Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
by
Bree J. Miron
Doctor of Philosophy
Boca Raton, FL
December 2014
UMI Number: 3691808
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3691808
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Copyright 2014 by Bree J. Miron
ii
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL INFLUENCE ACTIONS, CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
by
Bree J. Miron
This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the candidate's dissertation advisor,
Dr. John. R. Pisapia, Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology,
and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to
the faculty of the College of Education and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Valerie J. Bristor,
Coll~-ge..;.........:;o;v--=.......-~
.....at-.io-~,,_~-~-;
~Floyd,
Dean, __
Ed.D. Date
Interim Dean, Graduate College
iii
ABSTRACT
Year: 2014
link between school principal influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance.
Additionally, this study sought to determine if the influence of these variables or the
The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether or not the
Customer Survey aligned to distinct dimensions. Two factors were identified: Staff
Attitudes and Student Disruptions. The second part used regression to examine the
mediated by Staff Attitudes. This impact may be amplified among younger principals,
and potentially attenuated among older principals. Additionally, School level was found
iv
Fixed contextual variables were also found to moderate the relationship between
school climate and school performance. For instance, Gender was found to moderate the
Reduced lunch was also found to have a negative direct effect as well as negative indirect
Four of the five leader influence actions (i.e., Transforming, Managing, Bridging,
and Bartering) were found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture. All five
leaders influence actions were found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice
culture. However, neither cultural dimension was found to have a direct effect on school
use Transforming influence actions during the performance of their professional duties.
Moreover, when selecting principals, age of the candidate should be considered since the
data suggest that younger principals were able to use Transforming actions more often in
this study. Finally, future research efforts should be conducted to understand the reason
the female principals are more successful at minimizing the influence of student
v
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL INFLUENCE ACTIONS, CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
Leadership ..............................................................................................................16
Purpose...................................................................................................................65
Research Design.....................................................................................................67
Sample..............................................................................................................67
Measures ..........................................................................................................68
vii
Context, Culture, & School Performance ...................................................93
Discussion ..................................................................................................................105
Limitations .................................................................................................................113
Implications................................................................................................................116
Conclusions ..........................................................................................................118
Recommendations ................................................................................................119
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................120
Appendix B: Hayes Sobel Marco for Testing a Simple Mediation Effect ...............129
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................135
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Questionnaire .....................................................................................................26
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the Study Variables (n=37) ...........79
Table A3: Factor Pattern Matrix for the Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Items
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
The questions of what makes principals effective and which principal behaviors are
most consistent with school improvement have sparked substantial scholarly inquiry.
There have been numerous studies spanning the last three decades that link high quality
leadership with positive school outcomes, including student achievement (Brewer, 1993;
Cheng, 1991; Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 1994;
Leithwood, Jantzi, Silins, & Dart, 1993; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
Additionally, there is growing evidence that school context influences principals practice
(Pisapia & Pang, 2013; Stein & Nelson, 2003) and, consequently, their efficacy.
Yet, despite this scholarly focus, and evidence of the importance of leadership in
schools and the central role of the principal in that endeavor, there is a lack of a well-
articulated clear body of research to guide leaders toward improved student and school
performance. In fact, Bolman & Deal (2003) claim that despite the series of studies of
There are scholars who disagree with Bolman and Deal. Bass (1990, 1997), and
GLOBE researchers (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, and Dorfman, 1999;
House, 1991; House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &
Gupta, 2004; Pisapia & Lin, 2011) suggest that some aspects of leadership may be
universal. For example, according to Kouzes and Posner (2003), leaders who engage in
1
transformational behaviors will be more effective than those who do not, regardless of
culture. House (1991) and House et al. (1997) have a similar belief in the universalism of
charismatic leadership across cultures. Pisapia (2006) takes a similar position on the
notion of universalism when he posits that, successful leaders in complex and chaotic
environments will use a more diverse repertoire of actions than less successful leaders in
similar environments (cited in Reyes-Guerra, 2009, p. 102). Goldring, Huff, May, &
effective leader might need to drill down and adopt a narrower focus.
principal and their stakeholders. Burns (1978) and Gardner (1990) believe leaders need
constituents. Whitaker, in his 1997 study, determined that the principal is the decisive
element in the school when pertaining to climate and how others perceive the school.
As stated previously, Pisapia (2006, 2009) believes that when leaders employ a
variety of leadership influence actions to build social capital, much can be accomplished.
The principal objective of this study is to determine the manner in which principals
leader influence actions and climate interrelate to produce achievement outcomes and the
Nearly three decades ago, in 1983, President Reagans administration shocked the
nation with a report that stated that the achievement of American students lagged that of
other nations. The report, A Nation at Risk asked how we could ensure that our
2
1983). Current theorists place that responsibility on schools, for a particular school to be
the launch pad to the levels of success sought by students, it must operate effectively
precondition for an effective school (Marzano, et al., 2005, p. 5). In fact, a 1977 U.S.
Senate Committee Report on Equal Educational Opportunity deemed the principal as the
most influential person in a school. The difference between more effective principals
and their less effective colleagues is not what they know, it is what they do (Whitaker,
2003, p.1).
and leadership assessment in this era of accountability needs to evolve as well. Decades
after the release of the report, A Nation At Risk, the passage of the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) federal educational legislation of 2001, would come to fruition. This
dictate how students are taught, determine if progress is attained, and issue sanctions if
plays in our society, it is even more crucial than ever to equip our leaders with the
Problem Statement
The last fifteen years have seen tremendous growth in statewide accountability
systems designed to monitor the performance of teachers and schools, delineate how
3
performance is measured, and specify how students are taught. These laws have placed
considerable additional demands on schools, while at the same time transforming the role
of principal to that of chief executive officer and strategist. Both students and faculty are
being asked by the states to do more with less (Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009).
School principals have been squarely placed in the position of serving as both the
instructional and strategic leaders of schools. Their ability to effectively meet these new
demands is increasingly critical to the success of the school organization. That is why
there is renewed interest in how and why successful school leaders perform their roles.
actual school systems using the framework have not consistently confirmed how the
action sets specified by the model, influence school performance (Pang & Pisapia, 2012;
Pisapia & Lin, 2011; Pisapia & Pang 2011; Pisapia & Pang, 2013; Reyes-Guerra, 2009;
The purpose of this study is to investigate the link between school principal
influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study will
seek to determine if fixed individual and/or institutional characteristics alter the influence
of these variables, or their relationship. This study will be guided by one primary research
question: Is the relationship between perceived leadership influence actions and school
performance mediated by school climate and/or culture? Three secondary questions are
also investigated: Is the relationship between leader influence actions and school
between leader influence actions, school climate, and school performance moderated by
4
fixed individual and institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence
actions, school culture, and school performance moderated by fixed individual and
institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions and school
This study is significant because it identifies how strategic leader influence actions
leadership influence actions and effectiveness exists, the results can be used to develop
specific training programs to foster those influence actions in potential and existing
principals. Through the investigation of links between principal leader influence actions
and school performance indicators, i.e., student achievement and positive climate, the
findings of this study will also expand the study of educational leadership and contribute
Conceptual Framework
study begins by examining whether climate aligns to distinct dimensions within the
sample. Next, the study inquires into the use of specific leader influence actions utilized
by school principals. Then, the study delves into whether there is a relationship between
the leadership influence actions employed by school principals and school performance,
inclusive of school culture, and positive climate. It concludes by exploring whether the
5
Leadership
Actions Climate
Management Staff Attitudes
Student Disruptions School
Transforming Performance
Bonding Culture
Bridging Business
Bartering Social Justice
administrators over employees, allowing them to direct and control the workings of an
entire organization. While this method may have served well in leading people in vertical
limited effect when leading people who work in horizontal relationships; where
both horizontal and vertical approaches, which properly applied simultaneously, are used
6
to maximize both effectiveness and flexibility (Pisapia, 2009; Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, &
delineates transforming, managing, bonding, bridging, and bartering actions that leaders
can use while directing organizations in environments. Transforming actions that tap
intrinsic needs and elicit performance beyond expectation are used to promote frame-
promote order and are frame- sustaining change. Bonding actions are taken to ensure that
trust is an attribute of the system and not just something developed among individuals in
order that followers' exhibit emotional commitment to the organization's aspirations and
values. Bridging actions are taken to develop alliances with people of power and
influence from outside and inside the organization in order to gain insights, support, and
resources. Bartering actions exchange things of value for the achievement of ends in
order to promote what is possible (Pang & Pisapia, 2012; Pisapia, 2009).
Table 1
Contextual Factors
makers. Often these refer to technical variables associated with specific programs such as
design, fidelity, and dosage; or organizational factors such as administrative support and
leadership. But, institutional factors such as school climate and school culture have also
been shown or have the potential to influence student performance by mediating the
Climate and culture are both considered alterable variables from the point
and the time required for either to be altered. Hoy & Hoy (2003) defines culture
as the shared norms, values and tacit expressions found in a school; while he
and students. He further suggests that both culture and climate can promote
(1999) suggest that climate is a more temporary set of feelings, beliefs, attitudes,
and perceptions that manifest themselves in the organizations climate and the
Creating the right climate will give rise to the desired behaviors necessary for
8
organizational success, while the wrong climate leads to an organization being
mired in the status quo and positive climate lends itself to a positive culture, and
Purkey and Smith (1983) consider school climate to be a measure of the structure
and organization of the school developed through specific leadership actions and
and values that permeate the organization resulting in the atmosphere that would define
the ethos of the school (Newman, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001).
perceptions and behaviors of its members. Culture is the set of practices, values, and
relationships that inform how social systems function. Because culture may only be
alterable in the long-term (Bolman & Deal, 2003), it is unclear whether changes will be
manifested within the time frame of this study. No other alterable variables were included
in this study.
School climate has also been shown to promote meaningful student learning,
because when students feel safe, cared for, supported, and gently pushed to learn, their
academic progress increases (Hoy, Tarter, & Bliss, 1990) and that long-term
emphasis within the context of healthy and open climates (Bulach, Malone, & Castleman,
characteristic of an effective school (Edmonds, 1982; Roach & Kratochwill, 2004; Ross,
9
McDonald, Alberg, McSparrin-Gallagher, & Calloway, 2005) and has increasingly
collegial relationships, and efficacy or self-determination has also been shown to impact
The primary measure of culture used in this study is the Business Survey (Reyes-
Guerra, 2009) designed to represent two major theoretical cultures (i.e., Business and
The social justice model (Schein, 1984) is based on a need to address the inequities
found in current society and to address those inequities by developing social structures to
deal with unequal power relationships The inculcation of a social justice culture leads to
The Business model of school culture promotes the modern industrial economy,
orientation advances the rationalist approach by charting rules and laws that predict
human behavior and belief in the power of reason and observation, thereby encouraging
The school climate data used in the current study was drawn from the Annual
safety, cleanliness, resources, leadership, support, instruction, and training at their school.
10
Fixed Contextual Factors
a setting or condition (Elenkov, & Manev, 2005). Yukl, Fu, & McDonald (2003) suggests
that moderators can also affect relationships among independent variables because of the
contextual nature of leadership. Due to the growing evidence that context influences
principals practice (Stein & Nelson, 2003) and, consequently, their efficacy, prominent
Fixed contextual variables are not modifiable through the actions of decision
makers within a short time period. Included are school characteristics such as aggregate
characteristics of the leader such as gender and age. In this study, two types of fixed
variables, i.e., individual characteristics (school level, percent minority, and free/reduced
priced lunch) and institutional characteristics (school principal gender and age), were
examined to determine whether or not they modified the relationship between leader
School Performance
student performance on the statewide assessments. At the time of this study, the grading
Assessment Test. The A plus system incorporated eight data points which included
achievement status in reading, mathematics and science (i.e., percent of students who
11
earned scores of level 3 and above) and writing (i.e., the average of the percentage of
students who earned scores of level 3 and above and the percent of students who earned
scores of level 4 and above); and progress in reading and mathematics (i.e., percentage of
students who make learning gains) overall and for the schools lowest quartile students in
reading and mathematics (Florida Department of Education, 2008). The sum of these
eight components referred to as points earned constitutes the outcome variable for this
study. Grades were assigned based upon the number of points earned as follows: less
than 395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B), and 525 and above (A)
In this model, the leader influence actions are the focal predictor variables driving
the school. The model suggests that while leader influence actions may influence school
performance directly, it is not likely. The empirical research suggests that the influence
of school leaders is more directly associated with school climate and culture which in
turn influence student performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 1994;
Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Contextual factors are modeled as moderators, which have
influence on the relationships of leader actions and climate and as well as the climate and
culture relationship with school performance. The framework suggests the following
12
o Hypotheses 2a: Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance
between perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study sample
o Hypotheses 3a: Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the
between perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study
sample
o Hypotheses 3c: School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the
between school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample
performance of the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate
o Hypotheses 4a: Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the
between perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study
sample
o Hypotheses 4c: School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the
13
between school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample
o Hypotheses 6a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of
o Hypotheses 6b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the
o Hypotheses 7a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of
o Hypotheses 7b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the
The study was situated in the Broward County Public School (BCPS) system, the
sixth largest school system in the nation comprised of urban, suburban, and rural areas.
The sample of schools selected for this study was drawn from all traditional public
schools.
The schools that constitute the focus of this study are traditional public schools
within Broward County and therefore alternative education centers and charter schools
are not represented. The variables used were those available from a fixed secondary
source. Further unknown factors that are not measured in this study may have an effect
on outcomes.
14
Dependency relationships will be limited to those delineated in the theoretical
framework. Temporal ordering precludes School Grade Points from being modeled as
other than an outcome variable. Contextual fixed factors are assumed to be properties of
either individuals or schools and as such, cannot be modified by the variables in the
researchers (e.g., Purkey & Smith, 1983; Newman, Rutter, & Smith, 1989) and the
leadership theories presented herein posit the directions specified. More plausible is that
some sort of feedback relationship exists that it is beyond the scope of this study to
analyze. Finally, because of the reasons stated above, as well as the unique character of
the subject school district, the results yielded from this study may not be generalizable to
other contexts.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has depicted the climate and culture that exist within a large urban
school district and emphasized the potential role of the climate in explaining school level
variations in student outcomes. Also examined were factors that influence both climate
and outcome. Climate and culture were envisioned, as complex constructs comprised of
multiple latent dimensions that act in concert to mediate the effect of leadership influence
predictive model of student outcome incorporating climate is needed to gauge the impact
of leadership on outcome and examine the manner in which contextual factors influence
15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study is to investigate the link between school principal
influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. The variables identified in
the conceptual framework found in Chapter 1 guided this study leader influence actions
climate culture contextual factors school performance and provide the structure
Leadership
The central question that has guided most empirical leadership research is how
labeled followers (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). The influence process has been studied and
professors, and sociologists for over 80 years. Shown in Table 2, their studies resulted in
16
Table 2
17
Table 2 continued
SOCIOLOGICAL The sociological approach focuses on the setting and the Antonakis,
actors involved in the setting. It is concerned with Avolio, &
organizational and power structures and the availability Sivasubramaniam
and uses of resources. In this approach, power (the (2003)
fundamental concept in social science) is the underlying
Bass (1985)
quality necessary for leaders to lead. They assume that
reciprocity is inherent in leadership; power is an integral Bennis & Nanus
part of the styles leaders use. (1985)
Bono & Judge
There are two approaches in the literature. The first (2004)
approach features a process-oriented transactional
Burns (1978)
approach centered on followers perceptions of leader
actions and motives. It emphasizes reciprocal exchanges Deal & Peterson
between leaders and followers, and the use of persuasive (1990)
influence, rather than coercive power. French & Raven
(1960)
The second approach features a process-oriented Goldstein, Hazy,
transformational approach centered on changing the & Lichtenstein,
outlook and behavior of followers. The role of culture is (2010)
seen as an important mediating factor in the
transformational process. House (1971)
Leithwood (1994)
Lichtenstein et al.
(2006)
Gronn (2002)
Pearce & Conger
(2003)
Pisapia (2009)
Uhl-Bien (2006)
18
Table 2 continued
COGNITIVE The cognitive approach examines how ideas, thoughts, Bass & Avolio
images, and mental representations develop and how they (2004)
are stored, accessed, combined, remembered and
Boal & Hooijberg
rearranged or distorted by the mind. The cognitivist would
(2001)
ask, What are the ideas (stories) of the leader? How were
they developed? How are they communicated, understood, Drath (2001)
or misunderstood? How do they interact with competing Gardner (1990)
stories? How do their ideas affect the feelings and beliefs
of followers? Hambrick &
Mason (1984)
The cognitive approach can be featured in the transactional Lord & Hall
or transformational processes. The mental representations (2005)
can be used to support the existing cultures or development
of new ones through innovative stories. Lord & Shondrick
(2011)
Senge (1990)
Pisapia (2009)
Uhl-Bien, Marion,
& McKelvey
(2007)
Vera & Crossan
(2004)
Note. Adapted from The Fabric of Leadership [Working paper] by J. Pisapia, 2014, Florida Atlantic
University.
first leadership paradigm. The theory assumes that individuals are either born or not born
with those traits and skill sets required of good leaders. The theory identifies several
traits that can be associated with a leader such as confidence, alertness, persistence,
motivation, intelligence, etc. This theory was prevalent prior to the 1940s and continues
to have support today. However, once it was determined that no single trait or
combination of traits fully predicted a leaders success; there was a shift in focus.
When the trait approach as a method to identify and develop leaders proved
relatively fruitless, behaviorists started looking at what leaders do. First, they attempted
to modify the trait approach to include skills leaders need to perform leadership acts in
19
addition to traits needed to become a leader. Failing in these endeavors, they refocused
the research lens from leader to leadership. The behavioral paradigm posits that effective
leaders exhibit specific behaviors, which can be learned. Scholars of this movement
consideration and/or structure (Hemphill, 1949; Fiedler & Chemers, 1974; Stogdill,
1974); employee and job centered behaviors (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Likert, 1967) and,
By the early 1950s, the dominant trait approach was displaced by the behavioral
actions, grouped them into patterns they called styles, and tried to decide when a
particular style was appropriate. The early behavioral approach culminated in Blake and
Moutons belief that there is one best way to lead. They called it high structure and high
consideration and trained thousands of managers in this paradigm. During the late 1960s
some behaviorist began to notice that just understanding what leaders did was not
enough. It was also necessary to know when to use the behaviors. They began to focus
their research on the situation. First Fiedler in 1967 and then Hershey and Blanchard in
the 1970s noticed that leaders tend to behave in ways consistent with the situation at
hand. From their research the term situational leadership was born and thousands more
practitioners were trained and some retrained away from earlier leadership approaches.
The weakness in the behavioral approaches is that they primarily viewed followers as
20
through a social exchange framework. They viewed followers as constituents. From
their perspective whatever form leadership takes, at its root will be the selective use of
power, authority or influence to coerce, command and/or induce followers to join the
quest for goal attainment. A seismic mind-shift in leadership thinking occurred after
James McGregor Burns (1978) introduced the terms transformational and transactional
ability to induce followers to act for certain goals that represents the values and the
motivations -- the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations -- of both leaders and
followers. Other sociologists picked up the banner, filled in the gaps, and identified
through adaptive work (see Heifetz, 1994). By focusing on the centrality of power,
authority and influence, conflict and power structures, they created their own patterns of
leader actions, and moved the discussion from actions to influence individuals
leadership founded on the notion that legitimized power can be granted by the
organization and established through the authority of the positions as well as through
competence, reward and charisma and Burns, 1978; French & Raven 1960).
Burns banner was picked up by psychologists Bass and Avolio and social
scientist Warren Bennis who refocused their research lenses nodded to the presence of
21
communicate and nurture the vision and realign the organization to it. Bass (1990), in
particular, shifted the emphasis from raising the level of motivation and morality in both
consideration (the degree of attention and support given to individual followers); and
intellectual stimulation (the extent to which the leader enables followers to rethink the
hierarchy from needs for safety and security to needs for achievement and self-
important, and move them to go beyond their own self-interests for the good of
the larger entities to which they belong. The transforming leader provides
followers with a cause around which they can rally (p. 467).
Two facets of transactional leadership were also identified: contingent reward (the
degree to which the leader provides reinforcement in return for appropriate follower
behavior), and management by exception (the extent to which subordinates hear from the
leader only when failures or problems occur) (Bass, 1985). Charismatic leadership is the
measured by the MLQ. While the Bass conceptualization is not perfect (Tracy & Hinkin,
1998) it became the gold standard of leadership research inspiring many studies and only
22
recently have there been strong claims that it has lost its usefulness (Van Knippenberg &
Sitkin, 2013)
cognitive approach, which considers how values, ideas, thoughts, and mental
representations develop and are used by leaders to make a mental connection between the
leader and follower (Senge, 1990; Gardner, 1990). This new theory pushes
establishing mental connections and commitments with followers whom they identify as
colleagues.
leadership that could be used at all echelons of organizations, a family of theories that
view leaders as those who scan their environment and determine strategies to achieve
broad objectives and overcome organizational challenges came to the forefront (Pisapia,
2006). Donald Hambrick and Phyllis Mason focused strategic leadership theory by
pulling together the fragmented leadership literature regarding leadership at the top.
They called it upper echelons leadership focused on strategy reflective of the values and
Hambrick and Mason (1984) argue that strategic choice lies at the heart of upper echelons
strategic leadership and that these choices are reflective of their knowledge and
alternatives and the value they assign to them (p. 195). At the heart of the theory is the
emphasis that upper echelon characteristics determine strategic choices and these choices
23
determine organizational performance. For Hambrick and Mason, leadership of complex
organizations is a shared activity and understanding what organizations do and how they
perform is related to the biases and dispositions of top executives. This claim is supported
by research of Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Carpenter & Frederickson, 2001; DAveni, 1990;
Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2000; Simmons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999. In Hambricks (2007) update on upper echelons
theory, Hambrick explains how the upper echelons perspective has been strengthened
with the introduction of important moderators of managerial discretion and executive job
Finkelstein, 1987). Executive job demands refer to external pressure for performance,
(Hambrick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005). As is the case with all theories, the upper
echelon perspective to strategic leadership has distractors. Hurst, Rush, & White (1989)
suggest that its focus on people at the top ignores the processes larger organizations use
to make decisions and take action. They contend that long-term viability requires ongoing
re-creation and management. From their view, its not so much that upper echelon
early 1990s and extending into the 2000s new leadership models were called for (Boal,
2004; Senge & Sterman, 1992; Van Knippenberg, & Sitkin, 2013). A new generic
24
leadership model has been advocated by John Pisapia, a Professor at Florida Atlantic
University that provides the elasticity, practicality and a pragmatic approach which he
says is the ability (as well as the wisdom) to make consequential decisions about ends
(goals), ways (strategies) and means (actions) in complex and ambiguous environments.
Pisapia bases the need for an all-echelon strategic leadership approach on the need
to bridge the gap between modern and postmodern demands and environments. As
Leithwood (2001) points out, the unique features of the context in which many school
leaders work require additional responses from them, responses not yet well codified and
so not easily available for purposes of leadership development and research (p. 227). In
2009, Pisapia responded that in this environment, a leader must think, act, and work in a
strategic way meaning they are focused on finding and installing purpose and are able to
adapt to a wide variety of different contexts and situations. His working hypothesis is that
leaders who are more cognitively and behaviorally complex will be more effective in
times of ambiguity and complexity than leaders who do not possess these skills. At the
center of Pisapias leadership theory are the keystones of agility of the mind and artistry
thinking, enhances the agility of the mind. Drawing on the empirical and theoretical
the three meta-cognitive skills, defined in Table 1 systems thinking, reframing, and
consequential decisions (see Argyris & Schn, 1978; Baron, 1994; Bolman & Deal,
1994; Capra, 2002; Dewey, 1933; Halpren, 1996; Kets De Vries, 2001; March & Simon,
25
1958; Marcy & Mumford, 2010; Morgan, 1986; Mumford, Connelly, & Gaddis, 2003;
Schn 1983; Senge 1990; Simon 1947; Weick 1995). These researchers also
hypothesized that effective leaders use these skills differently than less effective leaders,
Table 3
Note. Adaptad from Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, & Coukos-Semmel (2005). [See original for full description
of constructs]
In previous studies using this framework, the use of strategic thinking skills was
strongly associated with self-reported (Pang & Pisapia, 2012; Pisapia et al., 2006, April),
and objective (Zsiga, 2008) measures of leader effectiveness. They were also associated
with leader role and school type (Pang & Pisapia, 2012); long term firm performance of
return on equity (Raghavan, Shukla, & Shaid, 2010); self-directed learning Zsiga, (2008);
transformational and authentic leadership (Brennan 2010); and age and experience
26
Artistry is the ability to use a multifaceted array of leader influence actions.
Pisapia (2009) conceptually divides leader actions into two types: directional
(transforming and managing), and those that enable the leader to maneuver (bonding,
bridging, and bartering). He assumes that these influence actions enable leaders steer
their organizations through the strategic environment. Directional actions include change
oriented transforming actions, which enable them to move the organization forward, and
task oriented managing actions, which they use to stabilize and control organizational
efforts. The maneuvering actions are relational in nature and culturally sensitive. They
develop internal and external support, and bartering actions to establish reciprocity and
exchange relationships. These actions, described in Table 2, were used in this study to
actions.
27
Table 4
In previous studies using this framework, these influence actions more often were
of effectiveness (Fazzino, 2012). In one Chinese study, the school principal leader
profile centered on transforming, and bonding. Their supportive actions were managing
and bridging. Bartering was the least often used type of action (Pisapia & Lin, 2011).
These findings on bonding and transforming mirror results found in American studies
(Yasin, 2006; Urdegar 2008; Reyes-Guerra, 2009); Malaysian studies (Yasin, 2006), and
Guerra, 2009; Pisapia & Lin, 2011; Pisapia & Pang 2011; Pang & Pisapia,
2012)
As the leader felt the complexity of the context increasing they used more
Pisapia, 2010)
leaders did not use management authority in tandem with the other four
2009)
HBC leaders (those who used the five leader influence actions more often
Pisapias theory is comprehensive and while in many ways the concepts have
been proposed by earlier scholars they were not thought of as an ensemble that uniquely
meets an organizations need for stability and change, and the ethical nature of the task
and the political realities that exist. In his doctoral dissertation, Professor Daniel Reyes-
29
It is simultaneously similar and different from the commonly accepted
systems thinking. To all of this he adds the notion that strategic leadership
is not just the purview of top management but of every manager or leader.
aspirations, values, and beliefs that fit the organizations direction with the
continually adapt their strategies and actions to the changing internal and
political realities that exist and the organizations need for stability and
30
The major difference between his ideas and other leadership
complex contexts to make decisions and promote changes and yet at the
same time meet the organizations values, aspirations and needs. For that
p. 92).
School leadership research mirrored the larger research effort in leadership theory
building. In the 1940s the emphasis was on trait theory. In the 1950s, 60s, 70s behavioral
theories were utilized by school theorists. As demands were made on schools for higher
levels of student achievement in the 1980s the only truly school focused leadership
the most used as evidenced by the number of empirical studies (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).
Instructional leadership had its birth during the school effectiveness movement in
the early 1980s. While its name implies that it was birth from observations of
instructional leaders, Hallinger (2003, p. 331), claims it was inferred from studies
program improvement primarily at the elementary school level. Its main feature is that
the focus of these change strategies is its focus on teaching and learning. Hallinger and
31
Murphy (1987) identified three general dimensions of instructionally effective principals
instructional management role: defining the school mission, managing the instructional
program, and promoting a positive learning climate. Leithwood (1994) argues that
instructional leadership uses a control-oriented strategy for change where the purposes
and practices required for their accomplishment are known and agreed upon. The
achievement (Blas & Blas, 2000; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 1999, 2002;
Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008) as much as 10 percent improvement in student test
The school effectiveness era was focused on elementary schools and was soon
education. Since secondary schools are larger and more complex than elementary
with Doris Jantzi, his longtime collaborator, his model was developed on six dimensions:
high performance expectations; and developing conditions, structures, and processes for
Operationally, the Leithwood instruments ask respondents to rate the total leadership in
the school rather than just the principal as in instructional leadership. Leithwood (1994),
32
proposed that transformational school leaders affect three psychological dispositions of
teachers: (a) perceptions of school, (b) commitment to change, and (c) individual
capacity for professional development which gives them power to effect school culture
which according to researchers (Ross & Gray, 2006, p. 812) can be expected to lead to a
Although the research is mixed in terms of the results of studies investigating the
achievement, the findings are promising and trend toward a positive indirect relationship
(Griffith, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000, 2008; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Marks &
Printy, 2003; Silins & Murray-Harvey, 1999). In contrast to these studies the results of
the studies of Leithwood, Reidlinger, Bauer, and Jantzi (2003), Leithwood, Jantzi, Earl,
Watson, & Fullan (2004), and Marcoulides and Heck (1996), found non-significant
Leadership Summary
individuals that work together to move in that direction. Historically, leadership theory
framed the tasks as the relationship between leaders, followers, and common goals (e.g.
Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990; Blake & Mouton, 1964; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Hershey &
Blanchard, 1988; House, 1971; Triandis, 1995). Pisapia (2009) claims that this leader
centric theoretical position served well in leading people in vertical relationships (e.g.,
leader follower common goals) where command, control and persuasion tactics are
In leader centric notions, direction, mission, and goals are established at the top of
33
the organization and carried out by the actions of managers and followers in the
is based on the assumption that people are subordinate, powerless, lack personal vision,
and are unable to change without pressure. The leader sets the direction, makes the key
decisions, and energizes the troops. Such leaders possess the ability to effectively
command, direct, or influence the actions and behaviors of people. Their base of
influence is line authority. They lead by controlling others. They take action and expect
results.
Pisapia (2009) claims that the traditional view serves less well in leading
are the levers of change. A much less robust set of studies frame modern
collective effort. The move toward horizontal leadership requires skills to create
Perry, 2003; Gronn, 2002; Pearce & Conger, 2003); complexity science
Marion, & McKelvey, 2007); and relational theories (Drath, 2001; McNamee &
as a shared concept but someone generally is recognized as the leader. Leaders lead
people but there are self-interests on both sides. Characteristic of this view is Chapman
34
and Boyds (1986) observation that follower centric leaders lead not from the apex of
the organizational pyramid but from the nexus of a web of interpersonal relationships,
with people rather than through them. In follower centric notions, direction, mission, and
goals are established with followers. Such leaders possess the ability to guide, serve as a
channel, facilitate, and influence the work of followers in such a way as to obtain their
willing obedience, confidence, respect, and cooperation and results in behavior beyond
individuals and groups with nonaligned interests into partners, participants, and
colleagues with a particular perception, swagger, and commitment (Chapman & Boyd,
1986).
study. At this level, the relationship of leadership influence actions and climate
and culture is well documented (Bailey, 1988; Chirichello, 1997; Chang, Chuang,
& Bennington, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Hallinger & Murphy, 1987; Harris,
2002; Hoy & Miskel, 1991; Kelley, 1980; Lane, 1992; Leithwood et al., 1993;
Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood, Jantzi, et al., 2004; Ross & Gray, 2006; Rubio,
Udwadia, 1990).
Climate and culture are often confused in the literature. For example, Hoy
& Hoy (2003) defines culture as the shared norms, values and tacit expressions
staff and students. He further suggests that both culture and climate can promote
35
school effectiveness and student achievement. Similarly, Ekvall, and Ryhammer
(1999) suggest that climate is a temporary set of feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and
Other scholars suggest that climate is what people see and report happening to
how people interact with each other. Cohen et al. (2009) suggests that creating the
right climate will give rise to the desired behaviors necessary for organizational
success, while the wrong climate leads to an organization being mired in the
status quo and positive climate lends itself to a positive culture, and vice versa.
Table 5
Climate Culture
Hoy & Hoy the perceptions of behavior and shared norms, values and tacit
(2003) interactions of staff and students expressions, beliefs, and assumptions that
shape members decisions and practices
Leithwood & Jantzi
(2000)
Ekvall & Ryhammer a more temporary set of a behavioral manifestation of its
(1999) feelings, beliefs, climate.
attitudes, and
perceptions
what people see and report
happening to them in an
organizational situation
refers to the tone of the work
Ostroff, Kinicki, &
space; its physical and
Tamkins (2003, p. 566)
psychological characteristics such
as physical appearance of work
space, sense of safety, and how
people interact with each other
36
Table 5 continued
transmitted deep patterns of thinking and ways of acting that when regularly
organizations culture. Eventually, these norms proscribe the right way of doing
things and dictate how members are expected to behave (Deal & Peterson, 1990;
Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Schein, 1984). It reflects the shared values,
assumptions, and beliefs that set the standard for expected behavior (Tableman &
Herron, 2004) and how the work is to be done (Sackney, 1988). Cameron, Bright,
& Caza (2004) summarizes these distinctions between culture and climate this
way:
37
aspects of organizations; climate refers to more overt, observable attributes of
School Climate
The concept of organizational climate was first identified in the late 1950s, as
social scientists studied the differences in the quality of work environments (Hoy &
Tarter, 1997). Halpin and Croft (1963), who are considered pioneers in school climate
elementary schools. They found that each school had characteristics and qualities that
made it unique, distinguishing it from other schools. They maintained that each school
had a different feel or personality and went on to describe school climate as the
personality of the organization (Halpin, 1966). Soon after, researchers began to identify
relationships between school climate and student achievement (Brookover, Beady, Flood,
Schweitzer, & Wisenbaker, 1979). Results from MacNeil, Prater, Doris and Busch (2009)
suggest that students score higher on standardized tests in schools with healthy learning
environments (p. 73). Leithwood, Seashore, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004)
add that the development of affective relationships between teachers and students
promotes the engagement of students and increases student motivation to learn in any
environment. Newman et al. (2001) conducted a study that related the change in
The study was situated in Chicago and was conducted in all of the citys public schools.
The sample consisted of the 222 schools that participated during both times. Over 5,000
38
teachers participated through their return of surveys used to gauge coherence at their
schools. Student participants included an average of 81,493 third-, sixth-, and eighth-
grade students who were administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills on an annual basis.
Field studies of 11 randomly selected schools were also conducted. Site visits featured
two-person observations in grades 3, 6, and 8 and interviews with school staff. The
teacher survey form that they developed adhered to a 4-point Likert scale format with
forced response options that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). As
additional items were added during the second administration, the scales were equated
using item response theory. The final instrument contained 10 items. Concurrent validity
between coherence and achievement trends. The student data was organized as students
nested within year, nested within school. The model adjusted for the effects of various
school level factors associated with outcome including school size, mobility, racial/ethnic
composition, Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status, and initial achievement level.
Achievement scores were equated across grade using item response theory to facilitate
comparisons. Results indicated that there was a strong relationship between improved
coherence and improved achievement across the years of the study (Newman et al.,
2001). School climate has also been shown to promote meaningful student learning.
When students feel safe, cared for, supported, and gently pushed to learn, their
academic progress should increase. Several studies have examined the relationship
between school climate and student achievement using the Tennessee School Climate
Inventory (TSCI).
39
Bulach et al. (1995) in a study of 20 schools used regression analysis and found a
strong positive correlation (r = .52) between student achievement and school climate. The
authors concluded that school climate was a significant factor in successful school
reform. Hoy, Tarter, and Bliss (1990) also found that long-term improvement in
academic achievement was related to schools with strong academic emphasis within the
collegial relationships, and efficacy or self-determination. The results showed that the
healthier the school culture, as defined by the presence of these factors, the higher the
an effective school (Edmonds, 1982; Roach & Kratochwill, 2004; Ross et al., 2005). The
perceived by teachers was also explored through a study conducted in Ohio secondary
schools (Blatt, 2002). The authors used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x and
the CFK School Climate Profile to measure the variables. Analysis of the data revealed a
40
climate was identified. Data were gathered from 345 career technical teachers selected
randomly from the 3,343 teachers employed in joint vocational school districts during the
2001-2002 school year. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between
transformational leadership and school climate (r =0.569, p < .01) revealed the presence
of a significant relationship.
No national consensus on the definition of school climate exists (Coral & Castle,
2005). However, there is general acceptance of the National School Climate Council
(2007) description of school climate as patterns of peoples experiences of school life and
reflects norms, values, and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally
and physically safe (p.4). Purkey & Smith (1983) were among the earliest describers of
school climate. They believed that shared norms and values permeate the organization
and manifest in a culture of high expectations that would define the ethos of the school.
The structure and organization of the school developed through specific leadership
actions and decision-making structures would support the development of that culture
and an environment that is conducive to learning. The empirical evidence produced since
that era is rather conclusive that associates climate with healthy relationships, engaged
teaching and learning, safety, and school improvement efforts (Cohen et al., 2009; Cohen
& Geier, 2010; Thapa et al., 2013). For instance, based on a review of 200 studies from
1970 forward, Thapa et al., (2013) concluded that school climate matters; its associated
with positive child and youth development, effective risk prevention and health
graduation rates, and teacher retention (p 369). Findings such as these contributed to the
41
U.S. Department of Educations decision to fund state school climate assessment
systems.
Climate Survey in 1994 to comply with the requirements of the accountability legislation.
This survey can be compared to the Customer Survey administered in Broward County
Public Schools. No research has been conducted however on the Broward instrument.
The Staff Form of the Miami- Dade Climate survey administered to all school personnel,
and students; impediments to the delivery of instruction; and, satisfaction with the work
Urdegar (2008) analyzed the Staff Form using a Principal Axis factor analysis
with oblique rotation, which revealed it to be comprised of the four factors within a
truncated factor extraction based on 22 of the 32 non-summary items. Four correlated but
distinct factors were found. The first was Leadership within the school, (48.79% of
principal and the staff members and secondarily with leader effectiveness. The second
was Delinquency in the student body, (12.94% of response variation), which pertains to
existential environmental threats posed by substance abuse, violence, and gang activity.
principally concerned with the perceived lack of academic deficiencies within the school.
The fourth was Professionalism at the respondents school (5.64% of response variation),
which is concerned with the extent to which evaluations are used as a corrective and
42
impartial tool designed to improve performance and the extent to which professional
development is available to help staff members acquire the latest skills (Urdegar, 2008).
dimension and to indicate the likelihood that at least one of the pairwise comparisons
between grade organizations was statistically significant. The results of these procedures
8 centers than at other school types, while delinquency was perceived by staff members
to be significantly less at elementary schools and K-8 centers than at middle, senior high
Finally, regression analysis was used to determine the relative influence of the
four climate dimensions on each of the climate outcomes. The results indicated that staff
members agreed that students received a good education, there was a positive overall
Leadership, on the other hand, was perceived as much more important than either
of overall climate. With regards to school grade, delinquency was perceived as more
influential than leadership and much more influential than either professionalism or
preparedness. In sum, leadership viewed primarily as harmonious relations with staff was
The Quality Counts 2013 report reiterates the notion that school leaders have a
crucial role to play in creating a positive school environment and in supporting teachers
43
(Horowitz, 2013). As described in the report, student behavior is often a byproduct of
teachers behavior and attitudes, and as such, successful principals work with teachers to
(Horowitz, 2013). Leaders in these schools also recognize that a positive climate can be
established and maintained through the existence and strengthening of relationships with
stakeholders.
Research suggests that teachers, especially in high- poverty schools are affected
by climate and safety (Horowitz, 2013). In a report entitled Quality Counts 2013,
compiled by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, it was noted that there
are discrepancies between how teachers and administrators feel about school climate and
safety. For example, in a non-representative sample of more than 1,300 teachers and
In high- poverty schools, concerns about school climate are especially acute. In the
low- poverty schools surveyed, 83 percent of educators strongly agreed that staff feel safe
and 72 percent said that the school climate is conducive to teaching and learning, whereas
in the high-poverty schools surveyed, only 46 percent of the staff feel safe and only 35
relationship between principals leadership and school climate. For example, the
relationship between school climate and the leadership style among female public school
principals was examined through a study conducted in New Mexico (Remondini, 2001).
44
A total of 19 principals and 298 teachers completed the LPI and the Organizational
relationship between leadership styles and organizational climate for supportive principal
behavior.
behavioral problems on teaching and learning and to examine the strategies typically used
to deal with them. The study was conducted in two high poverty schools (one elementary
and one junior high) in Brooklyn, New York. Over 90% of the students in both schools
survey to address these issues. Of the teachers targeted, 90% of the teachers at one school
and 40% of the teachers at the other school responded to the survey.
Respondents were first asked about the prevalence and impact of disruptions.
About half of responding teachers agreed that learning was impacted by disruptive
student behavior. Over two thirds of teachers agreed that students were disrespectful and
defiant to teachers. Moreover, about half of the respondents reported that students and/or
teachers had been physically or verbally harassed. Although, over 60% of teachers at
both schools reported that disruptive behavior was disruptive to their schools climate,
over 75% reported feeling safe while performing their professional duties. Around two-
thirds of respondents agreed behavioral standards, and the penalties for violating them,
should be integrated into the curriculum and explicitly taught (Williams, 2009).
Respondents were then asked to rate the effectiveness of a series of strategies for
dealing with disruptions. Two very different strategies, suspensions and social/emotional
45
support were both rated as effective by a super majority of respondents with over three-
quarters of respondents reporting that the latter was routinely provided. Over three-
helping to bolster students self-esteem, and trying to motivate students and teach them
respondents failed to reach consensus on the issue of whether or not formal training in
dealing with disruptions would be helpful to them with half of the respondents at one
school agreeing that training would be helpful, while only a third of the respondents at
strategies for dealing with the disruptions, were then analyzed for thematic structure. The
most prevalent strategies to emerge from the analysis were suspensions and parental
involvement. Peer mediation and incentives were also mentioned but did not arise in a
consistent manner in both schools. Training in behavior management emerged when the
types of professional development were discussed. The author noted that although
reducing disruptions, this perception is not supported by research. The author went on to
conclude that based on the research and the survey results; pro-social strategies (e.g.,
token economies and mentoring programs) were the most effective means of dealing with
disruptions in high- poverty schools and that further research should be conducted to
Williams (2009) notes that disruptions at the school are but one of the aspects of
46
climate that operate to influence student achievement, and other studies (e.g. Froman,
2009) have supported this notion. These factors have been shown to have a direct effect
Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2004) identified teacher turnover as an important predictor
interruptions in instruction and by reducing morale. Hanushek, et al. (2004) then sought
to examine antecedent variables that influenced that turnover and determine policy
prescriptions for dealing with them. Their study analyzed data from the Texas public
schools from 1993 to 1996. The authors found teacher turnover to be negatively
associated with both experience and achievement and posit that the resulting
achievement. Hanushek, et al. (2004) identified four main factors that drive teachers'
decision to either move or stay: (a) characteristics of the job, (b) alternative job
opportunities, (c) work and family preferences, and (d) district personnel policies.
Discounting salary gain as a strong motive, the authors noted that, "the picture for
working conditions is quite different. There is strong evidence that teachers [who move]
have the opportunity to teach higher income non-minority students" (p. 79).
Further noted by the authors is that poor and non-minority schools are also
associated with a variety of other negative working conditions that were not measured
directly in their study. These include safety and disciplinary problems, more bureaucratic
rules, greater student mobility, and greater distances to work. Hanushek, et al. (2004),
also note that personnel policies tend to exacerbate these structural problems as the most
in-experienced teachers are left in the most difficult schools. The findings of the latter
47
study support the notion that student disruptions act through teacher turnover to
negatively impact achievement, though the strength of the effect is unclear. Moreover,
teacher turnover increases the proportion of inexperienced teachers in a school who are
least trained in dealing with those problems. Finally, the fact that numerous studies have
not limited to schools with poor climate, but may be viewed as loosely coupled to other
Several studies have investigated the principals leadership, school climate and
culture, and resulting school performance. For instance, Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis
(1996) explored the extent of the principals effect on reading achievement in a sample of
87 elementary schools in the United States. Data were collected from principal and
teacher questionnaires and student test scores. Results indicated a direct effect of
leadership on the existence of a clear school mission, which in turn influenced students
Principal leadership, school climate, and student achievement were also studied by
Sims (2005) with 213 teachers in 13 Title I elementary schools in a large urban district in
western Tennessee. Teachers completed the Kouzes and Posners (2003) LPI-Observer
Questionnaire and School Climate Inventory. Sims used reading and mathematics scores
from the state assessment to measure student achievement. Findings of the Sims (2005)
study showed the most frequent leadership practice as Encouraging the Heart, followed
closely by Challenging and Inspiring, and less frequently, Modeling and Enabling. With
76.6% of the variability in overall school climate. For the school climate dimensions, the
48
five transformational leadership practices accounted for 88.7% of the variation in
statistically significant relationship was found, based on the regression analysis results,
Sims (2005) observed that principals should continue to exhibit exemplary leadership
behaviors to positively impact school climate. As other studies have indicated, school
climate can in turn positively affect student achievement (Bulach et al., 1995;
this leadership style and school climate and student achievement. Servant leadership is
the understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the
leadership and include valuing others, developing their potentials, building community,
displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Block, 1996). Hill
(2007) surveyed secondary principals and teachers from Minnesota schools regarding
behaviors reported by both principals and teachers. A stronger relationship was found
between school leader attributes and overall school climate, as well as the relationship
between servant leadership behaviors and the schools organizational climate. However,
no significant relationship was found for either variable with student achievement (Hill,
2007).
49
School Culture
School culture has been studied through different lenses. For example, Newman
et al. (2001) synthesized the concepts of organizational culture and school effectiveness
a unified attribute of schools associated with positive outcomes for students. The
climate, which positively impacts student achievement, would lead to the existence of
Instructional Program Coherence in schools. This conception supports the notion that
culture represents a means of transmitting shared norms and values and establishing
branding (Bolman & Deal, 2003). It is further suggested by this conception that culture
represents the essence or attitude of the school and is resistant to change in the short term.
As such, changes in the culture of the school may lead to changes in the climate or be
influenced by leadership over an extended period of time. Due to its embedded nature,
Gruenert (2005) also studied the relationship of leadership, school culture and
student achievement. The author developed a survey that measured six factors:
support, learning partnerships, and unity of purpose, which might influence culture. He
concluded that a culture that is collaborative depends on the leadership of the principal.
instrument, the Business- Social Justice Questionnaire (BSJQ) was developed for the
purposes of placing schools on cultural dimensions, which he labeled Business and Social
50
Justice. The social justice model was based on a need to address the inequities found in
current society:
basic economic structures of a society (Oliva & Anderson, 2006, as cited in Reyes-
Reyes-Guerra (2009) points out that there is a more conservative view of justice based
Much rational-choice theory that informs school choice reforms is premised on this
Reyes-Guerra believes that social justice in schools centers on the treatment of inequities
as they are discovered over time and in the context of society, and school needs. As
public schools are part of a democratic society, the existence of these values and their
inculcation into the culture of the school is predictive of their adoption by larger society.
The Business Model was based on trends during the last century developed in
management and mass production. These types of technocratic models are often
characterized by:
workers' job responsibilities and push job specialization as far as possible in order
51
to maximize potential economies of scale, and [to promote] the Taylor-inspired
belief that at any given time there is a single best way of organizing work and
search for absolute truth and an attempt to fashion, in a Newtonian sense, a coherent
global view and a focus on efficiency of results (p.1). The author developed an
instrument to measure these cultures and validated the content validity of the instrument
through a review of the literature. An expert panel then reviewed the items and the
resulting instrument was termed the BSJQ, or Business Social Justice Questionnaire.
An R-type factor analysis was used to assess the discriminant validity of the
instrument. Although, a truncated factor structure did confirm the theoretical constructs,
revealed the two-factor solution accounted for 52% of the variance in the dataset. A
refitting using established extraction criteria (i.e., Scree and Latent Root) revealed the
presence of three factors that accounted for 62% of the variance in the dataset and that
exhibited a different loading pattern than predicted by theory. Reyes-Guerra relabeled the
Social Justice factor as Democratic Community and found the theoretical Business factor
then proceeded to classify schools as belonging to predominantly one culture or the other,
or to neither, based on whether or not their scores were above the mean on each of the
three dimensions. Finally, the author conducted a series of regression analyses in which
he predicted the scores of each of the three culture factors from the influence actions.
52
to be associated with all cultures. Bonding was found to be associated with all cultures
except the Equity Curriculum culture. Finally, Bartering was associated only with the
schools context were found to have an impact on the relationship between actions and
major, and level of graduate study) were found to have had a moderating effect on the
relationship between the use of leadership actions and school culture. The author
concluded that the studys findings reinforced Pisapias (2009) theory of strategic
leadership and developed new instrumentation to measure cultures associated with social
school performance. For instance, Ogbanna and Harriss (2000, p. 781) study
found that competitive and innovative cultures rather than bureaucratic cultures
variance. Deal and Peterson (1990) after reviewing the effective schools research
suggest that cultural characteristics coalesce around the presence of strong values,
ethos, and teaming that is supportive of both the academic and mental and
the relationship to school culture in Mississippi public schools. The sample consisted of
68 teachers from 11 elementary, middle, and high schools. Using the LPI-Observer and
53
Instructional Climate Inventory the author found statistically significant relationships
among all principals practices of all five of the exemplary leadership practices and the
Mees (2008) analyzed the impact of leadership and school culture on student
The Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ) by Jantzi and Leithwood (1997) was used
School Culture Survey (Gruenert & Valentine, 1998), with six factors: Collaborative
proficient on the Grade 8 Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) was used to measure
student achievement. In addition, the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced
lunch and school enrollment were used in stepwise regression to account for their effect
on the dependent variable, student achievement. Mees (2008) findings indicated that
accounted for 72.5% of the variance. Goal acceptance was the primary factor impacting
Contextual Factors
Contextual variables such as school size, level, and location; levels of poverty;
individual characteristics; and the traits of the leader often moderate the relationship
between school climate and student achievement. The relationship of leader influence
actions, climate, culture, and school performance is also impacted by alterable and
54
unalterable variables in schools environment, for example, after reviewing research
studies, Fowler and Walberg (1991) noted an inverse relationship between school size
and school outcomes. Larger school size, they found, negatively impacted student
participation, satisfaction, identification and attendance. Salfi and Saeed (2007) noted
that in larger schools interactions and relationships between students and teachers are
weaker.
The demographic characteristics of the student body have also been shown to
affect achievement. The deleterious effects of school poverty negatively affect student
Conversely, students who attend schools that are more affluent tend to outperform their
(Eamon, 2005). Researchers have found certain minority groups to underperform their
non-minority peers (e.g., Eamon, 2005), and other researchers have noted low student
achievement among subgroups (e.g., McLoyd, 1990). Nye, Konstantopolous, and Hedges
than in their more affluent counterparts. However, when they conducted a follow up
analysis, the idea that teacher characteristics such as quality would explain these
differences was not supported. Rather, it was determined that high-poverty schools were
less adept at matching teachers to students. In general, these findings suggest that
strategies to improve the effectiveness of teachers may be more promising than policies
focusing on school effects. Moreover, in high poverty schools, the specific match
McLean (2006) compared mean school climate at low (D-F), moderate (C), and
55
high performing (A-B) schools and found the differences in climate to increase over time
and become and maintain statistical significance (F (2, 66) = 5.69, p < .01). School level
and size were found to have significant negative correlations (r <-.61, p < .01), and
principal tenure and school performance to have significant positive correlations of (r=.
33, p< .05) and (r=. 71, p<. 01), with climate. Follow up multiple regression analyses
replicated these results with no significant moderation effects found (McLean, 2006).
Research was conducted into the comparability of performance between men and
behaviors of male and female principals can be characterized by three main points, which
have been statistically consistent. First, women tend to adopt more participatory
leadership styles, whereas men tend to be more authoritarian and directive (Lee, Smith &
Cioci, 1993). Second, women principals evidence a more personalized leadership style,
whereas male principals are more structural in their orientation. A third and related
behavioral difference finds women principals focusing more of their efforts on their
schools core technologies, whereas their male counterparts evidence an orientation more
directed toward management (Lee et al., 1993). These findings suggest women may have
a propensity toward adopting school-wide discipline policies that are more geared toward
consensus building and other non-punitive strategies such as token economies, parental
suspensions.
56
School Performance
In recent years, effective schools have been defined in some states by legislation.
Forty-nine states have designed and implemented processes that can be used to hold
individual school personnel accountable that students meet standards prescribed by the
state (Lower, 2001). In Florida, specific achievement levels on various subtest of the
FCAT were used to grade the schools. Each public school in the state is graded based on
the criteria of the A+ Plan. According to State statute, the A+ Plan has a rating scale of
A, the highest rating, to F, the lowest rating. This rating is applied to each public
school each year. There are specific provisions for charter and private schools.
accountable for students' academic success through the designation of critically low
mathematics and writing was used to designate the lowest performing schools.
Achievement Test to uniformly measure achievement of students across the state. Based
on this legislation, a schools performance grade category designation was based on:
1998-1999
dropout rate, school discipline data, and student readiness for college, in accordance with
57
1999-2000
Later, the Florida A+ Plan (2001) enacted by Florida Statute 229.57 (2001)
established reforms to the Florida School Code and practice. This integer of
measurement ushered in by Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Department of Education
4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 with continued improvement from year to year, based on testing rates,
2000-2001
baseline data for determining annual learning gains for the same students,
58
Until the 2001-02 school year, all designations were based on one years progress.
However, since then students are assessed on the degree of improvement between grades.
Schools were now held accountable for the percentage growth of their lowest quartile or
their lowest performing students. The 2001-2002 grading formula awards points to
schools in six areas, based on performance or learning gains. Schools could earn 100
points in each area for a total of 600 points. Table 1 gives the A-F grade, which
Table 6
Performance Categories
Note. Designation of School Performance Grade Categories. Adapted from Floridas A+ Plan: Education
Reform Policies and Student Outcomes, [paper] by K. Borman and R. Lee, 2003.
hospital/homebound and students with limited English proficiency who have spent more
than two years in a remedial English program and who were enrolled in the same school
59
2001-2006
1. FCAT Reading and Mathematics subtests in graded 3-10 and FCAT Writing
2007-2008
Third grade students were included in the FCAT assessment and grading
calculations, beginning in 2002, although the calculations themselves did not change as a
result. Some 3,000 students who fail to attain a score higher than level one in reading
were retained in the third grade in 2003 pursuant to state law. Additionally, 9,000 high
school students across the state who failed the FCAT in 2002 could not graduate from
The inclusion of FCAT Science represented the first major change to the grading
system in five years. Based on those changes the number of data points was expanded
subtest in grades 4, 8, 10, and FCAT Science subtest in grades 5, 8, and 11.
60
4. Assessment of at least 90 percent of all eligible students to ensure that data
5. Graduation rate improvement due to FCAT retake in high schools per state
The system for evaluating schools was based upon student performance on the
statewide Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. It incorporated eight data points, four
of which included achievement status in reading, mathematics and science (i.e., percent
of students who earn scores of level 3 and above) and writing (i.e., the average of the
percentage of students who earn scores of level 3 and above and the percent of students
who earn scores of level 4 and above). Four additional data points included progress in
reading and mathematics (i.e., percentage of students who make learning gains) overall
and for the schools lowest achieving students in reading and mathematics (Florida
proficiency who have spent more than two years in a remedial English program and who
were enrolled in the same school in October and February were counted.
The sum of these eight components is the points earned component of the school
grading- system, which constitutes the outcome variable for this part of the study. As
such, grades are assigned based upon the number of points earned as follows: less than
395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B), and 525 and above (A) (Florida
61
Chapter Summary
conceptual framework, which guided the study. In this model, the leader influence
actions are the focal predictor variables driving improvement in school performance by
exerting influence on the climate and culture at the school. The model suggests that while
leader influence actions may influence school performance directly it is not likely. The
empirical research suggests that the influence of school leaders is more directly
associated with school climate and culture which in turn influences student performance.
relationships of leader actions and climate and culture as well as the climate and culture
treatment of leadership theory was discussed and the role of Pisapias Strategic Leadership
framework, within that literature was addressed. Empirical studies that have sought to link
leadership actions, climate, culture, and context with performance were also described. The
following hypotheses were extracted from the literature presented in this chapter.
o Hypotheses 2a: Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance
between perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study sample
o Hypotheses 3a: Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the
62
schools in the study sample
between perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study
sample
o Hypotheses 3c: School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the
between school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample
performance of the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate
o Hypotheses 4a: Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the
between perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study
sample
o Hypotheses 4c: School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the
between school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample
63
o Hypotheses 6a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of
o Hypotheses 6b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the
o Hypotheses 7a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of
o Hypotheses 7b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the
64
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the purpose of the study, the research questions, and the
hypotheses that will be tested in the study. It also presents the research design,
population, sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures by which the
Purpose
This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal influence
actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study sought to
determine if the influence of these variables or the relationship among them is altered by
This study will be guided by one primary research question: Is the relationship
school climate and/or culture? Three secondary questions are also investigated: Is the
relationship between leader influence actions and school performance moderated by fixed
individual and institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions,
school climate, and school performance moderated by fixed individual and institutional
factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions, school culture, and school
These questions were answered by testing seven hypotheses and accompanying sub
65
o Hypotheses 1: Contextual factors do not significantly predict perceived leadership
o Hypotheses 2a: Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance
between perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study sample
o Hypotheses 3a: Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the
between perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study
sample
o Hypotheses 3c: School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the
between school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample
performance of the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate
o Hypotheses 4a: Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the
between perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study
sample
o Hypotheses 4c: School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the
66
schools in the study sample
between school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample
o Hypotheses 6a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of
o Hypotheses 6b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the
o Hypotheses 7a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of
o Hypotheses 7b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the
Research Design
dimensionality of school climate and culture, and then explore the relationships among
the leader influence actions, climate, culture, contextual factors and school performance.
Sample
Reyes-Guerras sample of 37 schools was the sample used in the current study. In
his study, 68 principals were invited to participate, 42 did. Data on the school leader
influence actions was provided from a sampling of their teachers to eliminate common
67
method bias. Due to the nature of confidentiality, no demographics concerning the
certified teachers who voluntarily participated from each school were collected. The
school where the teachers are employees serves as the only identifier. Schools with a
return rate of less than five respondents and schools with incomplete data were
eliminated for the present study; resulting in a total of 37 schools included. The resulting
Table 7
a
Grade points are used to determine school grades: 0- 395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B),
and 525 and above (A). Adapted from Florida Department of Education, 2008.
Measures
The focal independent variables are the school principals influence actions as
The criterion variable is the schools performance grade points. School climate and
Examined is the relationship between the leadership actions, climate, culture, contextual
factors, and school performance as described in the theoretical framework. Table 8 lists
68
Table 8
Mediators
(School Climate)
Scale 1: Staff Attitudes 1-5
Scale 2: Student Disruptions 1-5
(School Culture)
Scale 1: Business 1-5
Scale 2: Social Justice 1-5
Moderators
(Individual Characteristics)
Gender 1=Female, 0=Male
Age 25-70
gender. Institutional variables consist of percent of students eligible for free/reduced price
lunch, the percent of minority students in the school, and school level. Values for any
climate dimensions are computed based on the results of analyses conducted in earlier
sections of the study. Values for each of the culture dimensions were obtained from
Data Sources
Data were gathered from three secondary sources to conduct this study. The first
source of data was Reyes-Guerras (2009) study of the relationship between strategic
leader influence actions and school culture. His study provided two types of data used in
69
this study: the rate of use of five leader influence actions of school principals, and the
The school principal influence action data was derived from the Strategic
leader influence actions. The 77- item SLQv2 on a seven point Likert-type scale with
in each of the 37 schools to reduce common method bias. The SLQv2 was developed and
validated by Pisapia et al. (2006, April). Pisapia and Reyes-Guerra (2009) used a
principal axis factor analysis to validate the SLQv3. Five reliable summated scales were
identified: Transforming (.97), Managing (.97), Bonding (.92), Bridging (.89), and
The Reyes-Guerra study also provided the school culture data through responses
to a scale he developed called the Business Survey. The Business Survey comprised 30
items that adhered to a five point Likert-type format with response options that ranged
response. The instrument was subdivided into two theoretical scales (i.e., Business and
Social Justice) each comprised of 15 items. Summated scales of the responses to the
items on each of the two scales were provided. The reliabilities reported for Social Justice
scale (0.92), and for the Business scale (0.75) were more than adequate for a
The second source of data was school climate data and archival demographic data
provided by the Broward school district. The school climate data used in the current
70
study was drawn from the Annual Report of Stakeholders also known as the Customer
Survey administered by Broward County Public Schools during 2008. The Customer
Survey consists of custom forms used to gauge the opinions of three stakeholder groups:
Teachers, Parents, and Students during the spring of each school year. Only teacher
Survey responses for were used to gauge School Climate in this study.
The sample for the Customer Survey included all the schools in the Broward
County Public Schools. As such, 229 schools were targeted to participate. Of those
schools, 225 were traditional public schools and 4 were charter schools. Targeted schools
included 140 elementary, 45 middle, 31 senior, 10 special, and 3 other (Primary Learning
Centers, Virtual, Dual Enrollment). Data were not available for three elementary schools
and they were dropped from the study. Hence, the sample that resulted included both
traditional and charter schools, and was comprised of 137 elementary (64.33%), 45
middle (21.13%), and 31 senior high (14.55%) schools, for a 213 in all. In all, 11,622
staff participated in the survey. Table 9 displays the number of respondents at each
school level.
71
Table 9
Participant Counts
School Statistics
Percentiles
Total Total
Level Schools Smallest 25 50 75 Largest Staff
Elementary 36.5 45.0
137 6.00 53.00 83.00 6,271
0 0
Middle 36.0 54.0
45 17.00 72.50 125.00 2,572
0 0
Senior 67.0 88.5 120.2
31 28.00 223.00 2,779
0 0 5
Total 38.0 48.0
213 6.00 63.00 223.00 11,622
0 0
(Middle) and 88.50 (High). The 75th percentile number of respondents was 53.00
The survey consisted of 51 items: Two items identify the school, 5 items provide
etc.), and 7 items address school-specific concerns: different sets of items are presented
to different types of schools. The 37 general and 7 specific items adhere to a five-point
Likert-type format with response options that range from 2 (strongly disagree) to 6
know) treated as missing response. The Customer Survey was never psychometrically
evaluated.
The aggregated data from the Customer Survey provided by the district were used
to produce school level means for each item within each school by recoding the scale to
72
range from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with 3 (undecided/neutral) used as
the center of the scale and 0 (don't know) treated as a missing value. The proportion of
non-missing respondents to each item was then used to create a weighted average value.
Then, a principal axis factor analysis was applied to ascertain the structure
empirically manifested by the recoded responses to the survey items that resulted. This
was done to determine how climate should best be represented because it could not be
assumed that climate, even when estimated using school as the unit of analysis, could be
assumed one-dimensional. There were several limitations to this approach. First, using
school level data to estimate individual data, runs the risk of committing an ecological
fallacy, which occurs when the results at the group level differ from those obtained at the
fallacy, identified dimensions were compared against those obtained in other studies that
use individual data. Second, because only variance and covariance among schools is
being considered, the variance among individuals may be far greater and the individual
unit of analysis dimensionality may have be underestimated and/or may reflect very
different constructs.
First, an initial R-type common factor analysis was conducted to assess the
condition of the data. The number of factors to extract was then suggested by the Scree
plot criterion rather than determined from the research. Direct Oblimin rotation was used
to orient the pattern matrix and aid in the identification of cross-loaded items. An item
present on two or more factors unless the strongest factor loading was twice the
magnitude of the next strongest factor loading for that item. Once the cross-loaded items
73
were removed, an assessment of structure was made. The factors were then interpreted by
examining all survey items with loadings of .50 and above. Summated scales for each
construct were then computed for use in other parts of the study. The first factor,
comprised of items that addressed Staff Attitudes toward the school, accounted for the
vast amount (76.88%) of the variation among the respondents. The second factor,
comprised of items that Student Disruptions at the school, accounted for the greatest
amount of residual variance that remained after the first factor was extracted, and
explained 9.08% of the total variance in the dataset. The internal consistency of the
scales of .99 (Staff Attitudes) and .87 (Student Disruptions) was more than adequate for a
psychometric instrument (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Detailed results of
The third source of data was school performance and school demographic data
Assessment Test Sunshine State Standards (FCAT-SSS) was used to measure school
performance. The FCAT results are used by the state to report student progress as
required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). The FCAT-SSS is a
that range from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The reading and mathematics tests were
administered to students in grades 3-10 statewide during March of each school year. The
results of this assessment are used to produce the points earned under the school grading
system (School Grade Points) that are used to assign grades to the states schools.
74
As previously stated, the system for determining each schools grades was based
incorporated eight data points. Four data points include achievement status in reading,
mathematics, and science (i.e., percent of students who earn scores of level 3 and above)
writing (i.e., the average of the percentage of students who earn scores of level 3 and
above and the percent of students who earn scores of level 4 and above). Four data points
include overall progress in reading and mathematics (i.e., percentage of students who
make learning gains) and the last area of calculation is for the schools lowest achieving
Urdegar, 2008). The sum of these eight components gave the points earned portion of the
school grading system, which constitutes the outcome variable for this part of the study.
At the time of this study, grades were assigned based upon the number of points
earned as follows: less than 395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B), and
Individual and institutional data were obtained from archival records maintained
by the district and state. Individual principal data included age and gender. Institutional
data was limited to school type. The percent of students who participated in the
free/reduced price lunch program and the percent of minority students were obtained
Data Analyses
series of ordinary least squares regression analyses. Due to the small sample size and the
expected non-normality of the moderation terms, the regression weights were estimated
75
using Bootstrap resampling with 2,000 replications. The models used in this study were
fitted one at a time, using one predictor and one criterion to evaluate bivariate effects, and
one criterion and three predictors to evaluate potential moderation effects. Mediation was
tested using the so called Sobel Macro written in SPSS code, which estimates the indirect
effect through a simple mediation path as the product of the regression coefficients into
and out of the mediator, then repeats this process through Bootstrap resampling, and
lastly computes the confidence interval of the estimates that result (Hayes, 2011). The
SPSS code used to conduct these analyses may be found in Appendix B. Models with
multiple predictors were assessed for collinearity and identified as such if a variance
inflation factor (VIF) of greater than 5.0 was detected (Hair et al., 1998). All variables
predictors. Collinearity that manifests among the main effects were dealt with by
et al., 1998). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 21.0) was the primary
Chapter Summary
This chapter included a description of the research design and procedures, which
were followed in this study. A quantitative predictive correlational design was used to
study principal effectiveness through the leaders use of strategic leader action sets, and
the relationship between the leader influence actions, school climate, school culture, and
school performance. School performance in this study was measured by school grade
points. Moreover, the extent to which the interrelationship between the leader influence
actions, climate, culture, and school performance was moderated by contextual factors
76
was also examined.
Four research questions were presented, with seven principal hypotheses. Variables
were identified and the measurement of each was described. Data from the instrument,
(SLQ) created by Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, and Yasin (2006, April) and modified by
Pisapia and Reyes-Guerra (2009) were used for adding to the knowledge base of strategic
leadership. The Broward Public County Public Schools Customer Survey was used to
measure school climate. An organizational culture survey was also used to measure
77
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal leader
influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study
influence of these variables or the relationship among them. Seven main hypotheses
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics for the continuous variables from these sources are shown in
Table 12. Shapiro-Wilks tests were used to test whether the predictor and criterion
variables were normally distributed. Of the 13 variables tested, ten were normally
distributed, and three (i.e., Bonding, Percent Free/ Reduced Lunch, and Social Justice
30.77% (n=24) to be statistically significant. Only four were greater than or equal to 0.70.
As none of these variables were expected to be included as predictors at the same time,
the risk of collinearity was considered low at this point. Due to the normality violations,
the small sample size and the need to test multiple moderation hypotheses, Bootstrap
78
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the Study Variables (n=37)
Descriptives Pearson Correlation Coefficients
7. Student Disruptions 2.02 0.47 -.18 -.09 -.24 -.26 -.29 -.88 --
Culture
8. Business 4.10 0.28 .40 .30 .39 .38 .37 .08 -.18 --
9. Social Justice 3.98 0.35 .47 .45 .44 .38 .60 .10 -.17 .80 --
Contextual Factors
10. Principal Ageb 49.99 7.44 -.07 .24 -.14 -.03 .12 -.13 .20 .05 .13 --
11. School Free/Red. Lunchc 38.65 23.94 -.05 .02 -.09 -.01 -.18 -.40 .29 -.38 -.28 -.17 --
12. Principal Genderd 0.68 0.47 .05 .37 -.29 .25 .12 -.15 .20 .01 -.02 .27 .18 --
13. School Percent Minorityc 59.79 26.81 -.09 .00 -.12 -.13 -.13 -.16 .03 -.20 -.18 -.16 .53 .29 --
14. School Levele 0.35 0.48 -.25 -.07 -.22 -.40 -.29 -.69 .87 -.19 -.08 .18 .14 .15 -.03 --
15. School Performanceb 549.95 54.32 -.03 -.12 .05 .10 .24 .60 -.45 .10 .23 .17 -.72 -.17 -.34 -.24 --
Note. The significance thresholds of the above correlation magnitudes are: r (35)=. 32, p <. 05. r (35)=. 42, p < .01, r (35)=. 52, p < .001.
Of the 37 schools in the sample, 67.56% (n=25) had female principals and 32.46%
(n=12) had male principals. Moreover, 64.86% (n=24) were elementary schools and
Hypotheses Testing
both mediation and moderation tests. However, due to the small sample size, these effects
were tested one at a time. In this model, the leader influence actions, Managing,
that these leader influence actions potentially operate by exerting a direct influence on
school performance as well as by potentially exerting influences on both the climate and
culture at the school. It was also hypothesized that climate and culture each operate by
moderating the influence of the leadership influence actions on climate, and/or culture,
and/or the influence of climate, and/or culture on school performance. The results of
these analyses are depicted on Figures 2 and 3, with variables represented by boxes, and
effects by arrows. This graphic diagram adheres to the relationships depicted in the
theoretical framework and provides a visual aid to assist the reader in conceptualizing the
results. This diagram is not to be confused with a path model in which the
80
interrelationships among the variables are examined simultaneously via maximum-
likelihood estimation. Boxes at arrow tails are predictors and boxes at the arrowheads are
criteria. Mediation was tested using a the Sobel Macro, a copy of which may be found in
Appendix B, as described in the methodology section of this report (Hayes, 2011). All
moderation effects tested in this study involved one criterion, two predictors and the cross
product between the predictors. As the regression weights in such models reflect the
inclusion of the two main effects and the interaction term, the standardized weights may
be different than the Pearson correlations shown in Table 10. Only models with
significant predictor weights are shown, unless needed to interpret the cross-product
term. Bootstrap resampling with 2,000 replications was used to estimate the statistical
81
Transforming Bonding Bartering Bridging Managing
-0.54(-0.42)**
Gender Age Reduced
Minority Gender x x Price School Level
Delinquency Transforming Age Lunch
0.20(0.31)*
0.08 (0.37)**
72.21(0.31)*
-0.01 (-0.40)*
-0.70 (-0.34)*
-5.10 (-0.05)
School Performance
82
0.33 (0.38)**
Managing
Business
Bridging
0.29 (0.40)*
School Performance
Bonding
Transforming
83
Leadership and context. Hypothesis 1 posited that contextual factors do not
significantly predict leadership influence actions. As this is the only hypothesis that
alone and is considered first. The results of 25 regression analyses that were conducted to
test whether any of the five contextual factors significantly predicted any of the five
leader influence actions found only School level to have a significant effect on Managing
Managing Influence Actions in secondary schools was found to be 0.27 points lower than
in elementary schools, d=0.87, which represents a strong effect size according to Cohens
(1988) classification: .29 (weak), .50 (moderate), and 0.80 (strong). No other significant
effects were identified. The mean frequency of perceived use at secondary schools (3.88)
was smaller than was seen at elementary schools (4.15). Because the structure and
organization of schools differs considerably at those levels, this effect may indicate that
influence actions do not significantly predict school performance in the study sample and
further asserted that fixed contextual factors do not moderate the relationship between
leader influence actions and school performance. A series of regression analyses were
conducted to test these hypotheses. The results of 25 separate tests failed to identify any
significant moderation effects between any of the five leader influence actions and
83
Leadership, climate, context, and school performance. Hypotheses 3 evaluated
four propositions needed to establish whether and how leadership influence actions act
through school climate to influence school performance. The first and second are (a)
leader influence actions do not significantly predict school climate in the study sample
and (b) fixed contextual factors do not moderate the relationship between leader influence
actions and school climate. The third and fourth are (c) school climate does not
significantly predict school performance in the study sample and (d) fixed contextual
factors do not moderate the relationship between school climate and school performance
in the study sample. The results of an additional hypothesis, which posited that the effect
climate, was tested using the Sobel Macro as described in the Methodology section
(Hayes, 2011).
The process depicted in Figure 2, suggests that Staff Attitudes mediate the
of Transforming on school performance was not present. The results of the tests
conducted by the Sobel Macro indicated that the 95% confidence interval for the indirect
effect of Transforming through Staff Attitudes to School Performance (M=31.92) did not
pass through zero (4.0278, 68.6389). On the other hand, the results of the tests conducted
by the Sobel Macro (Hayes, 2011) also indicated that the 95% confidence interval for the
(M=19.69) did pass through zero (-2.08, 56.44). As such, Staff Attitudes significantly
did not significantly mediate the impact of Transforming on School Performance. None
84
of the other leadership actions was found to have either a direct- or an indirect- effect on
achievement in this study. Had sufficient power been available, effects may have been
observed.
and the relationship between Transforming actions and Staff Attitudes is also moderated
actions above the sample mean predicts an increase of 0.36 points. Age moderates this
relationship, so that each one-year increase in Age above the sample mean predicts a 0.04
actions and Staff Attitudes. The moderating influence of Age in this context, 0.15, based
accordance with Cohens (1988) classification for f2: 0.02 (weak), 0.15 (moderate), and
0.35 (strong). Staff Attitudes in turn, have a positive effect on student achievement
(B=117.03, SE=25.44, =0.60, p= < .001). Each one- point increase in Staff Attitudes
= -0.42, p= .01). The relationship between them is also moderated by Age (B=0.08,
SE=0.03, =0.37, p= .01). Each one-point increase in Transforming actions above the
sample mean predicts decrease of 0.54 points in Student Disruptions. Age moderates this
relationship, so that each one year increase in Age above the sample mean predicts a 0.08
Disruptions, meaning that as the age of the principal rises, the potency of transforming
leader influence actions decreases. The moderating influence of Age in this context,
85
0.17, based on computations outlined by Kenny (2014) also represents a moderate effect
size in accordance with Cohens (1988) classification for f2. As the effectiveness of the
actions decrease, Student Disruptions increase. Student Disruptions in turn are predicted
Each one- point increase in Student Disruptions above the sample mean predicts a 44.95
decrease in school performance points. This means that as transforming influence actions
In sum, Transforming actions act conjunctively to both improve Staff Attitudes and
reduce Student Disruptions. Even though the frequency of Transforming actions does not
vary significantly F (3, 33) = 0.21, p = .88, from the sample mean of 4.32 at any given ten
age range from 30-60, the influence of Transforming actions on both dimensions of
climate (Staff Attitudes and Student Disruptions) is further moderated by Age, so that the
four propositions need to establish whether and how leadership influence actions act
through school culture to influence school performance. The first and second are (a)
leader influence actions do not significantly predict school culture in the study sample
and (b) fixed contextual factors do not moderate the relationship between leader influence
actions and school culture. The third and fourth are (c) school culture does not
significantly predict school performance in the study sample and (d) fixed contextual
factors do not moderate the relationship between school culture and school performance
86
in the study sample. An additional hypothesis, (e), posited the effect of leadership
(B=0.31, SE=0.11, =0.40, p= .01) were each found to have effects on Business culture.
Each one- point increase in Managing, Bridging, Transforming, and Bartering above their
sample mean values predict 0.33, 0.29, 0.29, and 0.31 point increases in Business culture,
respectively. As such, all of the leadership influence actions except Bonding were found
to have a positive impact on Business culture, meaning that these specific above-
=0.44, p= .01), Bonding (B=0.43, SE=0.13, =0.41, p= <.001), and Bartering (B=0.45,
SE=0.11, =0.47, p< .001) each had an effect on Social Justice. Each one- point increase
in Managing, Bridging, Bonding, and Bartering above their sample mean values predict
0.40, 0.40, 0.43, and 0.45 point increases in Social Justice culture, respectively.
Transforming leader influence actions also influence Social Justice culture (B=0.52,
SE=0.13, = 0.55, p=< .001) and the relationship between them is moderated by the
Minority on the relationship between Transforming and Social Justice represents a weak-
moderate effect size (f2 = .14). Each one-point increase in Transforming actions above the
sample mean predicts an increase of 0.52 points in Social Justice culture. Minority
moderates this relationship, so that each one percent increase in Minority above the
sample mean predicts a -0.01 point decrease in the relationship, 0.52, between
87
Transforming leader influence actions and Social Justice culture, meaning that as the
percentage of Minority students in the school rises, the potency of Transforming leader
Context and school performance. Preceding sections have dealt with the
influence of contextual factors when such factors moderate the relationship between other
variables. The effects of the variables used in this study were tested because of their
demonstrated influence on the focal variables (i.e., leadership, climate, culture, and
achievement) as revealed by research cited in earlier sections of this study. Even though
many of the contextual factors were not found to significantly moderate the relationships
between the focal variables, they are still potential predictors of those variables.
Therefore, their presence must be accounted for in the model. If this is not done, the
estimates of the effects of the focal variables will be incorrect (Jung-Grant, 2007). The
performance in the study sample. The percentage of students eligible for Free and
Reduced Price Lunch acts directly to predict achievement (B=-1.17, SE=0.27, =-0.72, p
< .001). Each one-point increase above the sample mean in the percent of students who
are eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch at the school predicts a 1.17-point decrease in
School Grade Points, meaning that high poverty schools tend to perform more poorly
than schools that are more affluent. Another contextual factor that was found to have a
major influence on School Grade Points was the percent of Minority students enrolled in
88
the school. The percent of Minority students predicts a decrease in school grade points
(B=-0.70, SE=0.31, =-0.34, p= .04). Each one- point increase in Minority above the
sample mean predicts a 0.70 decrease in school performance. This means that the higher
the percentage of Minority students present, the lower the student achievement.
how contextual factors act through school climate to influence school performance: (a)
contextual factors do not significantly predict school climate in the study and (b) the
0.39, p= .01), and the relationship between them is moderated by Gender (B=-72.21,
SE=44.18, =-0.31, p= .04). In other words, Gender moderates the negative effect of
44.95 points on school grade points of each one-point increase in Student Disruptions. At
schools headed by female principals, the negative effect is reduced by 72.21 points from
what is seen at male- led schools. While at male led schools, each one point increase in
Student Disruptions predicts a 94.05 decrease in school grade Points, at female led
schools, each one point increase in Student Disruptions predicts only a 21.84 point
decrease. The influence of Gender on the relationship between Student Disruptions and
schools headed by female principals, Student Disruptions had less of an effect on student
Another contextual factor that was found to have a major influence on School
performance was Poverty as measured by percent of students eligible for Free or Reduced
Lunch. The influence of Free and Reduced Lunch actions on school performance is
89
mediated by Climate in that Free and Reduced Lunch acts directly to predict achievement
(B=-1.17, SE=0.27, =-0.72, p < .001) and acts through Staff Attitudes and Student
Disruptions to predict achievement. The indirect effect through Staff Attitudes (M=-
0.345) has a 95% confidence interval (-0.704, -0.073) that does not include zero and the
indirect effect through Student Disruptions (M=-0.19) also has a 95% confidence interval
that does not include zero (-0.521, -0.003). Free and Reduced Price Lunch predicts Staff
Attitudes (B=-0.01, SE=0.00, =-0.40, p= .01). Each one-point increase in Free and
Reduced Lunch above the sample mean predicts a decrease of 1.17 school grade Points.
Each one-point increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the sample mean
predicts a decrease of 0.01 points in Staff Attitudes. Alternatively, each one standard
deviation increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the sample mean predicts a
0.40 standard deviation decrease in Staff Attitudes. Staff Attitudes in turn, have a positive
effect on student achievement (B=117.03, SE=25.44, =0.60, p= <.001). Each one- point
increase in Staff Attitudes above the sample mean predicts a 117.03 increase in Points.
Free and Reduced Price Lunch influences Student Disruptions (B=0.01, SE=0.00,
= 0.29, p= .04). Each one-point increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the
each one standard deviation increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the sample
=0.39, p= .02). Each one- point increase in Student Disruptions above the sample mean
predicts a 44.95 decrease in Points. Alternatively, each one standard deviation increase in
Student Disruptions above the sample mean predicts a 0.39 standard deviation decrease
90
in Points. This means the greater the Free and Reduced Price Lunch, the disruptive
behaviors increase and Staff Attitudes worsen. Another contextual factor that was found
to have a major influence on School performance was School Level. As School Level is
dichotomous the interpretation of its effect is different than a continuous variable such as
Free and Reduced Lunch percentage. School Level acts through Staff Attitudes and
Student Disruptions to predict achievement. The results of the tests conducted by the
Sobel Macro indicated that the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect of School
Level through Staff Attitudes to School Performance (M=-64.69) did not pass through
zero (-100.64 -28.75). School Level predicts Staff Attitudes (B=-0.40, SE=0.06, =-0.70,
p < .001). The difference in Staff Attitudes between Secondary (M = 4.05) and
Elementary schools (M = 4.45) represents a strong effect size (d=1.96). Staff Attitudes in
turn, have a positive effect on student achievement (B=117.03, SE=25.44, =0.60, p <
.001). Each one- point increase in Staff Attitudes above the sample mean predicts a
117.03 increase in Points. This means that the influence of Staff Attitudes on student
achievement is lower at secondary schools than at elementary schools. If this was passed
through as an indirect effect then the effect of Staff Attitudes on Points would be 122.36
School Level also influences Student Disruptions (B=0.84, SE=0.70, = 0.87, p <
.001). The difference in Staff Attitudes between Secondary (M = 1.72) and Elementary
schools (M = 2.56) represents a strong effect size (d=3.52). Each one-point increase in
School Level above the sample mean predicts an increase of 0.84 points in Student
Disruptions. Alternatively, each one standard deviation increase in School Level above
the sample mean predicts a 0.87 standard deviation increase in Student Disruptions.
91
Student Disruptions in turn, have a negative effect on student achievement (B=-44.95,
SE=20.43, =0.39, p= .02). Each one- point increase in Student Disruptions above the
sample mean predicts a 44.95 decrease in Points. This means that the influence of
elementary schools. The results of the tests conducted by the Sobel Macro indicated that
the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect of School Level through Student
Disruptions (M=-100.18) did not pass through zero (168.75 -35.85). If this was passed
through as an indirect effect then the effect of Student Disruptions on Points would be -
propositions needed to establish whether and how contextual factors act through school
predict school culture in the study and (b) the effect of contextual factors on school
Free and Reduced Price Lunch acts to directly predict Business culture (B=-0.01,
SE=0.002, =-0.38, p= .02). Each one-point increase above the sample mean in the
percent of students who are eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch at the school predicts a
0.01-point decrease in the Business scale, meaning that in high poverty schools,
Free and Reduced Price Lunch acts to directly predict Social Justice culture (B=-
0.004, SE=0.002, =-0.28, p= .02). Each one-point increase above the sample mean in
the percent of students who are eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch at the school
predicts a -0.004-point decrease in the Social Justice scale, meaning that in high poverty
92
schools, respondents rating or perception of Social Justice at the school, tends to be
lower.
Chapter Summary
This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal leader
influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study
sought to determine if the influence of these variables, or the relationship among them, is
extracted from the conceptual framework were tested through a series of multiple
regression analyses.
perceived leadership actions of the schools in the study sample. School level was found
to have a significant effect on Managing actions. The mean frequency of perceived use at
secondary schools (3.84) was smaller than was seen at elementary schools (4.17).
Because the structure and organization of schools differs considerably at those levels, this
effect may indicate that leadership actions operate in a different way or to a different
H2a addressed the extent to which perceived leadership actions had a significant
direct effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. The
analyses did not reveal the presence of any significant direct effects between leadership
influence actions and school performance. Therefore, the null H2a was not rejected. H2b
between the perceived leadership influence actions and school performance. The results
93
of these analyses failed to identify any significant moderators of the direct relationship
between leader influence actions and school performance achievement. Based on these
school principals impacted school performance when mediated by school climate factors.
Transforming influenced staff attitudes and student disruptions and staff attitudes and
student disruptions influenced school performance. The use of transforming actions was
associated with improved staff attitudes, which resulted in a positive association with
school performance. This impact was amplified among younger principals, and
attenuated among older principals. Transforming also influenced the effect of Student
directly. Moreover, Age was found to significantly moderate the relationship between
Transforming leadership influence actions and climate in the study sample such that the
impact of Transforming actions on climate was amplified among younger principals, and
attenuated among older principals. None of the other leader influence actions was found
(0.16) to detect an effect for the remaining leadership influence actions similar to the
lower limit of what was found for Transforming was limited by the sample size of 37. To
achieve a level of power (0.80) would have required a sample size of 250 or greater.
94
Fixed contextual variables were also found to moderate the relationship between
school climate and school performance. For instance, Gender was found to significantly
female-led schools when compared to male-led schools at both levels. This was
associated with higher school performance. Additionally, the percent of Minority students
in a school influenced school performance. The higher the percentage the lower the
school performed. Free and Reduced price lunch was also found to have a negative direct
Because significant moderation and significant prediction were found between the
leader influence-actions and school climate and between school climate and school
(i.e., Business and Social Justice), and school performance. Four of the five leader
influence actions (i.e., Transforming, Managing, Bonding, Bridging, and Bartering) were
found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture. All five leaders influence
actions were also found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice culture.
However, neither cultural dimension was found to have a direct effect on school
Transforming and Social Justice. As the percentage of minority students in the school
rose, the potency of Transforming leader influence actions were found to decrease.
Based on these findings, H4a and H4b were rejected and each of the remaining three sub
95
H5 addressed the extent to which fixed contextual factors had a significant direct
effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. Fixed contextual
factors (Free and Reduced Price Lunch and Minority concentrations) were each found to
have a negative direct effect on school performance. This indicates that as the
concentration of students who are poor and/or minority increases, school performance
tends to decline.
and school performance. Both school Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status and
school level (secondary relative to elementary) were found to depress climate such that
Staff Attitudes declined and Student Disruptions increased. The presence of both effects
indicates that climate serves to mediate the influence of those contextual factors. Based
H7 examined the relationship between fixed contextual factors, school culture, and
school performance. School Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status was found to
depress staff perceptions of the extent to which both aspects of culture (i.e., Business and
Social Justice) were present at the school. However, because neither culture dimension
found. Moreover, no significant moderation effects were found between either dimension
of culture and student performance. Based on this finding, H7a was rejected and H7bwas
not rejected. Table 11 provides a summary of the 18 null hypotheses tested in this
analysis and shows 12 to have been not accepted and six to have been accepted.
96
Table 11
Hypothesis Table
Status
Not
No. Text Rejected Rejected
H1 Contextual factors do not significantly predict perceived leadership actions x
of the schools in the study sample
H2a Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance of x
the schools in the study sample
H2b Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study
sample
H3a Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the x
schools in the study sample
H3b Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study
sample
H3c School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the x
schools in the study sample
H3d Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample
H3e The effect of perceived leadership influence actions on the performance of x
the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate
H4a Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the x
culture of the schools in the study sample
H4b Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study
sample
H4c School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the schools x
in the study sample
H4d Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample
H4e The effect of perceived leadership actions on performance of the schools in x
the study sample is not mediated by school culture
H5 Contextual factors do not significantly predict the performance of schools x
in the study sample
H6a Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of schools x
in the study sample
H6b The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the study x
sample is not mediated by school climate
H7a Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of schools x
in the study sample
H7b The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the study x
sample is not mediated by school culture
97
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The final chapter of this dissertation revisits the research problem and reviews the
primary methods used in this study. The major sections of this chapter summarize the
results, discuss the limitations, and provide recommendations for future research.
The last fifteen years have seen tremendous growth in statewide accountability
systems designed to monitor the performance of teachers and schools, delineate how
performance in measured, and specify how students are taught. These laws have placed
considerable additional demands on schools, while at the same time transforming the role
of principal to that of chief executive officer and strategist. Both students and faculty are
being asked by the states to do more with less (Clark, et al., 2009).
School principals have been squarely placed in the position of serving as both the
instructional and strategic leaders of schools. Their ability to effectively meet these new
demands is increasingly critical to the success of the school organization. That is why
there is renewed interest in how and why successful school leaders perform their roles.
The present study investigated the link between school principal influence actions,
climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study sought to determine if
the influence of these variables or the relationship among them was altered by individual
99
Review of the Methodology
This study was conducted to determine the dimensionality of school climate and
to investigate the link between school principal influence actions, climate, and school
variables or the relationship among them was altered by individual and/or institutional
characteristics.
This study will be guided by one primary research question: Is the relationship
school climate and/or culture? Three secondary questions are also investigated: Is the
relationship between leader influence actions and school performance moderated by fixed
individual and institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions,
school climate, and school performance moderated by fixed individual and institutional
factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions, school culture, and school
axis factor analysis on aggregated school level data from The Broward Customer Survey.
Summated scales for each construct were then computed for use in other parts of the
study.
factors and outcome was examined by sequentially conducting a series of ordinary least
squares regression analyses. Then, the relationship between the leadership actions, school
culture as defined by Reyes-Guerra (2009), contextual factors and outcome was also
100
analyses. The regression procedures were conducted in order to examine the relationships
depicted in the theoretical framework. Bootstrap resampling was conducted to deal with
non-normality.
This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal influence
actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study sought to
determine if the influence of these variables or the relationship among them is altered by
individual and/or institutional characteristics. This study used multiple quantitative, non-
experimental designs to ascertain the dimensionality of school climate and then explored
the relationships among the leader influence actions, climate variables, culture variables,
The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether or not the
Customer Survey aligned to distinct dimensions. A principal axis factor analysis using
oblique rotation was conducted to answer this question. Based on the results of this
analysis two factors were identified that accounted for 85.96% of the response variation.
The second part of the study used a series of regression models to examine the
relationship among Leadership Actions, School Climate, Culture, Context, and Student
Achievement. This analysis was conducted in two phases. Seven main hypotheses
extracted from the conceptual framework were tested through a series of multiple
regression analyses.
perceived leadership actions of the schools in the study sample. School level was found
to have a significant effect on Managing actions. The mean frequency of perceived use at
101
secondary schools (3.84) was significantly smaller than was seen at elementary schools
(4.17). Because the structure and organization of schools differs considerably at those
levels, this effect may indicate that leadership actions operate in a different way or to a
H2a addressed the extent to which perceived leadership actions had a significant
direct effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. The
analyses did not reveal the presence of any significant direct effects between leadership
influence actions and school performance. Therefore, the null H2a was not rejected.
However, the power available to detect effects in the population was severely limited due
to the small sample size. Had sufficient power been available, an effect may have been
observed. H2b examined whether fixed contextual factors significantly moderated the
relationship between the perceived leadership influence actions and school performance.
The results of these analyses failed to identify any significant moderators of the direct
school principals impacted school performance when mediated by school climate factors.
Transforming influenced staff attitudes and student disruptions and staff attitudes and
student disruptions influenced school performance. The use of transforming actions was
associated with improved staff attitudes, which resulted in a positive association with
school performance. This impact was amplified among younger principals, and
102
attenuated among older principals. Transforming also influenced the attitudes toward
student disruptions and attitudes toward student disruptions negatively influenced school
achievement directly. Moreover, Age was found to significantly, but weakly moderate
the relationship between Transforming leadership influence actions and climate in the
study sample such that the impact of Transforming actions on climate was amplified
among younger principals, and attenuated among older principals. None of the other
leader influence actions was found to have a significant effect directly or indirectly on
achievement.
Fixed contextual variables were also found to moderate the relationship between
school climate and school performance. For instance, Gender was found to significantly
female-led schools when compared to male-led schools at both levels. This was
associated with higher school performance. Additionally, the percent of Minority students
in a school influenced school performance. The higher the percentage the lower the
school performed. Free and Reduced price lunch was also found to have a negative direct
between the leader influence-actions and school climate and between school climate
and school performance, each of the five hypotheses included in H3 was rejected.
103
H4 examined the relationship between leader influence actions, school culture
(i.e., Business and Social Justice), and school performance. Although, four of the five
leader influence actions (i.e., Transforming, Managing, Bridging, and Bartering) were
found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture and all five leaders influence
actions were found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice culture, neither
cultural dimension was found to have a direct effect on school performance. Minority
was also found to moderate the relationship between Transforming and Social Justice. As
the percentage of minority students in the school rose, the potency of Transforming
leader influence actions were found to decrease. Based on these findings, H4a and H4b
were rejected and each of the remaining three sub hypotheses was not rejected.
H5 addressed the extent to which fixed contextual factors had a significant direct
effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. Fixed contextual
factors (Free and Reduced Price Lunch and Minority concentrations) were each found to
have a negative direct effect on school performance. This indicates that as the
concentration of students who are poor and/or minority increases, school performance
tends to decline.
and school performance. Both school Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status and
school level (secondary relative to elementary) were found to depress climate such that
Staff Attitudes declined and Student Disruptions increased. The presence of both effects
indicates that climate serves to mediate the influence of those contextual factors. Based
H7 examined the relationship between fixed contextual factors, school culture, and
104
school performance. School Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status was found to
depress staff perceptions of the extent to which both aspects of culture (i.e., Business and
Social Justice) were present at the school. However, because neither culture dimension
found. Based on this finding, H7a was rejected and H7b was not rejected. Of the 18
null hypotheses tested in this analysis, 12 were rejected and six were not rejected.
Discussion
The questions of what makes principals effective and which principal behaviors
are most consistent with school improvement have sparked substantial scholarly inquiry
that link high quality leadership with positive school outcomes. However, there remains
scant research to guide leaders toward improved student and school performance. As
equipped with the specific actions needed to lead effective organizations. This study
explored the link between school principal influence actions, climate, culture, and school
The study delved into whether there was a relationship between the influence
between leader influence actions and school performance was moderated by individual
105
In this study, Pisapias (2009) five-dimensional theoretical strategic leader
framework was used as the predictor variable. The framework delineates transforming,
managing, bonding, bridging, and bartering actions that leaders can use while directing
organizations in environments.
makers within a short time period of one year or less. Often these refer to technical
variables associated with specific programs such as design, fidelity, and dosage and/or
organizational factors such as administrative support and leadership (Fullan & Pomfret,
1977; Newman et al., 2001). But, institutional factors such as school climate and school
culture have also been shown or have the potential to directly influence student
performance by mediating the relationship between leader influence actions and school
The primary measure of culture used in this study is the Business Survey (Reyes-
Guerra, 2009) designed to represent two major theoretical cultures (i.e., Business and
Social Justice) found in schools. The social justice model (Schein, 2005) is based on a
need to address the inequities found in current society and to address those inequities by
developing social structures to deal with unequal power relationships (Furman &
Gruenewald, 2004). The Business model of school culture promotes the modern
production. The school climate data used in the current study was drawn from the Annual
safety, cleanliness, resources, leadership, support, instruction, and training at their school.
106
Fixed contextual variables are not modifiable through the actions of decision
makers within a short time period. Included are school characteristics such as aggregate
characteristics of the leader such as gender and age. These attributes or characteristics of
a unit of analysis within a research problem can potentially act as confounding variables
in an experiment.
student performance on the statewide assessments. At the time of this study, the grading
Assessment Test. The sum of these eight components referred to as points earned
The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether or not the
Customer Survey aligned to distinct dimensions. Based on the results of this analysis two
factors were identified (i.e. Staff Attitudes and Student Disruptions) that accounted for
patterns of peoples experiences of school life that reflect shared expectations that
support people feeling safe. Purkey & Smith (1983) believed that shared norms and
values permeate the organization and manifest in a culture of high expectations that
would define the ethos of the school. The empirical evidence associates climate with
healthy relationships, engaged teaching and learning, safety, and school improvement
efforts (Cohen et al., 2009; Cohen & Geier, 2010; Thapa et al., 2013). Urdegar (2008)
107
analyzed the Staff Form of the M-DCPS School Climate Survey to operationalize these
and Professionalism. Hanushek, et al. (2004) explored the environmental factors that
drive teacher retention and identified (a) characteristics of the job, (b) alternative job
opportunities, (c) work and family preferences, and (d) district personnel policies.
Newman et al. (2001) also analyzed the various elements of the learning environment to
identify what they called instructional program coherence from among the various
elements of school climate. Although the dimensions of climate were found to differ
depending on what instrument was used, these studies support the notion that climate is
not a one dimensional construct, but is rather a representation of the various facets of the
schools environment.
The second phase of analysis in the study was undertaken to determine the
relationship between leader actions and contextual factors. School level was found to
have a significant effect on Managing actions. The mean frequency of perceived use at
secondary schools was smaller than was seen at elementary schools. Because the
structure and organization of schools differs considerably at those levels, this effect may
have determined leader actions to be influenced by role and context (Yasin, 2006, Reyes-
Guerra, 2009; Pisapia & Lin, 2011; Pisapia & Pang 2011; Pisapia & Pang, 2013). The
findings of this study support the findings of the other studies with regard to the effect of
school level. While contingency theory (Fiedler, 1972) posits that leaders with certain
styles can only be effective in specific situations, path-goal theory (House, 1971),
108
transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004), and strategic leadership (Pisapia,
2009) theorize that the leaders can alter their styles to fit both individuals and context.
Reyes-Guerra (2009) confirmed this latter conception by finding that specific types of
The third phase of the process model examined the relationship among the
Leadership Influence Actions, the dimensions of Climate, Culture, Context, and School
Performance, but Student Disruptions did not significantly mediate the impact of
Transforming on School Performance. These findings have been amply supported in the
literature. For example, Kouzes and Posner (2003) assert that leaders who engage in
transformational behaviors will be more effective than those who do not, regardless of
change school culture. Finally, the empirical research suggests that the influence of
school leaders is more directly associated with school climate and culture which in turn
influence student performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood &
Mascall, 2008).
Transformational leadership influence actions and climate in the study sample such that
principals, and attenuated among older principals. Simonton (1984) examined the
109
relationship between age and leader effectiveness in a longitudinal study of European
absolute monarchs and found that the age of the monarch had a connection with the state
of the nation: As monarchs aged they were less likely to invade other countries, or to
conquer foreign territories, and were more likely to lose territory in battle.
Climate was found to align to two factors labeled Staff Attitudes and Student
and that influence student achievement. Staff Attitudes were found to have a positive
influence on student achievement. This aspect of school climate has also been shown to
promote meaningful student learning, because when students feel safe, cared for,
supported, and gently pushed to learn, their academic progress should increase. Bulach
et al. (1995) found a strong positive correlation between student achievement and school
climate and concluded that school climate was a significant factor in successful school
characteristic of an effective school (Edmonds, 1982; Roach & Kratochwill, 2004; Ross
et al., 2005).
achievement in the present study. About half of responding teachers in one study agreed
that learning was impacted by disruptive student behavior, while over two thirds of
teachers agreed that students were disrespectful and defiant to teachers (Williams, 2009).
Around two-thirds of respondents agreed behavioral standards, and the penalties for
violating them, should be integrated into the curriculum and explicitly taught (Williams,
110
morale. The authors found teacher turnover was highest in high poverty schools and
worst among the inexperienced teachers concentrated there. Such schools were also
associated with a variety of other negative working conditions that included safety and
disciplinary problems.
the climate and the achievement outcomes of schools in the study sample. Gender was
found to significantly moderate the relationship between Student Disruptions and student
into the comparability of performance between men and women in these administrative
roles reveal that women are adopting differing approaches to leadership. Eagly and
colleagues carried out a meta-analysis of studies conducted over twenty-five years and
found that women displayed a tendency toward interpersonal styles and men displayed a
These findings of the present study suggest women may have a propensity toward
adopting school-wide discipline policies that are more geared toward consensus building
and other non-punitive strategies such as token economies, parental involvement, and
may also employ a more participative/ democratic leadership style than men, i.e., have a
more personalized leadership style, and potentially focus greater efforts on core
technologies, whereas men are hypothesized to be more structural and oriented toward
direct management (Lee et al., 1993). Gender was not found to moderate the relationship
111
The relationship between leader influence actions, school culture, and school
performance was also examined. Although, each of the five leader influence actions
except Bonding were found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture and all
five leaders influence actions were found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice
culture. Moreover, Minority was found to diminish the potency of the relationship
between Transforming and Social Justice. However, neither cultural dimension was
thinking and ways of acting that when regularly utilized are reinforced by reward
structures that become the norms of the organization. Newman et al. (2001) identified a
unified attribute of schools associated with positive outcomes for students through the
climate. Reyes-Guerra (2009) studied culture from the position of schools on Business
and Social Justice continua and examined the extent to which these factors were present
and/or developed because of leadership actions. Numerous studies have identified sets of
cultural characteristics related to high performing schools (e.g., Ogbanna & Harris, 2000;
Deal & Peterson, 1990), while other studies have established a relationship between
leadership and cultural change (Stone, 2003; Mees, 2008). However, all of these
conceptions support the notion that cultural changes are realized through changes to
climate resulting from the transmission of shared norms and values (Bolman & Deal,
2006). Changes in the climate of the school resulting from leadership actions may
Free and Reduced price lunch was also found to have a direct effect on climate, as
112
well as indirect effects, through Staff Attitudes and Student Disruptions, on school
performance. Contextual factors (age, gender, and free/reduced price lunch) were found
to have had a significant direct effect on the climate of schools in the study sample and
Minority was found to have a significant direct effect on school grade Points. In high-
poverty schools, concerns about school climate are especially acute. However, high
poverty schools are much less likely than low poverty schools to be perceived as safe by
staff or to feel that the environment is conducive to learning (Horowitz, 2013). The
findings indicated that when teachers perceived their principals behaviors were focused
Limitations
This study examined a small sample of schools that was very restricted in nature.
Because of the small sample, the power to detect all but the largest of effect sizes was
very limited. This limitation extended to the number of simultaneous variables that can be
considered in any regression model that examined the interrelationship among a series of
variables. To compensate for this limitation, the relationships depicted in this study were
analyzed in clusters of three at a time. Because of this limitation, it was not possible to
ascertain the results that would have obtained had all the variables of interest be
exploratory in nature.
leadership influence actions examined in this study. Transforming had a moderate effect
on both school climate factors and the Business factor of school culture, and a strong
effect on the Social Justice factor of school culture. Age was also found to weak-
113
moderately effect the relationship between Transforming and school climate. Although, a
relationship with Age and Transforming actions was identified, this study did not take
School Level had a strong effect on both climate factors and Managing actions,
while Free and reduced price lunch had a moderate influence on both climate and culture
The sample of schools used in this study was not selected at random. Rather,
principals of pre-identified schools were invited to participate in the study. The use of
such a convenience sampling technique limits the external generalizability of the study.
Furthermore, the results of characteristics may be subject to bias, which would not be the
Part of the limitations associated with small samples is the inability to evaluate
evaluated one at a time. Doing so increases the risk of committing Type I errors. To
control for this risk, corrections for multiple comparisons are typically employed. This
The accountability grades of the schools in this study averaged an "A" (i.e., 525
points earned) and, as such, are not typical of schools within the subject county or of
schools in general. Therefore, the results obtained in this study may not generalize to
schools with other levels of performance. Moreover, a school grading system using this
study is a composite of the results from instruments that are unique to the state of Florida.
As such, the results from this study may not generalize to other states.
The primary measure of school climate in this study, the Customer Survey, has
114
not been psychometrically validated. Therefore, it is not clear whether or not the results
Data to conduct this study were based partially on self-report, which may be
prone to social response bias, that results when respondents tend to answer items the way
they feel others would expect them to answer. Acquiescent bias where respondents
choose items that happen to be in the same place within a scale may also occur (Trochim,
2013). Although the SLQ contains controls such as an inconsistency index to reduce the
impact of social response bias, care should be taken when interpreting the results.
Using school level data to estimate individual data runs the risk of committing an
ecological fallacy, which occurs when the results at the group level differ from those
obtained at the individual level (Trochim, 2013). As such, it is possible that the
dimensions that obtain from polling individuals will differ from those obtained by
measuring schools. It is likely that an individual level analysis will result in the
identification of more numerous factors. Moreover, because only variance and covariance
among schools is being considered, the variance among individuals may be far greater
and the individual unit of analysis dimensionality may have be underestimated and/or
The results of the regression procedures are presented in the form of a graphic
diagram that adheres to the relationships depicted in the theoretical framework. This was
done to provide a graphic aid to assist the reader in conceptualizing the results. This
diagram is not to be confused with a path model in which the interrelationships among
models depicted in this study were fitted one at a time, using one predictor and on
115
criterion to evaluate direct effects, one criterion, a predictor, moderator and criterion to
evaluate mediation effects, and one criterion and three predictors to evaluate moderation
effects.
The measure of poverty used in this study was based on eligibility for the federal
free and reduced-price lunch program, which is a categorical designation that does not
capture the gradations of income of the applicants. Furthermore, research has suggested
there is a difference between rural poverty and urban poverty (McLoyd, 1990).
Therefore, the demographic composition of the subject district may make it unique within
the state in which it is situated. Therefore, the results may not be able to be generalized
Implications
The information from this study can be used to suggest relationships between
leadership, climate, and achievement. Leadership can be used as tool to shape school
environment and counteract many of the challenges that present. National trends continue
quality control measures. Based on such analyses, principals can affect the learning and
working environment of schools and make them function better and more harmoniously.
The merits of this study suggest specific implications with regard to policy, principal
selection and techniques. The role of policy- makers lies in the relationship between
mandated policies and the changing role of the principal and teachers. Essentially, the
role of policy- makers is to stay tuned to the ever-changing national trends, which force
schools to operate differently in this era of increased accountability. But due to the small
sample and the inability to address these factors simultaneously, the relationships must be
116
considered exploratory. Future studies should seek to examine these factors at the same
time. Additionally, although, a relationship with Age and Transforming actions was
identified, this study did not take into account the effect tenure, or years at current school,
inquiry over time. The findings suggest that there are effective ways to lead and that
This study explored how leadership actions influenced climate, which in turn
influenced student achievement and examined how contextual factors moderated the
relationship between them. This study also explored how leadership actions influenced
culture, which in turn influenced student achievement and examined how contextual
factors moderated the relationship between them. Student achievement was theorized to
be dependent upon leadership actions, which were posited to separately work through
school culture and climate. Further, the relationship between leadership and climate;
leadership and achievement; and climate and achievement and the relationship between
leadership and culture; and culture and achievement were all modeled as being influenced
by contextual (i.e., individual and institutional) variables. Factor analyses were used to
separately identify patterns within climate. Finally, the school level relationships
between the school grade points, contextual factors, climate dimensions, culture
analyses.
117
Conclusions
1. Climate was found to align to two factors labeled Staff Attitudes and Student
Disruptions suggesting that the school environment is comprised of at least two separate
dimensions that operate independently. Staff Attitudes were found to have a positive
directly. This suggests that leaders who engage in transformational behaviors will be
leadership influence actions and climate in the study sample such that the impact of
attenuated among older principals. Although, a relationship with age and transforming
actions was identified, this study did not take into account the effect tenure, or years at
3. Business and Social Justice Culture as defined by Reyes Guerra (2009) were
each found to be influenced by most of the leadership influence actions. Although, higher
Transforming and Social Justice, culture was not found to influence student achievement.
Although, culture has been shown to influence organizational outcomes, (Bolman &
Deal, 2003), suggest that culture is deeply ingrained and may take a long time to modify.
118
As such the effects of changes to culture may not have been sufficient to affect student
and Student Achievement in this study. Although this study is exploratory, due to small
sample size, the results may indicate that schools led by female principals have their
school performance reduced less by Student Disruptions than schools led by male
principals.
Recommendations
This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal
influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study
sought to determine if the influence of these variables or the relationship among them is
influence actions during the performance of their professional duties due to their
demonstrated positive impact on the staff morale and attitudes, and on safety and
principals, perhaps preference should be given to younger candidates, given the evidence
that they are able to use Transforming actions more often in this study.
Finally, future research efforts should be conducted to understand the reason the
female principals are more successful at lessening the impact of student discipline and
119
APPENDICES
120
Appendix A: Dimensions of Climate
The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether the Customer
Survey exhibited patterns or was instead one-dimensional. The sample for this portion of
the study was comprised of the 213 schools that were administered the climate survey
during the time of the study. The source of data was a report that delineated for each
school the percentage of respondent staff that selected each of the five possible response
options. A total of three schools did not respond to the survey and 13 were removed from
the sample, as they were not considered typical for the goals of the study, e.g., Primary
Learning Centers, Alternative Centers, ESE and Vocational Centers, as were 8 items
designed for specific types of schools. As the recoded response options adhered to a five
point Likert-type scale format that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). An additional response option was provided for a Dont Know response, which
121
Table A1
Distribution of Missing Responses to Customer Survey by Item
Percentiles
Item 50 75 90 95 Maximum
1 -- -- -- -- 2.50
2 -- -- -- -- 3.57
3 -- -- -- 1.68 14.61
4 -- -- -- 1.35 3.23
5 -- -- -- 0.75 3.70
6 -- -- -- -- 2.50
7 -- -- -- -- 2.50
8 -- -- -- 1.10 2.50
9 -- -- -- -- 2.50
10 -- -- 1.91 2.50 4.20
11 -- -- -- -- 2.56
12 -- -- -- -- 2.50
13 -- -- 2.27 3.35 6.25
14 -- 1.92 3.13 4.06 7.89
15 -- 1.10 2.50 3.34 8.00
16 -- -- 1.95 2.65 7.61
17 -- -- -- 0.27 6.67
18 -- -- 1.06 2.13 5.41
19 -- -- 0.84 1.81 9.89
20 -- -- -- 1.66 5.41
21 -- -- -- 1.27 2.50
22 -- -- -- 1.69 5.00
23 11.54 16.16 21.65 23.22 37.25
24 12.22 18.39 22.30 25.00 34.75
25 -- 0.97 2.26 2.86 6.67
26 -- -- -- 1.41 5.26
27 -- 1.55 2.68 3.33 7.41
28 -- -- -- -- 3.23
29 -- -- -- -- 2.70
30 -- 3.02 5.26 6.38 9.32
31 1.35 3.64 5.24 6.67 17.78
32 -- 2.00 2.94 3.45 6.45
33 -- -- 2.16 2.70 7.69
34 -- 1.57 2.56 3.49 6.38
35 -- 2.21 3.68 5.18 14.44
37 -- 1.95 3.38 3.87 8.33
43
Note. Cells with zero percent missing are displayed as dashed.
122
Table A1 shows that percentage of missing items is relatively small with the exception of
items 23 and 24, which are uncharacteristically large and a follow-up analysis revealed
that this difference did not vary with school level. This suggests that respondents were
either confused or uncomfortable with the specific items at all school levels. Therefore,
caution should be exercised when attempting to interpret the results from these items. See
Table A2.
Table A2
Customer Survey Item Means
Item Item Stem M SD Min Max
No.
Q1 I believe all students can succeed. 4.61 0.17 4.03 4.93
The school provides adequate resources for me to teach my
Q2 students. 4.18 0.40 2.94 4.93
Q3 I inform parents of their childrens progress regularly. 4.52 0.25 3.31 4.95
Q4 I regularly inform students of their progress. 4.66 0.15 4.00 4.97
Q5 I explain material to each student in a way they will understand. 4.69 0.14 4.26 4.98
Q6 I treat all my students with fairness. 4.83 0.09 4.52 5.00
Q7 My students show me respect. 4.27 0.24 3.56 4.82
4.36
The students are safe at school.
Q8 0.41 2.94 4.96
Q9 I feel safe at my school. 4.40 0.36 3.00 4.98
Q10 Rules are applied fairly to students at my school. 3.89 0.47 2.33 4.91
Q11 I am proud of my school. 4.41 0.38 2.94 5.00
Q12 My school is kept clean and in good condition. 4.19 0.42 2.64 4.92
Students and parents have access to an adult at school to discuss
Q13 problems. 4.46 0.26 3.20 5.00
Q14 I give challenging homework assignments. 4.16 0.25 2.79 4.68
Q15 Students have access to the Guidance Counselor at my school. 4.24 0.39 1.65 4.92
Q16 Parents share in the academic responsibility of students. 3.55 0.50 2.33 4.60
Q17 I respond quickly to parents requests. 4.60 0.16 3.90 4.95
Q18 The principal at my school responds to my concerns. 4.29 0.38 2.94 4.93
I can rely on parents to assist with students behavioral or
Q19 academic issues. 3.45 0.44 2.33 4.39
Q20 The principal does an effective job of running my school. 4.23 0.45 2.72 4.96
Q21 Administrators are highly visible throughout my school. 4.30 0.39 3.19 4.95
Q22 I am aware of the purposes and goals of my school. 4.51 0.25 3.50 5.00
Q23 Students bring drugs or alcohol to school. 1.72 0.62 0.96 3.26
Q24 Students carry weapons at this school. 1.62 0.44 0.97 3.07
Q25 Students bear responsibility for what they learn. 3.64 0.36 2.63 4.55
Staff Development I have received has made me a better
Q26 teacher. 4.17 0.29 3.30 4.75
Q27 My input on school decisions is solicited and valued. 3.78 0.40 2.33 4.72
123
Table A2 continued
Q28 I am satisfied with the learning environment at my school. 4.02 0.47 2.65 4.83
Q29 I am satisfied with the working conditions at my school. 4.02 0.42 2.65 4.85
Q30 All students are accepted and feel like they belong at this school. 4.04 0.44 2.83 4.83
Adequate after-school programs/activities are provided at my
Q31 school. 4.05 0.49 1.94 4.88
This year, I have discussed my students recent test scores with
Q32 faculty. 4.14 0.27 3.23 4.72
Q33 Students have access to computers/technology at my school. 4.04 0.41 2.74 5.00
I have taught my students how to use technology to do
Q34 schoolwork. 4.10 0.26 3.41 4.66
The school contacts parents when behavior problems occur at
Q35 school. 4.24 0.32 3.24 5.00
Q36 This year, staff has assisted my students in selecting High Level 3.80 0.43 2.27 4.60
courses.
I have used the BEEP Web site to plan activities for my
Q37 students this year. 2.85 0.59 1.18 4.13
Q43 Students at school bully one another. 2.86 0.56 1.15 4.13
An examination of the distribution of the items in the able shows a restriction in the range
individual attitude. Furthermore, the items are skewed indicating that there was a
average value was created for each school. Because only variance and covariance among
schools was considered, the variance among individuals could be greater and the
individual unit of analysis dimensionality may have been underestimated (Morris, 2014,
personal communication). Using school level data to estimate individual data runs the
risk of committing an ecological fallacy, which occurs when the results at the group level
differ from those obtained at the individual level (Trochim, 2013). Proportional
weighting also treats all schools the same regardless of size, which would not be the case
if responses were analyzed individually. The responses were not weighted to account for
assuming that all respondents answered in exactly the same way. However, if the
124
responses had been weighted, a different structure may have emerged. Finally, the bulk of
the school level means appear to be very positive due to social response bias. Such
attenuated variance severely limits what you can find with factor analysis. To minimize
against those obtained in other studies that use individual data. Therefore any dimensions
that emerge must be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, this was done to determine
how climate should best be represented because it could not be assumed that climate even
when estimated using school as the unit of analysis, could be assumed to be was one-
dimensional.
A principal axis factor analysis was then used to ascertain the structure
empirically manifested by the recoded responses to the survey items that resulted. The
communalities were estimated from iterated squared multiple correlation estimates. The
Scree plot was used as the factor extraction criterion. A Direct Oblimin rotation was used
to orient the pattern matrix that reproduced the items from the factors and to aid in the
statistically significant factor loadings were present on two or more factors unless the
strongest factor loading was twice the magnitude of the next strongest factor loading for
that item. No cross-loaded items were identified. The factors were then interpreted by
The data in the residual correlation matrix reveals that only 9.0% (n=63) of the
residuals are statistically significant (p < .05). The presence of both low and high
125
the correlation matrix is 8.02 x 10-41 indicating that many of the items approximate linear
Bartletts Test of Sphericity which tests the null hypothesis that the correlation
matrix is an identity matrix, was statistically significant, 2 (666, N=213) = 19,649.62, p <
.00. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) for all of the items
was meritorious. Overall, the MSA for the dataset was .97, which is more than adequate
for factor analysis. Examination of the Scree plot yielded a two-factor solution. Table A3
presents the communalities and rotated factor-pattern-matrix for the factor solution.
Table A3
Factor Pattern Matrix for the Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Items Comprising the
Customer Survey Conducted on the Sample of all Broward County Public Schools a
Loadings
No. Item a Cb 1 2
1. Staff Attitudes
Q22 I am aware of the purposes and goals my school. .98 .98 .07
Q11 I am proud of my school. .97 .97 -.11
Q9 I feel safe at my school. .99 .97 -.13
Q8 The students are safe at school. .99 .96 -.21
Q7 My students show me respect. .98 .95 .05
Q28 I am satisfied with the learning environment at my school. .98 .95 -.28
Q29 I am satisfied with the working conditions at my school. .97 .95 -.17
Q18 The principal at my school responds to my concerns. .98 .94 -.03
Q30 All students are accepted and feel like they belong at this school. .96 .94 -.26
Q2 The school provides adequate resources for me to teach my students. .94 .94 -.09
Q13 Students and parents have access to an adult at school to discuss problems. .97 .94 .16
Q25 Students bear responsibility for what they learn. .94 .93 -.17
Q5 I explain material to each student in a way they will understand. .99 .93 .23
Q26 Staff Development I have received has made me a better teacher. .94 .93 .05
Q3 I inform parents of their childrens progress regularly. .97 .93 .12
Q4 I regularly inform students of their progress. .99 .93 .25
Q17 I respond quickly to parents requests. .98 .93 .24
Q27 My input on school decisions is solicited and valued. .96 .93 -.13
Q20 The principal does an effective job of running my school. .97 .92 -.11
Q21 Administrators are highly visible throughout my school. .93 .92 -.04
Q1 I believe all student scan succeed. .97 .92 .23
Q10 Rules are applied fairly to students at my school. .93 .92 -.27
Q34 I have taught my students how to use technology to do schoolwork. .94 .92 .14
Q35 The school contacts parents when behavior problems occur at school. .92 .91 .10
Q6 I treat all my students with fairness. .99 .91 .31
Q14 I give challenging homework assignments. .93 .89 .19
Q32 This year, I have discussed my students recent test scores with faculty. .88 .88 .21
Q19 I can rely on parents to assist with students behavioral or academic issues .96 .88 -.24
126
Table A3 continued
The communalities represent the proportion of each items variance that is held in
common with the other variables. The internal consistency of the scales of .99 (Factor 1)
and .87 (Factor 2) was more than adequate for a psychometric instrument.
Extraction communalities are those that result from the truncated factor matrix
with the initial communality estimates substituted for the diagonal elements (Gorsuch,
18.94% (n = 94) of the cells in the residual correlation matrix (not shown) had values in
excess of .05. The percent of variance explained by this solution, 85.96% of the variance
in the dataset, indicates that extraction of the two factors represented the acceptable
solution for both exploratory and social science research (Hair et al., 1998).
The first factor, comprised of items that addressed Staff Attitudes toward the
school, accounted for the vast amount (76.88%) of the variation among the respondents.
The second factor, comprised of items that Student Disruptions at the school, accounted
for the greatest amount of residual variance that remained after the first factor was
extracted, and explained 9.08% of the total variance in the dataset. The inter-factor
127
correlation of .08 represents a weak effect size according to Cohens (1988) classification
for the Pearson correlation coefficient. Because this overlap represents such a negligible
proportion of the variance in either factor, the factors may be considered to be distinct.
128
Appendix B: Hayes Sobel Macro for Testing a Simple Mediation Effect
129
compute btnp = btn+1.
end if.
compute res=make(btnp,1,0).
compute varord = !varord.
do if (varord <> 1).
compute varord = 2.
end if.
compute ovals = ncol(design(dd(:,1))).
do if (ovals = 2).
compute omx = cmax(dd(:,1)).
compute omn = cmin(dd(:,1)).
compute dd(:,1) = (dd(:,1) = omx).
compute rcd = {omn, 0; omx, 1}.
end if.
compute dat = dd.
130
compute converrb = 0.
end if.
/* if Y is dichotomous */.
do if (ovals = 2).
compute pt1 = make(n,1,0.5).
compute bt1 = make(ncol(xzo),1,0).
compute LL1 = 0.
loop jjj = 1 to !iterate.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byzx2 = bt1+inv(t(xzo)*vt1*xzo)*t(xzo)*(y-pt1).
compute pt1 = 1/(1+exp(-(xzo*byzx2))).
compute LL = y&*ln(pt1)+(1-y)&*ln(1-pt1).
compute LL2 = -2*csum(ll).
do if (abs(LL1-LL2) < !converge).
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byzx = byzx2(3,1).
compute byxz = byzx2(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xzo)*vt1*xzo).
compute selgb = sqrt(diag(covb)).
break.
end if.
compute bt1 = byzx2.
compute LL1 = LL2.
end loop.
do if (jjj > !iterate).
do if (#j > 1).
compute converrb = 1.
else if (#j = 1).
compute converre = 1.
end if.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byzx = byzx2(3,1).
compute byxz = byzx2(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xzo)*vt1*xzo).
compute selgb = sqrt(diag(covb)).
end if.
end if.
compute ind = bzx*byzx.
compute res(#j,1) = ind.
/* GENERATE STATISTICS FOR BARON AND KENNY AND NORMAL SOBEL SECTION OF OUTPUT */.
do if (#j = 1).
compute sd = sqrt(((n*cssq(dat))-(csum(dat)&**2))/((n-1)*n)).
compute num = (n*sscp(dat)-(transpos(csum(dat))*(csum(dat)))).
compute den = sqrt(transpos((n*cssq(dat))-(csum(dat)&**2))*((n*cssq(dat))-
(csum(dat)&**2))).
compute r = num&/den.
compute sdbzx = (sd(1,3)/sd(1,2))*sqrt((1-(r(3,2)*r(3,2)))/(n-2)).
compute ryi = r(2:3,1).
compute rii = r(2:3,2:3).
compute bi=inv(rii)*ryi.
compute rsq = t(ryi)*bi.
compute sec=sqrt((1-rsq)/(n-3))*sqrt(1/(1-(r(3,2)*r(3,2)))).
compute sdyzx = (sd(1,1)/sd(1,3))*sec.
compute sdyxz = (sd(1,1)/sd(1,2))*sec.
compute byx = r(2,1)*sd(1,1)/sd(1,2).
compute sebyx = (sd(1,1)/sd(1,2))*sqrt((1-(r(2,1)*r(2,1)))/(n-2)).
compute amx = mndd(1,3)-(bzx*mndd(1,2)).
compute msres = (z-(amx+bzx*x))&*(z-(amx+bzx*x)).
compute msres = csum(msres)/(n-2).
do if (!effsize = 1).
compute eff = make(btnp,5,-999).
compute r2my = r(3,1)*r(3,1).
compute r2xy = r(2,1)*r(2,1).
compute r245 = r2my-(rsq-r2xy).
compute r245o = r245.
compute pm = ind/byx.
131
compute rm = ind/byxz.
compute abps = ind/sd(1,1).
compute abcs = abps*sd(1,2).
end if.
do if (ovals = 2).
compute sdyzx = selgb(3,1).
compute sdyxz = selgb(2,1).
compute xo = {con,x}.
compute pt1 = make(n,1,0.5).
compute bt1 = make(ncol(xo),1,0).
compute ll1 = 0.
loop jjj = 1 to !iterate.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byx = bt1+inv(t(xo)*vt1*xo)*t(xo)*(y-pt1).
compute pt1 = 1/(1+exp(-(xo*byx))).
compute LL = y&*ln(pt1)+(1-y)&*ln(1-pt1).
compute LL2 = -2*csum(ll).
do if (abs(LL1-LL2) < !converge).
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byx = byx(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xo)*vt1*xo).
compute sebyx = sqrt(diag(covb)).
compute sebyx = sebyx(2,1).
break.
end if.
compute bt1 = byx.
compute LL1 = LL2.
end loop.
do if (jjj > !iterate).
compute converre = 1.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byx = byx(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xo)*vt1*xo).
compute sebyx = sqrt(diag(covb)).
compute sebyx = sebyx(2,1).
end if.
end if.
compute seind = sqrt(((byzx*byzx)*(sdbzx*sdbzx))+((bzx*bzx)*(sdyzx*sdyzx))+
((sdbzx*sdbzx)*(sdyzx*sdyzx))).
do if (varord = 1).
compute seind = sqrt(((byzx*byzx)*(sdbzx*sdbzx))+((bzx*bzx)*(sdyzx*sdyzx))).
end if.
compute se = {sebyx; sdbzx; sdyzx; sdyxz}.
compute bb = {byx; bzx; byzx; byxz}.
compute tt = bb&/se.
compute p =2*(1-tcdf(abs(tt),n-2)).
compute p(3,1)=2*(1-tcdf(abs(tt(3,1)),n-3)).
compute p(4,1)=2*(1-tcdf(abs(tt(4,1)),n-3)).
compute tst = ind/seind.
compute bw = {bb,se,tt,p}.
compute p2=2*(1-cdfnorm(abs(tst))).
compute LL95 = ind-1.96*seind.
compute UL95=ind+1.96*seind.
compute byxstd = byx*sqrt(1+(((byzx*byzx)*msres)/((3.14159265*3.14159265)/3))).
compute op={ind, seind, LL95,UL95, tst, p2}.
end if.
do if (!effsize = 1 and !boot > 999 and ovals <> 2).
compute eff(#j,3) = r245.
compute eff(#j,2) = ind/byxz.
compute eff(#j,1) = ind/cpath.
compute eff(#j,4) = ind/vr(1,1).
compute eff(#j,5) = ind*vr(2,1)/vr(1,1).
end if.
end loop.
/* END OF BOOTSTRAPPING LOOP */.
132
compute res10 = res((2:nrow(res)),1).
save res10/outfile = bootstrp.sav/variables = bootstrp.
end if.
/* COMPUTE MEAN AND STANDARD DEV OF INDIRECT EFFECT ACROSS BOOTSTRAP SAMPLES */.
133
loop #j = 1 to 6.
compute cimat(#j,1) = res((.005*btn),#j).
compute cimat(#j,2) = res((.025*btn),#j).
compute cimat(#j,3) = res((1+.975*btn),#j).
compute cimat(#j,4) = res((1+.995*btn),#j).
end loop.
compute effsz = {effsz, cimat}.
end if.
print effsz/title = "POINT AND INTERVAL ESTIMATES OF EFFECT SIZE FOR INDIRECT
EFFECT"/rlabels = "ab" "P_m" "R_m" "R2_45" "ab_ps" "ab_cs"
/clabels = "Data" "Mean" "s.e." "LL99CI" "LL95CI" "UL95CI" "UL99CI"/format F9.4.
end if.
end if.
print/title = "********************************* NOTES
**********************************".
do if (ovals = 2 and converre = 0).
print/title = "Model coefficients involving the binary outcome are logistic regression
coefficients.".
compute nm = {nms(1,1), "Analysis"}.
print rcd/title = "Coding of binary Y for analysis:"/cnames = nm/format = F9.2.
do if (ovals = 2 and !effsize = 1).
print /title = "Effect size estimates not available for models with dichotomous
outcomes.".
end if.
end if.
do if (converre = 1).
print/title = "Convergence error in estimation of binary logistic model. Try adjusting
iteration criteria.".
end if.
do if (converrb = 1 and converre <> 1 and !boot > 0).
print/title = "At least one convergence failure while bootstrapping, so bootstrap output
is suppressed.".
end if.
do if (bdbp > 0).
print bdbp/title = "Bootstrap samples replaced due to singularity or constants after
resampling:".
end if.
end if.
do if (daterr = 1).
print/title = "ERROR: Insufficient data for analysis. There are too few cases in your
data file.".
else if (daterr = 2).
print/title = "ERROR: One of the variables in the model is constant.".
else if (daterr = 3).
print/title = "ERROR: M is a perfect function of X".
else if (daterr = 4).
print/title = "ERROR: There is no variance in M, or M is dichotomous".
end if.
do if (!boot < 1000 and daterr = 0).
print/title = "Bootstrap confidence intervals are preferred to the Sobel test for
inference about indirect effects.".
print/title = "See Hayes, A.F.(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation
analysis in the new millennium.".
print/title = "Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.".
end if.
END MATRIX.
RESTORE.
!ENDDEFINE.
134
REFERENCES
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
edition manual and sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bailey, F. G. (1988). Humbuggery and Manipulation: The Art of Leadership. Ithaca, NY:
Bantel, K. A & Jackson, S.E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does
Journal Special Issue: Strategic Leaders and Leadership of School. 10(S1), 107-
124.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
135
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm
130139.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leadership: The strategies for taking charge. New
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blas, J., & Blas, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers perspective on
Blatt, D. A. (2002). A study to determine the relationship between the leadership styles of
Boal, K. B. (2004). Strategic Leadership. In G.R. Goethals, J.M. Burns & G.J. Sorenson
136
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2006). The wizard and the warrior: Leading with passion
Borman, K., & Lee, R. G. (2003, August). Floridas A+ Plan: Education Reform Policies
and Student Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p107833_index.html
Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high
Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979) School
systems and student achievement: Schools make a difference. New York, NY:
Bulach, C., Malone, B., & Castleman, C. (1995). An investigation of variables related to
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between
47(6), 766-790.
Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: A science for sustainable living. New York,
137
Carpenter, M. A. & Frederickson J. W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic
44 (3), 533-545.
Chirichello, M. P. (1997). A study of the preferred leadership styles of principals, and the
Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J.E. (2009). School Principals and School
Institute.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Cohen, J., Fege, A., & Pickeral, T. (2009). Measuring and improving school climate: A
strategy that recognizes, honors and promotes social, emotional and civic learning
the foundation for love, work and engaged citizenry. Teachers College Record,
Cohen, J., & Geier, V. K. (2010). School climate research summary: January
http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/SCBrief_v1n1_Jan2010.pdf
138
Coral, M. & Castle, J. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals.
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and
Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys
Deal, T. E., & Peterson K. D. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P.
Dewey, J. (1933) How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San
139
Eagly, A. H, Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003).Transformational,
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
Eisenhardt, K. M., & L. J. Bourgeois III. (1988). Building theories from case study
Ekvall, G., & Ryhammer, L. (1999). The creative climate: Its determinants and
310.
Elenkov, D., & Manev, I. (2005). Top management leadership and influence on
402.
Fazzino, T. (2012). The relationship between principal strategic leadership profiles and
140
Fiedler, F. E. (1972). The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency
17(4), 453470.
http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0607/2007SchoolGradesTAP.pdf.
Fowler, W. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes.
French, J. P. R., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A.
Froman, T. (2009). School climate factors, 2008-09 (Research Brief No. 0807) Retrieved
http://drs.dadeschools.net/ResearchBriefs/RB0807.pdf.
Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United
335-397.
141
Furman, G. C., & Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice:
76.
Goldring, E., Huff, J., May, H., & Camburn, E. (2008). School context and individual
Goldring, E. B., & Pasternak, R. (1994). Principals coordinating strategies and school
Goldstein, J. A., Hazy, J. K., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010). Complexity and the nexus of
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
423451.
Gruenert, S., & Valentine, J. (1998). School climate survey. Columbia, MO: Middle
142
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th
33(3), 329-351.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996a). The principals role in school effectiveness: An
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996b). Reassessing the principals role in school
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principals contribution to school
191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
143
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing the instructional leadership
NY: Macmillan.
Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago, IL:
144
Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. (2005). Executive job demands: New
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflec-
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004).The revolving door: A path-
breaking study in Texas reveals that working conditions matter more than salary.
sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html.
University Press.
University.
Hill, L. A. (2007). Becoming the boss. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 48-57.
Horowitz, A. (2013). In high- poverty schools, principals are key to a positive climate for
teaching and learning. Retrieved from the Educational Trust Web site at:
http://www.edtrust.org/dc/presgs-room/news/in-high-poverty-schools-principals-
145
are-key-to-a-positive-climate-for-teaching-and.
House, R. J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
Lexington Press.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research, and
Hoy, W. K. & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools. Thousand
Hoy, W., Tarter, C., & Bliss, F. (1990). School characteristics and faculty trust in
Hurst, D., Rush, J., & White, R. (1989). Top management teams and organizational
146
Institute for School Improvement. (2006). Examining the relationship between school
climate and student achievement (Research Brief). Retrieved from Missouri State
University website:
http://education.missouristate.edu/assets/isi/SchoolClimateBrief.pdf
35(4), 312-331.
Leeds.
website: http://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm#DD.
Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The leadership mystique: A users manual for the human
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lane, B. (1992). Cultural leaders in effective schools: The builders and brokers of
Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Cioci, M. (1993). Teachers and principals: Gender related
147
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership and educational accountability, International
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The
44, 496-528.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Silins, H., & Dart, B. (1993). Using the appraisal of school
68, 85-109.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
Leithwood, K., Riedlinger, B., Bauer, S., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Leadership program effects
on student learning: The case of the greater New Orleans school leadership center.
148
Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
http://www.sisd.net/cms/lib/TX01001452/Centricity/Domain/33/ReviewofResear
ch-LearningFromLeadership.pdf
Leithwood, K. & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school
Lichtenstein, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orten, J. D., & Schreiber, C.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Allieger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the developments of
222.
149
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Student perceptions of school culture and
http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC/IRC_2004/Papers/IRC2004_Marco
ulides_Heck_etal.pdf
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
Martins E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates
74.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
Development.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful
executives get derailed (Technical Report No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
150
McLean, D. V. (2006). The relationship between school climate and school performance
3212897).
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children:
Development, 61(1).
Mees, G. W. (2008). The relationship among principal leadership, school culture, and
Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., & Gaddis, B. (2003). How creative leaders think:
http://www.schoolclimate.org/about/council.php
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
151
Newman, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect
Newman, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program
Nye, B., Konstantopolous, S., & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?
Ogbanna, E., & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and
Oliva, M., & Anderson, G. L. (2006). Dilemmas and lessons: The continuing leadership
challenge for social justice. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for
Education.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate.
organizational psychology (12, pp. 565-593). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Pang., N. S. K., & Pisapia, J. (2012). The strategic thinking skills of Hong Kong school
40, 343.
152
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 118). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Penney, G. (2010). The use of strategic thinking skills and technology tools by Fire
Raton, FL.
(Education Policy Studies Series No. 61). The Hong Kong Institute of
Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader. Charlotte, NC; Information Age Press.
Pisapia, J. (2014). The fabric of leadership (Working paper). Florida Atlantic University.
Pisapia, J., & Lin. Y. (2011). Leader values and actions: An exploratory study of school
387.
Pisapia, J., & Pang, N. (2011, December). Influence actions of school principals in Hong
Kong, Mainland China, and the United States: A cross-cultural perspective. Paper
Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Pisapia, J., & Pang, N. S. K. (2013). Influence actions of school principals in Hong Kong,
153
Pisapia, J., Pang, N. S. K., Hee, T. H., Lin, Y., & Morris, J. D. (2009). A comparison of
the use of strategic thinking skills of aspiring school leaders in Hong Kong,
Pisapia, J., & Reyes-Guerra, D. (2009). The Strategic Leader Questionnaire v3 (SLQ).
Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D., & Coukos-Semmel, E. (2005). Developing the leaders
strategic mindset: Establishing the measures. The Leadership Review, 5(1), 41-68.
Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D., & Yasin, M., (2006, April). Successful thinkers do think
142.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review [Electronic version].
Raghavan, S., Shukla, A., & Shaid, S. (2010). Strategic thinking and its impact on
154
Remondini, B. (2001). Leadership style and school climate: A comparison between
Roach, A. T., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2004). Evaluating school climate and school culture.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to
Ross, S. M., McDonald, A. J., Alberg, M., McSparrin-Gallagher, B., & Calloway, F.
(2005, April). Urban school reform: Achievement and school climate outcomes
for the Knowledge Is Power program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
from http://crep.memphis.edu/web/research/pubAERA%2005%20KIPP.pdf
Rubio, J. J. (1999). A descriptive study of principal leadership style and social system
155
Sackney, L. (1988). Enhancing school learning climate: Theory, research and practice
U.of S. (Research Report No. 180). Retrieved from SSTA Research Centre
website: http://www.saskschoolboards.ca/research/school_improvement/180.htm
Salfi, N. A., & Saeed, M. (2007). Relationship among school size, school culture and
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: JosseyBass.
Quarterly, 351-365.
Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
156
Senge, P. M., & Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning:
Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. In T.A.
Silins, H. C., & Murray-Harvey, R. (1999). What makes a good senior secondary school?
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Sims, C. E. (2005). The effects of principals leadership practices on school climate and
Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis
157
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Tableman, B., & Herron, A. (2004, December). School climate and learning. (Issue
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-DAlessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
65-80.
Uurluolu, . U., elik, Y., & Pisapia, J. (2010). Strategic leader actions related to
158
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:
Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership
http://digitool.fcla.edu/R/SU6Q63163683941MCQGKSUDPRAIDYL3INHCND
CCGBM7XJV63VL00957?func=dbinjumpfull&object_id=77653&local_base=G
EN01&pds_handle=GUEST
U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). A nation at risk [Archived report]. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
records/groups/012.html#12.2.12
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
159
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years
Education.
Williams, M. G., (2009). Student behavior and its impact on climate (Doctoral
Yasin, M. (2006). The use of strategic leadership actions by deans in Malaysian and
University, 2006).
Yukl, G., Fu, P. P., & McDonald, R. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in perceived
Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations.
Psychologists Press.
160
Zsiga, P. (2008). Leader effectiveness from self-directed learning and strategic thinking.
161