Effects of Three PrincipalStyles on SchoolImprovement

Initiators are more successfulthan Managers or Respondersin facilitating change.

GENE HALL, WILLIAM L. RUTHERFORD, SHIRLEY M. HORD, LESLIE L. HULING

he need for more and better in-formation about the leadershiprole of principals in school im-

provement efforts sparked the researchnow under way at the Research andDevelopment Center for Teacher Edu-cation at the Universitv of Texas.

One of the objectives of this researchhas been to identifs the specific kindsand combinations of behav iors thatprincipals can and should exhibit on aday-to-day basis to bring about improve-ment in schools. Our research groupwanted more than vague concepts ofleadership or lists of global variables andstrategies that all principals should use.If the role of the principal is critical,then it should be possible to identify andrelate principals' daily interventions towhat happens in classrooms whenteachers attempt to implement newpractices.

To date a series of three studies havebeen conducted to explore and describethe way principals work. One kev to thesuccess of these studies has been limit-ing the scope of the studies to the role ofthe principal as change facilitator. Ourstaff had concluded that in addition todefinitional problems, one of the likelyreasons for the absence of significantfindings in so many previous studies of

principals was the tendency to studs allparts of the principals' work simniulta-ncousl. The staff also realized the imn-portance of obtaining firsthand docu-mentation of the daily behaviors ofprincipals, rather than conducting anafter the fact debriefing or surveingteachers for their perceptions of whatprincipals did.

Another factor in the success of thesestudies came from an obvious finding ofthe first study (Hall, Hord, and Griffin.1980)-all principals are not the same.Principals view their role and prioritiesdifferently and operationally define theirroles differentlyv in terms of what thevactually do each day. This perspective ofthe principalship suggested that in stud-ies of principal effects, normative sam-pling would not work. Principals shouldbe systematically selected as different interms of some independent variable,such as change facilitator style. Bystudying sets of principals who workedin different ways it should be easier toidentify systematic effects and to com-pare differences.

The Concept of Change FacilitatorStyleThe idea of leaders having a style is notnew. However, when various bodies ofliterature were examined-particularly

research on industrial organizationalleadership, change process and educa-tional administration-it became clearthat there was ino operational definitionof shle. Further, and more troubling, acareful distinction had not been drawn.either conceptualls or methodological-ly, between leader behaviors and leaderstvle Rutherford, Hord, Huling, andHall, 1983). The concepts were usedinterchangeably and often the measuresappeared to have little relationship to

Gene Hall is Program Director, ShirleyM. Hord is Assistant Program Director,William L. Rutherford and Leslie L.Huling are Senior Research Associates,all are at the Research and DevelopmentCenter for Teacher Education, Austin,Texas.

An earlier version of this paper waspresented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Associ-ation, Montreal, Canada, April 1983.

The research described herein was con-ducted under contract with the NationalInstitute of Education, The opinionsexpressed are those of the authors and donot necessarily reflect the position of theNational Institute of Education, and noendorsement by the National Institute ofEducation should be inferred.

22EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

i

a

22 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Al r__ �11-

the variables being described in thestudy hypotheses.

The shortsightedness of many studiesin their treatment of style is suggested byMcCall and Lombardo (1978) whopoint out that, "leadership researchersmay see delegation activity as a leader-ship style and correlate it with groupproductivity, while, in many cases. del-egation is a political tool used by leadersto create a desirable situation" (p. 158).Not only does a particular behavior notrepresent an overall style, but one can-not accurately describe or understandthe behavior without understanding themotivation behind it. The importanceof motivation in understanding style hasbeen emphasized by others includingFiedler (1978) and Tannenbaum andSchmidt (1958) Fiedler contends thateffective group interaction is dependenton " . leader personality attributes,reflecting his or her motivational struc-ture . . ." (p. 60) and the situationalcontrol and influence of the leader.Tannenbaum and Schmidt maintainthat a manager must consider threeforces or motivations when decidinghow to manage, and one of these theyterm "forces operating within his ownpersonality" (p. 98). In contrast, others(Jago and Vroom, 1977; Hill andHughes, 1974) seem to view stvle as aset of behaviors without reference tomotivation. With this background forthe RDCTE studies change facilitatorstyle was defined in terms of a combida-tion of principals' behaviors, concerns,and knowledge, and the tone of theiractions.

Besides being plagued by definitionaland conceptual difficulties, the idea ofstyle has another serious problem. In-variably research on leadership styleshas begun with an identification anddescription of a style or elements of astyle. Leaders were then observed orsubordinates and leaders questioned tosee if the leader might or did exhibit thedescribed style in different situations. Tofurther complicate things, in many ofthese studies followers were asked aboutindividual behaviors of leaders ratherthan being surveyed about a gestalt ofthe leaders behaviors and motivations.This more multivariate approach to de-fining leadership has emerged recentlyin several research studies (Thomas,1978; Hall, Rutherford, and Griffin,1982) and a literature review (Leith-wood and Montgomery, 1982).

FEBRUARY 1984

The Principal as Director,Administrator, or FacilitatorIn Thomas' (1978) study of more than60 schools, the focus was on the role ofschool principals in managing diverseeducational programs. Out of this studyshe identified three patterns or classifi-cations of principal behavior related tothe facilitation of alternative programs:Director, Administrator, and Facilita-tor.

Principals who were Directors main-tained an active interest in all aspects ofthe school from curriculum and teach-ing to budgeting and scheduling. Theyalso retained final decision-making au-thoritv in the school although teacherscontributed to decisions affecting theclassroom. Administrators made deci-sions in areas affecting the school as awhole, leaving teachers with much au-tonomy in their own classroom. Theseprincipals tended to identify with districtmanagement rather than with their ownfaculties. Facilitators on the otherhand, thought of themselves as col-leagues of the faculty. They perceivedtheir primary role to be supporting andassisting teachers in their work. Oneway they did this was to involve teachersin the decision-making process.

Thomas concluded that althoughmany factors affected implementation,the leadership of the principal appearedto be one of the most important factorsin the success or demise of an altema-tive program. Schools under the leader-ship of a Directive or Facilitative princi-pal had a greater degree ofimplementation of alternative programsthan did schools headed by an Adminis-trative principal. Furthermore, in thoseschools that had a single alternativeprogram (versus multi-building pro-grams), when strong leadership waslacking program offerings tended to drifttoward something different from thatoriginally intended and teachers withinthe program tended to follow disparateclassroom practices. However, Directiveprincipals had more difficulty managingmulti-building alternative programsthan did Administrators and Facilita-tors.

The Principal as Initiator, Manager,or ResponderWorking independently of Thomas, re-searchers at RDCTE (Hall, Rutherford,and Griffin, 1982) identified threechange facilitator styles that are very

"Schools underthe leadership ofa Directive orFacilitativeprincipal had agreater degree ofimplementationof alternativeprograms thandid schoolsheaded by anAdministrativeprincipal."

similar to Thomas' styles. As a result ofthis research. we now have operationaldescriptions of the three styles, whichwe call Initiator, Manager. and Re-sponder.

Initiators have clear, decisive long-range policies and goals that transcendbut include implementation of currentinnovations. They tend to have verystrong beliefs about what good schoolsand teaching should be like and wokintensely to attain this vision. Decisionsare made in relation to their goals forthe school and in terms of what theybelieve to be best for students, which isbased on current knowledge of classroom practice. Initiators have strongexpectations for students, teacher, andthemselves. They convey and monitorthese expectations through frequentcontacts with teachers and clear explica-tion of how the school is to operate andhow teachers are to teach. When theyfeel it is in the best interest of theirschool, particularly the students, Initia-tors will seek changes in district pro-grams or policies or they will reinterpretthem to suit the needs of the school.Initiators are adamant but not unkind;they solicit input from staff and thenmake decisions in terms of school goals.

Managers represent a broader rangeof behaviors. They demonstrate both

23

"The typicalprincipal tendedto be primarilyresponsive-responsive todistrict demandsand the demandsfrom the manysources ofproblemsencounteredevery day."

responsive behasiors in aniscr to situa-tions or people an(d tilex also initiateactions in support of the change effortThe variations in their beha ior seem tobe linked to their rapport xwith teachersand central office staff as well as ho1twell thev understand and buh into aparticular change effort. Managers wtorkuithout fanfare to provide basic supportto facilitate teachers' use of an innosa-tion. Thce keep teachers informedabout decisions and are sensitixe toteacher needs Thce will defend theirteachers from what are perceived asexcessive demands. VWhen thce learnthat the central office *wants somethingto happen in their school the- thenbecome vcrs insolv-ed kwith their teach-ers in making it happen. Yet, thie donot h-pically initiate attempts to imoxebeyond the basics of swhat is imposed

Responders place heas- emphasis oilallowing teachers and others the oppor-tuniht to take the lead. 'ihc believstheir primars role is to maintain asmooth running school by focusing ontraditional administrati-e tasks, keepingteachers content and treating students-cll. Thex siew teachers as strong pro-

fessionals who are able to carrn outinstruction w ith little guidance. Re-sponders emphasize the personal side oftheir relationships wuith teachers aind

others Befrire they make decisions thecoften gie c-crs-one an opportunlits tohave input so as to weigh their feelingsor to allow' others to make the decision.A related characteristic is the tendcilctoward making decisions in terms ofimmediate circumstances rather than illterms of longer range instructional orschool goals. '[his seems to be duc inpart to their desire to please others andin part to their more limrited 5isi(onI ofhow their school arld staff shouldchange in the fuiture

Leadership Styles VerifiedThese descriptions were dcrived fronearlier descriptive studies of principalsand refined in the more recent comrpar-ative studies. Th'le first studsy was thesecondars analsscs of data (l all, Ruth-erford. and Griffin, 1982i fromil a studlof the implementatiorn of a curriculun Iinnovation in onei large school district(Loucks and Pratt. 199)1. The data frornnine elernmetars schools out of a largersample were rcanlaz7cd to gain an uin-derstanding of tIhe implemicentatiollprocess inl these schools.

Out of this analysis thie Ihspothlesisemerged that implementation successvaried in the schools because of theconcerns and behaxiors of the princi-pals. Since all the studs schools s5crcsimilar in contcxf. implemented thesame curriculuiml and received thesame amount aiid kinids of support. thisseemed to be the only direct cxplanationfor wlhy implemenltationl had variedIntercstingl- the schools sorted intothree groups in terms of implementationat the classroom lecl. and thie princi-pals appeared to group in the same wasin termis of their "st Ic '." Thus, the threechange facilitator stles were initiallxsketched out

A second studs was a three-monthpilot inrolsing ten clcmcmltars schoolsin different comnllunities each implc-menting different curriculunl inlnoa-tions (Rutherford. 1981; Flord. 1981).In this stud- the primar obijective wasto develop procedures for documnentinigthe day-to-das intcrvention behaviors ofprincipals. Again, the principals ap-peared to be reprcsentatisc of the sameparticular sthles

The existence of principal txpes orshtles has since been rcinforced in acarefulls- designed literature rexic e bsLcithiood and Mlontgomerx (1982).who characterize principals as "effec-

tivc" anid '"tpical." In their rex icw of 29studies, the authbors used a frameworkfor planned change to investigate exist-ing ',no lecdgc about principal chlaviorsas thcs relate to cffectiencss ()One as-pect of the reC-iew considercl the role ofthe principal in general wlhile two othcrstrands attended to research oni schoolchange arid inlovation implciiicnta-tionll, anid school cffcctiseness.

L.cithmood anid ;\lontgollery founilthat effcctixc principals vcre pro-acti.e,particularls in regard to instructionl aindthe welfare of studcnts. On the otherhand thev found that "Rather thani be-ing pro-active as tie cffcctice principalappeared to bhe the thpical principaltended to he primarils responsivec-rc-sporisic to district demianids an(i thedemands from the iianll other sourcesof problems cncolntered cvcrsda!" (p27).

I'he tpcs of shtles found in theseresearch aind rcvic" efforts appear tohase similarities. lihe Director. Initia-tor. and REffecti\c Principals *ouild scecilto ha-e like characterizationls .I heAdministrator and Responder sccu toha-e sonme similar characteristics. Mullethe Facilitator and \lanagcr are alike illmans ass. L.cithwood and Mhontgoml-erv's Tl'pical principal appears to spanlboth of the latter groupings. Support forthe Initiator principal is also found inthe effectiv e schools studies bhv Edmonds(1979) and Venezks and Winficld(19 9). , logical incxt step would be tocloselv examinei the day-to-da hbeliax-iors of principals usinlg each of thesechange facilitating sty!les and to descriheanv effects. This was the objecctive of thethird RDI)CT studs.

iAJ\

E I)UCATIO(NAIL L.EAI):ERSHIP24

Refined Definitions of the ThreeChange Facilitator StylesAn important kcs- to analyzing changefacilitator sthlc is idcntifhing behaviorsthat are indicators of a particular shlc.Out of the morass of daily acti-ities asystcm "as needed for identifying andsunliari7ilig those helhasiors that wereconsidered to bhe reprcscntative of a par-ticular change facilitator shtlc. As a firststep the array of data and findings fromthe three studies wsere used to developthe refined paragraph definitions of theResponder. Manager. and Initiator pre-sentcd ahboe. These descriptions repre-sent a sulilnali of the qualitative andquanltitatiec data that have heen collect-ed alnd analz7cd across all three studiesof clmeiltars schllool principals IN =29). los excr, the paragraph definitionscould not include all of the detail andrichness of tlhe full data set. thle onilsrepresented hrief suirmmaries for graspingthe gestalt of each shle

In order to inore casil sinlnllariZ ethe different aspectsi of tile concerns.imotiv-ationl tone and Ixlhaxiors of tilethree change facilitator shies. xe desel-oped a set of descriptixc diniensions.We first identified an array of behaviorsor indclicators to contrast tIle stvlcs. Foreach set of indicators wc w5rote a briefphrase descrihilig tile nlorillatire ap-proach that appeared to be htpical ofeach shlc. \e thlell clustered the indi-catTrs around larger dimensions or com-petelcnc areas that are similalr to thoscfrequcntly descried in thile literatureand anlong practitioners. TIhe resultantsulnlriar, included as Figure I. pro-vides a framess ork for relating indix idualbchasiors to o-crall shtlc. With thisframcsvork. it is then possihle to cxploremany of thle issues and implications ofthe principal's role in school inlprovc-meit.

Some Implications of Principal'sChange Facilitator StyleConsidering particullar aspects of tileprincipal's role, suchl as changc facilita-tor sthle, has turned out to he surprising-ly productive. B! concentrating on theprincipals' change facilitator shlc., cehaVe learned Imucil about kes behaviorsand the clifferenlt wa!s principals canfacilitate school imlprovcnent Thework has also helped clarify somIe of thedistinctions that practitioners. research-ers. and polics makers hase been strug-gling witl. Sonme of the findings and

figure 1. Indlcators of (Cage Fac/or SIle.

Dkmnonsiinehavlors Responder M-map -

Vision and GoalSetting

Accepts district Accepts districtgoals as school goals bui makesgoals adjustments at

school level to ac-commodate partic-ular needs of theschool

Allows others togenerate the initia-tive for any schoolimprovement thatis needed

Relies primarily onothers for introduc-tion of new ideasinto the school

Future goals/direc-tion of school aredetermined in re-sponse to districtlevel goals/prior-ities

Responds to teach-ers', students' andparents' interest interms of goals ofschool and district

Structuring theSchool as a WorkPlace

Grants teachersmuch autonomyand independenceand allows them toprovide guidelinesfor students

Ensures that schooland district policiesare followed andstrives to see thatdisruptions in theschool day are min-imal

Responds to re-quests and needsas they arise in aneffort to keep allinvolved personscomfortable andsatisfiedIndffinitety delayshv staff dotasks if it is per-celved staff areoverrloaded

Engages others inregular review ofschool situation toavoid any reduc-tion in school ef-fectiveness

Open to new ideasand introducessomne to faculty swell as allowingothers in school todoso

Anticipates the in-stntionl andmanagement needsof school and plansfor them

Collboates withothers in reviewingand identifyingschool goals

Provides guidesand expectationsfor teachers andpants to maintainefecthve operationof the schoolWorks with teach-ers, sudents andparents to maintaineffective opeionof the school

Expects all invlvedto contribute toeffective itruc-tion and manage-

Contends that staffare a*d-rdt vtybusy and paIs re-ut d lask

lads cording

Re districtgoals but imis ongoals for schoolthat give Prortydhis school's stu-dent need

enfies areas inneed of ipmpe-met and inisaction for dch e

Sorets thaugh neideas presedhTom willtin andoutside dthe sdoland knpaiethose deemed tehae hv h Ip _,for schodl apove-ment in des;iaed

Takes the lad in

oals ad p -iefor the schod andfor amctonpltigthem

work of eqxec-iens for the I

and if.ies shein set tngawithin that frme-work

Sets sI ids andexpes hiNh per-

teaches, sund self

Estalis itionl pom a-first prioq; per-sonal ad c_1bso-raive eas ib-rected at yport-ingd pbatq

Insisis at per-

sdofts a i'd Is

necessary ftr me

herm iod g eo

dd - 4 & wsIrarbi

Id_ta a eg

_ dad

FEBRUARY 1984

related issues are particularly germaneto the present wide reaching examina-tion of principals and school effective-ness. Five of these issues are brieflydiscussed here.

What other styles are there' The stylesdescribed in Figure I represent threethat were the subject of descriptive andquantitative studies. Other styles can beimagined and some defy categorization.Some of the more likely styles includethe despot, who unlike the initiator,listens to no one and just decreeschange. Various forms of resistors canalso be imagined such as the covertsaboteur and the guerilla. The opportu-nity for identifying and studying thesestyles is left to those researchers whohave an interest in studying school im-provement failures.

What is the relationship betweenchange facilitator style and implementa-tion success? In the most recent study ofprincipals, change facilitator style datawere collected about implementation ofnew curriculum programs (Huling,Hall, Hord, and Rutherford, 1983). Es-tablished procedures were used to peri-odically assess teachers' stages of con-cern about the innovation (Hall andRutherford, 1976), their level of use ofthe innovation (Hall and Loucks, 1977),and the innovation configuration (Halland Loucks, 1981) that each teacherused. The day-to-day innovation relatedintervention behaviors of the principalswere documented and overall changefacilitator styles rated. In this study allteachers in all schools implemented thenew curriculum, which would suggestthat at least in this case all three styleswere "effective." However, there weredifferent degrees of implementation interms of concerns, use, and innovationconfigurations. The overall correlationbetween implementation success at theclassroom level and principal changefacilitator style was .74. This suggests,that although implementation was ac-complished in all study schools, therewas more quality and quantity inschools with Initiator style principalsthan in schools with principals using theManager and Responder styles.

How does the climate compare acrossschools with principals using differentchange facilitator styles? Due to thetremendous cooperation and assistanceprovided by principals and teachers inthe study schools and the pioneeringwork done by James and Jones (1974), it

rep 1. Indicators of Change

_eava _re"Pod- Maber hdtorSt9tr theSchool a Work

P _ce

ANIws schoolnorms to evolveover time

Accepts district ex-pectations forchange

Sanctions thechange processanrd attempts to re-solve conflictswhen they arise

Relies on informa-ion povided by

other change acili-tators, usually fromoutsie the schoolfor knowledge ofthe innovatonDevelops mnirmalknowledge of whatuse of the Innova-tion entails

Comuncae x-

to d _e only inVey -r d t'm

Heps establish andclarify norms forthe school

Meets district ex-pectations forchanges required

Maintains regularinvolvement in thechange processsometimes with afocus on manage-ment and at othertimes with a focuson the impact ofthe changeUses informationfrom a variety ofsources for gainingknowledge of theInnovation

Becomes knowl-edge aboutFenersl use of theinnova~on andwhat is needed tosupport use

Informs teachersthat they are ex-pectld to use theimxwellor

h itont_ we - wMoitors thee~~ptp - elr ff ortIthsOWNW, If ~:9 S ~ n crw saine with

- ' ~ U " wd indot-'-al d.s'rvaiions of

Inson gie: ~I ', . _

;~~ ~ usti

X -i- . _ -.,g, . 0 i,, .

Establishes, dari-ties and modelsnorms for theschool

Accommodates dis-trict expectationsfor change andpushes adjust-ments and addi-tions that will ben-efit his/her schoolDirects the changeprocess in waysthat aim towardeffective Innovationuse by all teachers

Seeks out informa-tion from teachers,district personnel,and ot to ginan anwdiiof the Innatibnand i demandsDevelops sicientknowed aboutuse to b*bl tomake pekicteing sues-tions and troubleshoot p -wthat may emrgeGives teachers spe-

fic xpectationsand tes regardinguse of the ovton

osey mmnol s

the change ran

observato, sv-wof leso -n andstudent prm-ance

26

, 17 ,.., - V-"" 1. -'il 111- VI . 1. 1

I

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Fabitator Style, Contined.

Diknes o in1161IVO"A 5W lo

Collaborating andDelegating

Decision Making

Guding adSupng

Allows others to as-sume responsibilityfor the change ef-fort

Those who assumeresponsibility haveconsiderable au-tonomy and inde-pendence

Those who assumeresponsibility aremore likely to befrom outside theschool e.g. districtfacilitators

Accepts the rulesof the district

As the deadlinesapproach makesthose decisions re-quired for ongoingoperation of theschool

Decisions are influ-enced more by kb-mediate drcum-stances of the situ-ation and fornmpolicies than longer tem conse-quences

Allows all nterest-ed parties to ptic-ipate In decion-

dently

Rod ' tachrs

was Itrodmetenmaalone11 d11 thgl

oraippost

Tends to do mostof the intereninon the change effort but will sharesome respondtblyCoordinates re-sponsibitldes andstays hnonmedabout how othersare handl theirresponsibilities

Others who as-sume responsibilitymay come fromwithin or hrn out-side the school

Lives by the rulesof the district, butgoes beyond mini-mum requirements

Actively involed inroutine decision-making relative toinstructoal andadministrative af-fairs

Decisions rebmed on thenos ad aqn ct-hons VaW ide dimad nd the

mnatemnt needsof the school

Allows ode topotite in decdl ma*n. but

_iddNow

Wim delegrtocarefully dchosenothes some of therepondblSty forthe d g el rtEstblishes firstwhch asp"aninbiies will be dle--sod ad howthey wae to be ac-

Wcorpshed, thenmonitos doythe carrying out oftasksOthers who as-sume responsibilitare likely to befrom within theschool

RXcEs mthe wus

detemtnes beha-for by what Is re-quAed for md-mum shodol efec-tivenessRouhe decisions

are handed with

solicitation ofteiche ru easDecisons armbmed on the ston-drbdsof high ex-p- andwht is bet- for theschool a wAdep btlllry kwn-

o and

p·Idpd in dade-

_ _1,te

Man :ka

pnegakd_/~~;1Sb

:_n_

. #, ' 6014

.1 b*o _1ate e-tEzW jn * An;

"thea*44 SS a Un:... -SOWA

'';dra ="=' rb!-'rs' ;;'c

__

L ............. ...,

was possible to assess psychological cli-mate as part of the most recent stud-.The results are provocative: teachersperceive a more positive climate inschools w'ith pnncipals using the Man-ager sthle! Teachers in schools withprincipals using the Initiator shile aresomewhat less positive. and teachers inschools with principals using the Re-sponder style are much less positive intheir perceptions of the climate.

In hindsight. these findings makesense although the! also raise a nesudilemma. The most straightforward in-terpretation is that Manager style princi-pals protect their teachers and strive tokeep everything running smoothly_Thus teachers are more satisfied. Initia-tor style principals listen to their teach-ers but have high expectations and keeppushing. The constant pressure is not aswell liked. Principals using the Re-sponder style are most concerned aboutteachers' feelings and perceptions buttend to respond to them one at a timewithout coordinated or consistent com-munication and priorities. Thus teach-ers feel more job ambiguity and lesscontrol

Can principals change their changefacilitator style? This is a constantd-asked question. Unfortunately. for theimpatient, the available research andtraining expenences lead us to believethat one's stvle is so closehl tied topersonality and histonr that it is noteasily changed. Individual behaviorscan be changed, at least for a time. butthe overall change facilitator style con-tinues. Further, there is little likelihoodthat decrees, mandates, and tw-das-workshops will result in a major meta-morphosis of stIle. With training, ongo-ing concerns-based coaching and sup-port all of us can improve. This is anarea where there clearly needs to bemore research and careful evaluation oftraining programs.

What can be done for less effectivechange facilitators? If the findings fromreplications of thestudies described hereare consistent, then there sill be aresearch base of identified facilitatingbehaviors that more effective principalsuse. None of the individual behaviorsare that difficult to use. Thus it shouldbe possible to develop training programsto assist principals and other changefacilitators in becoming sensitive to thecritical importance of these behaviorsand in using them with greater ease. By

FEBRUARY 1984

"

referring to the indicators listed in Fig-ure I it is also possible to observe per-sons who aspire to be more effectisc intheir change facilitator roles and to de-velop procedures for identifying thoseswho have more potential. Some recentexploratory work in industry, wherethese findings have been used to selectmanagers, indicate that something assimple as specially designed interviewprocedures can be helpful in identifs-ngcandidates who appear to already havemastered indicated behav-iors Ofcourse, all of these possibilities musttake into account which criteria of effec-tiveness are being emphasized

In SummaryMuch more research must be donebefore the total functioning of the prin-cipal as effective change facilitator canbe described and understood. Also, thecriteria of effectiveness that is used tomake judgments must be consideredmost carefully. For example. if allteachers using a ncxu program had beenthe criteria, then all three styles ofprincipals were obscrved to be "cffec-tive." If implementation success werethe criteria, then the Initiator shtle prin-cipal was most effective. However, ifteachers' positive perceptions of theirclimate is considered important, thenthe Manager stsle principal seemed tobe more effective. To make things evenmore complicated, none of these crite-ria directly address student achieve-ment, which might require a differentprincipal style for greatest effcctiveness.The picture is rich enough to allow formany styles and combinations of peo-ple. The key appears to be in the blend-ing, matching, and sequencing, ratherthan striving to maintain a particularsnapshot.

The shared goal for researchers, prac-titioners, and policy makers is to identifyprograms and processes that contributeto increased school and teacher effec-tiveness. The studies described heredemonstrate some ways that some prin-cipals made a difference. However. aswith children and teachers, all princi-pals are not the same and for each gainthere is the risk of a loss somew here else.The role of the principal in the schoolimprovement process must be viewed interms of the many factors that affect itrather than naively assuming that aquick cure can be made simply bychanging one variable, such as the

Fguwe 1. hdlatwr of1 Cahi

S viors Respond- Manager WB9WI

Guiding andSupporting

When requests forassistance or sup-port are received,attempts to re-spond in a way thatis satisfying to onewho made the re-quest

Relies on teachersto report howthings are goingand to share anymajor problems

Relies on whatevertraining is availablewith the innovationto develop teach-er's knowledge andskills

Provides generalsupport for teach-ers as persons andas professionals

Monitors the pro-gress of the changeeffort and attemptsto anticipate need-ed assistance andresources

Maintains closecontact with teach-ers and the changeeffort in an attemptto identify thingsthat might be doneto assist teacherswith the change

In addition to thereguiriy providedassistance, seeksand uses sourcewithin and outsidethe school to de-velop teacherknowledge andskills

Support is directedto Individus andsubgroups,for spe-cifkic purposes ralat-ed to the dch e asweft a to provdefor ther p-iwelfare

Anticipate theneed for asistanceand resources andprovkde support asneeded whetheror not requested)and sometimes inadvance of poten-tial bockages

Collects and usesinformation from avariety of sourcesto montor thechange eflort andto plan intaenen-tiom that wll i-crease e pm-a-blUty of a success-ful, quality imple-mentation

Takes the lead inWentifyiftwhentin h nefor Increa

the perndel ndremoum.*om

Proilde direct pr-wfthin a=r _frdflt

std as thest m * *hoe

"The role of the principalin the school improvementprocess must be viewed interms of the many factorsthat affect it rather thannaively assuming that aquick cure can be madesimply by changing onevariable."

28 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

7-

28 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

MaNe

Trim to minwmriete dmands of hechan eflort rtn

Sees role as admin-istrtor

Maintains low profile reatmte to day-to-day operation ofsdw

Identification and---m-d-f-- -t of

tMaiaaims deemined bS hre- -

Ios: and anmw

_em of ",~d a J

tih scho id " andhkw achlee sml-lls aboutti1 11

it"Pands to ON""umInaminusrnn

. _ddto_--thin Als apan":own

change facilitator shtyle of thce principal.School life is much richer and morecomplex than that. This is why ourschools work as well as thes do. whvintelligent and sensitive school improse-ment is a very real possibilit', and whysimplistic ultimate solutions regularlyfail.I

References

Edmonds. R. "Effective Schools for theUrban Poor." Educational Leadership 37(October 1979): 15-27.

Fiedler. F. E "The Continlgency Modeland the Dynamics of the Leadership Proc-ess." In Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology. Edited by L Berkow-itz. New.

Modmes tdemanof theic d d-foit to pitiectteacher fonm per-

Ss roles as avold-ht3or tmlnlinizproblems so in-sruction may oc-cur

Is vry actively lmvoed in day-to-day management

Is trlnt.In set-

doM m Rac of it

is wall Infrnnedabout wiwt is hap

drwdi d i o she

-dol what

Responds Mist -un o

-"eer presetdemands on teh-es for afedliue im-

Se role as one oftawit de lool

has uro intruc-tonll progn ndthitteahr areactioni and st-

in oelratsonof

ch wanphss Isrc

tillt l pee

tie__ier and kc-

-mhpond i tqihs

-m andesl of-g

bst Wh M-Restpond& toood

th101116 aoct but

dabl

York: Academnic Press. Inc.. 19-8. pp *9-112

Hall. C E.; Hord. S. MI. and Griffin. T.H "Implementation at the School BuildingLevel: The Development and A4nalsis ofNine Mini-Case Studies " Paper presentedat the annual mieeting of the America.Educational Research Association. Boston,1980.

Hall. G. E.. and Loucks. S. FI "A De'cl-opmental Model for Lktemlining WUhetherthe Treatment Is Actuall! ImplemenitedAmerican Educational Research Journal 14(1977): 263-276.

Hall. G E.. and Loucks. S. F "ProgramDefinition and Adaptation: Implications forInservice." Iournal of Research and Delvelop-ment in Education 14 (1981): 46-8.

Hall. G E.. and Rutherford. W. L."Concerns of Teachers About ImplementingTeam Teaching." Educational LI-dnhip34 (1976): 22 7-23

Hall, G. E.; Rutherford. W'. L.; andGriin. T H. "Three Change FacilitatorSthles: Some Indicators and a PropoedFramework." Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Amencan Educational Re-search Association. Nesc York Citd. 1982.

Hill. UW. A.;and Hughes. D. 'Varnaubtonsin Leader Bchas-or as a Function of TaskTspe." Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Performanct iI I19-4}: 83-96.

Hord. S. M "Anal7zing .dministratorInterventon Behaviors" Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Soudlhsst Educa-honal Research Association. Dallas. 1981

Huling. L. L.: Hall. G E.. Hord. S. 11.:and Rutherford. XW L. .A Multi-Dimen-sional Approach For Assessing Implementa-tion Success" Paper presented at the annu-al meeting of the American EducatonalResearch Association. Montreal. 1983

lago. A. G.. and \room. \ H "Hierar-chical Level and Leadership St-yle "Ogani-zational Behavior and Human Pertormanere19(197): 131-14;.

James. L R . and Jones. A. "'Organiza-tional Climate: A Resies of Theon andResearch.' Psvchological Bulletin 81 I19-4):1096-1112.

Leithwood. K;. A.. and lMontgomen. D."The Role of the Elementarn School Pnnei-pal in Program Improvement." Riewl aEducational Research '2 119S82: 309-339

Loucks. S. F. and Pratt. H. -A Con-cerns-Based Approach to CurrnculumChange. " Educational Leadership 38 t 19-9:212-21 .

McCall. NM. '. Ir.. and Lombardo. M1M.. eds. Leadership: Uhere Else Can UiGo? Durham. N. C.: Duke Ulnismrsih Press.19.8.

Rutherford. V L. "The Ihtersentionsand Plans Pnncipals Malia Wmen Facilitat-ing Change." Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Southwest Educational Re-search Association. Dallas. 1981.

Rutherford. W. L.: Hord. S, NI.: Huling,L. L; and Hall. G E. Change FacilitatorsIn Search of tnderstanding Their Rode. us-tin: Research and Developinent Center forTeacher Education. Uniiersih of Texas.1983.

Tannenbaum. R.. and Schmidt. sW H."Hos to Choose a Leadership Pattern. Har-vard Business Resiev.' 36 L 98l: 9'-101.

Thomas. NI. V. A Studv o '.lternatihsein American Education. Volume 11: The Roleof the Pnncipal Santa Moica: Rand Corpo-ration. 1978

Vene7k., R.. and \'ifield. I. SchooldsThat Succeed Besond Expectations in Teach-ing Reading Nesark. Delasware: Unisersihof Delaw-are. 1979.

FEBRUARY 1984 29

FEBRUARY 1984 29

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.