Instructional Leadership Behaviors in High School Principals, Assistant Principals, and

Department Chairpersons: A Comparison

Author(s): Carolyn S. Anderson
Source: The High School Journal, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Dec., 1986 - Jan., 1987), pp. 115-123
Published by: University of North Carolina Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40365051
Accessed: 01/07/2010 04:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
High School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

InstructionalLeadershipBehaviors
in High School Principals,
AssistantPrincipals,and
DepartmentChairpersons:
A Comparison
CarolynS. Anderson
Crete-Monee (Illinois)
School District201-U
© 1987 The Universityof NorthCarolina Press
Controversy overtherole oftheprincipalis
not new. Numerousstudieshave suggested
thatin actual practicemostprincipalsem-
phasize the administrativeor managerial
functionsof the job over those of instruc-
tional leadership.In fact,personalsurvival
and crisis managementoftendictatehow
time is spent and what functionsare per-
formed(Blumbergand Greenfield,1980;
Howell,1981; Liphamand Hoen, 1974; Roe
and Drake, 1974). On the otherhand, the
effectiveschoolsliterature strongly supports
the importanceof directinvolvement ofthe
principal in the instructional program.In
these schools the principalis perceivedto
providevisible leadershipin creatingand
maintaining an orderlyschoolclimate,a sys-
tem forregularlymonitoringstudentper-
formance,high expectations for student
achievementand teacherperformance, and
an emphasison basic skills.Such principals
are seen as being task oriented,assuming
responsibility forinstruction, co-ordinating
the curriculum,and actingas a source of
ideas and materials(Edmonds,1979a and b;
Mazzarella,1982; Weber,1971).
Evidencefromanotherbodyofliterature sug-
geststhattheinvolvement oftheprincipalin
instruction need notbe thisdirectin orderto
be effective.The schoolimprovement litera-
ture,in seekingto identifyfactorswhich
promotesuccessfulimplementation ofinno-
vations,providesevidencethatindirectprin-
cipal supportofinstruction, in termsoftrain-
ing, providingresources,scheduling,and
communication, is thecriticalfactor.
Bossert,
Dwyer,Rowan,andLee (1982)haveproposed
theconstruct of"instructional management"
to incorporate such functions (Loucks,etal.,
1982).
Mostofthisresearchhas focusedon elemen-
taryschool principals,and some question
exists as to its applicabilityto secondary
schools. The view of schools as "loosely
coupled"entitiesmaybe an imageespecially
appropriate to secondaryschools,wherede-
partmentalization and increasedcomplexity
in staffing patternscreatea different setting
forinstructional leadership(Bidwell,1965;
115
The HighSchool Journal-Dec/Jan.1987

Weick,1976; Firestoneand Herriott, 1982a certifiedpersonnelworkingin a buildingat

and b). In secondaryschoolsthecriticalvari- least 40% time.To encourageresponseand
able maybe thatsomeoneon the staff - not thus an adequate sample size, a self-
-
necessarilythe principal performsdirect addressedstampedenvelopewas provided
instructional leadershipfunctions. Glatthorn witheach instrument, and theprincipalwas
and Newberg (1984), in an ethnographic asked to endorse the study with an an-
studyof foururbanjuniorhighschools,for nouncementor memo encouragingstaffto
example,identifiedas a veryeffectivein- participate. In addition,theinstrument itself
structional leaderin one schoolthereading/ containedno personalquestionsby which
language arts chairperson,and in another teachersmightbe identifiable, suchas teach-
school, the assistantprincipal.Hall, Ruth- ingexperience,race,and sex. Teacherswere
erford, and Griffin (1982) reportedthatprin- asked only to identifytheir school and
cipals in successful schools could operate department.
successfully as eitherinitiators,managers,or
A revisedversionofthe Sources ofInstruc-
responders. The key ingredients were that
tional Leadership(SOIL) instrument (Glat-
someone was initiatinginstructionalim-
thornand Newberg,1983), containing32
provement effortsand thattheprincipalwas
was used to measure
providing sanction. Overallhowever,there leadershipfunctions,
theamountofinstructional leadershipdem-
have been few studies of roles otherthan
onstratedby principal,assistantprincipals,
principal,oroftheprincipal'srolein tandem and based on staff
withthatofotherschoolstaffin thedelivery department chairpersons,
perceptions. The originalinstrumenthad
ofinstruction-related services.This dearthof
facevalidityand was assumedto have
researchis especially evident at the sec- good
good contentvaliditybecause it was de-
ondaryschool level.
velopedfroma tenyearreviewofthelitera-
One purpose of the presentstudywas to ture on effective schools. However,to im-
documentdifferences in the performance of
prove the measurement scale the response
variousinstructional leadershipfunctions at
categorieswereexpandedand clarified.The
the highschool level. Of particularinterest revised
response categories ranged from
werethevariationsinfunctions performed by "does not perform thistaskat all" to "per-
principals,assistantprincipals,and depart- formstaskand playsa veryimportant role,"
mentchairpersons. Based on thetheorythat withan additional
optionof"I haveno basis
secondaryschoolsarelooselycoupled,itwas forknowing/'In addition,slightchangesin
anticipatedthatleadershipwouldnotbe cen- wordingweremadeon a fewitemsforclari-
tralized in the principal role, but rather fication, and one itemwas added torepresent
sharedamongthethreeroles.Furthermore, it an additionalfactorin effective instruction
was anticipatedthatschools,evenwithinthe class Table 1 includes
(uninterrupted time).
same district,would differin the relative the 32 itemsoftherevisedinstrument.
contributions thateach rolemadeto instruc-
tionalleadership. Reliabilitywas checked with Cronbach's
Methodology: The populationforthisstudy Alpha as a measureof internalconsistency.
included eight of the nine comprehensive For all threeleadershippositionstheAlpha
coefficient was .95. Studiesof construct va-
highschoolsin a largepublicschool district were also and results of
in the Southwest.Althoughas partof one lidity conducted,
districtthe schools shared some common these and the reliability are
analyses reported
elsewhere (Anderson, 1984).
characteristics,they had administrative
teamsthatvariedconsiderably in philosophy The revisedSOIL instrument was distributed
of leadership and in administrative to facultymailboxesbetweenApril27 and
organization. May 10, 1984. Threehundredsurveyforms
The studyinstrument out of 724 distributed were returnedto the
was administeredto
116
 Instructional
LeadershipBehaviors

research,foran overallresponserateofover Descriptivestatistics(frequencies,means,

41%. Responsestatisticsindicatedthatthe and standarddeviations)werecomputedon
sampleofrespondents was proportional (by all 32 itemsoftheSOIL instrument. A rating
school and department) to the total popu- of 1.0 means"does notperform"; 2.0 means
lationsurveyed. "performs an unimportant role"; 3.0 means
"performs a somewhat important role"; 4.0
theinstructional
(1) Articulates goalsoftheschool.
means "performsa very importantrole."
(2) Helpsteachersto relatetheschool'sinstructional
goalsto theircur-
These itemswere also rankedwithineach
riculumunits.
roleby size ofmeanto indicatetherelative
theinstructional
(3) Clarifies ofeachposition
orroleinthe
responsibilities
importance ofeach functionto each role.
school.
(4) Selectsinstructional tofillvacanciesin theschool.
personnel A mixed design ANOVA was run with
(5) Evaluatesteachers. schools as the betweenfactor,roles as the
(6) Developstheschool'smasterschedule. withinfactor, and meanscoreforeachroleon
to specificclassesorsections.
(7) Assignsteachers the SOIL instrument as the dependentvari-
materials
(8) Allocates theinstructional
neededtoaccomplish goalsofthe able. (Only respondentswho answeredat
school. least17 itemsfora givenrolewereincluded
materials.
toevaluateinstructional
(9) Helpsteachers in the analysis.)Mean scoresby school for
to
(10)Helpsteachers developappropriate materials
instructional thatare each role were graphedto detectpotential
notavailablecommercially. sourcesofinteraction. The Scheffemultiple
(11) Seestoitthatnecessarysupport etc.)are
(aides,secretaries,
personnel comparison testwas used to compareeach
inaccomplishing
madeavailabletoassistteachers instructional
goals. roleto theotherroleswithineach school,to
ofbasicskillsinstruction
theimportance
toparents
(12)Communicates in determinewhich of the trendsobservedin
theschool. thegraphsweresignificant.
staff thatrelateto instruction.
(13)Organizes developmentprograms
Results:Roles differedsubstantiallyin mean
testscoresto identify
achievement
(14) Analyzesstandardized general
scoreforeach item.An itemmightbe ranked
and weaknessesin theschool'sinstructional
veryhighforoneortwopositionsand lowfor
strengths program.
(15) Schedulesassembliesthathavean instructional
purpose.
the others.Based on theserankingsthe ten
(16) Securesadditionalfundsforinstructional
purposes.
mostand least important functionsforeach
in theirclassrooms.
(17)Observesteachers
toobserveeachother'sclasses.
position were identified,as presentedin
teachers
(18) Encourages Tables 2 (most)and 3 (least).
(19) Communicatesto studentsthe school's general concern for
achievement. Item Prin APrin DChairp
(20)Organizes teachers on instructional
toworktogether matters. Goals
Articulate 2.7 2.6 2.6
RelateGoalstoCurriculum 2.7
(21) Provideshelpto teacherswhowantto improvetheirteaching.
PersonnelSelection 3.1
newprograms
(22) Approves thathavean instructional
emphasis. TeacherEvaluation 3.3 3.4
MasterScheduleBuilding 3.8 2.5
studentdiscipline.
(23)Takesstepsto improve
AssignTeacherstoClasses 2.8 3.1
(24)Takesstepstodevelopa schoolclimateconduciveto learning. AllocateMaterials 3.1
EvaluateMaterials 2.6
(25)Co-ordinates at different
betweenteachers
instruction gradelevels. ParentCommunication 2.8
u schoolpolicyon student
(26) Establishes grades,including and
failures AnalyzeTestScores 2.8
ObserveTeachers 3.1 3.4
promotion. StudentCommunication 2.6 2.6
(27) Helpsindividualdepartments theircurricula.
toco-ordinate OrganizeTeachers 2.5
NewPrograms 2.7 2.4
(28)Chives non-evaluative
teachers abouttheirteaching.
feedback
StudentDiscipline 2.5 3.3
methods
instructional
alternative
(29)Suggests whoarecon-
forstudents SchoolClimate 2.8 2.9 2.4
GradingPolicy 2.5 2.6
sistently
failing. Co-ordination 2.4
Department
(30)(«ivesteachers en theirlessonplans.
feedback
Table 2: MeanScoreoftheTen MostImportant
Functions
forEach
(31) Workswithteachers to improvetheirinstructional
programs. Role
timebe minimized.
toclass instructional =
(1.0 doesnotperform; =
4.0 performsveryimportant
role)
(32) Insiststhatinterruptions

LeadershipIn-
Table 1: ItemsIncludedin theSourcesof Instructional
strument

117
The HighSchool Journal-Dec/Jan.1987

Item Prin APrin DChairp

dentswas viewedas somewhatless import-
PersonnelSelection 1.9 antthanfortheprincipal.
TeacherEvaluation 1.7
EvaluateMaterials 1.3 1.5 The department chairpersonwas perceived
DevelopMaterials 1.2 1.4
ProvideSupportPersonnel 1.8 1.9 tohaveas themostimportant functionsthose
Staff
Development 1.8 thatinvolveallocatingresponsibilities (per-
AnalyzeTestScores 1.7
Assemblies 1.9
Instructional 1.2 sonnel and materials)and the transmission
AdditionalFunds 2.0 and interpretation ofschoolgoals.Othertop
ObserveTeachers 2.0
EncouragePeerObservation1.5 1.5 1.7 rankedfunctions werethoseinvolvingdirect
Help toTeachers 1.8 contactwithteachersaboutinstruction, both
GradeLevelCo-ordination 1.5 1.9
GradingPolicy 1.9 to organizeteachersandto deliverdirectser-
NonevaluativeFeedback 1.9 2.0 vices. The least importantfunctionswere
Instructional
Alternative
Methods 1.6 2.0 those thatinvolvedprovidingsupportper-
LessonPlanFeedback
WorkWithTeachers
1.5
1.6
1.7
1A
1.6 sonnel, staffdevelopment,or assemblies,
Table 3: Mean ScoreoftheTen LeastImportant forEach
Functions
probablybecauseaccesstotheresourcescon-
Role trollingthesefunctions is usuallynotgivento
(1.0 = doesnotperform;4.0 = performs role)
veryimportant department chairpersons. They also played
littlerole in those instruction-relatedfunc-
The mostimportant functionsforprincipals tionsthatare generallymandatedand con-
tendedtobe tasksinvolvingsupervisionand trolledbyhigheradministrative levels,such
authorization,such as evaluationand per- as feedbackon lesson plans,teacherevalu-
sonnelhiring.Otherimportant functions in- ation,and standardizedtesting.
volved settingthe tone of the school and
communicating theschool'sgoalsand values Only two itemswererankedin the top ten
to teachers,parents,and students.The least functionsforall threeroles: establishinga
importantfunctionswerethosethatinvolve positiveschool climateand articulating the
direct interaction with teachers, en- goals ofthe school.Likewise onlytwo func-
ofpeerobservation,and theco- tionswere rankedin the bottomten forall
couragement
ordinationofinstruction. three positions: encouragingpeer obser-
vationand givingfeedbackon lesson plans.
The mostimportant functionsattributed to
theassistantprincipalroleoverlappedthose As would be expectedif functionsare dis-
oftheprincipalintermsofteacherevaluation tributedamong several positions,an item
and school climate.However,the assistant generallywas rankedhighforonlyone or at
best two of the rolesstudied.For example,
principalwas seen as playinga moreimport- teacherevaluationand observationand es-
ant role in administrative
functionsthatin-
fluenceinstruction directly,such as master tablishinga school gradingpolicyweream-
schedulebuilding,assignment ofteachersto ongthemostimportant functions oftheprin-
classes, and studentdiscipline. Direct in- cipal and assistantprincipal,butamongthe
volvementwith teachersand the instruc- least important functions of the department
tionalprocesswas oflow importance forthe chairperson.The principal and assistant
assistantprincipalrole,as forthe principal sharedmorecommonfunctionsthaneither
role. sharedwiththedepartment chairperson.For
example,department chairpersonsplay one
On theotherhand,somefunctionsin which of theirmostimportant roles in evaluating
the principalwas perceivedto play an im- materials,a function thatis rankedamongthe
portantrole were less importantto the as- leastimportant fortheothertwo positions.
sistantprincipalrole.Forexample,personnel
The analysisof meanscoresby role (across
selectionwas rankedverylow in importance
forthe assistantprincipalrole,and the dis- items)demonstrated thatneitherprincipal,
semination ofinformation assistantprincipal,nor departmentchair-
toparentsand stu-
person played veryimportantroles in in-
118
 Instructional
LeadershipBehaviors

structionalleadership functions.At best leadership.Schools5 and 7 presented unique

itemswerebeingperformed ata "somewhat" patterns.In school 7 the principaland as-
important level, and then onlyforverynar- sistant principal were not significantly
rowpersonnelmatterssuch as selectionand different in theamountofleadershipdemon-
evaluation.No singlerole performed more strated,but only the principal was sig-
thanfourout of32 items atthe"somewhat"to nificantly higherthanthedepartment chair-
"very"important level.Infact,on 25 outof32 person. In school 5 the chairperson was
role
items, no one was seen as performinga significantly higher than boththe principal
"somewhat"to "very"important role. Theand assistantprincipalroles,whichdid not
picturethatemergeshereis one ofperceived differ significantly.
lowlevelsofleadershipacrossthreekeyroles These patternssuggestthat when schools
in thesesecondaryschools. have personnelwho are perceivedas being
weakinstructional leaders,at leastone other
The mixeddesignANOVAproduceda non- role will be seen as
maineffect forschools,butthere providingsignificantly
significant moreleadership.Whythiswould occurwas
was a significantdifferenceamong roles, notstudiedin thisresearch.It
maybe thatin
qualifiedby a significantinteraction.(See allocating a resource- administrators - to
Table 4.) Accordingto Figure1, withroles an attemptis made to balance per-
schools,
plottedwithinthegraph,assistantprincipals sonnel in termsof instructional leadership
weregenerallyperceivedas performing the
strengths with other kinds of leadership
mostimportant roleand principalstheleast
needs.Itis also plausiblethatwithina school,
important. whetherdeliberatelyor not, decisions are
skillsamongsev-
Posthoc comparisonsofthemeanleadership madetoallocateleadership
scoreforeach rolewithinschoolsidentified eral roles.
those comparisonsthatwere significantly Conclusions and Discussion: Collectively,
different. One patternexhibitedby three theanalysesoftheSOIL instrument demon-
schools(2,4,and 6) showed thattheprincipal strate clearly that teachers perceive prin-
and department chairpersondid not differ cipals,assistantprincipals,and department
significantly,buttheassistantprincipalwas chairpersonsas performing quite different
significantlyhigherthanboththe other roles instructional functions within the schools.
in perceived leadership. In three other The trend was forthe principaltobe
assistant
schools(1, 3, and 8), thethreeroleswerenot seen performing largestroleoverallin
as the
perceivedtodiffer significantlyindeliveryof instructional leadershipfunctions. However,

Degreesof
SourceofVariance Sum ofSquares Freedom Mean Square F P
Between(Schools) 10.99 7 1.57 1.65 .122

Error 268.03 281 .95

Within(Roles) 4.90 2 2.45 11.02 <.001

Interaction 10.05 14 .72 3.23 <.001

(SchoolsX Roles)

Error 124.84 562 .22

Table 4: Source Table forMixed DesignANOVAforSOIL Instrument

119
 The HighSchool Journal-Dec/Jan.1987

2.60 - Principal
2 53 • DepartmentChairperson
/\ --- AssistantPrincipal

250 " 2'48

/ \ • 2.49

I \ 244 246
/"/

\ / \ 2-34 / \ 2 35»" /
\ / 231 W" / \ ^ / •233

I ■ f\\ \Y
\\ ////;" V
A /
I
5 2.19 \ I '/ f \ \ I \ ! \
/
I I
22°" ': \ •I ••• \ / \ / \/ /
.«.fiv-^»-« V // ■•••.
\/ \\ // 2.15
V /
215 / / \ /
\y
2.io- \ \ / / 2.ii'»-z.: \/ /
\ \//

\\yi
>^\

2.oo- \x !i:
>-97b l.M
rf 1.96

1901 tttfftttff
12 3 4 5 6 7 8
SCHOOLS

Figure1: InteractionofRole bySchool forANOVAon SOIL Instrument:

Roles Within
it is also clear that"highest"is relative:no
leadershipcontributed by each role can be
role was seen as performing more than a expected to differamong schools, even
"somewhat"important role on morethana withinone district. Sometendedtobe highin
few items,and these tendedto be in very leadershipfromone ortworoles,and low in
narrowareassuchas studentdiscipline,mas- the others,ratherthanproducingconsistent
terschedulebuilding,personnelevaluation, levels across all threeroles.These patterns
and allocatingmaterials. would be expectedto differ acrossotherdis-
Since schools in this studydid not differ tricts
and schools because offactorssuch as
in totalleadershipscores,itcan the consensus agreement,daily schedule,
significantly
be concludedthattheywereperceivedto be staffing patterns,and otherfactorsthatcan
similarin the totalamountof instructional effectrole expectationsand set behavior
leadershipdelivered.In otherwords,regard- parameters.
lessofthepattern ofleadershipdelivery(who ImplicationsForPractice:Theseresultssug-
performs which functions and how import- gestthatschoolsneedtolookmorecloselyat
anttheirroleis), overallaboutthesame am- theirpatternsofleadershipdelivery,and in-
ount of leadership is delivered in each clude moreofthesefunctions in job descrip-
school. However,the type and amountof tions and evaluation models so that per-
120
 Instructional Behaviors
Leadership
sonnelcan be held accountableforper- partof an instructional improvement pro-
forming them.In fact,the functions that gramandthefeasibility ofincluding instruc-
receivedthehighestratings weretheones tionalimprovement components in teacher
thattraditionally areincludedinjobdescrip- evaluation programs. Itseemsusefulfordis-
tionsforeach of theseroles.A legitimatetricts to attempt to extendtheuse ofobser-
conclusionwouldseemto be thatadmin- vations beyondformal evaluation systems in
istratorswill perform thosefunctions for aneffort tochangethislimited viewofevalu-
whichan expectation ofperformance exists. ationandobservation.
Schoolsalsoneedtoconsider theirdelivery TheSOILinstrument haspotential foruseby
ofadministrative support interms ofadmin- a district orschoolinassessing thedelivery of
istrativeteamsin whichleadershipis a instructional leadership. One use would be to
shared responsibility sothatfunctions canall provide information abouthowinstructional
be assuredof beingperformed. The sec- leadershipis currently beingdeliveredto
ondaryprincipalis notseenas thesole in- teachers, as perceived bystaff. Rolescanbe
structional leaderbecausewiththe com- compared eitheracrossitemsor withindi-
plexityof secondary schools,all thefunc- vidualitemstodetermine whoisperceived to
tions associated with instructional perform themostleadership. Alternately, an
leadership cannotbe performed toanylarge itemanalysisofmeanscoreswouldshowat
extentby one person.The schoolcouncil whatlevelandbywhoma givenfunction is
structure,inwhichdepartment chairpersons,believedto be performed. Suchdatawould
assistantprincipals, andprincipals workco- allowa schooltoreallocate assigned dutiesto
operatively as decision-makers in instruc- assure that all functions would be performed
tionalmatters, isa stepinthisdirection. Such to an adequatedegree.Furthermore, since
a groupmustbecomeself-conscious about therearenorestrictions aboutpositions tobe
theassignment offunctions withinthegroup included,information could be gathered
becauseitis evident eveninthethree schools abouttheroleplayedbypersonsotherthan
inthisstudy, whichhadsucha structure, that principal, assistantprincipals, and depart-
donotperceive
staffs someofthesefunctionsmentchairpersons.
tobe carried outbyanyofthethreeroles.
The SOIL instrument couldalso be usedto
An area of practicalconcernthatemerges determine whether variousconstituents (e.g.,
from thisstudycenters onthetwoitemsdeal- teachers,buildingadministrators, coun-
ingwithteacher evaluation andobservation.selors,specialists) withina schooldiffer in
Thepattern ofresponse forthetwoitemswas theirperceptions ofleadership intheschool.
parallel,suggesting thatteachersequate Forinstance, ifonedepartment perceives the
classroomobservation solelywithteacher assistant principal as instrumental in helping
evaluation. Furthermore, thefactthatteacher departments toco-ordinate theircurriculum,
observation wasnotsystematically related to itmaybethattheassistant principal is infact
any items involving direct instructionalas- devoting moretimetothatfunction forthis
sistancesuggeststhatteachersdo not see department thanforothers. Suchdifferential
administrative assistanceas necessitatinganalysis canshedadditional lightonhowand
classroom observation, oratleastdo notsee forwhomfunctions areperformed, as wellas
thetwoas related.Teachersapparently see bywhom.
evaluation and observation as inter-
changeable andas isolated from thefunctionsFinally, theinstrument couldbe usedtoas-
addressinginstructional improvement di- sessto what extentthe situation, as teachers
rectly(suchas working withteachers toim- perceive it, conforms to what teachers think
provetheirinstructional programs). These the ideal situation should be. Such a use
findings raise seriousconcernsaboutthe could a
provide measure of teacher satisfac-
feasibilityof using teacher observation as a tion by contrasting the "real" withthe
121
The HighSchool Journal-Dec/Jan.1987

"ideal." In additionthis comparisoncould howtimeis spentin schoolsand ofthework

suggestareasin whichsomechangemightbe environment and cultureof teacherswould
warranted. suggestreasonswhysomefunctions areseen
as performed to a greateror lesserextentby
ImplicationsFor Research: A major limi- certainroles
tationofthisstudyis itsrelianceon schools (Liebermanand Miller,1984;
withinone district. of Mintzberg, 1973; Wolcott,1973).
Althoughthepatterns
instructionalleadership that emergedin The currentstudyalso did notanswerques-
theseeightschools wereratherdiverse,it is tionsabout how effectively thesefunctions
expected that otherdistricts
maypresent ad- were beingperformed or to what extentthey
ditionalpatterns.Researchin othercontexts oughtto be performed by givenrole.It is
a
is
therefore needed, including smaller dis- possible that a personperforms thefunction
tricts,smallerschools, non-urban districts, to a greatextent an
(plays important role)but
privateschools, and middle schools. does an ineffective job at it.
Changingthe time of administration might Whethermanagerialfunctions and theirper-
also changeresults.The instrument probably formance affect staffsatisfactionwithworkis
should notbe administered too earlyin the unknownand couldbe investigated. Itis also
year, before have
staffs become familiar with possiblethatstaffsatisfaction withboththe
thedeliveryofleadership.On theotherhand, sourceand amountofleadershipcanmediate
towardthe end of the year,staffsbecome theefficacy ofleadership.Thatis,a principal
busierand less inclinedtoparticipatein such maybe performing certainfunctions ata high
a survey,or perhapsevenmorenegative.We level,but if the staffthinksthisis an inap-
do notknow,froma singleadministration of propriatesourceor an inappropriate level of
thissurvey,how reliabletheresultsare over performance, theoveralleffect on instruction
timeand whetherstaffperceptionsdiffer ac- may be negative.Several researchershave
to
cording anypattern within theschool year suggested an "autonomy norm" among
cycle. teachersthat leads themto preferadmin-
Future research should be conducted in istrators whorespectthatand do notinterfere
schools in which it is possible to gather in instructional matters(Grossand Herriott,
enoughteacherdemographic datato analyze 1965; Lortie,1975; Willower,1982).
resultsby typeofteachers.For instance,do Some true
experimental designsarepossible
teacherswithmoreexperiencein theircur- in
answeringcausitivequestionswithregard
rentschoolview leadershipfunctions differ- to
leadershiproles.For example,thisstudy
entlythanteachersnew to thebuilding?Do indicatesthatthefunctions performed at the
teacherswho are happywiththeircurrent
highestlevel are thosethatare partof tra-
assignments hold different
viewsthanteach- ditional foreach role.Ifjob
job descriptions
erswhowanta transfer? Aretheredifferences
descriptionsand administrative evaluation
between the perceptions of department
procedureswere modifiedand perceived
chairpersonsand membersof theirdepart- leadershipfunctions measuredaftera period
ments?Do administrators viewtheirownrole of evidencemightbe gath-
implementation,
differentlythan do theirteachers?The pre- eredto
suggestthattheperceivedimportance
sentstudyhad tosacrificethiskindofdatain of a functionis relatedto its inclusionin
order to protect teacher anonymityand evaluationsand
job descriptions.
achievea reasonableresponserate.
The presentstudyattempted to definefunc-
tionsbutdid notattempttoanswerquestions References
aboutwhythesefindingsoccurred.To do so Anderson, C.S. (1984). ''Sources of InstructionalLead-
would requireeitherethnographic research ership in Public High Schools." Doctoral Dissertation,
Universityof Arizona.
or work/time analyses. Indepthstudies of Bidwell, C.E. (1965). "The School as a Formal Organ-
122
 Instructional
LeadershipBehaviors
ization." In Handbook of Organizations, March, J.G., Willower, D.J. (1982). "School Organizations: Per-
ed. Chicago, 111:Rand McNally. ceptions in Juxtaposition." Educational Admin-
Blumberg,A. and Greenfield,W. (1980). The Effective istrationQuarterly,18, (31, 89-110.
Principal: Perspectivesin School Leadership. Boston, Wolcott,H.F. (1973). The Man in the Principal's Office.
Mass: Allvn and Bacon. New York N.Y.: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Bossert, ST., Dwyer, D.C., Rowan, B., and Lee, G.V.
(1982). "The Instructional Management Role of the
Principal." Educational Administration Quarterly,
18, (3), 34-64. fflffl
Edmonds, R. (1979a). "EffectiveSchools forthe Urban
Poor." Educational Leadership, 37, (1), 15-23.
Edmonds, R. (1979b). "Some Schools Work and More
fflffi
Can." Social Policv. 9. 32.
Firestone, W.A. and Herriott, R.E. (1982a). "Pre-
scriptionsforEffectiveElementarySchools Don't Fit
Secondary Schools." Educational Leadership, 40, (3),
51-53.
Firestone,W.A. and Herriott,R.E. (1982b). "Two Images
ofSchools as Organizations:An Explication and Illus-
trativeEmpirical Test." Educational Administration
Quarterly,18, (2), 39-59.
Glatthorn,A.A. and Newberg,N.A. (February1984). "A
Team Approach to Instructional Leadership." Edu-
cational LeadershiD. 41. (5), 60-63.
Gross,N. and Herriott,R.E. (1965). StaffLeadership in
Public Schools. New York, N.Y.: Wiley.
Hall, G.E., Rutherford,W.L. and Griffin,T.H. (March
1982). "Three Change Facilitator Styles: Some Indi-
catorsand a Proposed Framework,"Paper Presentedat
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re-
search Association, New York, N.Y.
Howell, B. (January1981). "ProfileofthePrincipalship."
Educational Leadership, 38, (4), 333-336.
Lieberman, A. and Miller, L., eds. (1984). Teachers,
TheirWorid,and Their Work:ImplicationsforSchool
Improvement.Alexandria, Va.: Association forSuper-
vision and CurriculumDevelopment.
Lipham, J.M.and Hoeh, J.A.(1974). The Principalship:
Foundations and Functions. New York, N.Y.: Harper
and Row.
Lortie,D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study.
Chicago, 111:Universityof Chicago Press.
Loucks, S.F., Bauchner, J.E.,Crandall, D.P., Schmidt,
W.H. and Eiseman, J.W.(1982). People. Policies, and
Practices: Examining the Chain of School Improve-
ment,Volume I: Settingthe Stage fora StudyofSchool
Improvement.Andover, Mass: The Network.Inc.
Mazzarella, I.A. (1982). "InstructionalLeadership: Pro-
file of an Elementary School Principal." Oregon
School Study Council Bulletin,26, (3). Bethesda, Md:
ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 225, 273.
Mintzberg,H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work.
New York N.Y.: Harper and Row.
Newberg,N.A. and Glatthorn,A.A. (1983). Instructional
Leadership:Four EthnographicStudies on JuniorHigh
School Principals. Philadelphia, Pa: University of
Pennsylvania.
Roe, W.H. and Drake, T.L. (1974). The Principalship.
New York N.Y.: MacMillan.
Weber,G. (1971). Inner-CityChildren Can Be Taught to
Head: Four Successful Schools. Occasional Papers,
NumberEighteen.Washington,D.C.: Council forBasic
Education.
Weick, K.E. (1976). "Educational Organizations as
Loosely Coupled Systems." AdministrativeScience
Quarterly,21,1-19.

123