SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 10
The Relationship between Leadership Effectiveness, Organizational Culture,
                           and Program Focus

                                       Larry McNeal, PhD
                                      University of Memphis

                                        Joris Ray, EdD
                                      Memphis City Schools



                                           ABSTRACT

        This study investigated the relationships between leadership effectiveness, culture,
program focus, and job satisfaction. A survey was distributed to 850 principals, teachers,
and educational support staff in public alternative schools in Tennessee. Of that number,
388 (45.6%) responded. The study yielded several findings. First, staff educational levels
were related to perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Second, the ethnicity of some staff
corresponded with perceptions about school focus. Third, professional status and
experience were related to culture. Fourth, culture and leadership effective culture were
related. Finally, a relationship existed between leadership effectiveness, culture, program
focus, and job satisfaction.

Key words: role of principals; leadership effectiveness; education level; ethnic groups




        The role of today’s school principal is significantly different from that of the principals of
two decades ago (York, Barr, & Duke, 2004). Today, schools contain a myriad of problems,
including violence, fewer resources, higher absenteeism, increasing dropout rates, reduction in
academic performance, complexity of student needs, influence of gangs and gang behavior, and
reduced graduation rates (Kearney, 2008). These issues have influenced the public’s expectations
of the principalship.
        Public expectations of the principalship have increased beyond the professional task of
being the instructional leader (Bauer, Haydel, & Cody, 2005; York et al., 2004). Principals must
not only possess strong instructional skills but also be capable of managing a variety of
responsibilities and duties, such as building schools that promote teaching and learning for all
students (McCain & Jukes, 2001). Schools that promote powerful teaching and learning
environments develop a culture that supports these efforts and have a clearly articulated program
focus.
        According to Marzano (2003), developing culture involves the creation of cooperative
environments among staff within the context of a shared sense of purpose together with the
execution of other responsibilities. Deal and Peterson (1994) note that the most effective change
in culture happens when principals, teachers, and students model the values and beliefs most


                                                 46
important to the institution. Principals who act with care and concern for others are more likely
to facilitate the development of a culture that reflects these values and promotes job satisfaction
(Srivastava & Pratap, 1984).
         Such facilitative leadership exercises power through others, not over them (Huffman &
Jacobson as cited in Williams, 2006). The issues of leadership effectiveness, culture, program
focus, and job satisfaction pose some fundamental questions for educators. For instance these
questions emerge: What is the relationship between leadership effectiveness and culture? Are
these two variables related to program focus? Is job satisfaction also related to leadership
effectiveness, culture, and program focus? This study investigates the relationship between the
four variables using a state-wide sample of school staff.


                                          Methodology

Design

        The variables in this study were school staff perceptions of the relationships between
leadership effectiveness, culture, program focus, and job satisfaction. The study used a
correlational research design method. Correlational research is a quantitative method in which
two or more variables from the same group of subjects are examined to determine if there is a
relationship between them (Creswell, 2009). If a relationship exists, then the significance of the
relationship is determined using correlational statistics.
Sample

        The population for this study was members of the Tennessee Alternative Education
Association that represented the 119 school systems that operate at least one alternative school.
This diverse group includes urban, suburban, and rural school districts in West, Middle, and East
Tennessee. The sample was comprised of principals, teachers, and educational support staff. The
survey was sent to 850 principals, teachers, and support staff. Almost 46% (388) of staff
members responded. The demographics showed that most of the schools (N=16, 44%) came
from counties in the western part of the state, followed by the eastern (N=11, 31%), and middle
(N=9, 25%) parts of the state. The largest number of schools were rural (N=29, 88%) with
suburban (N=4, 11%) and urban (N=3, 8%) schools representing a much smaller portion. The
ethnicity of respondents varied with Whites being the largest group (N=155, 50%), respectively
followed by African-Americans (N=136, 44%), Asian Americans (N=9, 3%), Multi-Racial and
Others (N=5, 2%), and Hispanic/Latino (N=3, 1%). Females were the largest group of
respondents (N=182, 59%) followed by males (N=126, 44%). A number of respondents had both
a bachelor’s and master’s degree (N=108, 35%), but others had a master’s +45 hours (N=58,
19%), or educational specialist degrees, (N=27, 9%) with a smaller number holding a doctorate
degree (N=6, 2%). The overwhelming majority were teachers (N=236, 77%), followed by
principals (N=44, 14%), assistant principals (N=7, 2%), and others (N=21, 7%) which consisted
of counselors, librarians, program coordinators, and other support personnel. The typical
respondent had slightly more than 13 years of experience with 6 years of that in an alternative
school setting and almost 5 years at their current school.
Data Collection


                                                47
The Tennessee Alternative School Questionnaire (TASQ) survey instrument was used in
the study. The TASQ was based on the earlier research of Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, & Thakor
(2006) who developed the Leadership Effectiveness Assessment Device (LEAD). This identifies
observable behaviors and maps such behaviors into a comprehensive model of organizational
and leadership effectiveness called the Competing Values Framework (CVF). In addition, the
Competing Values Culture Instrument (CVCI) presents a set of questions related to a school’s
culture (Quinn, 1988).
         The Competing Values Framework was based on statistical analyses of a comprehensive
list of effectiveness indicators which were grouped into two major dimensions (Quinn &
Rohrbaugh, 1983). The first dimension is related to organizational focus from an internal
emphasis on the well-being and development of people in the organization toward an external
focus on the well-being and development of the organization itself. The second dimension
differentiates the organizational preference for structure and represents the contrast between
stability and control and flexibility and change. Together, the two dimensions form four
quadrants.
         Each quadrant represents one of four major models or organizational and management
theories (Quinn, 1988). The Human Relations Model places emphasis on flexibility and internal
focus. It stresses cohesion, morale, and human resources development as criteria for
effectiveness. The Open Systems Model emphasizes flexibility and external focus and stresses
readiness, growth, resources acquisition, and external support. The Rational Goal Model
emphasizes control and an external focus. It regards planning, goal setting, productivity, and
efficiency as being effective. Finally, the Internal Process Model emphasizes control and internal
focus, and it stresses the role of information and management, communication, stability, and
control.
         The Tennessee Alternative School Questionnaire (TASQ) was developed to gather
demographic, leadership effectiveness, school culture, program focus (academic or behavior),
and job satisfaction data. The initial version of the questionnaire was developed by researchers
from the University of Memphis (Allen, Franceschini & Lowther, 2010). Specific behavioral
items aligned with the CVF and leadership were identified. To establish content validity, the
researchers used principals and professors versed in educational leadership and CVF literature.
The items were also tested for structural validity by a panel of teachers who were not versed in
leadership or CVF literature. Related items were sorted into eight groups. The panel grouped
75% (six out of eight items per role) of the items. The remaining 25% were incorrectly grouped
but were identified with a CVF role and were edited for greater clarity (Allen, Franceshini, &
Lowther, 2010). The instrument was first used in a study of school leadership in implementing
technology in K-12 school settings in Michigan in 2008.
         Demographic items (geographical region, school type, ethnicity, educational level,
professional status, and experience) were added to the questionnaire. The TASQ was distributed
to staff in 119 school systems. The sample was comprised of principals, teachers, and
educational support staff of Tennessee alternative schools. The survey was distributed to 850
principals, teachers, and educational support staff. Almost 46% (388) returned a survey.




                                            Findings


                                               48
In order to understand how each subgroup category impacts ratings of leadership
effectiveness, a multiple regression analysis was performed. The tested model included seven
independent variables (ethnicity, gender, education level, professional status, total educational
experience, alternative school experience, and experience at present alternative school). The
seven variables were put into the model at the same time, using the ENTER method. The table
includes beta weights, standard errors, and t-values for the demographic variables. All together,
the seven category variables accounted for almost 9% of the variance in perception of leadership
effectiveness (R2 = 0.088). Results for the model are in Table 1.


Table 1
Regression Analysis Summary of Respondent Demographic Variables Predicting School Orientation (N =
308)
Variable                                                  B       S.E.B.      B          t

Gender                                                    0.07     0.16       0.03      0.47
Professional Status                                      -0.06     0.23      -0.02     -0.26
Educational Level                                         0.07     0.11       0.04      0.67
Ethnic Group                                             -0.55     0.16      -0.20     -3.47   ***
Educational Experience                                    0.00     0.01      -0.01     -0.20
Total Alternative School Experience                       0.01     0.02       0.03      0.27
Experience at Present Alternative School                  0.04     0.03       0.12      1.35
Note. R2 = 0.055, (p <.05)
*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001


       The extent to which staff members perceived their schools to be academically or
behaviorally focused by gender, professional status, educational level, ethnicity, and experience
was also tested using a regression model. Again, the ENTER method was used; however, the
seven categories only accounted for approximately 6% of the variance in respondents’ ratings of
school orientation (R2 = 0.055). The only category showing a significant impact on ratings of
school orientation was ethnicity (t = -3.47, p <.001). Results for this model are in Table 2.




Table 2



                                                49
Regression Analysis Summary of Respondent Demographic Variables Predicting Mean Leadership
Effectiveness (N = 308)
Variable                                           B          S.E.B.      B           t

Gender                                             -0.04      0.10        -0.02       -0.38
Professional Status                                -0.01      0.15         0.00       -0.05
Educational Level                                   0.16      0.07         0.14        2.35       *
Ethnic Group                                       -0.42      0.10        -0.23       -4.07       ***
Educational Experience                             -0.01      0.01        -0.09       -1.29
Total Alternative School Experience                 0.02      0.02         0.12        1.31
Experience at Present Alternative School            0.00      0.02         0.02        0.19
Note. R2 = 0.088, (p <.001)
*p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001



        To ascertain the extent to which staff perceived four different types of organizational
cultures to be represented at their schools by gender, professional status, educational level,
ethnicity and experience, scores were obtained on multiple measures of culture. Multivariate
Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether significant group differences
were obtained, first, in an overall or multivariate sense, and, second, for four measures of culture
individually examined or in a univariate sense. Displayed in Table 3 by gender, professional
status, educational level, and median experience are the various means and standard deviations.




Table 3


                                                50
Means and Standard Deviations for Four Measures of Culture by Demographic Variables
                               Human            Open                   Internal        Rational
Variable                       Relations        Systems               Processes         Goal
                         n       M       SD       M     SD            M         SD    M      SD

                                              Gender
Male                     126   135.0     72.4   80.3      40.0       99.6      61.4   90.8   43.1
Female                   182   144.8     72.1   80.3      43.3       92.8      64.5   87.9   46.7

                                          Professional Status
Teachers/Others          257   136.3     68.2     81.0     42.8      96.9      62.7   90.8   43.7
Principals/Assistants     51   163.4     87.2     76.6     37.2      88.7      65.9   80.5   51.8

                                          Educational Level
Bachelor’s               108   130.0     71.4    79.9    43.2       102.5      64.3   93.4   42.8
Master’s                 108   144.5     68.9    81.0    44.4       94.3       62.4   88.8   49.6
Above Master’s            92   149.0     76.2    80.0    37.5       89.0       62.8   84.4   42.7

                                              Ethnicity
African-American         136   145.0     65.7    82.7     37.9      89.4       49.2   89.8   39.7
Others                   172   137.4     77.0    78.4     44.9      100.5      72.1   88.5   49.3

                                    Total Educational Experience
Less than Eleven Years   150   129.6    72.3     79.6    45.4        99.4      60.2   94.4   46.2
Eleven or More Years     158   151.4    70.8     80.9    38.4        92.0      65.9   84.0   43.9

                                 Total Alternative School Experience
Less than Five Years     148   129.8     65.6     76.2    44.8       103.1     61.0   96.8   44.7
Five or More Years       160   151.0     76.6     84.1    38.8       88.6      64.5   81.9   44.7

                               Experience at Present Alternative School
Less than Three Years    117   129.7    69.0      75.5     42.1      102.8     57.9   96.6   44.8
Three or More Years      191   147.6    73.5      83.2     41.6       91.2     66.0   84.4   45.0




       Shown in Table 4 are the results for the independent variables having exactly two levels,
and in Table 5 are the results for the independent variables having more than two levels. As
shown in the tables, neither multivariate nor univariate group differences were observed for the
independent variables, gender, ethnicity, and educational level. Although no multivariate group



                                                51
differences were observed for professional status and median experience at present alternative
schools, univariate differences were observed for these two variables.

 Table 4

 Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Four Measures of Culture by
 Gender, Professional Status, Ethnicity, and Experience

                                                                ANOVA
                                       Human             Open        Internal       Rational
 Variable             MANOVA          Relations        Systems      Processes         Goal
                      F(4, 303)       F(1, 306)        F(1, 306)    F(1, 306)       F(1, 306)
 Gender                 0.43            1.37             0.00          0.86           0.30
 Professional
 Status                 2.06            6.11*            0.46           0.73         2.18
 Ethnicity              1.95            0.83             0.78           2.37         0.06
 Total Experience       2.80*          7.09**            0.08           1.04         4.16*
 Total Alternative
 School                 2.44*           6.74*            2.77           4.06*        8.51**
 Experience
 Experience at
 Present
                         1.95           4.52*            2.46           2.47         5.36*
 Alternative
 School

 *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001


 Table 5

 Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Four Measures of Culture by
 Educational Level
                                                                ANOVA
                                       Human             Open        Internal       Rational
 Variable             MANOVA          Relations        Systems      Processes         Goal
                      F(8, 604)       F(2, 305)        F(2, 305)    F(2, 305)       F(2, 305)

 Educational Level       0.88           1.94             0.02           1.17          0.98




                                               Discussion




                                                  52
Based on the data relative to perceptions of school leadership being effective by gender,
professional status, educational level, ethnicity, and experience, there were two categories that
showed significant relationships to leadership effectiveness. Both the educational levels and
ethnic groups of the respondents showed significant impact. This finding indicates that African-
Americans, more than any other ethnic group, rate leadership effectiveness higher. Literature is
silent about this kind of relationship. The data also shows that as the educational level of the
respondents increased, the higher the ratings were for leadership effectiveness. This revelation is
consistent with the literature (IEL, 2000; Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2008; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2005).
        Staff’s perception of their schools being academically or behaviorally focused by gender,
professional status, educational level, ethnicity, and experience showed only one significant
finding. The only category showing a significant impact on the ratings of program focus was
ethnicity. African-Americans perceived alternative schools to be more academically focused than
did other ethnicities. Although research reflects little documentation on alternative schools and
program focus, the Tennessee Department of Education (2006) does encourage school districts to
provide more academically-based instructional programs for students in alternative education
settings, but this does not explain the ethnicity difference.
        In regard to the staffs’ perceptions by gender, professional status, educational level,
ethnicity, and experience of the four different types of cultures being represented at their school,
the findings show four significant responses. These were all related to human relations: (1)
professional status, which had a significant impact on how respondents rated their schools in
terms of a human relations culture; (2) experience, which level had an impact on human relations
ratings; (3) experience with alternative schools, which had a significant impact on human
relations, and (4) for present alternative school experience, respondents with three or more years
had higher human relations ratings than did those with fewer than three years of experience. As
indicated by the data, perceptions of a human relations model triumphed over the other three
models. This model emphasizes building teamwork and cultivating employee’s skills and
competencies (Harris, 2001; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).
        The results also show a relationship between culture and leadership effectiveness. The
human relations and open systems models were more closely aligned with leadership
effectiveness for reasons previously mentioned. In addition, results indicate a relationship among
leadership effectiveness, culture, program focus, and satisfaction. Respondents indicate that job
satisfaction was significantly related to all three variables. As leadership effectiveness increased,
so did reported job satisfaction levels. Human relations and open systems culture also showed
positive relationships with satisfaction; when the program focus was more academic, job
satisfaction increased. In addition, in schools where the program focus was staff who are more
academic, higher levels of job satisfaction were reported.


                                            Conclusion

        This study investigates the relationship between leadership effectiveness, school culture,
program focus, and job satisfaction. These relationships underpin efforts to improve teaching and
learning for all children. They are also concerns of educators as they ponder the task of
continued school reform. Lessons from this study provide some insight into the nature of
relationships and the importance of them for building successful schools. These relationships are



                                                 53
at the core of an ever changing educational environment where principals are expected to be
more than instructional leaders, teachers to do more than teach, and support staff to be more than
quiet cheerleaders on the sidelines. The new focus is on developing a professional learning
community where responsibility for teaching and learning is shared with all (DuFour & Eaker,
1998; Hord, 1997), and ownership of educational processes belongs to all stakeholders.


                                           References

Allen, L.E., Franceschini, L., & Lowther, D. (2010). Proceedings from InSITE ‘2010: The role
        of school leadership in a large-scale student laptop implementation. Bari: Italy.
Bauer, S.C., Haydel J., & Cody, C. (2005). Teaching leadership and teaching leaders. Retrieved
          from http://www.rapidintellect.com/ALQweb/sum2005el.htm
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A.V. (2006). Competing values
          leadership: Creating value in organizations. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
          approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture: Research in
          brief. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices
          for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Harris, A. (2001). Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership &
        Management, 21(3) 261-270.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
        improvement. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). School leadership for the 21st century initiative: A
        report of the task force on the principal. Retrieved from
        http://www.iel.org/publications/21st-century-school-leadership.html
Kearney, C. A. (2008). An interdisciplinary model of school absenteeism in youth to inform
        professional practice and public policy. Educational Psychology Review, 257-282.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
        leadership. London, England: London Centre for Leadership in Learning, Institute of
        Education.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
        1995-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199.
McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2001). Windows on the future: Education in the age of technology.
        Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Marzano, J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into practice. Alexandria,
        VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). Analyzing organizational effectiveness and leadership
        roles. Retrieved from
        http://www.12manage.com/methods_quinn_competing_values_framework.html

Srivastava, S.K., & Pratap, S. (1984). Perception of job satisfaction and
         organisational climate. Perspectives of Psychological Research, 7, 41-43.



                                                54
Tennessee State Department of Education. (2006). Alternative education program for self-
       assessment instrument form: Alternative education program level. Retrieved from
       http://public.doe.k12.ga.us
Williams, R.B (2006). Leadership for school reform: On principal decision-making styles
       reflect a collaborative approach? Retrieved from
       http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/williams.html
York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2004). Special educators in inclusive
       education programs: Reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal of
       Inclusive Education, 9(2) 193-215.


                                           Authors

Larry McNeal is Chair of the Department of Leadership at the University of Memphis.

Joris Ray is an administrator with the Memphis City Schools in Memphis, Tennessee.




                                              55

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...
Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...
Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...
AEJMC Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE)
 
Kilmer lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
Kilmer  lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leadersKilmer  lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
Kilmer lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
William Kritsonis
 
A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...
A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...
A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...
Amado M. Cadiong
 

La actualidad más candente (15)

Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...
Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...
Journal of Public Relations Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, Fall 2018 [complete...
 
The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward For...
The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward For...The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward For...
The Mismatch between EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Classroom Practices toward For...
 
Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full...
Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full...Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full...
Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full...
 
Mosley, kennya g the percieved influence of mentoring nfjca v3 n1 2014
Mosley, kennya g the percieved influence of mentoring nfjca v3 n1 2014Mosley, kennya g the percieved influence of mentoring nfjca v3 n1 2014
Mosley, kennya g the percieved influence of mentoring nfjca v3 n1 2014
 
Dr. John Hamilton, Texas A&M University at Texarkana
Dr. John Hamilton, Texas A&M University at TexarkanaDr. John Hamilton, Texas A&M University at Texarkana
Dr. John Hamilton, Texas A&M University at Texarkana
 
Schulz, joe a comparison of practical leadership skills nfeasj v34 v4 2016
Schulz, joe a comparison of practical leadership skills nfeasj v34 v4 2016 Schulz, joe a comparison of practical leadership skills nfeasj v34 v4 2016
Schulz, joe a comparison of practical leadership skills nfeasj v34 v4 2016
 
Fowler-Final_Capstone
Fowler-Final_CapstoneFowler-Final_Capstone
Fowler-Final_Capstone
 
Teacher
TeacherTeacher
Teacher
 
Kilmer lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
Kilmer  lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leadersKilmer  lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
Kilmer lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
 
Influence of Inspirational Motivation on Teachers’ Job Commitment in Public P...
Influence of Inspirational Motivation on Teachers’ Job Commitment in Public P...Influence of Inspirational Motivation on Teachers’ Job Commitment in Public P...
Influence of Inspirational Motivation on Teachers’ Job Commitment in Public P...
 
Final Paper
Final PaperFinal Paper
Final Paper
 
M14112
M14112M14112
M14112
 
Aea Conference Presentation November 2007 J Sheldon
Aea Conference Presentation November 2007 J SheldonAea Conference Presentation November 2007 J Sheldon
Aea Conference Presentation November 2007 J Sheldon
 
A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...
A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...
A qualitative study of differentiated teacher supervisions impact on classroo...
 
Relationship between Principals’ Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Indiscipline...
Relationship between Principals’ Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Indiscipline...Relationship between Principals’ Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Indiscipline...
Relationship between Principals’ Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Indiscipline...
 

Destacado

Week 5 Primary, Secondary data and G
Week 5 Primary, Secondary data and GWeek 5 Primary, Secondary data and G
Week 5 Primary, Secondary data and G
Jamie Davies
 
Manufacturing competitiveness of Indian States
Manufacturing competitiveness of Indian StatesManufacturing competitiveness of Indian States
Manufacturing competitiveness of Indian States
Anshul Pachouri
 
Harvest Fast Day
Harvest Fast DayHarvest Fast Day
Harvest Fast Day
CAFOD
 
教學媒體 About Wikipedia
教學媒體 About Wikipedia教學媒體 About Wikipedia
教學媒體 About Wikipedia
雪筠 林雪筠
 
Just 10 events of thick city jem
Just 10 events of thick city jemJust 10 events of thick city jem
Just 10 events of thick city jem
watchthefly
 

Destacado (20)

CAP and you
CAP and youCAP and you
CAP and you
 
Bairro de Mumemo, Mozambique
Bairro de Mumemo, MozambiqueBairro de Mumemo, Mozambique
Bairro de Mumemo, Mozambique
 
Week 5 Primary, Secondary data and G
Week 5 Primary, Secondary data and GWeek 5 Primary, Secondary data and G
Week 5 Primary, Secondary data and G
 
Week 7 Animal Studies and Castner (1988)
Week 7 Animal Studies and Castner (1988)Week 7 Animal Studies and Castner (1988)
Week 7 Animal Studies and Castner (1988)
 
Are we agile yet?
Are we agile yet?Are we agile yet?
Are we agile yet?
 
Manufacturing competitiveness of Indian States
Manufacturing competitiveness of Indian StatesManufacturing competitiveness of Indian States
Manufacturing competitiveness of Indian States
 
Harvest Fast Day
Harvest Fast DayHarvest Fast Day
Harvest Fast Day
 
教學媒體 About Wikipedia
教學媒體 About Wikipedia教學媒體 About Wikipedia
教學媒體 About Wikipedia
 
Regular Sch. Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion
Regular Sch. Discipline, Suspension, ExpulsionRegular Sch. Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion
Regular Sch. Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion
 
S T U D E N T A T T E N D A N C E
S T U D E N T  A T T E N D A N C ES T U D E N T  A T T E N D A N C E
S T U D E N T A T T E N D A N C E
 
Oo Exemple Hospital
Oo Exemple HospitalOo Exemple Hospital
Oo Exemple Hospital
 
HIV+ fishermen work Lake Turkana in Kenya
HIV+ fishermen work Lake Turkana in KenyaHIV+ fishermen work Lake Turkana in Kenya
HIV+ fishermen work Lake Turkana in Kenya
 
Donna Charlton Doctoral Forum
Donna Charlton Doctoral ForumDonna Charlton Doctoral Forum
Donna Charlton Doctoral Forum
 
web 2.0
web 2.0web 2.0
web 2.0
 
Tear gas and rubber bullets as families evicted
Tear gas and rubber bullets as families evictedTear gas and rubber bullets as families evicted
Tear gas and rubber bullets as families evicted
 
Student Harassment and Bullying
Student Harassment and BullyingStudent Harassment and Bullying
Student Harassment and Bullying
 
Just 10 events of thick city jem
Just 10 events of thick city jemJust 10 events of thick city jem
Just 10 events of thick city jem
 
Software Process... the good parts
Software Process... the good partsSoftware Process... the good parts
Software Process... the good parts
 
Unbreakable: Father
Unbreakable: FatherUnbreakable: Father
Unbreakable: Father
 
Dr. Yolanda E. Smith, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Yolanda E. Smith, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...Dr. Yolanda E. Smith, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
Dr. Yolanda E. Smith, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, ...
 

Similar a Dr. Larry McNeal, Dr. Ray, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS

Contextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docx
Contextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docxContextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docx
Contextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docx
melvinjrobinson2199
 
Effective instructional leadership
Effective instructional leadershipEffective instructional leadership
Effective instructional leadership
Azreen5520
 

Similar a Dr. Larry McNeal, Dr. Ray, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (20)

A Study Of Group Dynamics In Educational Leadership Cohort And Non-Cohort Groups
A Study Of Group Dynamics In Educational Leadership Cohort And Non-Cohort GroupsA Study Of Group Dynamics In Educational Leadership Cohort And Non-Cohort Groups
A Study Of Group Dynamics In Educational Leadership Cohort And Non-Cohort Groups
 
Contextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docx
Contextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docxContextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docx
Contextual Influences on the Implementation of a Schoolwide .docx
 
Distributed Leadership Annotation Spdf
Distributed Leadership    Annotation SpdfDistributed Leadership    Annotation Spdf
Distributed Leadership Annotation Spdf
 
Dr. W.A. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee for La'Shonte Nechelle Iwundu
Dr. W.A. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee for La'Shonte Nechelle IwunduDr. W.A. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee for La'Shonte Nechelle Iwundu
Dr. W.A. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee for La'Shonte Nechelle Iwundu
 
Dr. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee MemberDr. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
Dr. Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member
 
Effective instructional leadership
Effective instructional leadershipEffective instructional leadership
Effective instructional leadership
 
Assistant Principals Perceptions Of The Principalship
Assistant Principals  Perceptions Of The PrincipalshipAssistant Principals  Perceptions Of The Principalship
Assistant Principals Perceptions Of The Principalship
 
Ej1123995
Ej1123995Ej1123995
Ej1123995
 
Dr. Reginald Leon Green
Dr. Reginald Leon GreenDr. Reginald Leon Green
Dr. Reginald Leon Green
 
2 caldero done
2 caldero done2 caldero done
2 caldero done
 
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Since ...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Since ...Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Since ...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Since ...
 
Dr. W.A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com
Dr. W.A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.comDr. W.A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com
Dr. W.A. Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com
 
Kilmer lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
Kilmer  lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leadersKilmer  lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
Kilmer lloyd_c__a_professional_development_series_for_school_leaders
 
Ej963734
Ej963734Ej963734
Ej963734
 
Dr. W. Sean Kearney & Dr. David Herrington
Dr. W. Sean Kearney & Dr. David HerringtonDr. W. Sean Kearney & Dr. David Herrington
Dr. W. Sean Kearney & Dr. David Herrington
 
The Mediating Effect of Sense of Efficacy on the Relationship Between Instruc...
The Mediating Effect of Sense of Efficacy on the Relationship Between Instruc...The Mediating Effect of Sense of Efficacy on the Relationship Between Instruc...
The Mediating Effect of Sense of Efficacy on the Relationship Between Instruc...
 
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Donald Ray Brown, Jr., Di...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Donald Ray Brown, Jr., Di...Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Donald Ray Brown, Jr., Di...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Donald Ray Brown, Jr., Di...
 
A Comparison Of The Mystery Motivator And The Get Em On Task Interventions F...
A Comparison Of The Mystery Motivator And The Get  Em On Task Interventions F...A Comparison Of The Mystery Motivator And The Get  Em On Task Interventions F...
A Comparison Of The Mystery Motivator And The Get Em On Task Interventions F...
 
Dr. William Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com
Dr. William Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.comDr. William Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com
Dr. William Kritsonis, National FORUM Journals, www.nationalforum.com
 
Dr. Sean Kearney & Dr. David E. Herrington
Dr. Sean Kearney & Dr. David E. HerringtonDr. Sean Kearney & Dr. David E. Herrington
Dr. Sean Kearney & Dr. David E. Herrington
 

Último

The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptxThe basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
heathfieldcps1
 
Making and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdf
Making and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdfMaking and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdf
Making and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdf
Chris Hunter
 
Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptx
Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptxSeal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptx
Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptx
negromaestrong
 
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
QucHHunhnh
 

Último (20)

Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin ClassesMixin Classes in Odoo 17  How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
Mixin Classes in Odoo 17 How to Extend Models Using Mixin Classes
 
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptxThe basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
The basics of sentences session 2pptx copy.pptx
 
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptxBasic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
 
Making and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdf
Making and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdfMaking and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdf
Making and Justifying Mathematical Decisions.pdf
 
Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptx
Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptxSeal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptx
Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptx
 
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
ComPTIA Overview | Comptia Security+ Book SY0-701
 
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docxPython Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
 
Web & Social Media Analytics Previous Year Question Paper.pdf
Web & Social Media Analytics Previous Year Question Paper.pdfWeb & Social Media Analytics Previous Year Question Paper.pdf
Web & Social Media Analytics Previous Year Question Paper.pdf
 
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
2024-NATIONAL-LEARNING-CAMP-AND-OTHER.pptx
 
Mehran University Newsletter Vol-X, Issue-I, 2024
Mehran University Newsletter Vol-X, Issue-I, 2024Mehran University Newsletter Vol-X, Issue-I, 2024
Mehran University Newsletter Vol-X, Issue-I, 2024
 
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The BasicsIntroduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
Introduction to Nonprofit Accounting: The Basics
 
Asian American Pacific Islander Month DDSD 2024.pptx
Asian American Pacific Islander Month DDSD 2024.pptxAsian American Pacific Islander Month DDSD 2024.pptx
Asian American Pacific Islander Month DDSD 2024.pptx
 
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
Advanced Views - Calendar View in Odoo 17
 
Ecological Succession. ( ECOSYSTEM, B. Pharmacy, 1st Year, Sem-II, Environmen...
Ecological Succession. ( ECOSYSTEM, B. Pharmacy, 1st Year, Sem-II, Environmen...Ecological Succession. ( ECOSYSTEM, B. Pharmacy, 1st Year, Sem-II, Environmen...
Ecological Succession. ( ECOSYSTEM, B. Pharmacy, 1st Year, Sem-II, Environmen...
 
Grant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy Consulting
Grant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy ConsultingGrant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy Consulting
Grant Readiness 101 TechSoup and Remy Consulting
 
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptxUnit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
Unit-IV- Pharma. Marketing Channels.pptx
 
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptxICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
 
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf1029 -  Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
1029 - Danh muc Sach Giao Khoa 10 . pdf
 
Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdfMicro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
 
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot GraphZ Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
 

Dr. Larry McNeal, Dr. Ray, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS

  • 1. The Relationship between Leadership Effectiveness, Organizational Culture, and Program Focus Larry McNeal, PhD University of Memphis Joris Ray, EdD Memphis City Schools ABSTRACT This study investigated the relationships between leadership effectiveness, culture, program focus, and job satisfaction. A survey was distributed to 850 principals, teachers, and educational support staff in public alternative schools in Tennessee. Of that number, 388 (45.6%) responded. The study yielded several findings. First, staff educational levels were related to perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Second, the ethnicity of some staff corresponded with perceptions about school focus. Third, professional status and experience were related to culture. Fourth, culture and leadership effective culture were related. Finally, a relationship existed between leadership effectiveness, culture, program focus, and job satisfaction. Key words: role of principals; leadership effectiveness; education level; ethnic groups The role of today’s school principal is significantly different from that of the principals of two decades ago (York, Barr, & Duke, 2004). Today, schools contain a myriad of problems, including violence, fewer resources, higher absenteeism, increasing dropout rates, reduction in academic performance, complexity of student needs, influence of gangs and gang behavior, and reduced graduation rates (Kearney, 2008). These issues have influenced the public’s expectations of the principalship. Public expectations of the principalship have increased beyond the professional task of being the instructional leader (Bauer, Haydel, & Cody, 2005; York et al., 2004). Principals must not only possess strong instructional skills but also be capable of managing a variety of responsibilities and duties, such as building schools that promote teaching and learning for all students (McCain & Jukes, 2001). Schools that promote powerful teaching and learning environments develop a culture that supports these efforts and have a clearly articulated program focus. According to Marzano (2003), developing culture involves the creation of cooperative environments among staff within the context of a shared sense of purpose together with the execution of other responsibilities. Deal and Peterson (1994) note that the most effective change in culture happens when principals, teachers, and students model the values and beliefs most 46
  • 2. important to the institution. Principals who act with care and concern for others are more likely to facilitate the development of a culture that reflects these values and promotes job satisfaction (Srivastava & Pratap, 1984). Such facilitative leadership exercises power through others, not over them (Huffman & Jacobson as cited in Williams, 2006). The issues of leadership effectiveness, culture, program focus, and job satisfaction pose some fundamental questions for educators. For instance these questions emerge: What is the relationship between leadership effectiveness and culture? Are these two variables related to program focus? Is job satisfaction also related to leadership effectiveness, culture, and program focus? This study investigates the relationship between the four variables using a state-wide sample of school staff. Methodology Design The variables in this study were school staff perceptions of the relationships between leadership effectiveness, culture, program focus, and job satisfaction. The study used a correlational research design method. Correlational research is a quantitative method in which two or more variables from the same group of subjects are examined to determine if there is a relationship between them (Creswell, 2009). If a relationship exists, then the significance of the relationship is determined using correlational statistics. Sample The population for this study was members of the Tennessee Alternative Education Association that represented the 119 school systems that operate at least one alternative school. This diverse group includes urban, suburban, and rural school districts in West, Middle, and East Tennessee. The sample was comprised of principals, teachers, and educational support staff. The survey was sent to 850 principals, teachers, and support staff. Almost 46% (388) of staff members responded. The demographics showed that most of the schools (N=16, 44%) came from counties in the western part of the state, followed by the eastern (N=11, 31%), and middle (N=9, 25%) parts of the state. The largest number of schools were rural (N=29, 88%) with suburban (N=4, 11%) and urban (N=3, 8%) schools representing a much smaller portion. The ethnicity of respondents varied with Whites being the largest group (N=155, 50%), respectively followed by African-Americans (N=136, 44%), Asian Americans (N=9, 3%), Multi-Racial and Others (N=5, 2%), and Hispanic/Latino (N=3, 1%). Females were the largest group of respondents (N=182, 59%) followed by males (N=126, 44%). A number of respondents had both a bachelor’s and master’s degree (N=108, 35%), but others had a master’s +45 hours (N=58, 19%), or educational specialist degrees, (N=27, 9%) with a smaller number holding a doctorate degree (N=6, 2%). The overwhelming majority were teachers (N=236, 77%), followed by principals (N=44, 14%), assistant principals (N=7, 2%), and others (N=21, 7%) which consisted of counselors, librarians, program coordinators, and other support personnel. The typical respondent had slightly more than 13 years of experience with 6 years of that in an alternative school setting and almost 5 years at their current school. Data Collection 47
  • 3. The Tennessee Alternative School Questionnaire (TASQ) survey instrument was used in the study. The TASQ was based on the earlier research of Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, & Thakor (2006) who developed the Leadership Effectiveness Assessment Device (LEAD). This identifies observable behaviors and maps such behaviors into a comprehensive model of organizational and leadership effectiveness called the Competing Values Framework (CVF). In addition, the Competing Values Culture Instrument (CVCI) presents a set of questions related to a school’s culture (Quinn, 1988). The Competing Values Framework was based on statistical analyses of a comprehensive list of effectiveness indicators which were grouped into two major dimensions (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). The first dimension is related to organizational focus from an internal emphasis on the well-being and development of people in the organization toward an external focus on the well-being and development of the organization itself. The second dimension differentiates the organizational preference for structure and represents the contrast between stability and control and flexibility and change. Together, the two dimensions form four quadrants. Each quadrant represents one of four major models or organizational and management theories (Quinn, 1988). The Human Relations Model places emphasis on flexibility and internal focus. It stresses cohesion, morale, and human resources development as criteria for effectiveness. The Open Systems Model emphasizes flexibility and external focus and stresses readiness, growth, resources acquisition, and external support. The Rational Goal Model emphasizes control and an external focus. It regards planning, goal setting, productivity, and efficiency as being effective. Finally, the Internal Process Model emphasizes control and internal focus, and it stresses the role of information and management, communication, stability, and control. The Tennessee Alternative School Questionnaire (TASQ) was developed to gather demographic, leadership effectiveness, school culture, program focus (academic or behavior), and job satisfaction data. The initial version of the questionnaire was developed by researchers from the University of Memphis (Allen, Franceschini & Lowther, 2010). Specific behavioral items aligned with the CVF and leadership were identified. To establish content validity, the researchers used principals and professors versed in educational leadership and CVF literature. The items were also tested for structural validity by a panel of teachers who were not versed in leadership or CVF literature. Related items were sorted into eight groups. The panel grouped 75% (six out of eight items per role) of the items. The remaining 25% were incorrectly grouped but were identified with a CVF role and were edited for greater clarity (Allen, Franceshini, & Lowther, 2010). The instrument was first used in a study of school leadership in implementing technology in K-12 school settings in Michigan in 2008. Demographic items (geographical region, school type, ethnicity, educational level, professional status, and experience) were added to the questionnaire. The TASQ was distributed to staff in 119 school systems. The sample was comprised of principals, teachers, and educational support staff of Tennessee alternative schools. The survey was distributed to 850 principals, teachers, and educational support staff. Almost 46% (388) returned a survey. Findings 48
  • 4. In order to understand how each subgroup category impacts ratings of leadership effectiveness, a multiple regression analysis was performed. The tested model included seven independent variables (ethnicity, gender, education level, professional status, total educational experience, alternative school experience, and experience at present alternative school). The seven variables were put into the model at the same time, using the ENTER method. The table includes beta weights, standard errors, and t-values for the demographic variables. All together, the seven category variables accounted for almost 9% of the variance in perception of leadership effectiveness (R2 = 0.088). Results for the model are in Table 1. Table 1 Regression Analysis Summary of Respondent Demographic Variables Predicting School Orientation (N = 308) Variable B S.E.B. B t Gender 0.07 0.16 0.03 0.47 Professional Status -0.06 0.23 -0.02 -0.26 Educational Level 0.07 0.11 0.04 0.67 Ethnic Group -0.55 0.16 -0.20 -3.47 *** Educational Experience 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.20 Total Alternative School Experience 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.27 Experience at Present Alternative School 0.04 0.03 0.12 1.35 Note. R2 = 0.055, (p <.05) *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001 The extent to which staff members perceived their schools to be academically or behaviorally focused by gender, professional status, educational level, ethnicity, and experience was also tested using a regression model. Again, the ENTER method was used; however, the seven categories only accounted for approximately 6% of the variance in respondents’ ratings of school orientation (R2 = 0.055). The only category showing a significant impact on ratings of school orientation was ethnicity (t = -3.47, p <.001). Results for this model are in Table 2. Table 2 49
  • 5. Regression Analysis Summary of Respondent Demographic Variables Predicting Mean Leadership Effectiveness (N = 308) Variable B S.E.B. B t Gender -0.04 0.10 -0.02 -0.38 Professional Status -0.01 0.15 0.00 -0.05 Educational Level 0.16 0.07 0.14 2.35 * Ethnic Group -0.42 0.10 -0.23 -4.07 *** Educational Experience -0.01 0.01 -0.09 -1.29 Total Alternative School Experience 0.02 0.02 0.12 1.31 Experience at Present Alternative School 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.19 Note. R2 = 0.088, (p <.001) *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001 To ascertain the extent to which staff perceived four different types of organizational cultures to be represented at their schools by gender, professional status, educational level, ethnicity and experience, scores were obtained on multiple measures of culture. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether significant group differences were obtained, first, in an overall or multivariate sense, and, second, for four measures of culture individually examined or in a univariate sense. Displayed in Table 3 by gender, professional status, educational level, and median experience are the various means and standard deviations. Table 3 50
  • 6. Means and Standard Deviations for Four Measures of Culture by Demographic Variables Human Open Internal Rational Variable Relations Systems Processes Goal n M SD M SD M SD M SD Gender Male 126 135.0 72.4 80.3 40.0 99.6 61.4 90.8 43.1 Female 182 144.8 72.1 80.3 43.3 92.8 64.5 87.9 46.7 Professional Status Teachers/Others 257 136.3 68.2 81.0 42.8 96.9 62.7 90.8 43.7 Principals/Assistants 51 163.4 87.2 76.6 37.2 88.7 65.9 80.5 51.8 Educational Level Bachelor’s 108 130.0 71.4 79.9 43.2 102.5 64.3 93.4 42.8 Master’s 108 144.5 68.9 81.0 44.4 94.3 62.4 88.8 49.6 Above Master’s 92 149.0 76.2 80.0 37.5 89.0 62.8 84.4 42.7 Ethnicity African-American 136 145.0 65.7 82.7 37.9 89.4 49.2 89.8 39.7 Others 172 137.4 77.0 78.4 44.9 100.5 72.1 88.5 49.3 Total Educational Experience Less than Eleven Years 150 129.6 72.3 79.6 45.4 99.4 60.2 94.4 46.2 Eleven or More Years 158 151.4 70.8 80.9 38.4 92.0 65.9 84.0 43.9 Total Alternative School Experience Less than Five Years 148 129.8 65.6 76.2 44.8 103.1 61.0 96.8 44.7 Five or More Years 160 151.0 76.6 84.1 38.8 88.6 64.5 81.9 44.7 Experience at Present Alternative School Less than Three Years 117 129.7 69.0 75.5 42.1 102.8 57.9 96.6 44.8 Three or More Years 191 147.6 73.5 83.2 41.6 91.2 66.0 84.4 45.0 Shown in Table 4 are the results for the independent variables having exactly two levels, and in Table 5 are the results for the independent variables having more than two levels. As shown in the tables, neither multivariate nor univariate group differences were observed for the independent variables, gender, ethnicity, and educational level. Although no multivariate group 51
  • 7. differences were observed for professional status and median experience at present alternative schools, univariate differences were observed for these two variables. Table 4 Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Four Measures of Culture by Gender, Professional Status, Ethnicity, and Experience ANOVA Human Open Internal Rational Variable MANOVA Relations Systems Processes Goal F(4, 303) F(1, 306) F(1, 306) F(1, 306) F(1, 306) Gender 0.43 1.37 0.00 0.86 0.30 Professional Status 2.06 6.11* 0.46 0.73 2.18 Ethnicity 1.95 0.83 0.78 2.37 0.06 Total Experience 2.80* 7.09** 0.08 1.04 4.16* Total Alternative School 2.44* 6.74* 2.77 4.06* 8.51** Experience Experience at Present 1.95 4.52* 2.46 2.47 5.36* Alternative School *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001 Table 5 Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Four Measures of Culture by Educational Level ANOVA Human Open Internal Rational Variable MANOVA Relations Systems Processes Goal F(8, 604) F(2, 305) F(2, 305) F(2, 305) F(2, 305) Educational Level 0.88 1.94 0.02 1.17 0.98 Discussion 52
  • 8. Based on the data relative to perceptions of school leadership being effective by gender, professional status, educational level, ethnicity, and experience, there were two categories that showed significant relationships to leadership effectiveness. Both the educational levels and ethnic groups of the respondents showed significant impact. This finding indicates that African- Americans, more than any other ethnic group, rate leadership effectiveness higher. Literature is silent about this kind of relationship. The data also shows that as the educational level of the respondents increased, the higher the ratings were for leadership effectiveness. This revelation is consistent with the literature (IEL, 2000; Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2008; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Staff’s perception of their schools being academically or behaviorally focused by gender, professional status, educational level, ethnicity, and experience showed only one significant finding. The only category showing a significant impact on the ratings of program focus was ethnicity. African-Americans perceived alternative schools to be more academically focused than did other ethnicities. Although research reflects little documentation on alternative schools and program focus, the Tennessee Department of Education (2006) does encourage school districts to provide more academically-based instructional programs for students in alternative education settings, but this does not explain the ethnicity difference. In regard to the staffs’ perceptions by gender, professional status, educational level, ethnicity, and experience of the four different types of cultures being represented at their school, the findings show four significant responses. These were all related to human relations: (1) professional status, which had a significant impact on how respondents rated their schools in terms of a human relations culture; (2) experience, which level had an impact on human relations ratings; (3) experience with alternative schools, which had a significant impact on human relations, and (4) for present alternative school experience, respondents with three or more years had higher human relations ratings than did those with fewer than three years of experience. As indicated by the data, perceptions of a human relations model triumphed over the other three models. This model emphasizes building teamwork and cultivating employee’s skills and competencies (Harris, 2001; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). The results also show a relationship between culture and leadership effectiveness. The human relations and open systems models were more closely aligned with leadership effectiveness for reasons previously mentioned. In addition, results indicate a relationship among leadership effectiveness, culture, program focus, and satisfaction. Respondents indicate that job satisfaction was significantly related to all three variables. As leadership effectiveness increased, so did reported job satisfaction levels. Human relations and open systems culture also showed positive relationships with satisfaction; when the program focus was more academic, job satisfaction increased. In addition, in schools where the program focus was staff who are more academic, higher levels of job satisfaction were reported. Conclusion This study investigates the relationship between leadership effectiveness, school culture, program focus, and job satisfaction. These relationships underpin efforts to improve teaching and learning for all children. They are also concerns of educators as they ponder the task of continued school reform. Lessons from this study provide some insight into the nature of relationships and the importance of them for building successful schools. These relationships are 53
  • 9. at the core of an ever changing educational environment where principals are expected to be more than instructional leaders, teachers to do more than teach, and support staff to be more than quiet cheerleaders on the sidelines. The new focus is on developing a professional learning community where responsibility for teaching and learning is shared with all (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997), and ownership of educational processes belongs to all stakeholders. References Allen, L.E., Franceschini, L., & Lowther, D. (2010). Proceedings from InSITE ‘2010: The role of school leadership in a large-scale student laptop implementation. Bari: Italy. Bauer, S.C., Haydel J., & Cody, C. (2005). Teaching leadership and teaching leaders. Retrieved from http://www.rapidintellect.com/ALQweb/sum2005el.htm Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A.V. (2006). Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture: Research in brief. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Harris, A. (2001). Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership & Management, 21(3) 261-270. Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/ Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). School leadership for the 21st century initiative: A report of the task force on the principal. Retrieved from http://www.iel.org/publications/21st-century-school-leadership.html Kearney, C. A. (2008). An interdisciplinary model of school absenteeism in youth to inform professional practice and public policy. Educational Psychology Review, 257-282. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. London, England: London Centre for Leadership in Learning, Institute of Education. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1995-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199. McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2001). Windows on the future: Education in the age of technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marzano, J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). Analyzing organizational effectiveness and leadership roles. Retrieved from http://www.12manage.com/methods_quinn_competing_values_framework.html Srivastava, S.K., & Pratap, S. (1984). Perception of job satisfaction and organisational climate. Perspectives of Psychological Research, 7, 41-43. 54
  • 10. Tennessee State Department of Education. (2006). Alternative education program for self- assessment instrument form: Alternative education program level. Retrieved from http://public.doe.k12.ga.us Williams, R.B (2006). Leadership for school reform: On principal decision-making styles reflect a collaborative approach? Retrieved from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/williams.html York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2004). Special educators in inclusive education programs: Reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2) 193-215. Authors Larry McNeal is Chair of the Department of Leadership at the University of Memphis. Joris Ray is an administrator with the Memphis City Schools in Memphis, Tennessee. 55