Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Since 1982) Global Website: www.nationalforum.com

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
VOLUME 26, NUMBERS 1 & 2, 2013
55
An Identification of the Most Preferred Dispositions of Effective
School Leaders
Reginald Leon Green, EdD
Professor
University of Memphis
Tonya Cooper
Principal
Memphis City Schools
Doctoral Student
University of Memphis
______________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to identify dispositions describing effective leaders most
frequently appearing in the literature and to determine those dispositions that leaders of today’s
schools believe to be most preferred in the leadership of their schools. The research was
conducted in three phases. In Phase One, the researchers selected 49 dispositions frequently
appearing in the literature as descriptors of effective school leaders. In Phase Two, a population
of 123 school leaders was surveyed to determine their preferred dispositions from among the 49
in the literature. Sixteen (16) dispositions were selected during the second phase. To reduce the
16 dispositions to a manageable number, during Phase Three,51 school leaders serving in a
school district in the Southeastern United States were asked to rank the16dispositionsin the order
they most preferred. The outcome was the identification of 6dispositions that are representative
of those most preferred by leaders of today’s schools: vision, integrity, character, trust, ethics,
and communication.
Keywords: dispositions, dispositions of effective school leaders, leaders in today’s
schools, effective school leaders
______________________________________________________________________________
Over the past century, American public educators have engaged in a number of reform
movements.Notwithstanding the number of educational reforms that have been implemented, a
large number of students remain classified as underperforming. Consequently, in America’s
schools, there are achievement gaps between groups of students. Even in the highest performing
schools, achievement gaps exist, and the challenge of closing those gaps remains problematic.
It is clearly evident that changes have occurred in society. To keep up with those
changes, change has to occur in schools. Now, more than ever before, the leadership of schools
is being questioned, and the hard questions being asked address the performance of schools and
student achievement.

REGINALD LEON GREEN and TONYA COOPER
56
Individuals who criticize the current educational system argue that a change is needed in
the leadership of schools. Therefore, the major focus of the current reform movement has shifted
to the role of the principal (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009). Principals are being asked to
become instructional leaders, responsible for the effectiveness of the school, as well as the
academic achievement of all students in attendance (Clifford & Ross, 2011; Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2008; Lashway, 2002).
Part of the process of instructional leadership is the monitoring and supervision of
teachers. There is growing agreement among researchers that the school leader is best positioned
to ensure that teaching and learning occur throughout the school, only second to teachers who
have the most immediate effect on student success (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Green, 2009;
Hobson-Horton, Green, & Duncan, 2009; Waters & Grubb, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2003).
The shift in the role of higher accountability for the principal as instructional leader has
placed greater demands on teachers as principals are observing teachers to ensure that they
improve student performance. In addition, the public is demanding more information about the
effect individual teachers have on student learning (Consortium on Chicago School Research,
2010). Teachers make up the largest portion of the professional body in a school, have most
contact with students throughout the day, and influence the environment of the
school.Consequently, principals have raised the evaluation level of teachers, requiring them to
increase their effectiveness. The issue of teacher effectiveness has become a federal and state
priority and a major topic of debate across the country (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Southern
Regional Education Board, 2011).Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that to enhance
teacher effectiveness, the relationship between teachers and principals must be enhanced. In fact,
the most successful teachers may be the ones inspired by their relationship with their principal
(Edgerson &Kritsonis, 2006).
Review of the Literature
Research studies have revealed that to be effective in structuring the school for effective
teaching and learning, principals must support teachers and establish and maintain positive
relationships with them. According to Barth (2006), the nature of the relationships between
teachers and principals has a greater influence on the culture of the school and student
achievement than any other elements affiliated with the school. If the relationships between
principals and teachers are trusting, helpful, and cooperative, then the relationships between
teachers and students, between students and students, and between teachers and parents, are
likely to be the same (Barth, 2006; Green, 2010). Principals have the ability to improve teacher
perceptions overall by simply attending to fundamental components inherent in quality
relationships. As teachers begin to feel better about themselves and what they do as a result of
significant interactions with their principals, they become more effective in the classroom
(Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006). The quality of support teachers receive from principals is
associated with their job satisfaction (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008; Markow &
Martin, 2005). To that end, functioning in their role as instructional leaders, principals are well
advised to support teachers and develop and maintain positive relationships with them.When
teachers feel positively about their position, they have a positive influence on students and the
school. The reverse is also true; when teachers have negative feelings about their positions, they

57
may negatively impact students and the school (Edgerson &Kritsonis, 2006).
A critical factor, however, is lacking in this new reform movement, namely the
disposition of the principal and its influence on his/her relationship with teachers and school
effectiveness. The disposition of the principal is embedded in his or her behavior. It is the
manner in which he/she conducts him/herself; the manner in which he/she responds to events
that occur in the environment,and his/her actions or reactions to external or internal situations
(Green, 2013).The disposition of the principal is a combination of his/her beliefs, values, and
attitudes, and those beliefs and values influence behavior (Melton, Mallory, & Green,
2010).Teacher perception of the disposition of the principal and the affect that it has on his/her
behavior is critical to the effectiveness of the school (Blase & Kirby, 2000). Therefore, principals
are well advised to create a supportive environment for teachers.
Dispositions of School Leaders
The disposition of school leaders is a controlling perceptual quality that determines their
natural or usual ways of thinking and acting (Usher, 2002). Qualities, such as integrity, honesty,
trust, and character characterize the disposition of school leaders and provide an explanation as
to why they act in a certain way (Fullan, 2002; Perkins, 1995; Reavis, 2008). It is possible for
school leaders to possess some effective skills and positive leadership traits, but lack key
leadership dispositions(Deal & Peterson, 2009). This void has the potential of negatively
impacting the leader’s ability to achieve long term success. In such instances, the disposition of
the leader may negatively impact the school environment, interfering with the teaching and
learning process (Deal & Peterson, 2009). For example, McGregor (1960) theorized that a leader
might have a Theory X disposition or a Theory Y disposition. A leader with a Theory X
disposition acts in ways that are coercive and directive, while a leader with a Theory Y
disposition acts in ways that are democratic and delegating (Green, 2009). Thus,disposition
influences behaviors toward faculty, students, families, colleagues, and communities (National
Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002).Consequently, the
disposition of school leaders can affect student learning and development, the level of motivation
of faculty members, as well as his or her own professional growth.
Above all, it is the leader’s beliefs about schools, teachers, children, parents, and the
community that form the foundation upon which leadership for school improvement is based
(Green, 2009). As school leaders make selections from various alternatives, they reveal their
preferences for particular values, interests and beliefs (Green 2009). In order to lead the type of
change necessary to transform underperforming schools and ultimately close the achievement
gap, school leaders must know the impact they are having on people and the school in general.
With a deep understanding of self and the impact of their dispositions, leaders can, if necessary,
modify their beliefs and values and enhance skillful performance in schools.
The Impact of Leadership Disposition on School Effectiveness
Teachers are the single most important factor in improving schools and increasing student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). However,
studies have shown that working conditions, particularly in the areas of leadership and teacher
empowerment, impact teachers’ decisions to remain in a particular school or the profession in
general (Ingersoll, 2001). New teachers most admire school leaders who establish a culture based

58
on fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness (Ingersoll, 2001). Therefore, it is imperative that school
leaders understand that their dispositions can positively or negatively impact their relationship
with teachers, as well as the climate and culture of the school.
The disposition of a school leader influences the potential for teachers to succeed within
a school environment. As a result, students’ achievement is affected. Effective leadership
(principal leadership) brings about supportive followership (teachers and students), and the result
is high performing teachers and students. A school leader with a positive disposition is likely to
create a school atmosphere wherein effective teaching and learning occurs. The quality of
leadership is directly proportional to the quality of followership (Pringle, 2007). Therefore, it is
reasonable to believe that the disposition of the principal can positively or negatively impact
achievement in the school. The question that looms largely is which type of principal disposition
is most influential in developing a positive relationship with teachers and enhancing the
academic achievement of students in the schools they lead.
Statement of the Problem
Principals are being requested to assume the responsibility of enhancing the academic
achievement of all students who enter the schoolhouse. Principal/teacher relationships play a
major role in this process. Several studies appearing in the literature offer evidence of what
school leaders need to know and be able to do in order to effectively lead a 21st
century school.
However, little has been written on the preferred disposition of school leaders. To develop
approaches to use in enhancing the relationship between principal and teachers and ultimately
enhance the academic achievement of students, there is a need to identify the disposition of
effective school leaders. This information can be used as a foundation for research that addresses
principal/teacher relationships and student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to identify dispositions describing effective leaders most
frequently appearing in the literature and to determine those dispositions that leaders of today’s
schools believe to be most preferred in their leadership. Three (3) research questions guided the
study.
Research Questions:
1. What leadership dispositions appear in the literature most frequently as characteristics of
effective school leaders?
2. Which of the dispositions appearing in the literature are perceived by school leaders as
those most preferred for leading their school?
3. What is the relationship, if any, between the dispositions identified as most preferred by
school leaders and the level of their school’s performance?

59
The theoretical perspective we drew on for our research is McGregor’s Theory X Theory
Y (McGregor, 1960) and Transformational Leadership (Bass, 1998). Our premise which
informed the use of Theory X Theory Y is that in administrating today’s schools, a leader
interacts with a variety of individuals and groups in situations in which the leader’s disposition is
a major determinant of success. The disposition indicators denote an individual’s beliefs, values,
and type of commitment that tend to be most effective in a school situation (Green, 2009).
McGregor’s theory characterizes how the perception of a leader influences his/her behavior. In
addition, the leadership style being advocated for school leaders of today’s schools is embedded
in transformational leadership (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978).Transformational Leadership Theory
describes the behavior of leaders and their relationship with followers (Northouse, 2012). A
commitment to the principles of the theory can have a major impact on a school and on student
achievement.
Methodology
The study was designed in three phases. In Phase One, the researches selected Green’s
(2013) 49 dispositions as those most representative of the characteristics of effective school
leaders appearing in the literature. Next, a population of 123 school leaders was surveyed to
determine from among the 49 dispositions the ones they most preferred. Finally, 51 school
leaders serving in a school district in the Southeastern United States were asked to rank order the
dispositions they most preferred. Using data from the rankings, the researchers conducted a
Spearman’s rho correlation coefficientto determine the difference, if any, that existed among the
leaders based on the performance of their school.
Population
During the 26th
Annual High Schools That Work Staff Development Conference held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, in July, 2012, the researchers presented an interactive session on the
topic ―Leadership Dispositions: Implications for Effective School Leadership.‖ During this
session, over 150 school leaders representing schools from across 16 Southeastern states were
asked to complete The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale which contained Green’s(2013)
list of 49 leadership dispositions. From the individuals attending the session, 123 responded to
the scale with complete information. Those 123 participants were included in the study. Forty-
nine (49) of the participants were principals;55 were assistant principals, and19 were central
office administrators.
During the third phase of the study, a survey was sent electronically to 51 principals in a
school district located in the Southeastern section of the United States. Forty (40) of the
51individuals responded with complete information for a return rate of 78%.
Of the forty (40) responses,14 were males; 26 were females;27 were Caucasians, and13
were African-Americans. Eleven (11) respondents, 27.5%, ranged in ages from 25 to 40;10
respondents, 25%, ranged in ages from 41 to 50;18 respondents,45%, ranged in ages from 51 to
60, and 1 respondent was over 60, 2.5%. The forty (40) respondents included 18 elementary
school principals, 45%; 13 middle school principals,32.5%; 6high school principals, 15%;
2kindergarten through 8th grade school principals, 5%, and 1principal who did not identify the
grade configuration of the school.

60
Table 1
Participants in the Study
Source/Phase Number of
Participants
Number of Responses
Literature/Phase One N/A N/A
Conference/Phase
Two
150+ 123
School District/Phase
Three
51 40
Instrument
Two instruments were used in the study, ―The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale‖
and a modified version of that scale. Both instruments were adapted from the dispositions
appearing in Practicing the Art of Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the
ISLLC Standards (Green, 2013). The first instrument consisted of 49 leadership constructs.Green
contends that the 49 leadership constructs characterize the dispositions of effective leadership as
exhibited in major research studies and writings. The second instrument was an adaptation of the
―The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale‖ which contained the 16 dispositions that emerged
from an analysis of the data from phase two of the study.
Findings
In Phase I of the study, a list of 49dispositions were selected from Practicing the Art of
Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC Standards (Green, 2013),
representing the dispositions most frequently appearing in the literature as characteristics of
effective school leaders.The forty-nine (49) dispositions selected are in the appendix of this
paper. These dispositions were used to compriseTheMost Preferred Leader Behavior Scale.
TheMost Preferred Leader Behavior Scalewas administered (during a session) at the 26th
Annual High Schools That Works Conference in New Orleans in July, 2012, to an estimated 150
attendees. From among the 49 dispositions listed on the scale,participants were asked to check
all of the dispositions that they most preferred to observe as school leaders. One-hundred twenty-
three (123) respondents fully completed and returned the survey.For each of thedispositions
checked, frequencies were obtained and subsequently ranked from most often chosen—
―Respect‖ being ranked first, receiving some 99 responses-- to least often chosen—
―Predictability‖ being ranked last, receiving only 3 responses. Desirous of reducing the ranked
dispositions to a manageable number, the researchers used the ranks to select the top 15
dispositions, later increased to 16, given a tie between the dispositions ranked 15th
and 16th
.
Chosen by a minimum of 45 respondents, the dispositions retained for Phase3 of the study are
presented in Table 2, ranked in terms of frequency and percentage from the most often selected
(―Respect‖ chosen by 80.5% of the 123 respondents to the least often selected (―Courage‖ and

61
―Openness,‖ both chosen by 36.6% of the respondents).
Table 2
Dispositions Most Often Selected by Participants at the High Schools That Works Conference
Dispositions % n
Respect 80.5 99
Communication 69.1 85
Honesty 69.1 85
Compassion 65.9 81
Trust 65.9 81
Integrity 60.2 74
Passion 59.3 73
Vision 56.9 70
Commitment 54.5 67
Fairness 51.2 63
Consistency 43.1 53
Ethics 42.3 52
Rapport 41.5 51
Character 37.4 46
Courage 36.6 45
Openness 36.6 45
In Phase 3 of the study, the 16 dispositions from Phase 2 were placed into a second
version of the instrumentin which respondents were asked to perform a forced rankingin order of
the importance of the dispositions for being an effective school leader.E-mailed to some 51

62
principals in a Southeastern United States school district, the revised instrument garnered
complete responses from 40 of the original 51 principals, and all descriptive statistics pertinent to
these responses were computed. As summarized in Table 2 below, inspection of these statistics
indicated that 3 dispositions were, by far, considered first in order of importance: Vision (Median
Rank of 2.5);Character (Median Rank of 4.0), and Integrity (Median Rank of 4.0) and that, along
with 3others, were repeatedly ranked either first, second, or third. As depicted in Figure 1, those
dispositions assigned one of the highest three ranks by the largest percentage of respondents
were as follows: Vision (57.5%); Character (45%); Integrity (45%);Trust (30%); Ethics (25%),
and Communication (22.5).
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics Pertinent to the Rank Ordering of the 16 Dispositions
Disposition Mdn
Rank
Rank 1-3 M
Rank
SD Rho
01) Character 4.0 45.0% 5.60 4.42 0.00
02) Commitment 7.5 15.0% 7.48 3.85 0.05
03) Communication 7.0 22.5% 6.98 3.67 -0.07
04) Compassion 11.0 2.5% 10.40 3.77 -0.20
05) Consistency 8.5 2.5% 8.50 3.53 0.08
06) Courage 12.5 2.5% 11.65 3.77 -0.28 *
07) Ethics 6.0 25.0% 6.65 3.94 0.22
08) Honesty 8.0 15.0% 8.28 3.93 0.02
09) Fairness 10.0 2.5% 10.55 3.92 0.03
10) Integrity 4.0 45.0% 5.33 4.22 0.27 *
11) Openness 14.0 2.5% 12.95 3.44 -0.01
12) Passion 11.5 2.5% 10.60 3.89 -0.02
13) Rapport 13.0 10.0% 11.60 4.24 0.03
14) Respect 9.0 20.0% 7.85 3.95 -0.05
15) Trust 7.0 30.0% 7.05 4.22 -0.02
16) Vision 2.5 57.5% 4.55 4.48 0.14
*p< .05, one tailed
In addition to these statistics, Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients were computedto
determine the extent of the relationship between the principals’ disposition rankings and school-
level Tennessee ―Value-Added‖ Assessment System (TVAAS) rankings. Inspection of the
matrix of these correlations indicated that only 2 of the 16 dispositions were significantly linked
in some way to student achievement.After reverse-scoring the dispositions’ rankings to heighten
the interpretability of the results, it was shown that there was a significantly positive relationship
between school-wide student achievement based on TVASS and the disposition of courage ( =
.28, p = .040) and a significantly negative relationship between school-wide student

63
achievement based on TVASS and the disposition of integrity ( = .27, p = 0.045).
Figure 1. Percentage of respondents ranking dispositions, first, second, or third.
Discussion
Dispositions are characterized as values, beliefs, and attitudes which are exhibited in the
behavior of leaders (Melton et al., 2010). While differences exist between the various definitions
of disposition, a number of studies appear in the literature that offers evidence that the
disposition of school leaders impact the academic achievement of students (Barge, 2009; Barlow,
Jordan,& Hendrix , 2003; Helm, 2010). Therefore, a study of preferred dispositions of effective
school leaders has merit.
A Discussion of the Findings
Three research questions guided this study. The intent of the first question was to
determine the dispositions most frequently appearing in the literature that characterize effective
school leaders. This question was addressed by the selection of dispositions compiled by Green,
(2013).These dispositions were selected because they address situational leadership, moral
leadership, distributive leadership, transformational leadership, and most specifically
45.0%
15.0%
22.5%
2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
25.0%
15.0%
2.5%
45.0%
2.5% 2.5%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
57.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

64
instructional leadership. Comprehensively, they address the processes used by effective school
leaders to communicate, make decisions, manage conflict, and lead change. They are also
underpinned by the Interstate School Leader Licensure Standards (ISLLC Standards) which are
the premier leadership standards guiding leadership preparation programs nationally (―ISLLC,‖
2008).
The second research question sought to identify from among the 49 dispositions the
ones most preferred by effective school leaders. To address that question, the researchers
explored the preferred dispositions of school leaders in two different groups. The first group
consisted of 123 school leaders from 16states in the Southeastern region of the United States.
The second group consisted of 40 school leaders from a school district in one of those states.
Each group, a convenient sample of school leaders, was asked to select from Green’s (2013) list
of dispositions the ones they most preferred as leaders of their school.
The first group of 123 participants checked from Green’s (2013) list of 49 dispositions,
their most preferred dispositions. Using a descriptive rank order frequency research design, the
researchers were able to identify the 16dispositions checked most frequently by the group. The
16dispositions ranked most frequently were character, commitment, communication,
compassion, consistency, courage, ethics, honesty, fairness, integrity, openness, passion, rapport,
respect, trust, and vision. These dispositions are frequently referenced in the literature as
necessary for effective school leadership (Avolio, 2007; Barlow et al., 2003; Helm, 2010;
Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Some researchers and writers argue that among them the prevailing
disposition for effective leaders is character (Barlow et al., 2003).
Having reduced Green’s (2013) list of dispositions to sixteen, the researchers were
interested in determining from among them the ones most preferred by school leaders in a single
school district and if the dispositions of the leaders in that school district were significantly
different when compared to the achievement level of their schools. To investigate this question, a
convenient school district was selected, and the principals of that district were asked to complete
a modified version of the Preferred Leadership Disposition Scale. Data from the participants in
the single school district revealed that the participants ranked vision, integrity, and character as
either their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd preference. Trust, ethics, and communication were the next three
dispositions ranked as preferred.
The Preferred Dispositions
Vision (57.5%): Fifty-seven point five percent (57.5%) of the participants ranked vision
as their 1st
, 2nd
, or 3rd
preference. In order to effectively lead a school, the principal has to have a
vision of what is possible and be able to share that vision with all stakeholders. A visionary
principal facilitates the process of goal-setting within a school and fosters a reputation for
providing unique learning opportunities to all students. He or she has high standards of learning
for all stakeholders (ISLLC, Standard 1). Bennisagrees with this assertion as he suggest that
effective leaders must be able to create a shared vision, have a voice characterized by purpose,
operate from a strong moral code, and be able to adapt to change (as cited in Marzano, Waters &
McNulty, 2005). With a vision of what is possible and what the school can become, the
principal can lead the effort of reconstructing a school, working with stakeholders to establish
standards by which the school will operate. Under visionary leadership, students thrive
academically and socially (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Integrity (45.0 %): Forty-five percent(45%) of the participants in the study ranked

65
integrity as their 1st
, 2nd
, or 3rd
preference. A leader with integrity adheres to a code of ethics,
displays moral or artistic values, and is incorruptible. Cash believes the values of the leader are
consistent, regardless of time, place, and circumstances. When a school leader has integrity, he
or she can build trust, and trust builds relationships (2008). According to Maxwell (2010), trust is
the foundation of leadership. In practicing the art of leadership, school leaders with integrity take
responsibility for their actions and ensure that all students have access to knowledge (Strike,
Haller, & Soltis, 2005) and that all teachers have the same level of support and resources to
establish the highest quality in educational standards. In actuality, their actions align with their
words (Leroy, Palanski, &Simons, 2012). They acquire a keen understanding of the purpose of
education and the role of leadership in modern society (ISLLC, Standard 5).
Character (45.0%): Another disposition ranked by 45%of the participants as their 1st
, 2nd
,
or 3rd
preference was character. School leaders with character have good judgment. They create a
moral climate in the schoolhouse and build relationships that foster respect and fairness. In
addition, they have fortitude, are self-disciplined, put forth effort, and persevere until the task is
completed.
In practicing the art of leadership, school leaders have to make decisions regarding a
diverse school and community and with character these decisions are made in a fair and
equitable manner. The school leader exhibits the type of behavior that demonstrates that he/she
believes that diversity enriches the school (ISLLC, Standard 4) and brings benefits to the school
community (ISLLC, Standard 2). In essence, school leaders with character are what their belief
is. They show consistency between their values, ethical reasoning and actions, and they develop
positive psychological states, such as confidence, optimism, hope, and resilience in themselves
and their associates. Also, they are widely known and respected for their integrity (Cooper,
Santora, & Sarros, 2007).
Trust (30.0%) The tabulated results revealed that 30%of the participants ranked trust as
their 1st
, 2nd
, or 3rd
preference. When trust is pervasive, the school leader is consistent in words,
actions, and deeds, and there are no gaps between what he or she says and what he or she does
(Ciancutti& Steding, 2001). The faculty members know that they can count on the leader to
follow through on promises. For example, if a principal promises to support the faculty in what
appears to be a difficult initiative, such as the implementation of a new technology-based science
module, the faculty should be able to trust that the principal will provide support by way of
resources, encouragement, and professional development to promote the success of the initiative.
The current reform movement strongly advocates distributing leadership throughout the
organization. In order to distribute leadership, school leaders must be able to trust people and
their judgment (ISLLC, Standard 3). The cornerstone of effective leadership in schools is
relationships, and trust is the foundation on which relationships are built (Waters et al., 2003). A
critical factor in producing positive learning outcomes for students is the trusting behavior
exhibited by the school leader (Wang & Bird, 2011).
Ethics (25.0%): Twenty-five percent (25%) of the participants ranked ethics as their 1st
,
2nd
, or 3rd
preference. Effective school leaders administer their schools using various ethical
frameworks and perspectives (ISLLC, Standard 5). A set of principles guide their behavior, and
the principles are based on informal and formal standards consisting of core values, honesty,
respect, and trust (Beckner, 2004).They oversee the proper execution of initiatives within the
school and in doing so, they are careful to assess their beliefs to ensure that the beliefs that they
hold compliment and are in concert with the expectations of the organization.
Communication (22.5%): Communication was ranked 1st
, 2nd
, or 3rd
by 22.5%of the

66
participants. Communication is the life blood of the school. When an effective system of
communication is in place in the school, the school leader actively listens to diverse points of
view and uses the process to link individuals, groups, and the organization for the purpose of
building relationships, establishing trust, and earning respect for self and others (Green, 2013).
They understand that continuous dialogue with other decision makers affecting education
(ISLLC, Standard 6) is vital to their effectiveness and the success of the school. Through
effective means of communication, school leaderscreate a culture where faculty, staff, students,
parents, and community members are informed of pertinent matters concerning the school
operations.
In summary, there is a constant theme embedded within the top 6dispositions. The top
6dispositions that emerged in the study are aligned with the principles of moral leadership. The
moral dimension of leadership encompasses at least 4of the highest ranked dimensions preferred:
character, integrity, trust, and ethics (Muczyk & Adler, 2002). These beliefs impact how one
leads an organization in the sense that a leader’s moral obligation is to use his/her abilities to
lead others in transforming the organization into what it could be by making decisions that are in
the best interest of the school (Brown & Anfara, 2003).
The dispositions chosen speaks to the humanistic characteristics of leadership.
Cunningham and Cordeiro (2009) validated the human element associated with leaders who
possess humanistic characteristics. They suggest that these leaders are supportive in their efforts
to develop followers who act in the best interest of the organization. Keeping in line with the
importance of attending to the human element associated with leadership, Bennis and Nanus
(2003) concluded that when one believes in human growth, this belief generates an environment
of trust and authentic relationships.
The Relationship between Leader Disposition and Level of School Performance
The third question, ―What is the relationship, if any, between the dispositions identified
by school leaders as most preferred for leading schools and the level of school performance?‖
was assessed using data from the group of 40 school leaders. With the exception of courage and
integrity, the results of the data analysis revealed that for participants in this study, dispositions
had little impact on the level of performance of their school (See Figure 1). One reason that
could be offered for this finding is the similar nature in which leaders of the district are required
to lead, the philosophy of central office administrators, and the expectations of members of the
larger community. With regards to courage and integrity, one might reason that, with courage, a
school leader would take the initiative to make the needed changes necessary for school
improvement. Also, with integrity, the school leader might be more inclined to ensure that all
students have access to knowledge and the opportunity to acquire that knowledge. Nevertheless,
as evidenced by their selections, these leaders, regardless of the achievement levels of their
schools, encapsulated the characteristics of an effective leader as one who is attentive to the
human element associated with leadership and has worked to forge strong relationships with
his/her followers. However, these researchers realize the inclusiveness of the findings and that it
is evident that additional study is needed in this area.

67
Conclusions
Leadership is not about holding a position;rather, it is about skills and the behaviors that
surface in the disposition of the individual (Hrebeniuk, 2011). What makes leadership greatness
is leaders who begin something that does not end with them. They realize that the impossible is
generally untried, and the best way to succeed in the future is to create it. Consequently, effective
leaders take off the blinders and look for new opportunities to assist in the education of all
students. In the final analysis, school leaders seeking effectiveness must ask themselves: Is my
disposition fostering the creation of a climate in the school wherein a difference can be made in
the academic achievement and social and emotional well-being of students (Tirozzi, 2001)?
It is arguable that the 6 dispositions emerging from this study are the ones that effective
leaders should possess as the discourse on dispositions is constrained by ambiguity. The list from
which the participants chose may have contained dispositions that appeared to be similar in
nature as the definition of one disposition incorporates the definition of another. For example,
embedded in the definition of character are respect, fairness, consistency, and integrity. Honesty,
respect, and trust are embedded in the definition of ethics. The researchers realize that there is a
need to refine the list of dispositions by collapsing the ones that reflect similar values and
meaning. Nevertheless, there is no denying that the 6 dispositions that surfaced will enhance the
potential success of any leader of today’s schools. Understanding them and their influence in the
schoolhouse is a start in the process of identifying dispositions that today’s school leaders should
possess.
Crafting research that identifies dispositions of effective school leaders is necessary if we
are to understand the behaviors that leaders need to exhibit in order to create the type of climate
wherein teacher and learning occurs for all students. Futurestudies might examine the
relationship of dispositions of leaders in a variety of schools. One study could compare the
dispositions of leaders in underperforming schools with those of leaders in high-performing
schools. Another study might explore the most preferred dispositions, using a wider sample
including participants from urban, suburban, and rural schools.
What is critical in leading one of today’s schools is the understanding that leaders have of
themselves and the people with whom they work and serve (Green, 2010).Fully aware of the
principles of their disposition, educational leaders can self-reflect, determine how their
dispositions influence the behavior of the people with whom they work and serve, and the
behavior, if any, that they need to change in order to lead more effectively. The goal of school
leaders is to transform schools into learning communities focused on the academic achievement
of all students. One set of dispositions may not meet this challenge. However, the finding of this
study offers six dispositions that might be used in the process.
References
Avolio, B.J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.
American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25
Barge, J. K., (2009). Leadership: Communication skills for organizations and groups.
New York, NY:St. Martin’s Press.
Barlow, C.B., Jordan, M.,& Hendrix, W.H. (2003). Character assessment: An examination of
leadership levels. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(4), 563-584.

68
Barth, R.S. (2006, March). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational
Leadership, 63(6). Retrieved from the ASCD website:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=ASCD+website%3A&form=DLCDF8&pc=MDDR&src
=IE-SearchBox
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beckner , W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York,
New York: Harper Collins.
Blase, J., &Kirby, P. (2000).Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bottoms, G.,& O’Neill, K. (2001). Leading school improvement what research says: A
review of the literature. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Brown, K. M., & Anfara, V. A. (2003, June 1). Paving the way for change: Visionary leadership
in action at the middle level. National Association of Secondary School Principals,87(635), 16.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Cash, J. (2008). Fastball leadership. Leadership, 37(3), 22-25.
Ciancutti, A., & Steding, T. (2001). Built on trust: Gaining competitive advantages in any
organization. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books.
Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2011). Designing principal evaluation systems: Research to guide
decision-making (An Executive Summary of Current Research in collaboration with the
National Association of Elementary School Principals). Retrieved from the National
Association of Elementary School Principals website: https://www.naesp.org
Consortium on Chicago School Research At The University Of Chicago Urban Education
Institute. (2010). Rethinking teacher evaluations.Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from
ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/Teacher%20Eval%20Final.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC
2008. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/EducationalLeadership_Policy_Standards_2008.p
df
Cooper, B.K., Santora, J.C., & Sarros J.C. (May –June, 2007). The character of leadership. Ivey
Business Journal,1-13. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/the-character-of-leadership
Cunningham, W.,& Corderio, P. (2009). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance
assessments can measure and improve teaching. Retrieved from the Center for American
Progress website:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997).The quality of teaching matters most. Journal of Staff
Development,18(1), 38-41.
Deal, T.E.,& Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture, paradoxes, and promises. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Edgerson, D. E.,& Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). Analysis of the influence of principal-teacher

69
relationships on student academic achievement: A national focus.Doctoral
Forum:National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research,1(1).
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership,59(8), 16-20.
Green, R.L. (2009). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing
the ISLLC standards (3rd ed.).New York, NY: Pearson.
Green, R.L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21st
century schools. New York, NY: Pearson.
Green, R.L. (2013). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing
the ISLLC standards (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Helm, C.M. (2010). Leadership dispositions: What are they and are they essential to good
leadership. Academic Leadership, 8(1). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.
ezproxy.memphis.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=12&sid=4fc3be04-aa39-4a12-9646-
48a0f0e2a351%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=of
m&AN=508128551
Hrebeniuk, M. (2011). Leadership Skills Inventory – Self. Retrieved from
http://www.articlealley.com/article_1482387_15.html
Hobson-Horton, L. D., Green, R. L., & Duncan, B. (2009). The usage of the Southern Regional
Board (SREB)’s critical success factors in developing teacher leaders to assume
instructional leadership responsibilities. International Journal of Teacher Leadership,
2(2), 69-88.Retrieved from http://www.csupomona.edu/ijtl
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages : An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards. (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/educational_leadership_policy_standards_2008
Pdf: Author.
Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management
Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Lashway, L. (2002, March 6). Trends in school leadership. Educational Management, 14-37.
Leroy, H., Pananski, M., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as
drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics,107(3),
255-264.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T, & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Markow, D.,& Martin, S. (2005).The MetLife survey of the American teacher, 2004-2005:
Transitions and the role of supportive relationships. New York, NY: MetLife. Retrieved from
the MetLife Website:
http://www.metlife.com/WPSAssets/34996838801118758796V1FATS_2004.pdf
Maxwell, J.C. (2010, November). Do they trust you? How to build a solid foundation for
leadership. Success,18-19.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of the enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

70
Melton, T., Mallory, B.J.,& Green, J. (2010). Identifying and assessing dispositions of
educational leadership candidates. Education Leadership and Administration, 22(4),46-
60.
Muczyk, J. P., & Adler, T. (2002, October 1). An attempt at a consentience regarding formal
leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 2.
National Council for the Accréditation of Teacher Educators. (2002). Professional standards for
the accreditation of teacher preparation instituions. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/public/102407.asp?ch=148
Northouse, P. ( 2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage
Publications.
Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting I.Q.: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Pringle, P. (2007). Top 10 qualities of a great leader (p. IX).Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.
Reavis, C. (2008) Dispositions of educational leaders(Unpublished manuscript).
Schulte, L. E., & Kowal, P. (2005). The validation of the Administrator Dispositions Index.
Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 17, 5-87.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2011). Measuring a teacher’s value and
effectiveness in SREB states (Policy Brief No. 11E14). Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved
from http://publications.sreb.org/2011/11E14_Value_Teacher1.pdf
Strike, K., Haller, E., & Soltis, J. (2005). The ethics of school administration. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Tirozzi, G.N. (2001). The artistry of leadership, the evolving role of the secondary school
principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 434-439.
Usher, D. (2002, November). Arthur Combs' five dimensions of helper belief reformulated as five
dispositions of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of the First Annual
Symposium on Educator Dispositions, Richmond, KY.
Wang, C.,& Bird, J.J. (2011). Multi-level modeling of principal authenticity and teachers’ trust
and engagement. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(4), 125-147.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of
standards for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Aurora, CO: Mid-
continental Research for Education and Learning.
Waters, J.T., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B.A. (2003) Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-
continental Research for Education and Learning.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E.,& Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current
knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (No.R-01-3). University of Washington: Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy (A research report prepared for the U.S. Department
of Education and the Office for Educational Research and Improvement).
Authors
Reginald Leon Green, Ed.D. is Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of Education
at the University of Memphis. Dr. Green teaches courses in educational leadership with a focus
on instructional leadership, leadership dispositions, school reform, and models for turning around
low performing schools. His research interests include school leadership, team building for

71
effective teaching and learning, superintendent/board relations, school district restructuring, and
the effects of nurturing characteristics on the academic achievement of students.
Tonya Cooper is Principal of ChimneyrockElementary School in the Memphis City Schools
system in Memphis, Tennessee, and a doctoral student in the University of Memphis’ Doctoral
Program. Her research interests are dispositions of effective school leaders, the merger of school
organizations, and the transformation of underperforming high, poverty schools.

72
Appendix
The Forty-Nine (49) Dispositions Defined
Insight: The school leader is knowledgeable of situations and issues that occur in schools and
can clearly and intuitively determine the complex nature of those situations and issuesfor the
purpose of addressing them in an effective manner (Bossidy & Charan, 2002).
Creativity: The behavior of the school leader reveals that he or she has an imagination; his or
her ideas are original and can be transformed into reality (Goleman& Kaufman, 1992).
Morality: The actions of the school leader are based on moral principles (Strike, Haller, &
Soltis, 2005).
Support: The school leader conveys to faculty members in words and deeds that they can
depend on him or her to assist them in becoming effective instructors (Green, 2013).
Reasoning: The school leader has the conceptual and analytical ability to frame problems and
draw conclusions in a manner that leads to an appropriate course of action (Restas cited in
Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002).
Passion: The school leader has an entrepreneurial spirit and an infectious desire to achieve a
goal or outcome; a powerful and controlling emotion (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Ethics: The school leader uses a set of principles to guide his or her behavior. The principles
used are based on informal and formal standards consisting of core values, honesty, respect, and
trust (Beckner, 2004).
Vision: The school leader is continuously searching for high standards of learning for all
students; anticipating what will or may come to reality; imagining exciting and ennobling
possibilities ( Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Intelligence: The school leader has thecognitive ability to learn from experience; to reason well;
to remember important information, and to cope with the demands of administering a school
daily (Sternbergas cited in Huitt, 2002).
Communication: The school leader actively listens to diverse points of view and uses the
process of communication to link individuals, groups, and the organization for the purpose of
building relationships, establishing trust, and earning respect for self and others (Green, 2013).
Tact: The school leader displays a sense of what is fitting and considerate in dealing with
others; gives consideration to the feelings of others; has acquired skills necessary to handle
difficult and delicate situations without insulting others (Green, 2013).
Diplomacy: The school leader hasthe ability to rally people to a greater cause and to persuade
them to function with enthusiasm doing what they already know is the right thing to do
(Houston, Blankstein, & Cole, 2009).

73
Reliability: School leaders are consistent and dependable. They display high degrees of integrity
and are able to analyze obstacles to trust, remove those obstacles, and work with members of the
organization to build a culture of trust, (Galford &Drapeau, 2002).
Integrity: The school leader adheres to a set of moral and ethical principles while displaying
soundness of moral character and being honest regarding actions taken. He or she takes
responsibility for his or her actions and is willing to ensure that all students have access to
knowledge (Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005).
Character: School leaders exhibit what they believe. They show consistency between their
values, ethical reasoning and actions, and develop positive psychological states, such as
confidence, optimism, hope, and resilience in themselves and their associates. Also, they are
widely known and respected for their integrity (Cooper, Santora, & Sarros, 2007).
Fortitude: The school leader exhibits the courage and strength to transform organizations
(Riggio, 2009).
Imagination: The school leader has the ability to form mental images of real and unreal events
and to develop different scenarios or different perspectives on those events. He or she can create
a fresh situation or series of events that might lead to the identification of a vision (Werhane,
1999).
Accuracy: The school leader is thorough in accomplishing a task and shows concern for all
areas involved, no matter how small. He or she organizes time and resources, monitors work
products or information, double-checking to ensure accuracy, consistency, and efficiency
(Syracuse University, HR Dept., 2012).
Influence: The school leader is able to mobilize people around a compelling vision of the future,
inspiring them to follow in his or her footsteps. He or she shows people what is possible and
motivates them to make those possibilities reality (Bennis & Nanus, 2003).
Trust: The school leader is consistent in words, actions, and deeds, and there are no gaps
between what he or she says and what he or she does. You can count on him or her to deliver on
his or her promises. An individual can be confident in the promised action (Ciancutti, & Steding,
2001).
Knowledge: The school leader has an in-depth understanding of school practices, processes, and
procedures and uses this information to move the school toward goal attainment (Green, 2013).
Management: The school leader achieves goals and objectives of the school by organizing tasks
and assignments and monitoring and evaluating operational systems in a manner that ensures a
safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Routines are followed and goals are achieved
in an efficient and effective manner (Bennis & Nanus as cited in Ricketts, 2009; ISLLC
Standards, 2007).

74
Planning: The school leader builds a foundation for teaching and learning to occur and creates a
roadmap for successful change when it is needed. He or she outlines and assigns specific tasks
that increase the likelihood of organizational success (Anderson & Anderson, 2010).
Timeliness: The school leader takes actions regarding school issues at the appropriate time. He
or she realizes that addressing issues in an expeditious manner is crucial to the success of the
organization (Chaganti & Sherman, 1998;Blanchard & Johnson, 2003).
Accountability: The school leader complies with established control systems and holds self and
others accountable for measurable high-quality, timely, and cost- effective results. He or she
determines objectives, sets priorities, delegates work, and accepts responsibility for mistakes
(Kichak, 2008).
Judgment: The school leader exhibits wisdom in taking action and making decisions (Bossidy
& Charan, 2002).
Organization: The school leader leads with a detailed plan. He or she exhibits behavior that
indicates that the necessary time has been devoted to considering alternatives and developing
back up plans and contingencies. He or she develops safeguards so that nothing falls through the
spaces (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Brody, 2011;Morgan, 1996).
Charisma: The school leader has the ability to galvanize people to follow his or her style of
leadership. He or she tends to communicate in a way that is effective in drawing people to him or
her through his or her personality (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Tenacity: The school leader has an inner drive that pushes him or her to get to the heart of an
issue and find solutions. As a result of this inner drive, he or she searches tenaciously for
information that is missing and keeps tweaking his or her mental models until he or she arrives at
a position that works (Charan, 2007).
Humility: The school leader is aware of self, values the opinion of others, is willing to learn and
change, and share power. He or she has the ability to hear the truth, admit mistakes, and work to
create a culture of openness. Dissent (a difference of opinion) is encouraged in an environment
of mutual trust and respect (Lawrence, 2008).
Dignity: The school leader values the opinion of others, considers all individuals valuable parts
of the school organization, and treats them ethically and with respect (Hicks, 2012).
Consistency: The school leader establishes a standard of excellence and maintains that standard
while performing and making decisions. The behavior of the leader is consistent with minimal
variation as he or she transmits a sense of mission, stimulates learning experiences, and
motivates new ways of thinking (Hater & Bass, 1988).
Fairness: The school leader gives others a voice and treats them with dignity. They base their
decisions on accurate information and are consistent in their practices (Sackett, 2011).

75
Diversity: The school leader works effectively with people across lines of difference which is
integral to creating buy-in and ultimately reaching goals. He or she sets the tone for the group
and helps to foster effective intergroup dynamics (Banks, 2010).
Logic: The school leader is in pursuit of knowledge, engaging in analysis, questioning, and
reasoning to establish depth of comprehension and understanding about a particular topic
(Reardon, Reardon, & Rowe, 1998).
Predictability: The school leader consistently provides exactly what is planned and/or expected
(Kaufman, 2012).
Courage: The school leader challenges the process, experiments, and takes risk. He or she has
the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Decisiveness: The school leader makes decisions and when they are in the best interest of the
school organization, he or she sticks with them in spite of difficult challenges (Smith, & Piele,
1997).
Equity: The school leader creates and implements programs and strategies that yield successful
outcomes and advancements for all students (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003).
Honesty:The school leader behaves in a trusting or trustworthy manner, exercising integrity
(Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
Openness: The school leader has the ability to entertain different and non-customary ideas. He
or she is flexible and willing to change his or her way of thinking when the situation warrants.
Displaying openness, the school leader finds ways to celebrate the accomplishments of others
(Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Adaptability: The school leader is flexible, open to alternatives, and able to adjust to new
conditions. He or she is willing to modify his or her position for the sake of other individuals for
the good of the school organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Schulte & Kowal, 2005;Wildy &
Louden, 2000).
Compassion: The behavior of the school leader denotes awareness and a sense of caring for the
feelings of others (Green, 2013).
Sensitivity: The school leader is emotionally intelligent and is aware of the impact his or her
decisions and perspectives have on himself or herself and others (Ingram & Cangemi, 2012).
Respect: The school leader recognizes the contributions of others and shows appreciation for
individual excellence. He or she treats people in the organization as he or she would like to be
treated-with dignity and courtesy (Ciancutti & Steding, 2001;Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Rapport: The school leader aligns his or her actions with others because he or she feels that they
share similar values (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

76
Credibility: The school leader is viewed by others as being trustworthy, competent, dynamic,
inspiring, and accountable. Others view him or her as one who is proficient and competent to
strategically execute the goals of the organization (Matthews, 2010).
Commitment: The school leader is dedicated to the growth of the organization and each
individual within the organization. The professional and personal growth of stakeholders is
nurtured (Spears, 2010).
Persuasion: The school leader uses verbal and non-verbal communication to connect with
people and to influence them to assist in the achievement of mutually beneficial results
(Williams, 2009).

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Since 1982) Global Website: www.nationalforum.com

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Último

Último (20)

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Since 1982) Global Website: www.nationalforum.com