand, rated board/superintendent relations, ability to handle conflict, and conflict resolution skills lower than ratings assigned by the superintendents. Univariate analyses were conducted using ANOVA . Differences in the ratings of each of the following selection criteria by superintendents and board failed to exceed chance expectations: leadership skills, decision-making skills, ability to work under pressure, motivating others, congruence with district goals, oral communication skills, ability to. relate to others, moral character, initiative, organizational ability, belief in children, personal attitude, and personnel management skills. Five variables did produce significant differences. Superintendents rated the following selection criteria higher in importance.than board . president-s: board/superintendent relation skills (F=11.16, df=l/91, p<.OOl), to handle conflict 90

PAGE 100

(F=4.17, df=1/91, p<.04), ability to analyze problems (F=4.28, df=1/91, p<.04), conflict resolution skills (F=15.14, df=1/91, p<.0001), and self confidence (F=7.09, df=1/91, p<.009). Table 13 displays these data. Table 13. Comparison of Superintendents and Board Presidents Selection Criteria. Criteria Board Superintendent Relations Leadership Skills Decision Making Skills Ability to Handle Conflict Ability Under Pressure Motivating Others Ability to Analyze Problems Congruence with District Goals Conflict Resolution Skills Self Confidence Oral Communica.tion Ability to Relate to Others Moral Character Initiative Organizational Ability Belief in Children Personal Attitude Personnel Management Skills Research Question 6 Significance .001* .890 .176 .044* .952 .810 .041* .592 .0001* .009* .291 .550 829 .051 .101 .628 .052 .858 Are the criteria identified by superintendents as most important for the evaluation of superintendents of schools significantly different from the most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 91

PAGE 101

Data for research question 6 were derived from the superintendents' and board presidents' arrangement of variables. Table 10 and Table 11 display the most important criteria for evaluation as ranked by board presidents and superintendents. As a result of identical mean scores, board presidents identified 11 criteria and superintendents identified 12 criteria; the composite group contains 17 variables. The superintendents' and school board presidents' mean ratings of the importance of following 17 criteria for the evaluation of superintendents were used as data points: board/superintendent relation skills, leadership skills, decision making skills, ability to handle conflict, ability to work under pressure, motivating others, ability to analyze problems, congruence with district goals, conflict resolution skills, self confidence, oral communications skills, planning ability, moral character, initiative, organizational ability, belief in children, and personal attitude. The data for the superintendents and school board presidents were submitted to an unweighted means MANOVA for the identification of a composite of the 17 dependent variables. The mean composite ratings of the 92

PAGE 102

two groups were not different beyond chance expectations. The data for comparison of the most important criteria for evaluation of superintendents of schools are displayed in Table 14. Table 14. Most Important Criteria for Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by Board Presidents and Superintendents. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Board Presidents Decision Making Skills Leadership Skills Board/Supt. Relations Moral Character Initiative Organizational Ability Self Confidence Belief in Children Ability to Analyze Problems Motivating Others Personal Attitude Superintendents Board/Supt. Relations Leadership Skills Decision Making Skills Ability to Handle Conflict Ability Under Pressure Motivating Others Ability to Analyze Problems Congruence with Dist. Goals Conflict Resolution Skills Self Confidence Oral Communication Planning Ability Univariate analyses were also conducted. Differences in.the ratings of each of the 17 evaluation criteria by superintendents and board presidents failed to exceed chance expectation. Superintendents and 93

PAGE 103

board presidents agreed on the importance of these 17 criteria. Research Question 7 Are the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education as most important for the selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? Table 8 and Table 10 display the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education as the most important to the selection and evaluation of a superintendent of schools. Board presidents identified 13 criteria for selection and 11 criteria for evaluation as the most important. The resulting set contained the following 16 criteria: board/superintendent relations skills, leadership skills, decision making skills, moral character, initiative, organizational ability, self confidence, belief in children, ability to analyze problems, motivating others, personal attitude, ability to relate to others, ability to work under pressure, congruence with district goals, ability to handle conflict, and 94

PAGE 104

personnel management skills. Table 15 presents these data. Table 15. Most Important Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by Presidents of Boards of Education. Rank Board Pres.-Selection Board Pres.-Evaluation 1 Leadership Skills Decision Making Skills 2 Ability to Relate to Others Leadership Skills 3 Decision Making Skills Board/Supt. Relations Moral Character 4 Belief in Children Initiative 5 Moral Character Organizational Ability 6 Board/Supt. Relations Self Confidence Motivating Others 7 Ability Under Pressure Belief in Children Ability to Analyze Prob. 8 Congruence with Dist. Goals Ability to Analyze Problems 9 Personal Attitude Motivating Others Ability to Handle Conflict 10 Personnel Management Skills Personal Attitude The data for the two groups of school board presidents were submitted to an unweighted means MANOVA for the identification of a composite of the 16 dependent variables. The mean composite ratings of the selection and evaluation criteria by the two groups of school board presidents were not different beyond chance expectations. 95

PAGE 105

Univariate analyses were also conducted on these variables. Differences in the mean selection and evaluation ratings by school board presidents for each of the 16 variables failed t6 exceed chance expectation. How one group of school board presidents rated the importance of the criteria for selection was similar to what the other group of school board presidents selected as most important for evaluation of superintendents. Research Question 8 Are the criteria identified by superintendents as the most important for the selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the criteria identified by superintendents .as the most important for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? Table g and Table 11 display the criteria that were identified .by superintendents as the most important for. the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools .. Superintendents identified 14 criteria for selection and 12 criteria for evaluation as most important. The comi'osite set contains 17 criteria: board/superintendent relations skills, leadership skills, decision making skills, ability to handle conflict, ability to work under 96

PAGE 106

pressure, motivating others, ability to analyze problems, congruence with district goals, self confidence, oral communications skills, planning ability, personal attitude, conflict resolution skills, initiative, ability to relate to others, organizational ability, and belief in children. The data for the two groups of superintendents were submitted to an unweighted means MANOVA for the identification of a composite of the 17 dependent variables. The mean composite ratings of the selection and evaluation criteria by superintendents were not different beyond chance expectations. Data are presented in Table 16. 97

PAGE 107

Table 16. Most Important Criteria for Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools as Ranked by Superintendents. Rank Superintendents-Selection Superintendents-Evaluation 1 Boarcd/Supt. Relations Board/Supt. Relations 2 Leadership Skills Leadership Skills 3 Decision Making Skills Decision Making Skills Personal Attitude 4 Ability to Analyze Problems Ability to Handle Conflict Conflict Resolution Skills 5 Self Confidence Ability Under Pressure 6 Ability to Handle Conflict Motivating Others 7 Initiative Ability to Analyze Problems Congruence with Dist. Goals 8 Oral Communication Conflict Resolution Skills Organizational Ability Self Confidence 9 Motivating Others Oral Communication 10 Belief in Children Planning Ability Univariate analyses were also conducted. Differences in the mean selection and evaluation ratings by superintendents of the 17 criteria failed to ex6eed expectation. The criteria identified by one group of superintendents for selection did not differ significantly from the criteria identified by the other group of superintendents for.evaluation. Superintendents in the selection group and superintendents in the evaluation group agreed on the top criteria, though not in the same order: 98

PAGE 108

board/superintendent relations, leadership skills, and decision making skills. In addition, the two groups agreed on the importance of ability to motivate others and the ability to analyze problems. For selection, these skills were augmented with ability to handle conflict, oral communication skills, and planning ability. For evaluation, only organizational ability was added. Self concept is the trait the two groups identified in common. For selection, the superintendents added ability to work under pressure and congruence with district goals, the same two criteria identified by the board presidents. To the evaluation criteria they_added the following traits: moral character, initiative, belief in children and personal Superintendents believed that working with the board, providing district leadership, and making good decisions were the most important as both selection and criteria. Research Question 9 Are the criteria identified bi presidents of bdard of education and superintendents as most important for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of 99

PAGE 109

schools congruent with the literature on leadership traits and skills? Leadership Traits Leadership traits have been defined as the physical characteristics and personality features that been suggested for the identification of leaders (Yukl, 1981, p. 67). House and Baetz (1979, p. 348) offered the following definition: "any distinctive physical or psychological characteristic of the individual to which the individual's behavior can be attributed." They summarized Stogdill's 1974 review of leadership traits by concluding "that there is a cluster of personality traits that differentiate effective leaders from ineffective leaders. The traits which show the most consistently high correlation with leadership are: intelligence, dominance, self confidence, energy, and task-relevant knowledge" (p. 349). Traits found in the research literature are summarized in Table 17 (House & Baetz, 1979; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1981). 100

PAGE 110

Table 17. Traits Identified in the Literature on Leadership. Leadership Traits Adaptable to Change Alert to Social Environment Ambitious and Achievement-Oriented Appearance Assertive Cooperative Creativity Decisive Dependable Dominant Energetic Flexibility Inr1er Work Standard Intelligence Persistent Personal Integrity Positive Attitude Primacy of Work Range of Interests Self Confident Tolerance of Uncertainty Tolerant of Stress Willing to Assume Responsibility This study identified 19 criteria that the superintendents and presidents of boards of education rated as most important f.or the selection and evaluation of superintendents of .schools. These 19 criteria included: 1) ability to analyze problems, 2) ability to handle conflict, 3) ability to.relate to others, 4) ability to work under pressure, 5) belief in children, 6) board/superintendent relation skills, 7) conflict resolution skills, 8) congruence with district goals, 9) decision making _skills, 10) initiative, 11) 101

PAGE 111

leadership skills, 12) oral communication skills, 13) moral character, 14) motivating others, 15) organizational ability, 16) personal attitude, 17) personnel management skills, 18) planning ability, and 19) self confidence. Approximately one-third of the criteria identified for superintendent selection and evaluation were personal traits. Only self confidence was identified in both the literature and as a most important criterion in this study. There were, however, close similarities on the two lists: positive attitude may be similar to personal attitude; tolerance of stress may be similar to ability to work under .pressure; personal integrity may be similar to moral character, primacy of work may be similar to congruence with district goals. Belief in children is specific to the educational arena and does not have a match on the leadership literature trait list. 102

PAGE 112

Table 18. Leadership Traits Identified by Superintendents and Board Presidents as Most Important for Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents of Schools. Leadership Traits for Selection and Evaluation of Superintendents Ability to Work Under Pressure Belief in Children Congruence with District Goals Initiative Moral Character Personal Attitude Self Confidence Table 18 displays the leadership traits identified as most important in this study. Leadership Skills "It is not enough to have the appropriate personal characteristics; a person also needs considerable skill to be an leader" (Yukl, 1981, p.85). The most widely accepted approach for classifying leadership skills is in terms of the three-skill typology of technical, human, and conceptual categories (Katz, 1974). This typology was modified by Sergiovanni (1990 p. 86) as follows: technical, human, educational, symbolic, and cultural. The types of skills that are represented by the three broad areas are described below: 103

PAGE 113

Technical Skills. Knowledge about methods, processes, procedures, and techniques for conducting a specialized activity (Yukl, 1981, p. 85) 0 Human Relations Skills. Knowledge about human behavior and interpersonal processes, ability to understand the feelings, attitudes, and motives of others, ability to communicate, and ability to establish effective and cooperative relationships (Yukl, 1981, p. 86). Conceptual Skills. General analytical ability, proficiency in concept formation, creativity in idea generation, ability to analyze events and perceive trends, anticipate changes, and recognize opportunities and potential problems (Yukl, 1981, p.86) 0 Table 19 summarizes examples from the research literature on leadership skills according to the Katz and Sergiovanni typologies (House & Baetz, 1979; Katz, 1974; Sergiovanni, 1990) Table 19. Leadership Skills and the Three-Skill Typology. Technical Human Conceptual Knowledge of Specific Relationship Bldg. Planning Function Organizational Skills Oral Communication Vision Task Behaviors Written Communication Bldg. the Culture Mgt. Techniques Shared Decision Mkg. Modeling Problem Solving Conflict Mgt. Motivation 104

PAGE 114

Table 20 displays the criteria identified as most important for the selection and evaluation of superintendents .of schools by board presidents and superintendents categorized by the three-skill typology. Table 20. Most Important Selection and Evaluation Criteria Categorized by the Three-Skill Typology. Technical Organizational Ability Human Oral Communication Decision Making* Bd./Supt. Relations Conflict Resolution* Ability to Handle Conflict Ability to Relate to Others Motivating Others Personnel Management* Conceptual Planning Ability Leadership Prob. Analysis The criteria that were identified as most important for both the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools tended to cluster in the human relations category of the three-skill typology. Several of the skills.labeled as "human" in Table 20 also have a strong technical overtone to them. These skills are denoted with an asterisk. 165

PAGE 115

Other Criteria Superintendents and board presidents were asked to rate each of the 58 criteria identified in the research on superintendent selection and evaluation. In addition, they were asked to add any criteria that they believed were of importance but which were not included on the list of 58 criteria. One-half of the respondents from the selection group and one-third of the respondents from the evaluation group added at least one criteria for consideration. The selection and evaluation criteria added are presented in Table 21. Table 21. Selection and Evaluation Criteria Added by Superintendents and Board Presidents. Selection Vision (5) Honesty (9) Community Involvement (5) Sensitivity (5) Big Picture Win-Win Attitude Objective Patience Evaluation Vision (5) Honesty (5) Community Involvement (5) Good Listener (2) Advocacy for Public Ed. Shared Decision Making Ability to Work with Media Several of the criteria added by superintendents and board presidents have appeared in popular literature from business and education. They are not 106

PAGE 116

yet in the research literature. Vision, community involvement and seeing the big picture appear as new selection criteria. With the focus on education as never before, some board presidents and superintendents identified advocacy tor public education, the ability to work with the media, and shared decision making as evaluation criteria for the future. '107

PAGE 117

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to identify from the criteria found in the literature those items judged to be the most important to presidents of boards of education and superintendents of schools in selected California school districts for the selection and evaluation of superintendents, and to compare those criteria with the traits and skills in the literature on leadership theories. There were two major components of the study: 1) identification by board presidents and superintendents of the most important criteria for superintendent selection and evaluation; and 2) comparison of the most important criteria with the literature on trait and skill-based leadership theories. Background information, questions posed in the study, the significance of the study, and definition of terms were included in Chapter 1.

PAGE 118

Specific Research Questions The following 9 questions provided the framework for this study: 1. What do presidents of boards of education in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? 2. What do superintendents of schools in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools? 3. What do presidents of boards of education in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the of superintendents of schools? 4. What do superintendents of schools in selected school districts in California identify as the most important criteria for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 5. Are the most important criteria identified by superintendents for selection of superintendents of schools significantly different from the most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education for selection of superintendents of schools? 109

PAGE 119

6. Are the most important criteria identified by superintendents for the evaluation of superintendents of schools significantly different from the most important criteria identified by presidents of boards of education? 7. Are the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education as most important for the selection of superintendent of schools significantly different .from the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education .for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 8. Are the criteria identified by superintendents as most important for the selection of superintendents of schools different from the criteria identified by superintendents as the most important for the evaluation of superintendents of schools? 9. Are the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education and the superintendents as most important for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools congruent with the literature on leadership traits andskills? Literature Review Selected literature. relevant to the study was reviewed in Chapter 2. Superintendent selection was 110

PAGE 120

examined from the perspective of leadership functions and roles (Pringle, 1989; Mintzberg, 1973; Gerla, 1988; Cuban, 1988; Powell, 1984) In addition, traits and skills highlighted in the literature were summarized (Estes, 1979; Sclafani, 1987; Haugland, 1987; Alkire, 1988; Powell, 1989; Pringle, 1989; Pearson, 1989; White & DeVries, 1990) Superintendent evaluation, as examined and described by MiLler (1982) and Conley (1986) in Colorado, and Brinkman (1973), McGrath (1982), and Roberts (1988) in California, provided a framework for identification of specific criteria used for superintendent evaluation (Braddon, 1986; Kowalski, 1976; Pringle, Leadership theory provided a theoretical basis for the study. Stogdill (1974), Yukl (1981), Hersey & Blanchard (1982), Katz (1974), and Sergiovanni (1984) were utilized to frame the leadership issues, providing both an analysis of the specific traits and skills of leaders and the typology framework with which to examine them. The research indicated some strong similarities between the criteria for selection of a superintendent of schools and those used for evaluation. These 111

PAGE 121

criteria, when taken together, fit well into the typologies for leadership presented in Chapter 2. Design of the Study Chapter 3 described the research methodology used for conducting the study. The research literature on superintendent selection and evaluation criteria was used as the basis for the development of the survey instrument used in this study. The survey was constructed in two parts. Part 1 contained 58 criteria from the literature on superintendent selection and evaluation. Part 2 asked for demographic data about the participants. The survey was subjected to a pilot test and was revised before being distributed in January, 1991. All superintendents and board presidents in the public school districts in five southern California counties were surveyed.for this study. The overall response rate was 63 percent. Study participants were divided into four groups: superintendents responding from the perspective bf superintendent board presidents responding from the perspective of superintendent selection, superintendents responding from the perspective of superintendent evaluation, 112

PAGE 122

board presidents responding from the perspective of superintendent evaluation. Data were analyzed through the use of statistical processes available in the SPSS statistical package. Descriptive statistics were used to compute mean, standard deviation, and rank for each of the survey criteria. Multivariate analysis was completed to compare setsof criteria from the four groups. ANOVA was conducted for each of the criteria identified as most important by one of. the study groups. Summary of Findings The findings are summarized in the order of the research questions that are presented at the beginning of Chapter 5. The findings are grouped for easier reference to the appropriate literature presented in Chapter 2. Criteria for Selection of Superintendents: Board Presidents Criteria for Selection of Superintendents: Superintendents Differences in Criteria: Board Presidents and Superintendents Significant differences existed between the criteria identified by presidents 6f boards of education and criteria identified by superintendents as most important for the selection of superintendents of 113

PAGE 123

schools. Superintendents placed a greater emphasis on board/superintendent relations skills, the ability to handle conflict, conflict resolution, and the ability to analyze problems than did board presidents .. Powell (1984) identified moderate agreement between superintendents and school board presidents on the importance of various selection criteria. The superintendents .and board presidents in this study supported three of the criteria identified by Powell as important: belief in children, board/superintendent relations, and decision making. Pringle (1989) found that three of the criteria identified by board presidents as most important were aspects of .. board/superintendent relations: keeping the informed, building a climate of trust and respect, and clear understanding of the respective roles of the board and the superintendent. Board presidents in this study tended not to support this level of emphasis on these criteria, placing board/superintendent relations in the middle of their list of most important criteria, ranked at 6 of 10. Superintendents, on the other hand, placed the board/superintendent relationship at the top of their list for consideration, supporting the earlier finding. 114

PAGE 124

The emphasis on conflict appearing in the superintendents' most important category for selection was not noted in any of the earlier research studies. Criteria for Evaluation of Superintendents: Board Presidents Criteria for Evaluation of Superintendents: Superintendents Differences in the Criteria: Board Presidents and Superintendents There were no significant differences between the criteria identified by board presidents and superintendents of schools for the evaluation of superintendents of schools. The two groups identified the following criteria in common: board/superintendent relations, leadership, self confidence, decision making, problem analysis, and motivating others. The other criteria identified by the board presidents included the traits of personal attitude, initiative, moral character, and belief in children. Superintenderits, on the other hand, identified the handling of conflict, conflict resolution, ability under pressure, and goal congruence among their most important. While the different emphases,. personal qualities vs. conflict and stress, were interesting to note, they did not make the lists of most important criteria statistically different. 115

PAGE 125

The results of this study supported, in part, the findings of an earlier study by Braddon (1986), which found board/superintendent relations at the top of the list and an emphasis on personal qualities. This study does not support Shroyer's (1988) finding that financial management has emerged as an important evaluation criteria. The criteria on finance and budget in .this study were ranked 32 and 38, respectively. Selection and Evaluation Criteria: Superintendents Selection and Evaluation Criteria: Board Presidents There were no significant differences between the selection and evaluation criteria identified as most important by superintendents .or the selection and evaluation criteria identified as most important by board presidents. Superintendents placed the same three items at the top of their lists: board/superintendent relations, leadership skills, and decision making. In addition, their lists of criteria agreed as to the importance of self confidence, oral communication, ability to handle conflict and conflict resolution skills, and ability to analyze problems. 116

PAGE 126

Board presidents held the following skill criteria in common regardless of their group, selection or evaluation: leadership skills, decision making skills, board/superintendent relations skills, ability to analyze problems, motivating others. They also agreed on the following traits: moral character, belief in children, and personal attitude. At the time of selection, they wanted to see initiative and the ability relate to others. For evaluation they were interested in adding self confidence and organizational ability. Leadership Literature Congruence: Selection and Evaluation Analysis of the criteria identified as most important to superintendents and presidents of boards of education for the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools. were congruent with the literature on leadership traits and skills. The criteria fit into the three-category skill typology described by Katz (1974) and expanded by Sergiovanni (1990). Of the 19 criteria in the composite for superintendent selection and evaluation, seven of them support the trait theory of leadership and the remaining 12 reflect the technical, human, and conceptual skills required of superintendents of 117

PAGE 127

schools as leaders. Seven of the 12 skill criteria fell in the human relations category. This finding is consistent with that of Harter (1990) that leadership by showing concern for people is highly characteristic of educational administrators. One additional finding of this study was the unexpected impact of world events on the ability to comoplete research studies of this nature. Desert Storm broke out at the time that the questionnaires for the research project were mailed to the participating districts. Many of the school districts in the five counties were heavily-impacted by the_deployment of troops and the disruptions to families. Superintendents and board presidents were occupied with issues of support for students arid were not as prompt to return questionnaires as research methodology would have indicated. was necessary to allow six time for response, twice as long was anticipated. Conclusions The. conclusions were based upon evidence generated by the study. 1. Within the body of research on superintendent selection and evaluation there is a core of 118

PAGE 128

criteria viewed as most important by board presidents and superintendents, alike. Of the 58 criteria identified for this study, 19 were consistently ranked in the top 10 by board members and superintendents. These 19 criteria included both traits and skills. supported by the leadership literature. 2. While there was general agreement between board presidents and superintendents on the total set of criteria used for selection and evaluation, they do see the job differently. There was a significant difference between board presidents and superintendents on the most important criteria for the selection of superintendents of schools. Superintendents believed that the board and ability to handle and resolve conf_lict were of major importance. Board presidents stressed personal qualities such as character, attitude, and belief-s. It may be the responsibility of the of schools to educate boards of education on the amount of conflict andproblem.solving that is inherent in the job. 3. While there are differences in .the specific criteria identified by board presidents and superintendents for superintendent evaluation, there are no significant differences. Board presidents and 119

PAGE 129

superintendents agree on the importance of the criteria they identify for evaluation. 4. There are no sigriificant differences between the criteria superintendents identify as most important for selection and those they include for evaluation. Superintendents believe that there is consistency in the criteria used for both these functions. 5. There are no significant differences between the criteria board presidents identify as most important for selection and those they include for evaluation of superintendents. Board presidents operate within a consistent set of criteria for both the selection and the evaluation of superintendents. 6. Criteria used in the selection and evaluation of superintendents of schools tend to focus on personal qualities or traits and technical and human skills. Little emphasis is placed on the broader conceptual skills or those of symbolic and cultural Superintendents and boards of education cannot ignore, however, the emerging emphasis on the conceptual domain, particularly vision, advocacy for public education, and the big picture perspective. 7. The literature did, in fact, provide a comprehensive review of the traits and skills essential to the superintendency. The challenge for school 120

PAGE 130

boards is to prioritize or narrow their expectations that superintendents possess high levels of all the traits and skills. 8. Conflict emerged as an important criterion for selection and evaluation of superintendents according to the superintendents participating in this study. A more specific list of criteria may be necessary to clarify and alleviate the potential sources of board/superintendent conflict. 9. Finance and business management, criteria identified as most important in earlier studies of selection and evaluation criteria for superintendents of schools, were not among the top 10 criteria for any of the groups. These criteria, however, may be extremely important in specific school districts facing financial challenges. They cannot be ignored. 9. Board/superintendent relations continues to be one of the most important criteria for both selection and-evaluation. Recommendations for Future Study 1. There is significant agreement on the qualities and skills desired in superintendents of schools. There is, however, little research available on ways to assess those qualities and skills in 121

PAGE 131

candidates for the superintendency. The assessment center approach described in 2 for private sector managers suggests one direction for further exploration. 2. The analysis of the criteria for superintendent selection and evaluation illustrates that the major focus is on traits, technical and human skill$. Few skill criteria surface in the research literature from the conceptual skill category. Katz (1974) suggested that the higher one moves in an organization the more one needs conceptual skills. Sergiovanni (1990) supported this idea in his explanation of the leadership pyramid. He concluded that value-added leadership is what is necessary to get extraordinary performance from our schools. What petsonalqualities and skills does it take to do this is suggested for further study. 3 .. The .criteria selected for the data collection questionnaire used in this study were part of. the empirical research on superintendent selection and evaluation. As a result, they reflect the traditional concepts built into the selection and evaluation processes. None of the criteria were selected from the emerging literature on leadership and leadership effectiveness. A study incorporating the emerging 122

PAGE 132

criteria included in Sergiovanni's (1990) concept of value-added leadership might produce a new paradigm for selecting and evaluating superintendents of schools. 4. Except as noted in this study, there is general agreement between board presidents and superintendents on the most important criteria for both the selection and the evaluation of superintendents of schools. Training programs for board members on the superintendent selection and evaluation processes might be modified to include these core criteria. Such training might include opportunity for boards of education to specifically define each of the criterion as it pertains to their district and to determine the methods for identifying and assessing each of the criteria. 5. Professional associations provide both preservice and inservice training programs for both prospective and seated superintendents. This study identified 7 traits and 12 skills considered by board presidents and superintendents to be the most important for selection and evaluation of superintendents. Training programs for superintendents, specifically targeted at the most important traits and skills identified by board presidents, might increase superintendent effectiveness. 123

PAGE 133

6. School districts characterized by conflict between superintendents and boards of education might be studied to see if there is agreement on the criteria used as the basis for selection of the superintendent and the criteria in use for the evaluation of the superintendent. 124

PAGE 134

APPENDIX A TABLE A-1: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION/ EVALUATION OF SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS 125

PAGE 135

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION/EVALUAllON OF SUPERINTENDENTS (Means, Std Dev, Rank). Selection Selection I Bvllulllian Evaluation SUDCril tendo:nll n"'55 Board Pmidcnl! n"'42 Suoeriruendcnta n=45 Board PrcsideniS n"'39 Mean StDv Rlllk Mean StDv Rllllk Mean StDv Rank Mean SIDv Rank CRITERI 'Pcnomel MB!!!t Skills'/ 6.17 0.97 16 6.19 0.77 10 6.3 0.80 13.0 6.21 0.78 15J CRITER2 'Onl Communic Skills'/ 6.38 0.83 1---.!:!1 ti.S 6.38 0.65 9.0 6.26 0.91 t2J CRITERJ 'FISCal Mgmt Skills'/ 5.42 0.96 32.5 5.26 1.17 31.5 6.04 1.00 20.0 5.82 1.00 23.5 -CRITER4 'Decision Mkg Skills'/ 6.58 0.74 3.5 6.36 0.76 3 6.64 0.57 3.0 6.58 0.64 1.0 CRITERS 'PIIIIUIIna Ability'/ 6.20 0.85 14 5.90 1.14 17 6.36 0.80 10.0 6.23 0.87 13.0 CRITER6 'Pcnonal Auitude'/ 6.58 0.71 3.5 6.24 0.94 9.5 6.53 0.76 29.0 6.31 0.83 10.0 CRITER7 'Plogr11111 Eva! Sltills'/ 4.91 0.85 42 5.26 1.ll 31.5 5.18 1.03 38.5 5.58 0.92 31.0 CR1TER8 'Sbldenl Rela Skilla'/ 4.45 1.20 48 4.57 1.09 40 4.36 1.45 45.0 .5.23 1.09 42.0 CRITER9 'Educational Prr:p'/ 5.44 0.96 31 5.48 1.19 27 4.89 1.64 41.0 5.59 0.99 30.0 CRITERIO 'Organi1.ational Abil:f 6.38 0.68 8.5 6.17 0.73 ll.S 6.18 0.86 16.0 6.41 0.72 5.0 CRITER11 'Sensitivity'/ 6.13 1.09 18 5.66 0.88 23 6 0.93 21.0 5.95 1.10 21.0 CRITER12 'Risk Taker'/ 5.76 1.04 26 32.5 5.66 1.03 27.0 5.36 1.16 CRITERIJ 'Personal Ed Philm'/ 5.80 1.15 25 5.79 1.09 20 5.56 1.06 28.0 5.59 1.02 30.5 -CR1TER14 'Board-Super Rela Ski'/ 6.78 0.50 I 6.31 0.84 6.5 6.73 o.so 1.0 6.49 0.89 3.5 CRITER15 'Policy Dev Skills'/ 5.22 0.96 36 5.24 1.10 32.5 5.22 1.17 37.0 5.69 1.03 27J CR1TERI6 'Staff Dcvcl Skills'/ 4.84 1.14 43 5.43 0.97 28 5.07 0.92 39.0 5.54 1.02 32J CR1TERI7 'Pcnonal 6.04 0.90 5.29 0.89 30.5 .44 1.20 33.0 5.67 1.16 28.0 --CRITER18 'Neaolia-labor Rela'/ 5.29 1.07 35 5.19 1.02 33 5.51 1.06 30.0 5.64 1.09 29.0 CRlTERl91...eadcnbiD SkiJis'/ 6.64 0.59 2 6.62 0.54 1 6.69 0.56 2.0 6:S1 0.72 2.0 CRITER20 'Self-Confidence'/ 6.54 0.67. 5 6;14 0.78 12.5 6.4 0.78 8.5 6.39 0.72 6.0 CRrrnR21 'Profess1 lmprovcmt'/ 5.64 1.04 28 5.36 0.91 29 5.24 1.33 5.82 1.00 23.5 CRITER22 'Concem fr. Detail'/ 5.09 1.30 39 4.98 36 5.04 1.15 40.5 0.51 1.07 36J -. CRITER23 'Prev Exo u Super'/ 4.60 1.23 46 3.98 1.42 43 4.09 1.58 47.0 4.38 1.46 45.0 CR1TER24 'Pmonal ECiicicncy'/ 5.65 0.96 27 5.71 0.94 22 5.47 1.16 32.0 5.42 1.06 38.5 CR1TER25 'Knowledge of Purchas'/ 3.76 1.32 19 .3.83 1.23 44 3.78 1.28 48.0 4.23 1.31 46.0 CRITER26 'Abil \Older Pn::asun:'/ 6.29 0.85 II 6.29 0.86 7.5 6.49 0.73 5.0 6.13 1.03 17.0 CRITBR27 Knowledge'/ 5.18 1.04 38 35 1.07 23.5 5.69 1.08 27.5 CRITER28 1dealiatic'/ 5.30 1.18 34 4.90 1.06 37 4.69 1.24 43.0 5.05 1.19 44J CRITER29 'Community Rela SkiU'/ 6.11 0.79 19.5 6.00 0.86 14.5 6.13 0.92 17.0 6.1 0.94 18.0 CRJTER30 'Appelllfiiii:.C'/ 5.58 0.99 30 5.17 1.07 34 5.36 1.00 34.0 5.51 1.17 36.5 CRITERJ 1 'Proaressive'/ 5.40 1.08 33 5.50 l.t7 26 5.04 0.93 40.5 5.46 1.02 39.0 CRITER32 'Iruii'IIC1 Knowledge'/ 5.42 0.94 32.5 5.29 5.49 0.94 31.0 5.54 1.00 .32.5 CRITER33 'Plant Mgmt Skills'/ 4.56 1.26 45 4.52 1.33 41 4.67 1.28 44.0 5.08 1.18 43.0 CRITER34 'DCleaation Skills'/ 5.84 1.14 25 5.98 0.87 15.5 5.8 1.16 25.0 5.97 1.09 20.0 CRITER35 'Belief in Children'/ 6.31 1.03 10 6.34 0.69 4 6.33 1.13 11.0 6.38 1.02 7.0 CR1TER36 'Moral Character'/ 6.27 0.99 13. 6.33 0.82 5 6.27 0.96 14.0 6.49 0.85 3.5 .. CRITER37 'Know! of Legis Pn:.c'/ 1.16 37 5.29 1.04 30.5 f. .!!!! 5.72 1.03 26.0 CR1TER38 'Co:ni as Supcrint'/ 4.80 1.51 44 4.34 1.65 42 4.23 1.66 46.0 5.29 1.47 41.0 CR1TER39 'Staff Eval Skills'/ 5.62 1.10 29 5.57 1.04 25.5 5.76 1.11 26.0 6 0.89 20.0 CRlmR40 'Kilowl of Board Oper'f 6.09 1.13 20.5 1.(14 18 5.98 1.18 22.0 6.26 0.82 12.5 ---CR1TER41 'Stu Pcrs0rulc1 M&mt'/ 4.55 1.35 47 4.88 1.52 38 4.78 1.17 42.0 5.05 1.18 44.5 CRJTER42 'Motivalina Othc:n'/ 6.33 0.80 9 0.78 6.5 6.44 0.66 6.0 6.31 0.73 9.0 .. CRITER43 1nilialive'/ 6.49 0.72 7.5 6.14 0.95 12.5 6.31 0.82 12.5 6.44 0.68 4.0 CRITER44 'Abil Analyze Prob'/ 6.56 0.60 4.5 6.29 0.74 7.5 15.42 0.69 7.5 6.36 0.71 8.0 CRITI>R45 'Adapll to Change'/ 6.40 0.74 8 5.98 0.87 15J 6.22 0.82 15.0 6.23 0.99 14.0 CRITER46 'A wan: Strcng&Weailc'/ 6.09 1.02 20.5 5.74 0.86 21 5.89 1.23 23-S 6.15 0.90 16.0 CRITER47 Task S.9S .. 5.57 0.97 25.5 6.09 1.00 18.5 5.9 1.05 22.0 CRITER.48 'Conflict Resol SKills'! 6.56 0.66 4.5 6.00 0.83 14.5 6.4 0.72 8.5 6.21 0.70 15.5 CRITER49 'Bmph Student Achvmt'/ 6.02 0.93 22 5.60 1.08 24.5 6.07 0.96 19.0 6.03 0.96 19.0 CRITI>RSO 'AbD Rc1a to Other'/ 6.49 0.10 7.5 6.43 0.63 2 6.31 0.76 12.5 6.28 0.89 11.3 126

PAGE 136

. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION/EVALUATION OF SUPERINTENDENTS (Means, Std Dev, Rank) CRI1l!R51 'Congruence w DisOaal'/ 6.18 0.93 IS 6.26 0.80 8 6.42 0.66 7.5 6.28 1.17 11.3 CRITERS2 'Sense of Humor'/ 6.16 0.86 17 .5.60 1-..5 .5.84 0.85 24..5 .5.82 1.23 23..5 CRI1l!R53 Written Commun Slth'/ __!!.!!_ 0.83 19..5 .5.86 O.A4 19 6.09 0.60 18.5 5.77 0.93 24..5 -CRITERS4 'Curriculum Dev Skis'/ 4.96 1.17 41 .5.29 1.04 30..5 .5.24 0.80 36..5 .5.42 1.11 38.5 J!l!l_dlc fi.SI 0.61 6.24 0.73 0.84 6.28 0.76 11.3 ------.. CRITER56 Enthu5iastic'/ 6.28 0.86 12 6.02 0.92 13 6.31 0.63 12 .5 6.23 0.87 14..5 CRITERS7 'fRcil 40 4.86 _.!:_!! 39 .5.18 !.OJ 38..5 .5.77 1.04 24.5 CRilERSII 'StalT Rela Slcls'/ .5.117 1.16 24 5.9:'1 0.96 16 .5.84 1.3.5 24..5 .5.74 1.33 2.5.0 127

PAGE 137

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRES AND COVER LETTERS 128

PAGE 138

_--:. .. ... .. __ ...::::_ -=... :.: .. -. -.. .. ,..:_ ..... Irvine Unified School District January 1 0, 1991 Dr. Michael H. Stuckhardt, Superintendent Pauma Elementary School District 33158 Cole Grade Road Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Dear Dr: Stur.khardt: rhe average tenure of superintendents of schools in California is three years. It is likely, therefore, that you will ctumge superintendr!llcies more than once in your career. lhe criteria identified by presidents of boards of education and superintendents as the most important in the selection of superintendent take on incrnased imrortance and interest in light of the above data superintendent turnover. Susan Harter, Deputy Superintendent in Irvine Unified, is conducting a research study to investigii\P. those criteria identified by board presidents and superintendents as the most important when selecting a superintendent. The information and insight that you provide on the enclosed survey will provide valuable data regarding superintendent selection; information useful to both superintendents and boards. Results of the study will be shared with all participants. Your response will, of course, he kept confidential. We urge you to complete the enclosed survey and return it within seven (7) days in the postage paid envelope provided. It should take just a few minutes of your time. Your p:uticipation is appreciated and is vital to the success of this study. Sincerely, David E. Brown Superinterulent Irvine Unified School District 129 Susan Harter Deputy Superintendent Irvine Unified School District

PAGE 139

I. CRITERIA FOA SELECTION OF TilE SUPERINTFNOENT OF SCIIOOLS The following criteria have been Identified In the research litl!rature on selection of Superintendents of Schools. The criteria are presented In random order. DIRECTIONS: For each itl!m on the list below, circle the number that bMI rnpresents your personal opinion of the Importance of that critl!rlon for the selection of 11 superintendent of schools ----... -... ---.. .. --CRITERIA IMPOR I ANCE (Circle one number lor each criterion) ---. --.. .. Low High ___ .. ___ --------------------1. Personnel Management Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ------2. Oral Ccmmunicatlon Skills I 2 3 4 5 6 7 ---3. Fiscal Management Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -4. Decision Skills 1 2 3 if 5 6 7 -. --5. Planning Ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -------6. rersonal Attitude I 2 3 4 5 6 7 -----------7. Program Evaluation Skills 1 2 3 if 5 6 7 --------8. Student Relations Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -------9. Educational rreparatlon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 --------10. Organizational Ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .. 11. Ser:tsitivity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Risk Taker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -13. Personal Educational Philosophy 1 2 3 if 5 6 7 -------14. Board-Superintendent Relations Skills 1 2 J if 5 6 7 -------------15. Policy Development Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ------16. Staff Development Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 --------------------17. Perstnal lll!alth 1 ., 3 if 5 6 7 ----------------------------.. -----.. -------------1R. Negotiations/Labor Relations Skills 1 2 3 5 6 7 ----------1-------... --------19. Lc
PAGE 140

Page 2 CRITERIA IMPORTANCE (Circle one number for each criterionl Low High 24. Personal Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Knowledge of Purchasing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Ability under Pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Budgetary Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Idealistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Cof!1munity Relations Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Progressive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... -32. Instructional Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Plant Management Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Delegation Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Belief in Children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Moral Character 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Knowled_ge of Legislative Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Certification as Superintendent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. Staff Evaluation Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Knowledge of Board Operations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Student Personnel. Management Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. Motivating Others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. Ability to Analyze Problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Adapts to Change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. Awareryess of Strengths/Weaknesses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. Task Accomplishment Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Conflict Resolution Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. Emphasizes Student Achievement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. Ability to Relate to Others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 131

PAGE 141

Page 3 CRITERIA IMPORTANCE (Circle one number for each criterion) Low High 51 Congruence with District Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 -52. Sense of Humor 1 2 3 4 5 6 53. Written Communications Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 54. Curriculum Development Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 55. Ability to Handle Conflict 1 2 3 4 5 6 56. Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 57. Facility Planning Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 58. Staff Relations Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 --PLEASE ADD additional criteria that you believe are important for the selection or superintendents of school superintendents of schools: Criteria Circle -one number for each criterion you add Low High 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMMENTS: Please add any additional comments you believe to be important to the study. 132 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

PAGE 142

II. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR SELECTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 1. I am currently (check one): Pre!lident of the Board of Education (please answer questions 2, 3, 4 amd 91 =Superintendent (Please answer question 5,6, 7 and 8 onlyl. 2. I have served on the Board of Education for (check one) _One year _Two years Three to five years More than five years Please specify the number of years 3. While S('rving on the Board of Education, I have participated in the selection of a superintendent (check one): Never One timA Two times Three or more times Please specify the number 4. If, as a Board Member, you have participated in the of a superintendent of schools, please check each item below that reflects your selection process: Individual Board members developed their own s
PAGE 143

7. At the time of my selection as Superintendent in my current position. I was provided with information about the -criteria used in my selection (check one): _Yes (if yes. please go on to question 81 No 8. Do you believe that the criteria provided to you at the time of your selection are the same as those that are used by the Board when it evaluates your performance (chack onel: _Yes, I believe the criteria are the same I believe that some of the criteria are the same No, I do not believe that the criteria are the same 9. Do you believe that the criteria developed for sel_ection of the superintendent in your district are the same as the criteria used by the 13oard for evaluation of the superintendent (check onel __ Yes, I believe the criteria are the same I believe that some of the .criteria are the same No, I do not believe that the criteria are thl! Uncertain if criteria are the same Please complete both parts of the survey and return to Susan Harter, 12 San Raphael, Monarch Beach, CA 92677, in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Thank you. 134

PAGE 144

Irvine Unified School District January 10, 1991 Dr. R. Roger Rowe, Superintendent Rancho Santa Fe School District P.O. Box 809 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Dear Dr. Row.e: Between 1986 and 1989 over 45 percent of the school districts in California changed superintendents. In two thirds of those changes "disharmony" between the board and superintendent was cited as one of the reasons. While evaluation processes and procedures have been the focus of many studies, .limited information is available about the Criteria used for the evaluation of superintendents. Susan Harter, Deputy Superintendent in Irvine Unified. is conducting a research study to investigate the criteria identified by presidents of boards of education and superintendents as the most important when evaluating a superintendent. The information and insight that you provide on the enclosed survey will provide valuable data regarding superintendent evaluation; information useful to both boards of education and superintendents as they work together to provide leadership for their districts. Results of the study will he shared with all l"llrticipants. Your responses, of course, will be kept confidential. We urge you to complete the enclosed survey and return it within seven (71 days in the postage paid envelope provided. It should take only a iew minutes of your time. Your participation is appreciated and is vital to the success of this study. Sincerely, David Brown. Superintendent Irvine Unified School District 135 Susan Harter, Deputy Superintendent Irvine Unified School District

PAGE 145

I. CRITERIA FOR EVAI.UA I ION Of TilE SUPERINTENDJ:NT OF SCIIOOI.S The following criteria have hnen identified In the researr.h literature on evaluAtion r:of Sup
PAGE 146

Page 2 IMPORTANCE (Circle one number for each crit<>rinnl Low High 24. Personal Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Knowledge of Purchasing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -26. Ability under Pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Budgetary Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Idealistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Community Relations Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Progressive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Instructional Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Plant Management Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Delegation Skills I 2 3 4 5 6 7 -35. Belief in Children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -36. Moral Character 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Knowledge of Legislative Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Certification as Superintendent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. Staff Evaluation Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Knowledge of Board Operations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Student Personnel Management Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. Motivating Others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Initiative 1 2 3 '4 5 6 7 44. Ability to Analyze Problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Adapts to Change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. Awareness of Strengths/Weaknesses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. Task Accomplishment Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Conflict Resolution Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. Emphasizes Student Achievement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. Ability to to Others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 137

PAGE 147

Page 3 --CRITERIA IMPORTANCE (Circle one number for each criteriol'!l Low High 51 Congruence with District Goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 52. Sense of Humor 1 2 3 4 5 6 53. Written Communications Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 54. Curriculum Development Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 55. Ability to Handle Conflict 1 2 3 4 5 6 56. Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 57. Facility Planning Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 58. Staff Relations Skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 PLEASE ADD additional criteria that you believe are important for the selection of superintendents of school superintendents or schools: Criteria Circle one number for each criterion you add Low High 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMMENTS: Please add any additional comments you believe to be important to the study. 138 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

PAGE 148

II. GENERAL INr-DRMA TION ron EV 1\UJA T ION OF SUF'FRINTENDENT OF 1. I am currently (chP.ck onl!): Prl!sidont of thP. Board of Erlucation __ SuperlntendP.nt of 2,. ThP. Supl!rintendent in our District is P.valuatr.d lr.hP.ck onr.l ---Evory two years Is not evaluated Other spr.clfyl ..... 3. The purpose for thn Superintendent's Is (check the _onn that Is most Important In your opinion): Salary determination Contract renewal _The nP.ed for improved performance __ Board-Superintendent relationship _To measure progress toward O'.her: please specify .... _____ 4. The evaluation criteria used for the evaluation of the Superintendent In our lJistrlct are (check uch thnt applies!: __ part of the superintP.ndr.nt's contract _contained in the superintendent's Job dP.scription specified In written evaluation procP.duresfor the superintendent -dr.velopod by the Board of F.ducatlnn at the time of the evaluation thP. same as those for all of our di!'ltrir:t 5. The lorrnat USP.d for of thP. in our di!'llrir.t i!: lr.hcd: all appropri:l!e): inbrrnal form:1l verbal only written only both verbal and written _other (please -----6. The evaluation documrmt in our dio;trict is: a e;h!!ckli!'lt ... a rating scale a narrativP. __
PAGE 149

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, Max G. (1975) Evaluating school administrators. Bloomington, IL: Phi Delta Kappa. Alkire, P. (1988). Superintendent selection practices in Ohio: A survey of school boards. Educational Research services Spectrum, ...(2) I 35-40. American Association of School Administrators (1980) Evaluating the superintendent. Washington, D.C.: AASA. Anderson, R., & Lavid, J .. (1988) Evaluation of new-tosite superintendents. Spectrum, ..(1), 29-32. Anderson, R.E., & Lavid, J.S. (1985). Factors school boards use when selecting a superintendent. Spectrum, ]., (3), 21-24. Barbot, R.J. (1986). A description of formal .superintendent evaluation in ielected California public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3617. (University Microfilms No. ADG87-03364) Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. !ennis, w., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Bennis, w. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38-51. Bessent, E.W. (1962). The predictability of selected elementary school principals' administrative behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 22, 3479. (University Microfilms No. 62-499) Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1982). Theory and xesearch for developing a science of leadership. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 275-292.

PAGE 150

Bolton, D. (1980). Evaluating administrative personnel in school systems. New York: Teachers College. Booth, R., and Glaub, G. (1978). A superintendent appraisal system. Springfield, IL: Illinois Assocation of School Boards. Braddon, C. (1986). Prescription for improvement: Make certain your school board's system of evaluating the superintendent is fair, fast, factual, arid frequent. American School Board Jou'rnal, 17 3 ( 8) 28-29. Bray, D.W., Campbell, R.J., & Grant, D.L. (1974). Formative years in business: A long term AT&T study of lives. New York: Wiley. Briner, c. (1959). Identification and definition of the criteria relevant to the selection of public school administrative personnel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 19, 2271. (University Microfilms No. 59-236) Brinkman, J.L. (1973). Model for the evaluation of the superintendent. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 3733. (University Microfilms No. 73-19, 432) Brown, T. (1976). Judging the chief school administrator: Current performance evaluation practices in New York state. NYSSBA Journal,_, 62-67. Buchanan, R.C. (1981). A study of the evaluation of school superintendents in the state of Indiana. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2382. (University Microfilms No . AAD81-27556) Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. California School Boards Association (1975) Evaluation of a superintendent. Sacramento: CSBA. Carol, L.N. (1972). A study of methods for evaluating chief school officers in local school districts. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey School Boards Association. 141

PAGE 151

Collier, V. (1987) Identification of skills peiceived by Texas superintendents as for job performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1067-A. (University Microfilms No. DA 8717390) Conley, D.T. (1986). Certificated personnel evaluation in Colorado: A policy study of practices and perceptions at the time of the implementation of the certificated personnel performance evaluation act (H.B. 1338). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3252. (University Microfilms No. DA 8700343) Cribben, J.J. (1972). Effective managerial leadership. Washington, DC: American Management Association. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Cunningham, L.L., .& Hentges; J. (1982). The American school superintendency, 1982, a summary report. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N6. 121 236) Dale, E. (1970). Readings in manaoement: Landmarks and new frontiers. New York: McGraw-Hill. DeFrahn, R.G. (1974). A study of recruitment and selection of secondary school principals in New Jersey. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 1373. (University Microfilms No. 74-19, 748) Dittloff, R. (1982) keys for superintendent evaluations. American School Board Journal, 169 (11)' 41. Drucker, PF. (1974). Management, tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row. Duignan, P. (1980). Administrative behavior of school superintendents: A descriptive study. The Journal of Educational Administration, 18, 5-27. 142

PAGE 152

Dylewski, R.F. (1975). A study of the procedures and criteria used in the recruitment and selection of public elementary school principals in the state of New -York. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 3274A. (University Microfilms No. 7 5-27, 054) Educational Research Service. (1975). Evaluating superintendents and school boards. Arlington, VA. Educational Research Service report: Superintendent selection. (1990, May 28). Education Week, p.44. Eggers, W.A. (1984) Evaluation of South Dakota public school superintendents: Practices and procedures. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1933. (University Microfilms No. ADG84-24178) Estes, N. (1979). Meet the challenge of the 80's. Texas School Board Journal, 25(3), 26-27. Fenster, R.L. (1985). Appraisal and evaluation of .superintertdents in mid-size Nebraska schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 746. (University Microfilms No. ADG85-09800) Flandi, S.A. (1984). A study of the chief executive selection process in California public. community college districts during 1980-81 and 1981-82. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1620-A. French, J., & Raven, (1959). The bases of social power. -In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Changes. New York: Teachers. College Press. Gerla, S.E. (1988). Examination of the factors surrounding superintendent selection in public school districts in Washington state. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49-11A, 3215. (University Microfilms No. AAD89-02786) Giles, D. & Giles, S. (1990). Where do all the superintendents go? Thrust for Educational Leadership, 19, 44-47. 143 ,.

PAGE 153

Guthrie, J. & Reed, R. (1986). Educational administration and policy: Effective leadership for American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Harter, B. (1990). The use of diagnostic and feedback approaches in a management and leadership development program for Coloradd school administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver. Haugland, M. (1987) Professional competencies needed by superintendents of public schools as perceived by school board members and superintendents in South Dakota. Spectrum 5(4), 40-42. Hemphill, J.K. Griffiths, D.E., & Frederiksen, N. (1962) Administrative performance and personality: A study of the principal in a simulated elementary school. New York: Columbia University; Teachers College. Hersey, P.G. & Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Mariagement of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (4tb ed.). Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Horkan, M.A. (1986). Criteria used by school boards in the selection of a superintendent. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/12-A, 4253. (University Microfilms No. AAD87-01852) House, R.J. & Baetz, M.L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. In B.M. Shaw (Ed.) Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Hoyle, J., English, R., & Steffy, B. ( 1985) Skills for successful school leaders. Arlington, VA: The American Association.of School Administrators. Immegart, G. L. ( 198 8) Leadership and leadership behavior. In N.J. Boyan (Ed.) Handbook of research on educational ad.nlinistration, (pp. 259-277). White Plains, NY: Longman. 144

PAGE 154

Intress, R.C. (1985). A qualitative study of school superintendent performance evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 734. (University Microfilms No. ADG86-01542) Joines, Richard C. (1986). Put superintendent candidates through an assessment center. American School Board Journal, 173, 31-32. Jones, J .A. (1981, April). There's more to the evaluation of a superintendent than meets the eye. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National School Boards Association, Dallas, TX. Katz, R.L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), 90-102. Koontz, H., O'Donnell, c., & Werhrich, H. (l986). Essentials of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kowalski, J. (1976). Evaluating superintendents and .school boards. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Lau, A.W., Newman, A.R. & Broedling, L.A. (1980). The nature of managerial work in the public sector. In J.L. Perry & K.L. Kraemer (Eds.), Public management: Public and private perspectives (pp. 199-211). Palo Alto: Mayfield. Marshall, S.A. (1959). Differential perception of the criteria used for the selection of administrative personnel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 20, 1245A. (University Microfilm No. 59-3667) McClelland, D. (1970). The two faces of power. The Journal of International Affairs, 24(1), 29-47. ,McGrath, J. (1972). Evaluating the job performance of the superintendent in selected public ichool of California. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42/08-A. (University Microfilm No. AAE914-07218) Michigan Association of School Administrators (1975) MASA study of administrator evaluation, 197 4-7 5. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 116 312) 145

PAGE 155

Miklos, E. (1988). Administrator selection, career succession, and socialization. In Boyan (Ed.). Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 53-76). White Plains, NY: Longman. Miller, G.A. (1982). A study of the working relationships between the board of education arid superintendent of school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 998A. (University Microfilms DA8221104) Mines, H.T. (1980). Finding and using executive talent. Business Horizons, 53(4), 49-61. Mintzberg, H. (1973) The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Morrison, D.F. (1967). Multivariate statistical methods. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill .. MCirusis, M.J. guide. (1990) Chicago: SPSS advanced statistics user's SPSS .Pearson. A.E. (1989). Six basics for managers. Harvand Business Review, 67(4), 94-101. Pitner, N. & R. (1981)_. Organizational leadership: The case of the school superintendent. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17., 45-65. -Powell, R.E. (1984). A comparison of selection criteria and performance evaluation criteria for Miss6uri school superintendents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2000A. (University Microfilm No. ADG83-26826) .. Pringle, P.G. (1989). Relationship of general administrative leadership skills to superintendent selection and contract renewal. Dissertation Abstracts International, SO, 1516A. (University Microfilm No. DA8920810) Reopelle, D.C. (1974). A study of the evaluation of the school superintendent. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35A, 1403A. (University Microfilm No. 74-20, 544) 146

PAGE 156

Roberts, C. (1988). Evaluation of California superintendents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1611-A. Robertson, M.C. (1984). A survey of the selection of school superintendents in Massachusetts. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2946A. (University Microfilm No; DA8401836) Roelle, R.J. and Monks, R.L. (1983). A six-point plan for evaluating your superintendent. In E. Zappulla, Evaluating administrative performance: Current trends and technigues, (pp. 235-238). Belmont: Star. Sarbaugh, R.L. (1982). A survey of superintendent performance evaluation in North Carolina public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1379. (University Microfilms No. ADG 82-22818) The School Administrator. Evaluating chiefs, 47(7), 44. Sclafani, S. (1987). AASA guidelines for preparation of school administrators; Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1080-A. (University Microfilms No. DA 8717530) Sender, E. (1981). Should your new superintendent be an insider or an outsider?. American .school Board Journal, 168(10), 30-31, 42. Sergiovanni, T.J. schooling. (1984). Leadership and excellence in Educational Leadership, 41 (5), 4-13. Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in schools. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Shroyer, 0. (1988). Performance based evaluation of the superintendent of schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2215-A. (University Microfilms No. DA 8726958) Sitter, L. (1972). A study of factors affecting the dismissal of superintendents in selected school corporations in Indiana and Illinois. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 6034. (University Microfilms No. 73-10, 867) 147

PAGE 157

Smircich, L. & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18 (3), 257-274. Snavely, R.J. (1984). Performance. appraisal of public school superintendents: A survey of current evaluation practices in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2723. (University Microfilms No. AAD84-28434) Sonedecker, J.W. (1984). Evaluation of the American public school superintendent. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1605. (University Microfilms No. AAD84-190-15) Stogdill,. R.M. (1974) Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Survey reveals few firms carry out performance appraisals of top executives. (1984, April). Management Review, 73, 35. White, R.P., & DeViies, D.L. (1990, Winter). Making the wrong choice: Failure in the selection of seniorlevel managers. Issues & Observations, pp. 1-6. Wing, R.M. (1975). Educational administration: The selection process. A comparative study of current procedures correlated with administrative performance and administrative role expectation in metropolitan Detroit. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 2610A. (University Microfilms No .. 75-25, 307) Yates, R.J. (1981). An analysis of procedures and criteria for evaluating Illinois public school superintendents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 05-A. (University Microfilm No. AAD81-24726) Yukl, G.A. (1981). LeadershiP in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 148

PAGE 158

Yukl, G.A. & Nemeroff, W. Identification and measurement of specific categories of leadership behavior: A progress report. In Hunt & Larson (Eds.) Crosscurrents in leadership, (pp. 127-131). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 149