SCHOOL PRINCIPAL INFLUENCE ACTIONS, CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

by

Bree J. Miron

Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The College of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

December 2014
 UMI Number: 3691808

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3691808
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Copyright 2014 by Bree J. Miron

ii
 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL INFLUENCE ACTIONS, CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

by

Bree J. Miron

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the candidate's dissertation advisor,
Dr. John. R. Pisapia, Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology,
and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to
the faculty of the College of Education and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Valerie J. Bristor,

Coll~-ge..;.........:;o;v--=.......-~
.....at-.io-~,,_~-~-;

~Floyd,
Dean, __

Ed.D. Date
Interim Dean, Graduate College

iii
 ABSTRACT

Author: Bree J. Miron

Title: School Principal Influence Actions, Climate, Culture, and School

Performance

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. John R. Pisapia

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2014

This quantitative, non-experimental study was conducted to investigate the

link between school principal influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance.

Additionally, this study sought to determine if the influence of these variables or the

relationship among them is altered by individual and/or institutional characteristics.

The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether or not the

Customer Survey aligned to distinct dimensions. Two factors were identified: Staff

Attitudes and Student Disruptions. The second part used regression to examine the

relationships among four constructs and test the seven hypotheses.

Transforming actions and student achievement were found to be significantly

mediated by Staff Attitudes. This impact may be amplified among younger principals,

and potentially attenuated among older principals. Additionally, School level was found

to have a significant effect on Managing actions.

iv
 Fixed contextual variables were also found to moderate the relationship between

school climate and school performance. For instance, Gender was found to moderate the

relationship between Student Disruptions and School Performance. Additionally, the

percent of Minority students in a school influenced school performance. Free and

Reduced lunch was also found to have a negative direct effect as well as negative indirect

effects through climate on school performance.

Four of the five leader influence actions (i.e., Transforming, Managing, Bridging,

and Bartering) were found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture. All five

leaders influence actions were found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice

culture. However, neither cultural dimension was found to have a direct effect on school

performance. Minority was also found to moderate the relationship between

Transforming and Social Justice culture.

It was concluded that principals should be provided training and encouraged to

use Transforming influence actions during the performance of their professional duties.

Moreover, when selecting principals, age of the candidate should be considered since the

data suggest that younger principals were able to use Transforming actions more often in

this study. Finally, future research efforts should be conducted to understand the reason

the female principals are more successful at minimizing the influence of student

discipline and safety issues on school performance.

v
 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL INFLUENCE ACTIONS, CLIMATE, CULTURE, AND

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1

Background of the Problem ...........................................................................................2

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................3

Significance of the Study ...............................................................................................5

Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................5

Leader Influence Actions ...............................................................................................6

Contextual Factors .........................................................................................................8

Fixed Contextual Factors .............................................................................................11

School Performance .....................................................................................................11

Hypotheses Suggested by the Conceptual Framework ................................................12

Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................14

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................15

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................16

Leadership ..............................................................................................................16

School Leadership Models .....................................................................................31

Leadership Summary .............................................................................................33

vi
 Climate & Culture ........................................................................................................35

School Climate .......................................................................................................38

School Culture .......................................................................................................50

Contextual Factors .......................................................................................................54

School Performance .....................................................................................................57

Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................62

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................65

Purpose...................................................................................................................65

Research Design.....................................................................................................67

Sample..............................................................................................................67

Measures ..........................................................................................................68

Data Sources ....................................................................................................69

Data Analyses ..................................................................................................75

Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................76

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...................................................................................................78

Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................78

Hypotheses Testing ..........................................................................................80

Leadership, Climate, Culture, Context & Student Performance ................80

Leadership & Context ...........................................................................84

Leadership, Context, & Student Performance ......................................84

Leadership, Climate, Context, & School Performance .........................85

Leadership, Culture, Context, & School Performance .........................87

Context & School Performance ..................................................................89

vii
 Context, Culture, & School Performance ...................................................93

Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................94

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ............................................................99

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................99

Review of the Methodology.......................................................................................100

Summary of the Results .............................................................................................101

Discussion ..................................................................................................................105

Review of the Theoretical Framework ................................................................105

Interpretation of the Results .................................................................................107

Limitations .................................................................................................................113

Implications................................................................................................................116

Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................................................................117

Conclusions ..........................................................................................................118

Recommendations ................................................................................................119

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................120

Appendix A: Dimensions of Climate .........................................................................121

Appendix B: Hayes Sobel Marco for Testing a Simple Mediation Effect ...............129

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................135

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Description of Strategic Leadership Influence Actions .......................................7

Table 2: Historical Approaches to Leaders Actions .......................................................17

Table 3: Description of the Thinking Skills found in the Strategic Thinking

Questionnaire .....................................................................................................26

Table 4: Description of Pisapias (2009) Leadership Influence Actions .........................28

Table 5: Theorists Descriptions of Climate & Culture ...................................................36

Table 6: Floridas A+ Plan Grade Categories .................................................................59

Table 7: Demographics of the Sample (n=37) ................................................................68

Table 8: Variables in the Study.......................................................................................69

Table 9: Participant Counts .............................................................................................72

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the Study Variables (n=37) ...........79

Table 11: Hypothesis Table .............................................................................................98

Table A1: Distribution of Missing Responses to Customer Survey by Item ..................122

Table A2: Customer Survey Item Means .......................................................................123

Table A3: Factor Pattern Matrix for the Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Items

Comprising the Customer Survey Conducted on the Sample of all

Broward County Public Schools a .................................................................126

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Conceptual Framework Framing This Study ...............................................6

Figure 2: Climate Process Model ......................................................................................82

Figure 3: Culture Process Model .......................................................................................83

x
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The questions of what makes principals effective and which principal behaviors are

most consistent with school improvement have sparked substantial scholarly inquiry.

There have been numerous studies spanning the last three decades that link high quality

leadership with positive school outcomes, including student achievement (Brewer, 1993;

Cheng, 1991; Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 1994;

Leithwood, Jantzi, Silins, & Dart, 1993; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).

Additionally, there is growing evidence that school context influences principals practice

(Pisapia & Pang, 2013; Stein & Nelson, 2003) and, consequently, their efficacy.

Yet, despite this scholarly focus, and evidence of the importance of leadership in

schools and the central role of the principal in that endeavor, there is a lack of a well-

articulated clear body of research to guide leaders toward improved student and school

performance. In fact, Bolman & Deal (2003) claim that despite the series of studies of

good leadership in organizations, no characteristic is universal in these reports (p. 340).

There are scholars who disagree with Bolman and Deal. Bass (1990, 1997), and

GLOBE researchers (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, and Dorfman, 1999;

House, 1991; House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &

Gupta, 2004; Pisapia & Lin, 2011) suggest that some aspects of leadership may be

universal. For example, according to Kouzes and Posner (2003), leaders who engage in

1
transformational behaviors will be more effective than those who do not, regardless of

culture. House (1991) and House et al. (1997) have a similar belief in the universalism of

charismatic leadership across cultures. Pisapia (2006) takes a similar position on the

notion of universalism when he posits that, successful leaders in complex and chaotic

environments will use a more diverse repertoire of actions than less successful leaders in

similar environments (cited in Reyes-Guerra, 2009, p. 102). Goldring, Huff, May, &

Camburn (2008) dispute Pisapias claim by contending that in chaotic environments, an

effective leader might need to drill down and adopt a narrower focus.

A significant part of leader effectiveness lies in the relationships between the

principal and their stakeholders. Burns (1978) and Gardner (1990) believe leaders need

skill in managing relationships with all significant stakeholders, including external

constituents. Whitaker, in his 1997 study, determined that the principal is the decisive

element in the school when pertaining to climate and how others perceive the school.

As stated previously, Pisapia (2006, 2009) believes that when leaders employ a

variety of leadership influence actions to build social capital, much can be accomplished.

The principal objective of this study is to determine the manner in which principals

leader influence actions and climate interrelate to produce achievement outcomes and the

extent to which these effects are influenced by contextual factors.

Background of the Problem

Nearly three decades ago, in 1983, President Reagans administration shocked the

nation with a report that stated that the achievement of American students lagged that of

other nations. The report, A Nation at Risk asked how we could ensure that our

nations children were successful (National Commission on Excellence in Education,

2
1983). Current theorists place that responsibility on schools, for a particular school to be

the launch pad to the levels of success sought by students, it must operate effectively

(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005, p. 3).

Being that leadership is perceived by many as an essential component of effective

organizations, it is no wonder that an effective principal is to be a necessary

precondition for an effective school (Marzano, et al., 2005, p. 5). In fact, a 1977 U.S.

Senate Committee Report on Equal Educational Opportunity deemed the principal as the

most influential person in a school. The difference between more effective principals

and their less effective colleagues is not what they know, it is what they do (Whitaker,

2003, p.1).

Educational theories have evolved through time. As a result, school performance

and leadership assessment in this era of accountability needs to evolve as well. Decades

after the release of the report, A Nation At Risk, the passage of the No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) federal educational legislation of 2001, would come to fruition. This

unprecedented accountability system would now monitor the performance of schools,

dictate how students are taught, determine if progress is attained, and issue sanctions if

required (NCLB, 2001).

As a result of new accountability requirements and the critical role education

plays in our society, it is even more crucial than ever to equip our leaders with the

specific actions needed to lead effective organizations.

Problem Statement

The last fifteen years have seen tremendous growth in statewide accountability

systems designed to monitor the performance of teachers and schools, delineate how

3
performance is measured, and specify how students are taught. These laws have placed

considerable additional demands on schools, while at the same time transforming the role

of principal to that of chief executive officer and strategist. Both students and faculty are

being asked by the states to do more with less (Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009).

School principals have been squarely placed in the position of serving as both the

instructional and strategic leaders of schools. Their ability to effectively meet these new

demands is increasingly critical to the success of the school organization. That is why

there is renewed interest in how and why successful school leaders perform their roles.

Although Pisapias (2009) strategic leadership framework integrates multiple

leadership theories, creating a practical construct (Yasin, 2006), studies conducted on

actual school systems using the framework have not consistently confirmed how the

action sets specified by the model, influence school performance (Pang & Pisapia, 2012;

Pisapia & Lin, 2011; Pisapia & Pang 2011; Pisapia & Pang, 2013; Reyes-Guerra, 2009;

Urdegar, 2008; & Yasin, 2006).

The purpose of this study is to investigate the link between school principal

influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study will

seek to determine if fixed individual and/or institutional characteristics alter the influence

of these variables, or their relationship. This study will be guided by one primary research

question: Is the relationship between perceived leadership influence actions and school

performance mediated by school climate and/or culture? Three secondary questions are

also investigated: Is the relationship between leader influence actions and school

performance moderated by fixed individual and institutional factors? Is the relationship

between leader influence actions, school climate, and school performance moderated by

4
fixed individual and institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence

actions, school culture, and school performance moderated by fixed individual and

institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions and school

culture moderated by fixed individual and institutional factors?

Significance of the Study

This study is significant because it identifies how strategic leader influence actions

function to improve school performance. Furthermore, if a relationship between

leadership influence actions and effectiveness exists, the results can be used to develop

specific training programs to foster those influence actions in potential and existing

principals. Through the investigation of links between principal leader influence actions

and school performance indicators, i.e., student achievement and positive climate, the

findings of this study will also expand the study of educational leadership and contribute

to the empirical research base in the area of strategic leadership.

Conceptual Framework

The study is framed by four constructs: Leader influence actions, climate/culture,

school performance, and individual/institutional characteristics, as seen in Figure 1. The

study begins by examining whether climate aligns to distinct dimensions within the

sample. Next, the study inquires into the use of specific leader influence actions utilized

by school principals. Then, the study delves into whether there is a relationship between

the leadership influence actions employed by school principals and school performance,

inclusive of school culture, and positive climate. It concludes by exploring whether the

relationship between leader influence actions and school performance is moderated by

individual and/or institutional characteristics.

5
 Leadership
Actions Climate
Management Staff Attitudes
Student Disruptions School
Transforming Performance
Bonding Culture
Bridging Business
Bartering Social Justice

Individual and Institutional

Characteristics
Age
Gender
School Level
School Minority Concentration
Free& Reduced Price Lunch
Eligibility

Figure 1. The conceptual framework framing the study

Leader Influence Actions

The hierarchical structure common in contemporary schooling places

administrators over employees, allowing them to direct and control the workings of an

entire organization. While this method may have served well in leading people in vertical

relationships, where command, domination, and coercion facilitates change, it is of

limited effect when leading people who work in horizontal relationships; where

collaboration, coordination, and participative processes are employed. If leaders must be

able to lead and manage simultaneously in todays turbulent environments, it requires a

wider array of leader actions than those provided through transformational/transactional,

contingency, or goal/path approaches. Strategic leadership fills this need. It incorporates

both horizontal and vertical approaches, which properly applied simultaneously, are used

6
to maximize both effectiveness and flexibility (Pisapia, 2009; Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, &

Yasin, 2006, April; Reyes-Guerra, 2009).

In this study, Pisapias (2009) five-dimensional theoretical strategic leader

framework is used as the predictor variable. As described on Table 1, the framework

delineates transforming, managing, bonding, bridging, and bartering actions that leaders

can use while directing organizations in environments. Transforming actions that tap

intrinsic needs and elicit performance beyond expectation are used to promote frame-

breaking change. Managerial actions including planning, coordination, and control,

promote order and are frame- sustaining change. Bonding actions are taken to ensure that

trust is an attribute of the system and not just something developed among individuals in

order that followers' exhibit emotional commitment to the organization's aspirations and

values. Bridging actions are taken to develop alliances with people of power and

influence from outside and inside the organization in order to gain insights, support, and

resources. Bartering actions exchange things of value for the achievement of ends in

order to promote what is possible (Pang & Pisapia, 2012; Pisapia, 2009).

Table 1

Description of Strategic Leadership Influence Actions

Leadership Action Description

Managing actions are taken to maintain consistency in order that
Managing current organizational goals are accomplished efficiently and
effectively.
Transforming actions are taken to influence direction, actions, and
opinions in order to change organizational conditions and culture
Transforming
so that learning and change occur as a normal routine of the
organization.
Bonding actions are taken to ensure that trust is an attribute of the
system and not just something developed among individuals in
Bonding
order that followers' exhibit emotional commitment to the
organization's aspirations and values.
7
Table 1 continued

Bridging actions are taken to develop alliances with people of

Bridging power and influence from outside and inside the organization in
order to gain insights, support, and resources.
Bartering actions are taken to give something in exchange in
Bartering order to strengthen the effectiveness of relationships and alliance
building efforts.
Note. Adapted from The Strategic Leader: New Tactics for a Globalizing Society, by J. Pisapia,
2009, Copyright 2009 by Information Age Publishers.

Contextual Factors

Alterable contextual variables are modifiable through the actions of decision

makers. Often these refer to technical variables associated with specific programs such as

design, fidelity, and dosage; or organizational factors such as administrative support and

leadership. But, institutional factors such as school climate and school culture have also

been shown or have the potential to influence student performance by mediating the

relationship between leader influence actions and school performance.

Climate and culture are both considered alterable variables from the point

of view of this study. However, researchers disagree as to the permanence of each

and the time required for either to be altered. Hoy & Hoy (2003) defines culture

as the shared norms, values and tacit expressions found in a school; while he

considers climate to refer to the perceptions of behavior and interactions of staff

and students. He further suggests that both culture and climate can promote

school effectiveness and student achievement. Similarly, Ekvall and Ryhammer

(1999) suggest that climate is a more temporary set of feelings, beliefs, attitudes,

and perceptions that manifest themselves in the organizations climate and the

belief that an organizations culture is a behavioral manifestation of its climate.

Creating the right climate will give rise to the desired behaviors necessary for
8
organizational success, while the wrong climate leads to an organization being

mired in the status quo and positive climate lends itself to a positive culture, and

vice versa (Cohen, Fege, & Pickeral, 2009).

Purkey and Smith (1983) consider school climate to be a measure of the structure

and organization of the school developed through specific leadership actions and

decision-making structures that supports the development of school culture and an

environment that is conducive to learning. It represents the manifestation of shared norms

and values that permeate the organization resulting in the atmosphere that would define

the ethos of the school (Newman, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001).

Culture refers to the holistic structure of an organization. It is defined by the

values, beliefs, and assumptions held by an organization, reflected through the

perceptions and behaviors of its members. Culture is the set of practices, values, and

relationships that inform how social systems function. Because culture may only be

alterable in the long-term (Bolman & Deal, 2003), it is unclear whether changes will be

manifested within the time frame of this study. No other alterable variables were included

in this study.

School climate has also been shown to promote meaningful student learning,

because when students feel safe, cared for, supported, and gently pushed to learn, their

academic progress increases (Hoy, Tarter, & Bliss, 1990) and that long-term

improvement in academic achievement was related to schools with strong academic

emphasis within the context of healthy and open climates (Bulach, Malone, & Castleman,

1995). An orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning is an important

characteristic of an effective school (Edmonds, 1982; Roach & Kratochwill, 2004; Ross,

9
McDonald, Alberg, McSparrin-Gallagher, & Calloway, 2005) and has increasingly

become recognized as an important determinant of academic achievement (Roach &

Kratochwill, 2004). School culture, defined in terms of professional collaboration,

collegial relationships, and efficacy or self-determination has also been shown to impact

achievement (Cunningham, 2003).

The primary measure of culture used in this study is the Business Survey (Reyes-

Guerra, 2009) designed to represent two major theoretical cultures (i.e., Business and

Social Justice) found in schools.

The social justice model (Schein, 1984) is based on a need to address the inequities

found in current society and to address those inequities by developing social structures to

deal with unequal power relationships The inculcation of a social justice culture leads to

an internalization of student understanding and a higher level of student learning (Furman

& Gruenewald, 2004).

The Business model of school culture promotes the modern industrial economy,

which was characterized by scientific management and mass production. A business

orientation advances the rationalist approach by charting rules and laws that predict

human behavior and belief in the power of reason and observation, thereby encouraging

the adoption of behaviors that focus on efficiency and productivity.

The school climate data used in the current study was drawn from the Annual

Report of Stakeholders also known as the Customer Survey administered annually by

Broward County Public Schools. Custom forms gauge stakeholders impressions of

safety, cleanliness, resources, leadership, support, instruction, and training at their school.

10
 Fixed Contextual Factors

Fixed contextual factors are potentially moderating variables, which describe

differences in the relationship of predictive and criterion variables. They enable us to

determine if a relationship among the constructs is universal across settings or specific to

a setting or condition (Elenkov, & Manev, 2005). Yukl, Fu, & McDonald (2003) suggests

that moderators can also affect relationships among independent variables because of the

contextual nature of leadership. Due to the growing evidence that context influences

principals practice (Stein & Nelson, 2003) and, consequently, their efficacy, prominent

attention will be paid to these effects.

Fixed contextual variables are not modifiable through the actions of decision

makers within a short time period. Included are school characteristics such as aggregate

achievement, school level, socio-economic level, and percent of minority students,

characteristics of the leader such as gender and age. In this study, two types of fixed

variables, i.e., individual characteristics (school level, percent minority, and free/reduced

priced lunch) and institutional characteristics (school principal gender and age), were

examined to determine whether or not they modified the relationship between leader

influence actions, climate/culture, and school performance.

School Performance

The system for evaluating schools in Florida is an amalgam of each schools

student performance on the statewide assessments. At the time of this study, the grading

system was solely based on student performance on the Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test. The A plus system incorporated eight data points which included

achievement status in reading, mathematics and science (i.e., percent of students who

11
earned scores of level 3 and above) and writing (i.e., the average of the percentage of

students who earned scores of level 3 and above and the percent of students who earned

scores of level 4 and above); and progress in reading and mathematics (i.e., percentage of

students who make learning gains) overall and for the schools lowest quartile students in

reading and mathematics (Florida Department of Education, 2008). The sum of these

eight components referred to as points earned constitutes the outcome variable for this

study. Grades were assigned based upon the number of points earned as follows: less

than 395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B), and 525 and above (A)

(Florida Department of Education 2008).

Hypotheses Suggested by the Conceptual Framework

In this model, the leader influence actions are the focal predictor variables driving

improvement in school performance by exerting influence on the climate and culture at

the school. The model suggests that while leader influence actions may influence school

performance directly, it is not likely. The empirical research suggests that the influence

of school leaders is more directly associated with school climate and culture which in

turn influence student performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 1994;

Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Contextual factors are modeled as moderators, which have

influence on the relationships of leader actions and climate and as well as the climate and

culture relationship with school performance. The framework suggests the following

hypotheses, which were tested in this study:

o Hypotheses 1: Contextual factors do not significantly predict perceived leadership

actions of the schools in the study sample

12
o Hypotheses 2a: Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance

of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 2b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3a: Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study

sample

o Hypotheses 3c: School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3d: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3e: The effect of perceived leadership influence actions on the

performance of the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate

o Hypotheses 4a: Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the

culture of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study

sample

o Hypotheses 4c: School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4d: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

13
 between school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4e: The effect of perceived leadership actions on performance of the

schools in the study sample is not mediated by school culture

o Hypotheses 5: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the performance of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 6a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 6b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the

study sample is not mediated by school climate

o Hypotheses 7a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 7b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the

study sample is not mediated by school culture

Scope and Delimitations

The study was situated in the Broward County Public School (BCPS) system, the

sixth largest school system in the nation comprised of urban, suburban, and rural areas.

The sample of schools selected for this study was drawn from all traditional public

schools.

The schools that constitute the focus of this study are traditional public schools

within Broward County and therefore alternative education centers and charter schools

are not represented. The variables used were those available from a fixed secondary

source. Further unknown factors that are not measured in this study may have an effect

on outcomes.

14
 Dependency relationships will be limited to those delineated in the theoretical

framework. Temporal ordering precludes School Grade Points from being modeled as

other than an outcome variable. Contextual fixed factors are assumed to be properties of

either individuals or schools and as such, cannot be modified by the variables in the

model. While the directionality of climate and leadership is uncertain, climate

researchers (e.g., Purkey & Smith, 1983; Newman, Rutter, & Smith, 1989) and the

leadership theories presented herein posit the directions specified. More plausible is that

some sort of feedback relationship exists that it is beyond the scope of this study to

analyze. Finally, because of the reasons stated above, as well as the unique character of

the subject school district, the results yielded from this study may not be generalizable to

other contexts.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has depicted the climate and culture that exist within a large urban

school district and emphasized the potential role of the climate in explaining school level

variations in student outcomes. Also examined were factors that influence both climate

and outcome. Climate and culture were envisioned, as complex constructs comprised of

multiple latent dimensions that act in concert to mediate the effect of leadership influence

actions on school outcomes, subject to constraints imposed by outside forces. A

predictive model of student outcome incorporating climate is needed to gauge the impact

of leadership on outcome and examine the manner in which contextual factors influence

the relationship between leadership, climate, and student performance.

15
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study is to investigate the link between school principal

influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. The variables identified in

the conceptual framework found in Chapter 1 guided this study leader influence actions

climate culture contextual factors school performance and provide the structure

for this review of the literature.

Leadership

The central question that has guided most empirical leadership research is how

one individual, labeled a leader, influences a second individual or group of individuals,

labeled followers (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). The influence process has been studied and

chronicled by applied psychologists, cognitive and social psychologists, management

professors, and sociologists for over 80 years. Shown in Table 2, their studies resulted in

a series of paradigm shifts in the ways leaders try to influence followers.

16
Table 2

Historical Approaches to Leaders Actions

APPROACH DESCRIPTION Representative

Researchers
PSYCHOLOGICAL
Stogdill (1974)
The psychological approach suggests that effective
leadership is the result of personal characteristics or traits Kouzes & Posner
held by the leader. This approach focuses on the (2003)
questions: Are there traits that can predict whether Judge & Bono
individuals are more likely to become a leader? Are they (2000)
likely to be more effective?
Lord, DeVader, &
Allieger (1986)
There are two approaches in this literature. The first
approach studied leaders to identify traits to predict their Kirkpatrick & Locke
potential for leadership. The second approach studied (1991)
followers observations of successful leaders. Mann (1959)
McCall &
Lombardo (1983)
Zaccaro (2007)

BEHAVIORAL The behavioralist approach focuses on the interpersonal Hemphil (1949)

relationships of leaders and followers. In this approach,
Fiedler &
leadership can be defined as the process of influencing
Chemers (1974)
people, actions, and events to accomplish a mission, reach
an organizational goal, or have an effective operation. Stogdill (1974)
Yukl (1989)
There are three approaches in this literature. The first
approach identified two leader behaviors: initiating Blake & Mouton
structure and consideration. The situational approach (1964)
concluded that as task and interpersonal situations change Likert (1967)
so must leader behavior. The contingency approach
considered leader effectiveness to be a joint function of Hershey &
traits, situational demands, and contingencies that interact Blanchard (1977)
to make traits more or less appropriate to the task. Podsakoff,
Bommer,
Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie (2006)
Vroom & Jago
(2007)
Yukl, (2008)

17
Table 2 continued

SOCIOLOGICAL The sociological approach focuses on the setting and the Antonakis,
actors involved in the setting. It is concerned with Avolio, &
organizational and power structures and the availability Sivasubramaniam
and uses of resources. In this approach, power (the (2003)
fundamental concept in social science) is the underlying
Bass (1985)
quality necessary for leaders to lead. They assume that
reciprocity is inherent in leadership; power is an integral Bennis & Nanus
part of the styles leaders use. (1985)
Bono & Judge
There are two approaches in the literature. The first (2004)
approach features a process-oriented transactional
Burns (1978)
approach centered on followers perceptions of leader
actions and motives. It emphasizes reciprocal exchanges Deal & Peterson
between leaders and followers, and the use of persuasive (1990)
influence, rather than coercive power. French & Raven
(1960)
The second approach features a process-oriented Goldstein, Hazy,
transformational approach centered on changing the & Lichtenstein,
outlook and behavior of followers. The role of culture is (2010)
seen as an important mediating factor in the
transformational process. House (1971)
Leithwood (1994)
Lichtenstein et al.
(2006)
Gronn (2002)
Pearce & Conger
(2003)
Pisapia (2009)
Uhl-Bien (2006)

18
Table 2 continued

COGNITIVE The cognitive approach examines how ideas, thoughts, Bass & Avolio
images, and mental representations develop and how they (2004)
are stored, accessed, combined, remembered and
Boal & Hooijberg
rearranged or distorted by the mind. The cognitivist would
(2001)
ask, What are the ideas (stories) of the leader? How were
they developed? How are they communicated, understood, Drath (2001)
or misunderstood? How do they interact with competing Gardner (1990)
stories? How do their ideas affect the feelings and beliefs
of followers? Hambrick &
Mason (1984)
The cognitive approach can be featured in the transactional Lord & Hall
or transformational processes. The mental representations (2005)
can be used to support the existing cultures or development
of new ones through innovative stories. Lord & Shondrick
(2011)
Senge (1990)
Pisapia (2009)
Uhl-Bien, Marion,
& McKelvey
(2007)
Vera & Crossan
(2004)

Note. Adapted from The Fabric of Leadership [Working paper] by J. Pisapia, 2014, Florida Atlantic
University.

Psychologists who believed that leadership is an inherited capacity sketched the

first leadership paradigm. The theory assumes that individuals are either born or not born

with those traits and skill sets required of good leaders. The theory identifies several

traits that can be associated with a leader such as confidence, alertness, persistence,

sociability, masculinity, integrity, enthusiastic, decisive, charismatic, willingness to lead,

motivation, intelligence, etc. This theory was prevalent prior to the 1940s and continues

to have support today. However, once it was determined that no single trait or

combination of traits fully predicted a leaders success; there was a shift in focus.

When the trait approach as a method to identify and develop leaders proved

relatively fruitless, behaviorists started looking at what leaders do. First, they attempted

to modify the trait approach to include skills leaders need to perform leadership acts in
19
addition to traits needed to become a leader. Failing in these endeavors, they refocused

the research lens from leader to leadership. The behavioral paradigm posits that effective

leaders exhibit specific behaviors, which can be learned. Scholars of this movement

describe leadership as a combination of skills and observable behaviors, such as initiating

consideration and/or structure (Hemphill, 1949; Fiedler & Chemers, 1974; Stogdill,

1974); employee and job centered behaviors (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Likert, 1967) and,

task and relationships behaviors (Hershey & Blanchard, 1988).

By the early 1950s, the dominant trait approach was displaced by the behavioral

approach that essentially viewed followers as subordinates, identified specific leader

actions, grouped them into patterns they called styles, and tried to decide when a

particular style was appropriate. The early behavioral approach culminated in Blake and

Moutons belief that there is one best way to lead. They called it high structure and high

consideration and trained thousands of managers in this paradigm. During the late 1960s

some behaviorist began to notice that just understanding what leaders did was not

enough. It was also necessary to know when to use the behaviors. They began to focus

their research on the situation. First Fiedler in 1967 and then Hershey and Blanchard in

the 1970s noticed that leaders tend to behave in ways consistent with the situation at

hand. From their research the term situational leadership was born and thousands more

practitioners were trained and some retrained away from earlier leadership approaches.

The weakness in the behavioral approaches is that they primarily viewed followers as

subordinates and disregarded issues of politics, values, and inspiration.

As the importance of the two-way influence in the leader-follower relationship

became more prominent, sociologists (1978-1990) sought to understand the relationship

20
through a social exchange framework. They viewed followers as constituents. From

their perspective whatever form leadership takes, at its root will be the selective use of

power, authority or influence to coerce, command and/or induce followers to join the

quest for goal attainment. A seismic mind-shift in leadership thinking occurred after

James McGregor Burns (1978) introduced the terms transformational and transactional

leadership. Based on his study of American Presidents, he defined leadership as the

ability to induce followers to act for certain goals that represents the values and the

motivations -- the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations -- of both leaders and

followers. Other sociologists picked up the banner, filled in the gaps, and identified

practical value of Burns concepts as a means to produce socially useful outcomes

through adaptive work (see Heifetz, 1994). By focusing on the centrality of power,

authority and influence, conflict and power structures, they created their own patterns of

leader actions, and moved the discussion from actions to influence individuals

(transactional approach) to actions that influence organizations and individuals

(transformational approach). They developed a series of power-based models of

leadership founded on the notion that legitimized power can be granted by the

organization and established through the authority of the positions as well as through

competence, reward and charisma and Burns, 1978; French & Raven 1960).

Burns banner was picked up by psychologists Bass and Avolio and social

scientist Warren Bennis who refocused their research lenses nodded to the presence of

transactional leadership but shifted the sociological emphasis of transformational

leadership to a more of a behavioral and cognitive orientation. To them, the centerpiece

of transformational leadership was to create a vision, direction, or mission. Then

21
communicate and nurture the vision and realign the organization to it. Bass (1990), in

particular, shifted the emphasis from raising the level of motivation and morality in both

leader and follower advocated by Burns, to achieving performance beyond expectations.

Bass (1985) developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ),

identifying three facets of transformational leadership: charismatic leadership (the

amount of faith, respect, and inspiration engendered by the leader); individualized

consideration (the degree of attention and support given to individual followers); and

intellectual stimulation (the extent to which the leader enables followers to rethink the

ways they do things). Bass (1985) suggests:

Transforming leaders convert followers to disciples; they develop followers into

leaders. They elevate the concerns of followers on Maslows (1954) need

hierarchy from needs for safety and security to needs for achievement and self-

actualization, increase their awareness and consciousness of what is really

important, and move them to go beyond their own self-interests for the good of

the larger entities to which they belong. The transforming leader provides

followers with a cause around which they can rally (p. 467).

Two facets of transactional leadership were also identified: contingent reward (the

degree to which the leader provides reinforcement in return for appropriate follower

behavior), and management by exception (the extent to which subordinates hear from the

leader only when failures or problems occur) (Bass, 1985). Charismatic leadership is the

most significant facet of transformational leadership in predicting effectiveness, as

measured by the MLQ. While the Bass conceptualization is not perfect (Tracy & Hinkin,

1998) it became the gold standard of leadership research inspiring many studies and only

22
recently have there been strong claims that it has lost its usefulness (Van Knippenberg &

Sitkin, 2013)

The most recent paradigm shift in leadership thinking is represented by the

cognitive approach, which considers how values, ideas, thoughts, and mental

representations develop and are used by leaders to make a mental connection between the

leader and follower (Senge, 1990; Gardner, 1990). This new theory pushes

transformational leadership from a behavioral to cognitive approach. The approach

focuses on affecting change in an organizations beliefs, values, and direction through

establishing mental connections and commitments with followers whom they identify as

colleagues.

As Bass and his colleagues were developing the tenants of transformational

leadership that could be used at all echelons of organizations, a family of theories that

view leaders as those who scan their environment and determine strategies to achieve

broad objectives and overcome organizational challenges came to the forefront (Pisapia,

2006). Donald Hambrick and Phyllis Mason focused strategic leadership theory by

pulling together the fragmented leadership literature regarding leadership at the top.

They called it upper echelons leadership focused on strategy reflective of the values and

cognitive biases of dominant coalitions, which they viewed as top management.

Hambrick and Mason (1984) argue that strategic choice lies at the heart of upper echelons

strategic leadership and that these choices are reflective of their knowledge and

assumptions about future events, alternatives, and consequences attached to the

alternatives and the value they assign to them (p. 195). At the heart of the theory is the

emphasis that upper echelon characteristics determine strategic choices and these choices

23
determine organizational performance. For Hambrick and Mason, leadership of complex

organizations is a shared activity and understanding what organizations do and how they

perform is related to the biases and dispositions of top executives. This claim is supported

by research of Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Carpenter & Frederickson, 2001; DAveni, 1990;

Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Leithwood & Jantzi,

2000; Simmons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999. In Hambricks (2007) update on upper echelons

theory, Hambrick explains how the upper echelons perspective has been strengthened

with the introduction of important moderators of managerial discretion and executive job

demands. Managerial discretion refers to their latitude of action without internal or

external constraint or oversight and multiple probable alternatives (Hambrick &

Finkelstein, 1987). Executive job demands refer to external pressure for performance,

demanding boards or owners, or internal aspiration to deliver maximum performance

(Hambrick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005). As is the case with all theories, the upper

echelon perspective to strategic leadership has distractors. Hurst, Rush, & White (1989)

suggest that its focus on people at the top ignores the processes larger organizations use

to make decisions and take action. They contend that long-term viability requires ongoing

re-creation and management. From their view, its not so much that upper echelon

perspective is incorrect as it is incomplete. Much of the strategic leadership follows

Hambrick s by focusing on a series of decisions and activities of top managers focused

on the past, present, and future of the organization (Boal, 2004).

With the increasing environmental complexity and ambiguity beginning in the

early 1990s and extending into the 2000s new leadership models were called for (Boal,

2004; Senge & Sterman, 1992; Van Knippenberg, & Sitkin, 2013). A new generic

24
leadership model has been advocated by John Pisapia, a Professor at Florida Atlantic

University that provides the elasticity, practicality and a pragmatic approach which he

says is the ability (as well as the wisdom) to make consequential decisions about ends

(goals), ways (strategies) and means (actions) in complex and ambiguous environments.

Pisapia bases the need for an all-echelon strategic leadership approach on the need

to bridge the gap between modern and postmodern demands and environments. As

Leithwood (2001) points out, the unique features of the context in which many school

leaders work require additional responses from them, responses not yet well codified and

so not easily available for purposes of leadership development and research (p. 227). In

2009, Pisapia responded that in this environment, a leader must think, act, and work in a

strategic way meaning they are focused on finding and installing purpose and are able to

adapt to a wide variety of different contexts and situations. His working hypothesis is that

leaders who are more cognitively and behaviorally complex will be more effective in

times of ambiguity and complexity than leaders who do not possess these skills. At the

center of Pisapias leadership theory are the keystones of agility of the mind and artistry

of leader influence actions.

Strengthening the cognitive skills associated reflecting, reframing, and systems

thinking, enhances the agility of the mind. Drawing on the empirical and theoretical

literature, Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, and Coukos-Semmel (2005) identified and described

the three meta-cognitive skills, defined in Table 1 systems thinking, reframing, and

reflection which enable leaders to recognize patterns, interdependencies, and make

consequential decisions (see Argyris & Schn, 1978; Baron, 1994; Bolman & Deal,

1994; Capra, 2002; Dewey, 1933; Halpren, 1996; Kets De Vries, 2001; March & Simon,

25
1958; Marcy & Mumford, 2010; Morgan, 1986; Mumford, Connelly, & Gaddis, 2003;

Schn 1983; Senge 1990; Simon 1947; Weick 1995). These researchers also

hypothesized that effective leaders use these skills differently than less effective leaders,

especially under conditions of complexity (Pisapia et al., 2005).

Table 3

Description of the Thinking Skills found in the Strategic Thinking Questionnaire

Strategic
Description
Thinking Skills
Systems thinking refers to the leaders ability to see systems
holistically by understanding the properties, forces, patterns and
Systems
interrelationships that shape the behavior of the system, which
Thinking
hence provides options for action.

Reflecting refers to the leaders ability to weave logical and

rational thinking, through the use of perceptions, experience and
Reflecting information, to make judgments on what has happened, and
creation of intuitive principles that guide future actions.

Reframing refers to the leaders ability to switch attention across

multiple perspectives, frames, mental models, and paradigms to
Reframing
generate new insights and options for actions.

Note. Adaptad from Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, & Coukos-Semmel (2005). [See original for full description
of constructs]

In previous studies using this framework, the use of strategic thinking skills was

strongly associated with self-reported (Pang & Pisapia, 2012; Pisapia et al., 2006, April),

and objective (Zsiga, 2008) measures of leader effectiveness. They were also associated

with leader role and school type (Pang & Pisapia, 2012); long term firm performance of

return on equity (Raghavan, Shukla, & Shaid, 2010); self-directed learning Zsiga, (2008);

transformational and authentic leadership (Brennan 2010); and age and experience

(Penney, 2010; Pisapia, Pang, Hee, Lin, & Morris, 2009).

26
 Artistry is the ability to use a multifaceted array of leader influence actions.

Pisapia (2009) conceptually divides leader actions into two types: directional

(transforming and managing), and those that enable the leader to maneuver (bonding,

bridging, and bartering). He assumes that these influence actions enable leaders steer

their organizations through the strategic environment. Directional actions include change

oriented transforming actions, which enable them to move the organization forward, and

task oriented managing actions, which they use to stabilize and control organizational

efforts. The maneuvering actions are relational in nature and culturally sensitive. They

include bonding actions to establish cohesion and engagement, bridging actions to

develop internal and external support, and bartering actions to establish reciprocity and

exchange relationships. These actions, described in Table 2, were used in this study to

leaders behavioral complexity and to determine if leader cognition is related to leader

actions.

27
Table 4

Description of Pisapias (2009) Leadership Influence Actions

Leadership Action Description

Managing actions are taken to maintain consistency in order that
Managing current organizational goals are accomplished efficiently and
effectively.
Transforming actions are taken to influence direction, actions, and
opinions in order to change organizational conditions and culture
Transforming
so that learning and change occur as a normal routine of the
organization.
Bonding actions are taken to ensure that trust is an attribute of the
system and not just something developed among individuals in
Bonding
order that followers' exhibit emotional commitment to the
organization's aspirations and values.
Bridging actions are taken to develop alliances with people of
Bridging power and influence from outside and inside the organization in
order to gain insights, support, and resources.
Bartering actions are taken to give something in exchange in
Bartering order to strengthen the effectiveness of relationships and alliance
building efforts.
Note. Adapted from The Strategic Leader: New tactics for a globalizing world, by J. Pisapia, 2009,
Copyright 2009 by Information Age Press.

In previous studies using this framework, these influence actions more often were

strongly associated with self-reported effectiveness (Uurluolu 2009; Yasin, 2006);

effectiveness reported by others (Reyes-Guerra, 2009); and external objective measures

of effectiveness (Fazzino, 2012). In one Chinese study, the school principal leader

profile centered on transforming, and bonding. Their supportive actions were managing

and bridging. Bartering was the least often used type of action (Pisapia & Lin, 2011).

These findings on bonding and transforming mirror results found in American studies

(Yasin, 2006; Urdegar 2008; Reyes-Guerra, 2009); Malaysian studies (Yasin, 2006), and

Turkish studies (Uurluolu, 2009). Other important findings include:

Transforming, bridging and bonding actions were associated with more

cohesive culture in schools (Urdegar, 2008; Reyes-Guerra, 2009)

28
 Leader actions were influenced by role and context (Yasin, 2006, Reyes-

Guerra, 2009; Pisapia & Lin, 2011; Pisapia & Pang 2011; Pang & Pisapia,

2012)

As the leader felt the complexity of the context increasing they used more

bridging, bonding, and transforming actions (Uurluolu, elik, &

Pisapia, 2010)

Mandated policies and programs were not effectively implemented when

leaders did not use management authority in tandem with the other four

actions. (Reyes-Guerra, 2009)

Free choice policies and programs were effectively implemented with

transforming, bonding, bartering, and bridging actions. (Reyes-Guerra,

2009)

HBC leaders (those who used the five leader influence actions more often

and in combination) produced the conditions that led to higher

organizational performance than LBC leaders (Fazzino, 2012).

Pisapias theory is comprehensive and while in many ways the concepts have

been proposed by earlier scholars they were not thought of as an ensemble that uniquely

meets an organizations need for stability and change, and the ethical nature of the task

and the political realities that exist. In his doctoral dissertation, Professor Daniel Reyes-

Guerra (2009) described Pisapias theory this way:

29
It is simultaneously similar and different from the commonly accepted

view of leadership. He starts with the common view of scanning, direction

setting and alignment by creating a coherence of vision and direction, and

organizational learning but centers these old habits on flexibility through

what he describes as artistry and agility. Artistry is the ability of the

leader to draw on transforming, managing, political and ethical actions to

successfully lead the organization through the complex environment.

Agility results from the development of an open growth mindset that

enables leaders to process information by reflecting, reframing, and

systems thinking. To all of this he adds the notion that strategic leadership

is not just the purview of top management but of every manager or leader.

In Pisapias (2006; 2009) descriptions of the strategic leadership

concept, a leader uses artistry and agility to guide a learning process,

which scans for environmental changes and builds a set of common

aspirations, values, and beliefs that fit the organizations direction with the

environment. As the organization moves in this direction, leaders

continually adapt their strategies and actions to the changing internal and

external environment as they execute the organizations intent through

performance and institution building. Strategic leadership promotes

balance between the professional and ethical requirements and the

political realities that exist and the organizations need for stability and

change (Pisapia, 2009).

30
 The major difference between his ideas and other leadership

theories is the maneuverability of the strategic leaders in ambiguous and

complex contexts to make decisions and promote changes and yet at the

same time meet the organizations values, aspirations and needs. For that

reason he emphasizes consideration of the tension between what is

possible (the political dimension) and what is right (the ethical

dimension) and concludes that leaders should be able to balance their

decision-making and actions so that problems and issues can be treated

practically while not losing moral or ethical ground (Reyes-Guerra, 2009,

p. 92).

School Leadership Models

School leadership research mirrored the larger research effort in leadership theory

building. In the 1940s the emphasis was on trait theory. In the 1950s, 60s, 70s behavioral

theories were utilized by school theorists. As demands were made on schools for higher

levels of student achievement in the 1980s the only truly school focused leadership

model, instructional leadership emerged along with transformational leadership models as

the most used as evidenced by the number of empirical studies (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).

Instructional leadership had its birth during the school effectiveness movement in

the early 1980s. While its name implies that it was birth from observations of

instructional leaders, Hallinger (2003, p. 331), claims it was inferred from studies

examining change implementation, school effectiveness, school improvement, and

program improvement primarily at the elementary school level. Its main feature is that

the focus of these change strategies is its focus on teaching and learning. Hallinger and
31
Murphy (1987) identified three general dimensions of instructionally effective principals

instructional management role: defining the school mission, managing the instructional

program, and promoting a positive learning climate. Leithwood (1994) argues that

instructional leadership uses a control-oriented strategy for change where the purposes

and practices required for their accomplishment are known and agreed upon. The

empirical evidence supports the positive effect of instructional leadership on student

achievement (Blas & Blas, 2000; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 1999, 2002;

Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008) as much as 10 percent improvement in student test

scores was found by Marzano et al. (2005).

The school effectiveness era was focused on elementary schools and was soon

replaced by the restructuring movement of the 1990s, which focused on secondary

education. Since secondary schools are larger and more complex than elementary

schools, control strategies are not as effective as commitment strategies. As a result, a

new leadership model was called for (Leithwood, 1994).

Kenneth Leithwood, a University of Toronto professor is most closely associated

with the development of transformational leadership in the educational setting. Along

with Doris Jantzi, his longtime collaborator, his model was developed on six dimensions:

building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering

individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values; demonstrating

high performance expectations; and developing conditions, structures, and processes for

staff participation in school decisions. (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; p. 114).

Operationally, the Leithwood instruments ask respondents to rate the total leadership in

the school rather than just the principal as in instructional leadership. Leithwood (1994),

32
proposed that transformational school leaders affect three psychological dispositions of

teachers: (a) perceptions of school, (b) commitment to change, and (c) individual

capacity for professional development which gives them power to effect school culture

which according to researchers (Ross & Gray, 2006, p. 812) can be expected to lead to a

significant contribution to increasing student achievement.

Although the research is mixed in terms of the results of studies investigating the

effect transformational leadership has on school climate, culture, and student

achievement, the findings are promising and trend toward a positive indirect relationship

(Griffith, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000, 2008; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Marks &

Printy, 2003; Silins & Murray-Harvey, 1999). In contrast to these studies the results of

the studies of Leithwood, Reidlinger, Bauer, and Jantzi (2003), Leithwood, Jantzi, Earl,

Watson, & Fullan (2004), and Marcoulides and Heck (1996), found non-significant

effects of transformational leadership on student achievement.

Leadership Summary

Leadership, in its simplest form, involves establishing direction and supporting

individuals that work together to move in that direction. Historically, leadership theory

framed the tasks as the relationship between leaders, followers, and common goals (e.g.

Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990; Blake & Mouton, 1964; Fu & Yukl, 2000; Hershey &

Blanchard, 1988; House, 1971; Triandis, 1995). Pisapia (2009) claims that this leader

centric theoretical position served well in leading people in vertical relationships (e.g.,

leader follower common goals) where command, control and persuasion tactics are

the levers of change.

In leader centric notions, direction, mission, and goals are established at the top of

33
the organization and carried out by the actions of managers and followers in the

organization. This notion is rooted in an individualistic and non-systemic worldview. It

is based on the assumption that people are subordinate, powerless, lack personal vision,

and are unable to change without pressure. The leader sets the direction, makes the key

decisions, and energizes the troops. Such leaders possess the ability to effectively

command, direct, or influence the actions and behaviors of people. Their base of

influence is line authority. They lead by controlling others. They take action and expect

results.

Pisapia (2009) claims that the traditional view serves less well in leading

people and groups in horizontal relationships where collaboration, co-creation,

coordination, minimum specifications, chunking change, and generative processes

are the levers of change. A much less robust set of studies frame modern

horizontal leadership theory, which involves individuals working together in a

collective effort. The move toward horizontal leadership requires skills to create

direction, alignment and commitment, to work in teams, and to develop

community, which is suggested by distributed leadership theory (Cox, Pearce, &

Perry, 2003; Gronn, 2002; Pearce & Conger, 2003); complexity science

(Goldstein, Hazy, & Lichtenstein, 2010; Lichtenstein et al., 2006; Uhl-Bien,

Marion, & McKelvey, 2007); and relational theories (Drath, 2001; McNamee &

Gergen, 1999; Uhl- Bien, 2006).

In the modern view, leadership exists in a social relationship. Leadership is seen

as a shared concept but someone generally is recognized as the leader. Leaders lead

people but there are self-interests on both sides. Characteristic of this view is Chapman

34
and Boyds (1986) observation that follower centric leaders lead not from the apex of

the organizational pyramid but from the nexus of a web of interpersonal relationships,

with people rather than through them. In follower centric notions, direction, mission, and

goals are established with followers. Such leaders possess the ability to guide, serve as a

channel, facilitate, and influence the work of followers in such a way as to obtain their

willing obedience, confidence, respect, and cooperation and results in behavior beyond

simple compliance. They go about building purpose and in doing so transform

individuals and groups with nonaligned interests into partners, participants, and

colleagues with a particular perception, swagger, and commitment (Chapman & Boyd,

1986).

Climate and Culture

Climate and culture are conceptualized at the organizational level in this

study. At this level, the relationship of leadership influence actions and climate

and culture is well documented (Bailey, 1988; Chirichello, 1997; Chang, Chuang,

& Bennington, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Hallinger & Murphy, 1987; Harris,

2002; Hoy & Miskel, 1991; Kelley, 1980; Lane, 1992; Leithwood et al., 1993;

Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood, Jantzi, et al., 2004; Ross & Gray, 2006; Rubio,

1999; Sergiovanni, 1995; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-DAlessandro, 2013;

Udwadia, 1990).

Climate and culture are often confused in the literature. For example, Hoy

& Hoy (2003) defines culture as the shared norms, values and tacit expressions

found in a school. Climate refers to the perceptions, behavior, and interactions of

staff and students. He further suggests that both culture and climate can promote

35
school effectiveness and student achievement. Similarly, Ekvall, and Ryhammer

(1999) suggest that climate is a temporary set of feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and

perceptions that manifest themselves in the organizations climate. They further

suggest that an organizations culture is a behavioral manifestation of its climate.

Other scholars suggest that climate is what people see and report happening to

them in an organizational situation (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003, p. 566).

It refers to the tone of the workspace; its physical and psychological

characteristics such as physical appearance of workspace, sense of safety, and

how people interact with each other. Cohen et al. (2009) suggests that creating the

right climate will give rise to the desired behaviors necessary for organizational

success, while the wrong climate leads to an organization being mired in the

status quo and positive climate lends itself to a positive culture, and vice versa.

Table 5

Theorists Descriptions of Climate & Culture

Climate Culture

Hoy & Hoy the perceptions of behavior and shared norms, values and tacit
(2003) interactions of staff and students expressions, beliefs, and assumptions that
shape members decisions and practices
Leithwood & Jantzi
(2000)
Ekvall & Ryhammer a more temporary set of a behavioral manifestation of its
(1999) feelings, beliefs, climate.
attitudes, and
perceptions
what people see and report
happening to them in an
organizational situation
refers to the tone of the work
Ostroff, Kinicki, &
space; its physical and
Tamkins (2003, p. 566)
psychological characteristics such
as physical appearance of work
space, sense of safety, and how
people interact with each other

36
Table 5 continued

Deal & Peterson (1990); refers to historically rooted, socially

Martins & Terblanche transmitted deep patterns of thinking and
(2003) ways of acting that when regularly
utilized and are reinforced by reward
structures become the norms of the
organizations culture which describe the
right way of doing things and how
members are expected to behave
Schein (1992, p. 12) A pattern of shared basic assumptions that
the group has learned as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and
internal integration, that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as
the correct way to perceive, think, and
feel in relation to those problems

Culture, on the other hand, refers to historically rooted; socially-

transmitted deep patterns of thinking and ways of acting that when regularly

utilized are reinforced by reward structures become the norms of the

organizations culture. Eventually, these norms proscribe the right way of doing

things and dictate how members are expected to behave (Deal & Peterson, 1990;

Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Schein, 1984). It reflects the shared values,

assumptions, and beliefs that set the standard for expected behavior (Tableman &

Herron, 2004) and how the work is to be done (Sackney, 1988). Cameron, Bright,

& Caza (2004) summarizes these distinctions between culture and climate this

way:

Climate refers to more temporary attitudes, feelings, and perceptions of

individuals (Schneider & Somers, 1990). Culture is an enduring, slow to change,

core characteristic of organizations; climate, [which is] based on attitudes, can

change quickly and dramatically. Culture refers to implicit, often indiscernible

37
 aspects of organizations; climate refers to more overt, observable attributes of

organizations. Culture includes core values and consensual interpretations about

how things are; climate includes individualistic perspectives that [change]

frequently as situations change (Cameron et al., 2004, p. 3)

School Climate

The concept of organizational climate was first identified in the late 1950s, as

social scientists studied the differences in the quality of work environments (Hoy &

Tarter, 1997). Halpin and Croft (1963), who are considered pioneers in school climate

research, investigated the influence of a leaders behavior on the organizational climate in

elementary schools. They found that each school had characteristics and qualities that

made it unique, distinguishing it from other schools. They maintained that each school

had a different feel or personality and went on to describe school climate as the

personality of the organization (Halpin, 1966). Soon after, researchers began to identify

relationships between school climate and student achievement (Brookover, Beady, Flood,

Schweitzer, & Wisenbaker, 1979). Results from MacNeil, Prater, Doris and Busch (2009)

suggest that students score higher on standardized tests in schools with healthy learning

environments (p. 73). Leithwood, Seashore, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004)

add that the development of affective relationships between teachers and students

promotes the engagement of students and increases student motivation to learn in any

environment. Newman et al. (2001) conducted a study that related the change in

instructional program coherence from 1994 to 1997 to students academic achievement.

The study was situated in Chicago and was conducted in all of the citys public schools.

The sample consisted of the 222 schools that participated during both times. Over 5,000
38
teachers participated through their return of surveys used to gauge coherence at their

schools. Student participants included an average of 81,493 third-, sixth-, and eighth-

grade students who were administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills on an annual basis.

Field studies of 11 randomly selected schools were also conducted. Site visits featured

two-person observations in grades 3, 6, and 8 and interviews with school staff. The

teacher survey form that they developed adhered to a 4-point Likert scale format with

forced response options that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). As

additional items were added during the second administration, the scales were equated

using item response theory. The final instrument contained 10 items. Concurrent validity

between the surveys and the field reports was .70.

A three-level hierarchical linear model was used to examine the relationship

between coherence and achievement trends. The student data was organized as students

nested within year, nested within school. The model adjusted for the effects of various

school level factors associated with outcome including school size, mobility, racial/ethnic

composition, Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status, and initial achievement level.

Achievement scores were equated across grade using item response theory to facilitate

comparisons. Results indicated that there was a strong relationship between improved

coherence and improved achievement across the years of the study (Newman et al.,

2001). School climate has also been shown to promote meaningful student learning.

When students feel safe, cared for, supported, and gently pushed to learn, their

academic progress should increase. Several studies have examined the relationship

between school climate and student achievement using the Tennessee School Climate

Inventory (TSCI).

39
 Bulach et al. (1995) in a study of 20 schools used regression analysis and found a

strong positive correlation (r = .52) between student achievement and school climate. The

authors concluded that school climate was a significant factor in successful school

reform. Hoy, Tarter, and Bliss (1990) also found that long-term improvement in

academic achievement was related to schools with strong academic emphasis within the

context of healthy and open climates.

A relationship between climate and achievement was uncovered in a study of 61

Florida Elementary schools. School climate was defined as professional collaboration,

collegial relationships, and efficacy or self-determination. The results showed that the

healthier the school culture, as defined by the presence of these factors, the higher the

reading scores (Cunningham, 2003).

Educators have become increasingly convinced that the climate of schools is an

important determinant of academic achievement (Roach & Kratochwill, 2004). An

orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning is an important characteristic of

an effective school (Edmonds, 1982; Roach & Kratochwill, 2004; Ross et al., 2005). The

climate of an effective school encourages every student to become disciplined, creative,

and a well-motivated learner.

The relationship between transformational leadership and school climate as

perceived by teachers was also explored through a study conducted in Ohio secondary

schools (Blatt, 2002). The authors used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5x and

the CFK School Climate Profile to measure the variables. Analysis of the data revealed a

statistically significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and

school climate. No significant association between transactional leadership and school

40
climate was identified. Data were gathered from 345 career technical teachers selected

randomly from the 3,343 teachers employed in joint vocational school districts during the

2001-2002 school year. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between

transformational leadership and school climate (r =0.569, p < .01) revealed the presence

of a significant relationship.

No national consensus on the definition of school climate exists (Coral & Castle,

2005). However, there is general acceptance of the National School Climate Council

(2007) description of school climate as patterns of peoples experiences of school life and

reflects norms, values, and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally

and physically safe (p.4). Purkey & Smith (1983) were among the earliest describers of

school climate. They believed that shared norms and values permeate the organization

and manifest in a culture of high expectations that would define the ethos of the school.

The structure and organization of the school developed through specific leadership

actions and decision-making structures would support the development of that culture

and an environment that is conducive to learning. The empirical evidence produced since

that era is rather conclusive that associates climate with healthy relationships, engaged

teaching and learning, safety, and school improvement efforts (Cohen et al., 2009; Cohen

& Geier, 2010; Thapa et al., 2013). For instance, based on a review of 200 studies from

1970 forward, Thapa et al., (2013) concluded that school climate matters; its associated

with positive child and youth development, effective risk prevention and health

promotion efforts, student learning and academic achievement, increased student

graduation rates, and teacher retention (p 369). Findings such as these contributed to the

41
U.S. Department of Educations decision to fund state school climate assessment

systems.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) began administering a School

Climate Survey in 1994 to comply with the requirements of the accountability legislation.

This survey can be compared to the Customer Survey administered in Broward County

Public Schools. No research has been conducted however on the Broward instrument.

The Staff Form of the Miami- Dade Climate survey administered to all school personnel,

addresses safety, cleanliness, and leadership, attitudes toward administrators, teachers,

and students; impediments to the delivery of instruction; and, satisfaction with the work

environment (Department of Research Services, 2006).

Urdegar (2008) analyzed the Staff Form using a Principal Axis factor analysis

with oblique rotation, which revealed it to be comprised of the four factors within a

truncated factor extraction based on 22 of the 32 non-summary items. Four correlated but

distinct factors were found. The first was Leadership within the school, (48.79% of

response variation), which is primarily concerned with relationships between the

principal and the staff members and secondarily with leader effectiveness. The second

was Delinquency in the student body, (12.94% of response variation), which pertains to

existential environmental threats posed by substance abuse, violence, and gang activity.

The third was Preparedness of students, (6.86% of response variation), which is

principally concerned with the perceived lack of academic deficiencies within the school.

The fourth was Professionalism at the respondents school (5.64% of response variation),

which is concerned with the extent to which evaluations are used as a corrective and

42
impartial tool designed to improve performance and the extent to which professional

development is available to help staff members acquire the latest skills (Urdegar, 2008).

Analysis of Variance procedures were then used to compare each climate

dimension and to indicate the likelihood that at least one of the pairwise comparisons

between grade organizations was statistically significant. The results of these procedures

indicated that Leadership was perceived by staff members to be significantly better at K-

8 centers than at other school types, while delinquency was perceived by staff members

to be significantly less at elementary schools and K-8 centers than at middle, senior high

schools, and alternative/special centers (Urdegar, 2008).

Finally, regression analysis was used to determine the relative influence of the

four climate dimensions on each of the climate outcomes. The results indicated that staff

members agreed that students received a good education, there was a positive overall

climate, and that schools should receive an average grade of B. Furthermore,

professionalism and delinquency were perceived as more important than preparedness

and much more important than leadership, as determinants of a good education.

Leadership, on the other hand, was perceived as much more important than either

professionalism or preparedness and more important than delinquency as a determinant

of overall climate. With regards to school grade, delinquency was perceived as more

influential than leadership and much more influential than either professionalism or

preparedness. In sum, leadership viewed primarily as harmonious relations with staff was

found to be the most salient predictor of overall climate (Urdegar, 2008).

The Quality Counts 2013 report reiterates the notion that school leaders have a

crucial role to play in creating a positive school environment and in supporting teachers

43
(Horowitz, 2013). As described in the report, student behavior is often a byproduct of

teachers behavior and attitudes, and as such, successful principals work with teachers to

learn about and incorporate constructive ways of handling student misbehavior

(Horowitz, 2013). Leaders in these schools also recognize that a positive climate can be

established and maintained through the existence and strengthening of relationships with

stakeholders.

Research suggests that teachers, especially in high- poverty schools are affected

by climate and safety (Horowitz, 2013). In a report entitled Quality Counts 2013,

compiled by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, it was noted that there

are discrepancies between how teachers and administrators feel about school climate and

safety. For example, in a non-representative sample of more than 1,300 teachers and

administrators, less than 30 percent of teachers, compared with three-quarters of

administrators, strongly believe administrators adequately support teachers with respect

to managing student behavior (Horowitz, 2013).

In high- poverty schools, concerns about school climate are especially acute. In the

low- poverty schools surveyed, 83 percent of educators strongly agreed that staff feel safe

and 72 percent said that the school climate is conducive to teaching and learning, whereas

in the high-poverty schools surveyed, only 46 percent of the staff feel safe and only 35

percent feel the climate is conducive to teaching and learning.

Several recent empirical studies, primarily dissertations, have investigated the

relationship between principals leadership and school climate. For example, the

relationship between school climate and the leadership style among female public school

principals was examined through a study conducted in New Mexico (Remondini, 2001).

44
A total of 19 principals and 298 teachers completed the LPI and the Organizational

Climate Description Questionnaire. The author found a statistically significant

relationship between leadership styles and organizational climate for supportive principal

behavior, but no statistically significant relationship for directive or restrictive principal

behavior.

Williams (2009) used a mixed-methods design to analyze the impact of student

behavioral problems on teaching and learning and to examine the strategies typically used

to deal with them. The study was conducted in two high poverty schools (one elementary

and one junior high) in Brooklyn, New York. Over 90% of the students in both schools

were classified as African-American. Eighty teachers were targeted to participate in a

survey to address these issues. Of the teachers targeted, 90% of the teachers at one school

and 40% of the teachers at the other school responded to the survey.

Respondents were first asked about the prevalence and impact of disruptions.

About half of responding teachers agreed that learning was impacted by disruptive

student behavior. Over two thirds of teachers agreed that students were disrespectful and

defiant to teachers. Moreover, about half of the respondents reported that students and/or

teachers had been physically or verbally harassed. Although, over 60% of teachers at

both schools reported that disruptive behavior was disruptive to their schools climate,

over 75% reported feeling safe while performing their professional duties. Around two-

thirds of respondents agreed behavioral standards, and the penalties for violating them,

should be integrated into the curriculum and explicitly taught (Williams, 2009).

Respondents were then asked to rate the effectiveness of a series of strategies for

dealing with disruptions. Two very different strategies, suspensions and social/emotional

45
support were both rated as effective by a super majority of respondents with over three-

quarters of respondents reporting that the latter was routinely provided. Over three-

quarters of teachers reported having positive interpersonal relationships with students,

helping to bolster students self-esteem, and trying to motivate students and teach them

personal responsibility. A majority of teachers also agreed that resolving academic

difficulties was an effective means of dealing with behavior problems. However,

respondents failed to reach consensus on the issue of whether or not formal training in

dealing with disruptions would be helpful to them with half of the respondents at one

school agreeing that training would be helpful, while only a third of the respondents at

the other school concurred (Williams, 2009).

Open- ended questions provided to give respondents space to recommend

strategies for dealing with the disruptions, were then analyzed for thematic structure. The

most prevalent strategies to emerge from the analysis were suspensions and parental

involvement. Peer mediation and incentives were also mentioned but did not arise in a

consistent manner in both schools. Training in behavior management emerged when the

types of professional development were discussed. The author noted that although

suspensions are often perceived by staff-members as being an effective means of

reducing disruptions, this perception is not supported by research. The author went on to

conclude that based on the research and the survey results; pro-social strategies (e.g.,

token economies and mentoring programs) were the most effective means of dealing with

disruptions in high- poverty schools and that further research should be conducted to

clarify the efficacy of parental involvement as an adjunctive strategy (Williams, 2009).

Williams (2009) notes that disruptions at the school are but one of the aspects of

46
climate that operate to influence student achievement, and other studies (e.g. Froman,

2009) have supported this notion. These factors have been shown to have a direct effect

on student achievement and an indirect effect on student disruptions (Urdegar, 2008).

Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2004) identified teacher turnover as an important predictor

of student achievement. They found teacher turnover to impact schools by creating

interruptions in instruction and by reducing morale. Hanushek, et al. (2004) then sought

to examine antecedent variables that influenced that turnover and determine policy

prescriptions for dealing with them. Their study analyzed data from the Texas public

schools from 1993 to 1996. The authors found teacher turnover to be negatively

associated with both experience and achievement and posit that the resulting

overrepresentation of inexperienced teachers in low-poverty schools further depressed

achievement. Hanushek, et al. (2004) identified four main factors that drive teachers'

decision to either move or stay: (a) characteristics of the job, (b) alternative job

opportunities, (c) work and family preferences, and (d) district personnel policies.

Discounting salary gain as a strong motive, the authors noted that, "the picture for

working conditions is quite different. There is strong evidence that teachers [who move]

have the opportunity to teach higher income non-minority students" (p. 79).

Further noted by the authors is that poor and non-minority schools are also

associated with a variety of other negative working conditions that were not measured

directly in their study. These include safety and disciplinary problems, more bureaucratic

rules, greater student mobility, and greater distances to work. Hanushek, et al. (2004),

also note that personnel policies tend to exacerbate these structural problems as the most

in-experienced teachers are left in the most difficult schools. The findings of the latter

47
study support the notion that student disruptions act through teacher turnover to

negatively impact achievement, though the strength of the effect is unclear. Moreover,

teacher turnover increases the proportion of inexperienced teachers in a school who are

least trained in dealing with those problems. Finally, the fact that numerous studies have

revealed climate to be a multidimensional construct, the effects of student disruptions are

not limited to schools with poor climate, but may be viewed as loosely coupled to other

factors such as morale and school pride.

Several studies have investigated the principals leadership, school climate and

culture, and resulting school performance. For instance, Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis

(1996) explored the extent of the principals effect on reading achievement in a sample of

87 elementary schools in the United States. Data were collected from principal and

teacher questionnaires and student test scores. Results indicated a direct effect of

leadership on the existence of a clear school mission, which in turn influenced students

opportunities to learn and teachers expectations for student achievement.

Principal leadership, school climate, and student achievement were also studied by

Sims (2005) with 213 teachers in 13 Title I elementary schools in a large urban district in

western Tennessee. Teachers completed the Kouzes and Posners (2003) LPI-Observer

Questionnaire and School Climate Inventory. Sims used reading and mathematics scores

from the state assessment to measure student achievement. Findings of the Sims (2005)

study showed the most frequent leadership practice as Encouraging the Heart, followed

closely by Challenging and Inspiring, and less frequently, Modeling and Enabling. With

regression analysis, principals leadership transformational practices accounted for over

76.6% of the variability in overall school climate. For the school climate dimensions, the

48
five transformational leadership practices accounted for 88.7% of the variation in

Leadership, 86.4% in Collaboration, 81.5% in Environment, and 80.5% in Instruction.

Additionally, principals transformational leadership practices had no significant

direct effect on student achievement in reading and mathematics. Although no

statistically significant relationship was found, based on the regression analysis results,

Sims (2005) observed that principals should continue to exhibit exemplary leadership

behaviors to positively impact school climate. As other studies have indicated, school

climate can in turn positively affect student achievement (Bulach et al., 1995;

Cunningham, 2003; Institute for School Improvement, 2006).

Hill (2007) examined servant leadership to determine a possible correlation with

this leadership style and school climate and student achievement. Servant leadership is

the understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the

leaders self-interest. The characteristics overlap with those of transformational

leadership and include valuing others, developing their potentials, building community,

displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Block, 1996). Hill

(2007) surveyed secondary principals and teachers from Minnesota schools regarding

their attitudes toward the impact of leadership on student academic performance. A

significant relationship was found between the perceptions of servant leadership

behaviors reported by both principals and teachers. A stronger relationship was found

between school leader attributes and overall school climate, as well as the relationship

between servant leadership behaviors and the schools organizational climate. However,

no significant relationship was found for either variable with student achievement (Hill,

2007).

49
School Culture

School culture has been studied through different lenses. For example, Newman

et al. (2001) synthesized the concepts of organizational culture and school effectiveness

and integrated studies on organizational productivity, and motivation in order to identify

a unified attribute of schools associated with positive outcomes for students. The

development of a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and

climate, which positively impacts student achievement, would lead to the existence of

Instructional Program Coherence in schools. This conception supports the notion that

culture represents a means of transmitting shared norms and values and establishing

branding (Bolman & Deal, 2003). It is further suggested by this conception that culture

represents the essence or attitude of the school and is resistant to change in the short term.

As such, changes in the culture of the school may lead to changes in the climate or be

influenced by leadership over an extended period of time. Due to its embedded nature,

culture is likely to moderate the effects of leadership in the short run.

Gruenert (2005) also studied the relationship of leadership, school culture and

student achievement. The author developed a survey that measured six factors:

collaborative leadership, professional development, teacher collaboration, collegial

support, learning partnerships, and unity of purpose, which might influence culture. He

concluded that a culture that is collaborative depends on the leadership of the principal.

Reyes-Guerra (2009) studied another type of culture through a quantitative non-

experimental design in a sample of 42 public schools in Southeast Florida. An

instrument, the Business- Social Justice Questionnaire (BSJQ) was developed for the

purposes of placing schools on cultural dimensions, which he labeled Business and Social

50
Justice. The social justice model was based on a need to address the inequities found in

current society:

Theories of social justice have traditionally addressed issues of economic injustice,

whose solutions involve the redistribution of income, the reorganization of labor,

investment subject to democratic decision-making, or the transformation of other

basic economic structures of a society (Oliva & Anderson, 2006, as cited in Reyes-

Guerra, 2009, p. 63).

Reyes-Guerra (2009) points out that there is a more conservative view of justice based

upon the individual as independent of social relations and subordinate to society:

Much rational-choice theory that informs school choice reforms is premised on this

view of justice. Individuals are governed by self-interest, and justice is conceived as

a social engineering to harmonize needs and wants of self-serving individuals in

society (Starratt, 1994, as cited in Reyes-Guerra, 2009, p. 50).

Reyes-Guerra believes that social justice in schools centers on the treatment of inequities

as they are discovered over time and in the context of society, and school needs. As

public schools are part of a democratic society, the existence of these values and their

inculcation into the culture of the school is predictive of their adoption by larger society.

The Business Model was based on trends during the last century developed in

response the modern industrial economy, which was characterized by scientific

management and mass production. These types of technocratic models are often

characterized by:

An [emphasis] on managerial control, . . . a tendency to narrowly define production

workers' job responsibilities and push job specialization as far as possible in order

51
 to maximize potential economies of scale, and [to promote] the Taylor-inspired

belief that at any given time there is a single best way of organizing work and

production (Oman, 2006, as cited in Reyes-Guerra, 2009).

Reyes-Guerra echoes Pisapia (2009) who describes the modern worldview as a

search for absolute truth and an attempt to fashion, in a Newtonian sense, a coherent

global view and a focus on efficiency of results (p.1). The author developed an

instrument to measure these cultures and validated the content validity of the instrument

through a review of the literature. An expert panel then reviewed the items and the

resulting instrument was termed the BSJQ, or Business Social Justice Questionnaire.

An R-type factor analysis was used to assess the discriminant validity of the

instrument. Although, a truncated factor structure did confirm the theoretical constructs,

revealed the two-factor solution accounted for 52% of the variance in the dataset. A

refitting using established extraction criteria (i.e., Scree and Latent Root) revealed the

presence of three factors that accounted for 62% of the variance in the dataset and that

exhibited a different loading pattern than predicted by theory. Reyes-Guerra relabeled the

Social Justice factor as Democratic Community and found the theoretical Business factor

to align to multiple dimensions in the sample. He labeled these new dimensions

Standards Performance and Equity Curriculum to reflect their dominant orientation. He

then proceeded to classify schools as belonging to predominantly one culture or the other,

or to neither, based on whether or not their scores were above the mean on each of the

three dimensions. Finally, the author conducted a series of regression analyses in which

he predicted the scores of each of the three culture factors from the influence actions.

In Reyes-Guerras study, Managing/Transforming and Bridging actions were found

52
to be associated with all cultures. Bonding was found to be associated with all cultures

except the Equity Curriculum culture. Finally, Bartering was associated only with the

Business/Standards Performance culture. In this study, only certain moderators of the

schools context were found to have an impact on the relationship between actions and

culture: Higher student poverty increased the principals use of Managing/Transforming

actions in schools within a Democratic Community culture. Additionally, four principal

demographic characteristics (i.e., years as principal, years at the school, undergraduate

major, and level of graduate study) were found to have had a moderating effect on the

relationship between the use of leadership actions and school culture. The author

concluded that the studys findings reinforced Pisapias (2009) theory of strategic

leadership and developed new instrumentation to measure cultures associated with social

justice and accountability.

Numerous studies have identified cultural characteristics related to high

school performance. For instance, Ogbanna and Harriss (2000, p. 781) study

found that competitive and innovative cultures rather than bureaucratic cultures

had the greatest impact on organizational performance; explaining 25% of the

variance. Deal and Peterson (1990) after reviewing the effective schools research

suggest that cultural characteristics coalesce around the presence of strong values,

ethos, and teaming that is supportive of both the academic and mental and

emotional needs of students.

Stone (2003) studied teacher perceptions of principals leadership behaviors and

the relationship to school culture in Mississippi public schools. The sample consisted of

68 teachers from 11 elementary, middle, and high schools. Using the LPI-Observer and

53
Instructional Climate Inventory the author found statistically significant relationships

among all principals practices of all five of the exemplary leadership practices and the

schools culture. No significant differences due to school level were found.

Mees (2008) analyzed the impact of leadership and school culture on student

achievement in a sample of communication arts classes in 79 Missouri middle schools.

The Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ) by Jantzi and Leithwood (1997) was used

to provide data on transformational leadership. School climate was measured by the

School Culture Survey (Gruenert & Valentine, 1998), with six factors: Collaborative

Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, Professional Development, Unity of Purpose,

Collegial Support, and Learning Partnership. The percentage of students scoring

proficient on the Grade 8 Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) was used to measure

student achievement. In addition, the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced

lunch and school enrollment were used in stepwise regression to account for their effect

on the dependent variable, student achievement. Mees (2008) findings indicated that

three leadership factors - goal acceptance, individualized support, and modeling -

accounted for 72.5% of the variance. Goal acceptance was the primary factor impacting

collaborative leadership, accounting for 67.9% of the variance, followed by

individualized support (3.3% of variance), and modeling (1.3% of variance)

Contextual Factors

Contextual variables such as school size, level, and location; levels of poverty;

individual characteristics; and the traits of the leader often moderate the relationship

between school climate and student achievement. The relationship of leader influence

actions, climate, culture, and school performance is also impacted by alterable and

54
unalterable variables in schools environment, for example, after reviewing research

studies, Fowler and Walberg (1991) noted an inverse relationship between school size

and school outcomes. Larger school size, they found, negatively impacted student

participation, satisfaction, identification and attendance. Salfi and Saeed (2007) noted

that in larger schools interactions and relationships between students and teachers are

weaker.

The demographic characteristics of the student body have also been shown to

affect achievement. The deleterious effects of school poverty negatively affect student

achievement regardless of personal Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility circumstances.

Conversely, students who attend schools that are more affluent tend to outperform their

counterparts in more disadvantaged institutions regardless of their personal circumstances

(Eamon, 2005). Researchers have found certain minority groups to underperform their

non-minority peers (e.g., Eamon, 2005), and other researchers have noted low student

achievement among subgroups (e.g., McLoyd, 1990). Nye, Konstantopolous, and Hedges

(2004) found teacher-level variation to be significantly higher in high-poverty schools

than in their more affluent counterparts. However, when they conducted a follow up

analysis, the idea that teacher characteristics such as quality would explain these

differences was not supported. Rather, it was determined that high-poverty schools were

less adept at matching teachers to students. In general, these findings suggest that

strategies to improve the effectiveness of teachers may be more promising than policies

focusing on school effects. Moreover, in high poverty schools, the specific match

between teacher and child is of greater importance.

McLean (2006) compared mean school climate at low (D-F), moderate (C), and

55
high performing (A-B) schools and found the differences in climate to increase over time

and become and maintain statistical significance (F (2, 66) = 5.69, p < .01). School level

and size were found to have significant negative correlations (r <-.61, p < .01), and

principal tenure and school performance to have significant positive correlations of (r=.

33, p< .05) and (r=. 71, p<. 01), with climate. Follow up multiple regression analyses

replicated these results with no significant moderation effects found (McLean, 2006).

Research was conducted into the comparability of performance between men and

women in these administrative roles. Research about the difference in leadership

behaviors of male and female principals can be characterized by three main points, which

have been statistically consistent. First, women tend to adopt more participatory

leadership styles, whereas men tend to be more authoritarian and directive (Lee, Smith &

Cioci, 1993). Second, women principals evidence a more personalized leadership style,

whereas male principals are more structural in their orientation. A third and related

behavioral difference finds women principals focusing more of their efforts on their

schools core technologies, whereas their male counterparts evidence an orientation more

directed toward management (Lee et al., 1993). These findings suggest women may have

a propensity toward adopting school-wide discipline policies that are more geared toward

consensus building and other non-punitive strategies such as token economies, parental

involvement and professional development as opposed to punitive strategies such as

suspensions.

56
 School Performance

In recent years, effective schools have been defined in some states by legislation.

Forty-nine states have designed and implemented processes that can be used to hold

individual school personnel accountable that students meet standards prescribed by the

state (Lower, 2001). In Florida, specific achievement levels on various subtest of the

FCAT were used to grade the schools. Each public school in the state is graded based on

the criteria of the A+ Plan. According to State statute, the A+ Plan has a rating scale of

A, the highest rating, to F, the lowest rating. This rating is applied to each public

school each year. There are specific provisions for charter and private schools.

The school grades A-F determines whether a school is seen as effective or

ineffective. Beginning in 1997, Florida's legislation began holding school personnel

accountable for students' academic success through the designation of critically low

performing schools. Individual counties measured achievement levels on a variety of

norm-referenced standardized tests. The performance of students in reading,

mathematics and writing was used to designate the lowest performing schools.

Furthermore, in 1999, Florida implemented the Florida Comprehensive

Achievement Test to uniformly measure achievement of students across the state. Based

on this legislation, a schools performance grade category designation was based on:

1998-1999

1. Student achievement levels on FCAT, and

2. Other appropriate performance data including, but not limited to attendance,

dropout rate, school discipline data, and student readiness for college, in accordance with

state board rule.

57
1999-2000

1. FCAT Reading and Writing subtests in grades 4, 8, and 10 and FCAT

Mathematics subtest in grades 5, 8, and 10,

2. Data including attendance, discipline data, and dropout rate,

3. Adequate progress of students scoring in the lowest quartile, and

4. Assessment of at least 90 percent of all eligible students to ensure that data

accurately represent school performance.

Later, the Florida A+ Plan (2001) enacted by Florida Statute 229.57 (2001)

established reforms to the Florida School Code and practice. This integer of

measurement ushered in by Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Department of Education

incorporates student achievement levels in mathematics, reading and writing at grades 3

4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 with continued improvement from year to year, based on testing rates,

and other factors (Lower, 2001).

2000-2001

1. FCAT Reading and Writing subtests in grades 4, 8, and 10 and FCAT

Mathematics subtest in 5, 8, and 10,

2. Data including high school dropout rate,

3. FCAT Reading and Mathematics subtests in grades 3-10 shall be used as

baseline data for determining annual learning gains for the same students,

4. Adequate progress of students scoring in the lowest quartile, and

5. Assessment of at least 90 percent of all eligible students to ensure that data

accurately represent school performance.

58
 Until the 2001-02 school year, all designations were based on one years progress.

However, since then students are assessed on the degree of improvement between grades.

Schools were now held accountable for the percentage growth of their lowest quartile or

their lowest performing students. The 2001-2002 grading formula awards points to

schools in six areas, based on performance or learning gains. Schools could earn 100

points in each area for a total of 600 points. Table 1 gives the A-F grade, which

corresponds to the specific point total specified by the Bush-Brogan A+ Plan.

Table 6

Florida's A+ Plan Grade Categories

Performance Categories

Schools designated as making excellent progress 410-600 points A

Schools designated as making above average progress 380-409 points B

Schools designated as making satisfactory progress 320-379 points C

Schools designated as making less than satisfactory progress 280-319 points D

Schools designated as failing to make adequate progress 0-279 points F

Note. Designation of School Performance Grade Categories. Adapted from Floridas A+ Plan: Education
Reform Policies and Student Outcomes, [paper] by K. Borman and R. Lee, 2003.

Only standard curriculum students as well as speech-impaired, gifted,

hospital/homebound and students with limited English proficiency who have spent more

than two years in a remedial English program and who were enrolled in the same school

in October and February are counted.

59
2001-2006

1. FCAT Reading and Mathematics subtests in graded 3-10 and FCAT Writing

subtest in grades 4, 8, 10.

2. Annual student learning gains in Reading and Mathematics.

3. Improvement of Reading scores of students scoring in the lowest quartile and

adequate progress of those students.

4. Assessment of at least 90 percent of all eligible students to ensure that data

accurately represent school performance.

2007-2008

Third grade students were included in the FCAT assessment and grading

calculations, beginning in 2002, although the calculations themselves did not change as a

result. Some 3,000 students who fail to attain a score higher than level one in reading

were retained in the third grade in 2003 pursuant to state law. Additionally, 9,000 high

school students across the state who failed the FCAT in 2002 could not graduate from

high school until they passed the test.

The inclusion of FCAT Science represented the first major change to the grading

system in five years. Based on those changes the number of data points was expanded

from six to eight.

1. FCAT Reading and Mathematics subtests in graded 3-10, FCAT Writing

subtest in grades 4, 8, 10, and FCAT Science subtest in grades 5, 8, and 11.

2. Annual student learning gains in Reading and Mathematics.

3. Adequate progress of students scoring in the lowest quartile, and

Improvement of FCAT scores of students scoring in the lowest quartile.

60
 4. Assessment of at least 90 percent of all eligible students to ensure that data

accurately represent school performance.

5. Graduation rate improvement due to FCAT retake in high schools per state

board rule (Florida Department of Education, 2007).

The system for evaluating schools was based upon student performance on the

statewide Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. It incorporated eight data points, four

of which included achievement status in reading, mathematics and science (i.e., percent

of students who earn scores of level 3 and above) and writing (i.e., the average of the

percentage of students who earn scores of level 3 and above and the percent of students

who earn scores of level 4 and above). Four additional data points included progress in

reading and mathematics (i.e., percentage of students who make learning gains) overall

and for the schools lowest achieving students in reading and mathematics (Florida

Department of Education, as cited in Urdegar, 2008). Only standard curriculum students

as well as speech-impaired, gifted, hospital/homebound and students with limited English

proficiency who have spent more than two years in a remedial English program and who

were enrolled in the same school in October and February were counted.

The sum of these eight components is the points earned component of the school

grading- system, which constitutes the outcome variable for this part of the study. As

such, grades are assigned based upon the number of points earned as follows: less than

395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B), and 525 and above (A) (Florida

Department of Education 2008).

61
 Chapter Summary

The preceding review of literature provides a discussion of the elements of the

conceptual framework, which guided the study. In this model, the leader influence

actions are the focal predictor variables driving improvement in school performance by

exerting influence on the climate and culture at the school. The model suggests that while

leader influence actions may influence school performance directly it is not likely. The

empirical research suggests that the influence of school leaders is more directly

associated with school climate and culture which in turn influences student performance.

Contextual factors were modeled as moderators, which have influence on the

relationships of leader actions and climate and culture as well as the climate and culture

relationship with school performance.

In this review of the literature supporting the conceptual framework, a historical

treatment of leadership theory was discussed and the role of Pisapias Strategic Leadership

framework, within that literature was addressed. Empirical studies that have sought to link

leadership actions, climate, culture, and context with performance were also described. The

following hypotheses were extracted from the literature presented in this chapter.

o Hypotheses 1: Contextual factors do not significantly predict perceived leadership

actions of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 2a: Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance

of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 2b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3a: Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the

62
 schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study

sample

o Hypotheses 3c: School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3d: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3e: The effect of perceived leadership influence actions on the

performance of the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate

o Hypotheses 4a: Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the

culture of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study

sample

o Hypotheses 4c: School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4d: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4e: The effect of perceived leadership actions on performance of the

schools in the study sample is not mediated by school culture

o Hypotheses 5: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the performance of

schools in the study sample

63
o Hypotheses 6a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 6b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the

study sample is not mediated by school climate

o Hypotheses 7a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 7b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the

study sample is not mediated by school culture

64
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the purpose of the study, the research questions, and the

hypotheses that will be tested in the study. It also presents the research design,

population, sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures by which the

study was conducted.

Purpose

This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal influence

actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study sought to

determine if the influence of these variables or the relationship among them is altered by

individual and/or institutional characteristics.

This study will be guided by one primary research question: Is the relationship

between perceived leadership influence actions and school performance mediated by

school climate and/or culture? Three secondary questions are also investigated: Is the

relationship between leader influence actions and school performance moderated by fixed

individual and institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions,

school climate, and school performance moderated by fixed individual and institutional

factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions, school culture, and school

performance moderated by fixed individual and institutional factors?

These questions were answered by testing seven hypotheses and accompanying sub

hypotheses extracted from the conceptual framework guiding this study.

65
o Hypotheses 1: Contextual factors do not significantly predict perceived leadership

actions of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 2a: Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance

of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 2b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3a: Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study

sample

o Hypotheses 3c: School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3d: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 3e: The effect of perceived leadership influence actions on the

performance of the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate

o Hypotheses 4a: Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the

culture of the schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4b: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study

sample

o Hypotheses 4c: School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the

66
 schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4d: Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship

between school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 4e: The effect of perceived leadership actions on performance of the

schools in the study sample is not mediated by school culture

o Hypotheses 5: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the performance of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 6a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 6b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the

study sample is not mediated by school climate

o Hypotheses 7a: Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of

schools in the study sample

o Hypotheses 7b: The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the

study sample is not mediated by school culture

Research Design

This study uses multiple quantitative, non-experimental designs to ascertain the

dimensionality of school climate and culture, and then explore the relationships among

the leader influence actions, climate, culture, contextual factors and school performance.

Sample

Reyes-Guerras sample of 37 schools was the sample used in the current study. In

his study, 68 principals were invited to participate, 42 did. Data on the school leader

influence actions was provided from a sampling of their teachers to eliminate common

67
method bias. Due to the nature of confidentiality, no demographics concerning the

certified teachers who voluntarily participated from each school were collected. The

school where the teachers are employees serves as the only identifier. Schools with a

return rate of less than five respondents and schools with incomplete data were

eliminated for the present study; resulting in a total of 37 schools included. The resulting

sample demographics are delineated in Table 3.

Table 7

Demographics of the Sample (n=37)

Mean Grade Points a 549.95

Mean Age 49.99
Percent Female 67.60
Percent Male 32.40
Percent Elementary 64.90
Percent Secondary 35.10

a
Grade points are used to determine school grades: 0- 395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B),
and 525 and above (A). Adapted from Florida Department of Education, 2008.

Measures

The focal independent variables are the school principals influence actions as

documented by the staff members in the 37 schools sampled by Reyes-Guerra (2009).

The criterion variable is the schools performance grade points. School climate and

culture are modeled as mediating the influence of leadership on student achievement.

Examined is the relationship between the leadership actions, climate, culture, contextual

factors, and school performance as described in the theoretical framework. Table 8 lists

the variables used in the study.

68
Table 8

Variables in the Study

Predictor Values
(Leader Influence Action Scales)
Bartering 1-7
Bonding 1-7
Bridging 1-7
Managing 1-7
Transforming 1-7

Mediators
(School Climate)
Scale 1: Staff Attitudes 1-5
Scale 2: Student Disruptions 1-5
(School Culture)
Scale 1: Business 1-5
Scale 2: Social Justice 1-5
Moderators
(Individual Characteristics)
Gender 1=Female, 0=Male
Age 25-70

Individual contextual characteristics in this study consist of principals' age and

gender. Institutional variables consist of percent of students eligible for free/reduced price

lunch, the percent of minority students in the school, and school level. Values for any

climate dimensions are computed based on the results of analyses conducted in earlier

sections of the study. Values for each of the culture dimensions were obtained from

Reyes-Guerras 2009 study.

Data Sources

Data were gathered from three secondary sources to conduct this study. The first

source of data was Reyes-Guerras (2009) study of the relationship between strategic

leader influence actions and school culture. His study provided two types of data used in

69
this study: the rate of use of five leader influence actions of school principals, and the

nature of 2 dimensions of school culture: Social justice and Business.

The school principal influence action data was derived from the Strategic

Leadership Questionnaire (SLQv2other), which was designed to measure the occurrence of

leader influence actions. The 77- item SLQv2 on a seven point Likert-type scale with

response options of 1 (Never), 2 (Almost Never), 3 (Rarely), 4 (Occasionally), 5

(Frequently), 6 (Almost Always), and 7 (Always) was administered to 5 or more teachers

in each of the 37 schools to reduce common method bias. The SLQv2 was developed and

validated by Pisapia et al. (2006, April). Pisapia and Reyes-Guerra (2009) used a

principal axis factor analysis to validate the SLQv3. Five reliable summated scales were

identified: Transforming (.97), Managing (.97), Bonding (.92), Bridging (.89), and

Bartering (.83). The reliability of the overall scale was .98.

The Reyes-Guerra study also provided the school culture data through responses

to a scale he developed called the Business Survey. The Business Survey comprised 30

items that adhered to a five point Likert-type format with response options that ranged

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with 3 (unsure) representing a neutral

response. The instrument was subdivided into two theoretical scales (i.e., Business and

Social Justice) each comprised of 15 items. Summated scales of the responses to the

items on each of the two scales were provided. The reliabilities reported for Social Justice

scale (0.92), and for the Business scale (0.75) were more than adequate for a

psychometric instrument (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

The second source of data was school climate data and archival demographic data

provided by the Broward school district. The school climate data used in the current

70
study was drawn from the Annual Report of Stakeholders also known as the Customer

Survey administered by Broward County Public Schools during 2008. The Customer

Survey consists of custom forms used to gauge the opinions of three stakeholder groups:

Teachers, Parents, and Students during the spring of each school year. Only teacher

Survey responses for were used to gauge School Climate in this study.

The sample for the Customer Survey included all the schools in the Broward

County Public Schools. As such, 229 schools were targeted to participate. Of those

schools, 225 were traditional public schools and 4 were charter schools. Targeted schools

included 140 elementary, 45 middle, 31 senior, 10 special, and 3 other (Primary Learning

Centers, Virtual, Dual Enrollment). Data were not available for three elementary schools

and they were dropped from the study. Hence, the sample that resulted included both

traditional and charter schools, and was comprised of 137 elementary (64.33%), 45

middle (21.13%), and 31 senior high (14.55%) schools, for a 213 in all. In all, 11,622

staff participated in the survey. Table 9 displays the number of respondents at each

school level.

71
 Table 9

Participant Counts

School Statistics
Percentiles
Total Total
Level Schools Smallest 25 50 75 Largest Staff
Elementary 36.5 45.0
137 6.00 53.00 83.00 6,271
0 0
Middle 36.0 54.0
45 17.00 72.50 125.00 2,572
0 0
Senior 67.0 88.5 120.2
31 28.00 223.00 2,779
0 0 5
Total 38.0 48.0
213 6.00 63.00 223.00 11,622
0 0

The median number of respondents was 45.00 (Elementary schools), 54.00

(Middle) and 88.50 (High). The 75th percentile number of respondents was 53.00

(Elementary schools), 73.50 (Middle) and 120.25 (High).

The survey consisted of 51 items: Two items identify the school, 5 items provide

for demographic information on the respondents, 37 items measure general aspects of

school climate (i.e. cleanliness, safety, preparedness, disruptions, morale, administration,

etc.), and 7 items address school-specific concerns: different sets of items are presented

to different types of schools. The 37 general and 7 specific items adhere to a five-point

Likert-type format with response options that range from 2 (strongly disagree) to 6

(strongly agree) with 4 (undecided/neutral) provided as a neutral response and 1 (don't

know) treated as missing response. The Customer Survey was never psychometrically

evaluated.

The aggregated data from the Customer Survey provided by the district were used

to produce school level means for each item within each school by recoding the scale to
72
range from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with 3 (undecided/neutral) used as

the center of the scale and 0 (don't know) treated as a missing value. The proportion of

non-missing respondents to each item was then used to create a weighted average value.

Then, a principal axis factor analysis was applied to ascertain the structure

empirically manifested by the recoded responses to the survey items that resulted. This

was done to determine how climate should best be represented because it could not be

assumed that climate, even when estimated using school as the unit of analysis, could be

assumed one-dimensional. There were several limitations to this approach. First, using

school level data to estimate individual data, runs the risk of committing an ecological

fallacy, which occurs when the results at the group level differ from those obtained at the

individual level (Trochim, 2013). To minimize the risk of committing an ecological

fallacy, identified dimensions were compared against those obtained in other studies that

use individual data. Second, because only variance and covariance among schools is

being considered, the variance among individuals may be far greater and the individual

unit of analysis dimensionality may have be underestimated and/or may reflect very

different constructs.

First, an initial R-type common factor analysis was conducted to assess the

condition of the data. The number of factors to extract was then suggested by the Scree

plot criterion rather than determined from the research. Direct Oblimin rotation was used

to orient the pattern matrix and aid in the identification of cross-loaded items. An item

was considered to have cross-loadings if statistically significant factor loadings were

present on two or more factors unless the strongest factor loading was twice the

magnitude of the next strongest factor loading for that item. Once the cross-loaded items

73
were removed, an assessment of structure was made. The factors were then interpreted by

examining all survey items with loadings of .50 and above. Summated scales for each

construct were then computed for use in other parts of the study. The first factor,

comprised of items that addressed Staff Attitudes toward the school, accounted for the

vast amount (76.88%) of the variation among the respondents. The second factor,

comprised of items that Student Disruptions at the school, accounted for the greatest

amount of residual variance that remained after the first factor was extracted, and

explained 9.08% of the total variance in the dataset. The internal consistency of the

scales of .99 (Staff Attitudes) and .87 (Student Disruptions) was more than adequate for a

psychometric instrument (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Detailed results of

the factor analysis procedure may be found in Appendix A.

The third source of data was school performance and school demographic data

provided by the Florida Department of Education. The Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test Sunshine State Standards (FCAT-SSS) was used to measure school

performance. The FCAT results are used by the state to report student progress as

required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). The FCAT-SSS is a

standardized, criterion-referenced test of reading, mathematics, and science designed to

measure students mastery of the knowledge specified by the state department of

education. Student performance on this test is reported in terms of achievement levels

that range from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The reading and mathematics tests were

administered to students in grades 3-10 statewide during March of each school year. The

results of this assessment are used to produce the points earned under the school grading

system (School Grade Points) that are used to assign grades to the states schools.

74
 As previously stated, the system for determining each schools grades was based

on student performance on the statewide Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and

incorporated eight data points. Four data points include achievement status in reading,

mathematics, and science (i.e., percent of students who earn scores of level 3 and above)

writing (i.e., the average of the percentage of students who earn scores of level 3 and

above and the percent of students who earn scores of level 4 and above). Four data points

include overall progress in reading and mathematics (i.e., percentage of students who

make learning gains) and the last area of calculation is for the schools lowest achieving

students in reading and mathematics (Florida Department of Education, as cited in

Urdegar, 2008). The sum of these eight components gave the points earned portion of the

school grading system, which constitutes the outcome variable for this part of the study.

At the time of this study, grades were assigned based upon the number of points

earned as follows: less than 395 (F), 395 434 (D), 435 494 (C), 495 524 (B), and

525 and above (A) (Florida Department of Education 2008).

Individual and institutional data were obtained from archival records maintained

by the district and state. Individual principal data included age and gender. Institutional

data was limited to school type. The percent of students who participated in the

free/reduced price lunch program and the percent of minority students were obtained

from state sources.

Data Analyses

The predictive correlational design was applied by sequentially conducting a

series of ordinary least squares regression analyses. Due to the small sample size and the

expected non-normality of the moderation terms, the regression weights were estimated

75
using Bootstrap resampling with 2,000 replications. The models used in this study were

fitted one at a time, using one predictor and one criterion to evaluate bivariate effects, and

one criterion and three predictors to evaluate potential moderation effects. Mediation was

tested using the so called Sobel Macro written in SPSS code, which estimates the indirect

effect through a simple mediation path as the product of the regression coefficients into

and out of the mediator, then repeats this process through Bootstrap resampling, and

lastly computes the confidence interval of the estimates that result (Hayes, 2011). The

SPSS code used to conduct these analyses may be found in Appendix B. Models with

multiple predictors were assessed for collinearity and identified as such if a variance

inflation factor (VIF) of greater than 5.0 was detected (Hair et al., 1998). All variables

were grand-mean centered resulting in interactions being produced from centered

predictors. Collinearity that manifests among the main effects were dealt with by

redefining or combining the affected predictors based on theoretical consideration (Hair

et al., 1998). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 21.0) was the primary

data analysis software (IBM, 2011).

Chapter Summary

This chapter included a description of the research design and procedures, which

were followed in this study. A quantitative predictive correlational design was used to

study principal effectiveness through the leaders use of strategic leader action sets, and

the relationship between the leader influence actions, school climate, school culture, and

school performance. School performance in this study was measured by school grade

points. Moreover, the extent to which the interrelationship between the leader influence

actions, climate, culture, and school performance was moderated by contextual factors

76
was also examined.

Four research questions were presented, with seven principal hypotheses. Variables

were identified and the measurement of each was described. Data from the instrument,

(SLQ) created by Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, and Yasin (2006, April) and modified by

Pisapia and Reyes-Guerra (2009) were used for adding to the knowledge base of strategic

leadership. The Broward Public County Public Schools Customer Survey was used to

measure school climate. An organizational culture survey was also used to measure

adherence to a Business or Social Justice Culture as described in Reyes-Guerra (2009).

77
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal leader

influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study

sought to determine if fixed individual and/or institutional characteristics alter the

influence of these variables or the relationship among them. Seven main hypotheses

extracted from the conceptual framework were tested.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the continuous variables from these sources are shown in

Table 12. Shapiro-Wilks tests were used to test whether the predictor and criterion

variables were normally distributed. Of the 13 variables tested, ten were normally

distributed, and three (i.e., Bonding, Percent Free/ Reduced Lunch, and Social Justice

Culture) were not. An examination of the correlation coefficients in Table 12 shows

30.77% (n=24) to be statistically significant. Only four were greater than or equal to 0.70.

As none of these variables were expected to be included as predictors at the same time,

the risk of collinearity was considered low at this point. Due to the normality violations,

the small sample size and the need to test multiple moderation hypotheses, Bootstrap

resampling with 2,000 replications was utilized in tests of statistical inference.

78
 Table 10
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the Study Variables (n=37)
Descriptives Pearson Correlation Coefficients

No. Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Influence Actionsa
1. Bartering 3.23 0.36 --

2. Bonding 4.32 0.36 .26 --

3. Bridging 3.46 0.38 .52 -.12 --

4. Managing 4.05 0.33 .39 .27 .34 --

5. Transforming 4.32 0.37 .43 .74 .23 .57 --

Learning Environmenta
Climate
6. Staff Attitudes 4.31 0.28 .18 .13 .15 .16 .36 --
79

7. Student Disruptions 2.02 0.47 -.18 -.09 -.24 -.26 -.29 -.88 --

Culture
8. Business 4.10 0.28 .40 .30 .39 .38 .37 .08 -.18 --

9. Social Justice 3.98 0.35 .47 .45 .44 .38 .60 .10 -.17 .80 --
Contextual Factors
10. Principal Ageb 49.99 7.44 -.07 .24 -.14 -.03 .12 -.13 .20 .05 .13 --

11. School Free/Red. Lunchc 38.65 23.94 -.05 .02 -.09 -.01 -.18 -.40 .29 -.38 -.28 -.17 --

12. Principal Genderd 0.68 0.47 .05 .37 -.29 .25 .12 -.15 .20 .01 -.02 .27 .18 --

13. School Percent Minorityc 59.79 26.81 -.09 .00 -.12 -.13 -.13 -.16 .03 -.20 -.18 -.16 .53 .29 --

14. School Levele 0.35 0.48 -.25 -.07 -.22 -.40 -.29 -.69 .87 -.19 -.08 .18 .14 .15 -.03 --
15. School Performanceb 549.95 54.32 -.03 -.12 .05 .10 .24 .60 -.45 .10 .23 .17 -.72 -.17 -.34 -.24 --
Note. The significance thresholds of the above correlation magnitudes are: r (35)=. 32, p <. 05. r (35)=. 42, p < .01, r (35)=. 52, p < .001.
Of the 37 schools in the sample, 67.56% (n=25) had female principals and 32.46%

(n=12) had male principals. Moreover, 64.86% (n=24) were elementary schools and

35.14% (n=13) were secondary schools.

Hypotheses Testing

Leadership, climate, culture, context, and student performance. The

relationships between Leadership, Climate, Culture, Context, and Student Performance

were examined by conducting a series of multiple regression analyses. These included

both mediation and moderation tests. However, due to the small sample size, these effects

were tested one at a time. In this model, the leader influence actions, Managing,

Transforming, Bonding, Bridging, and Bartering, are conceptualized to be the focal

independent variables driving the process of school improvement. It was hypothesized

that these leader influence actions potentially operate by exerting a direct influence on

school performance as well as by potentially exerting influences on both the climate and

culture at the school. It was also hypothesized that climate and culture each operate by

potentially exerting separate influences on student performance. It was additionally

hypothesized that contextual factors potentially operate by exerting influences on the

leadership influence actions, and/or culture, and/or climate; as well as by potentially

moderating the influence of the leadership influence actions on climate, and/or culture,

and/or the influence of climate, and/or culture on school performance. The results of

these analyses are depicted on Figures 2 and 3, with variables represented by boxes, and

effects by arrows. This graphic diagram adheres to the relationships depicted in the

theoretical framework and provides a visual aid to assist the reader in conceptualizing the

results. This diagram is not to be confused with a path model in which the

80
interrelationships among the variables are examined simultaneously via maximum-

likelihood estimation. Boxes at arrow tails are predictors and boxes at the arrowheads are

criteria. Mediation was tested using a the Sobel Macro, a copy of which may be found in

Appendix B, as described in the methodology section of this report (Hayes, 2011). All

moderation effects tested in this study involved one criterion, two predictors and the cross

product between the predictors. As the regression weights in such models reflect the

inclusion of the two main effects and the interaction term, the standardized weights may

be different than the Pearson correlations shown in Table 10. Only models with

significant predictor weights are shown, unless needed to interpret the cross-product

term. Bootstrap resampling with 2,000 replications was used to estimate the statistical

significance of all the unstandardized regression coefficients shown in Figures 2 and 3.

81
 Transforming Bonding Bartering Bridging Managing

-0.54(-0.42)**
Gender Age Reduced
Minority Gender x x Price School Level
Delinquency Transforming Age Lunch

0.20(0.31)*
0.08 (0.37)**
72.21(0.31)*

-0.01 (-0.40)*
-0.70 (-0.34)*

-5.10 (-0.05)

Student Disruptions Staff Attitudes

-44.95(-0.39)*

School Performance

Figure 2. Climate process model.

The relationship of Leader Influence Actions, school climate, fixed contextual factors, and
school performance. The numbers on each line are regression coefficients with standardized
values shown in parenthesis. All predictors are grand mean centered. The ratio of each B to its
standard error follows a t distribution with n-k degrees of freedom, where n is the sample size
and k is the number of parameters in the regression model.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.

82
 0.33 (0.38)**

Managing

Business
Bridging

0.29 (0.40)*

Reduced -0.01 (-0.40)*

Price
Lunch
Bartering

School Performance
Bonding
Transforming

Transforming -0.01 (0.27)* Social Justice

x
Minority
-0.00 (0.10)
Minority

Figure 3. Culture process model.

The relationship of Leader Influence Actions, school culture, fixed contextual factors,
and school performance. The numbers on each line are regression coefficients with
standardized values shown in parenthesis. All predictors are grand mean centered. The
ratio of each B to its standard error follows a t distribution with n-k degrees of
freedom, where n is the sample size and k is the number of parameters in the
regression model.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.

83
 Leadership and context. Hypothesis 1 posited that contextual factors do not

significantly predict leadership influence actions. As this is the only hypothesis that

addresses the dependency of leadership influence actions on contextual factors, it stands

alone and is considered first. The results of 25 regression analyses that were conducted to

test whether any of the five contextual factors significantly predicted any of the five

leader influence actions found only School level to have a significant effect on Managing

actions (B=-0.27, SE=0.10, =-0.40, p= .01). Specifically, the mean frequency of

Managing Influence Actions in secondary schools was found to be 0.27 points lower than

in elementary schools, d=0.87, which represents a strong effect size according to Cohens

(1988) classification: .29 (weak), .50 (moderate), and 0.80 (strong). No other significant

effects were identified. The mean frequency of perceived use at secondary schools (3.88)

was smaller than was seen at elementary schools (4.15). Because the structure and

organization of schools differs considerably at those levels, this effect may indicate that

leadership actions operate in a different way or to a different degree to produce

achievement outcomes in elementary and secondary schools.

Leadership, context, and student performance. Hypotheses 2 posited that leader

influence actions do not significantly predict school performance in the study sample and

further asserted that fixed contextual factors do not moderate the relationship between

leader influence actions and school performance. A series of regression analyses were

conducted to test these hypotheses. The results of 25 separate tests failed to identify any

significant moderation effects between any of the five leader influence actions and

student performance. In addition, none of the leadership actions were found to

significantly predict student performance directly.

83
 Leadership, climate, context, and school performance. Hypotheses 3 evaluated

four propositions needed to establish whether and how leadership influence actions act

through school climate to influence school performance. The first and second are (a)

leader influence actions do not significantly predict school climate in the study sample

and (b) fixed contextual factors do not moderate the relationship between leader influence

actions and school climate. The third and fourth are (c) school climate does not

significantly predict school performance in the study sample and (d) fixed contextual

factors do not moderate the relationship between school climate and school performance

in the study sample. The results of an additional hypothesis, which posited that the effect

of leadership influence actions on school performance are not mediated by school

climate, was tested using the Sobel Macro as described in the Methodology section

(Hayes, 2011).

The process depicted in Figure 2, suggests that Staff Attitudes mediate the

influence of Transforming actions on school performance, and a significant direct effect

of Transforming on school performance was not present. The results of the tests

conducted by the Sobel Macro indicated that the 95% confidence interval for the indirect

effect of Transforming through Staff Attitudes to School Performance (M=31.92) did not

pass through zero (4.0278, 68.6389). On the other hand, the results of the tests conducted

by the Sobel Macro (Hayes, 2011) also indicated that the 95% confidence interval for the

indirect effect of Transforming through Student Disruptions to School Performance

(M=19.69) did pass through zero (-2.08, 56.44). As such, Staff Attitudes significantly

mediated the impact of Transforming on School Performance, but Student Disruptions

did not significantly mediate the impact of Transforming on School Performance. None

84
of the other leadership actions was found to have either a direct- or an indirect- effect on

achievement in this study. Had sufficient power been available, effects may have been

observed.

Transforming actions predict Staff Attitudes (B=0.36, SE=0.11, =0.47, p= .01)

and the relationship between Transforming actions and Staff Attitudes is also moderated

by Age (B=-0.04, SE=0.02, =-0.04, p= .03). Each one-point increase in Transforming

actions above the sample mean predicts an increase of 0.36 points. Age moderates this

relationship, so that each one-year increase in Age above the sample mean predicts a 0.04

decrease in the predictor weight (regression coefficient), 0.36, between Transforming

actions and Staff Attitudes. The moderating influence of Age in this context, 0.15, based

on computations outlined by Kenny (2014) represents a moderate effect size in

accordance with Cohens (1988) classification for f2: 0.02 (weak), 0.15 (moderate), and

0.35 (strong). Staff Attitudes in turn, have a positive effect on student achievement

(B=117.03, SE=25.44, =0.60, p= < .001). Each one- point increase in Staff Attitudes

above the sample mean predicts a 117.03 increase in school performance.

Transforming leader actions also influence Student Disruptions (B=-0.54, SE=0.18,

= -0.42, p= .01). The relationship between them is also moderated by Age (B=0.08,

SE=0.03, =0.37, p= .01). Each one-point increase in Transforming actions above the

sample mean predicts decrease of 0.54 points in Student Disruptions. Age moderates this

relationship, so that each one year increase in Age above the sample mean predicts a 0.08

decrease in the relationship, -0.54, between Transforming actions and Student

Disruptions, meaning that as the age of the principal rises, the potency of transforming

leader influence actions decreases. The moderating influence of Age in this context,

85
0.17, based on computations outlined by Kenny (2014) also represents a moderate effect

size in accordance with Cohens (1988) classification for f2. As the effectiveness of the

actions decrease, Student Disruptions increase. Student Disruptions in turn are predicted

to have a negative effect on school performance (B=-44.95, SE=20.43, =0.39, p= .02).

Each one- point increase in Student Disruptions above the sample mean predicts a 44.95

decrease in school performance points. This means that as transforming influence actions

increase, Student Disruptions decrease. Furthermore, as Age increases, the potency of

transforming actions on Student Disruptions decreases. Not surprisingly, Student

Disruptions have a negative effect on student achievement.

In sum, Transforming actions act conjunctively to both improve Staff Attitudes and

reduce Student Disruptions. Even though the frequency of Transforming actions does not

vary significantly F (3, 33) = 0.21, p = .88, from the sample mean of 4.32 at any given ten

age range from 30-60, the influence of Transforming actions on both dimensions of

climate (Staff Attitudes and Student Disruptions) is further moderated by Age, so that the

Transforming actions of younger principals are predicted to have more influence.

Leadership, culture, context, and school performance. Hypotheses 4 evaluated

four propositions need to establish whether and how leadership influence actions act

through school culture to influence school performance. The first and second are (a)

leader influence actions do not significantly predict school culture in the study sample

and (b) fixed contextual factors do not moderate the relationship between leader influence

actions and school culture. The third and fourth are (c) school culture does not

significantly predict school performance in the study sample and (d) fixed contextual

factors do not moderate the relationship between school culture and school performance

86
in the study sample. An additional hypothesis, (e), posited the effect of leadership

influence actions on school performance is not mediated by school culture.

Managing (B=0.33, SE=0.12, =0.33, p< .001), Bridging (B=0.29, SE=0.13,

=0.39, p= .02), Transforming (B=0.29, SE=0.12, =0.37, p= .02), and Bartering

(B=0.31, SE=0.11, =0.40, p= .01) were each found to have effects on Business culture.

Each one- point increase in Managing, Bridging, Transforming, and Bartering above their

sample mean values predict 0.33, 0.29, 0.29, and 0.31 point increases in Business culture,

respectively. As such, all of the leadership influence actions except Bonding were found

to have a positive impact on Business culture, meaning that these specific above-

mentioned leadership influence actions promote the Business culture at a school.

Managing (B=0.40, SE=0.15, =0.38, p= .02), Bridging (B=0.40, SE=0.15,

=0.44, p= .01), Bonding (B=0.43, SE=0.13, =0.41, p= <.001), and Bartering (B=0.45,

SE=0.11, =0.47, p< .001) each had an effect on Social Justice. Each one- point increase

in Managing, Bridging, Bonding, and Bartering above their sample mean values predict

0.40, 0.40, 0.43, and 0.45 point increases in Social Justice culture, respectively.

Transforming leader influence actions also influence Social Justice culture (B=0.52,

SE=0.13, = 0.55, p=< .001) and the relationship between them is moderated by the

amount of Minority students (B=-0.01, SE=0.01, =-0.28, p= .04). The influence of

Minority on the relationship between Transforming and Social Justice represents a weak-

moderate effect size (f2 = .14). Each one-point increase in Transforming actions above the

sample mean predicts an increase of 0.52 points in Social Justice culture. Minority

moderates this relationship, so that each one percent increase in Minority above the

sample mean predicts a -0.01 point decrease in the relationship, 0.52, between

87
Transforming leader influence actions and Social Justice culture, meaning that as the

percentage of Minority students in the school rises, the potency of Transforming leader

influence actions decreases. No significant effects of school culture on school

performance or of the leadership influence actions on school performance were found.

Moreover, no additional significant moderation effects were found.

Context and school performance. Preceding sections have dealt with the

influence of contextual factors when such factors moderate the relationship between other

variables. The effects of the variables used in this study were tested because of their

demonstrated influence on the focal variables (i.e., leadership, climate, culture, and

achievement) as revealed by research cited in earlier sections of this study. Even though

many of the contextual factors were not found to significantly moderate the relationships

between the focal variables, they are still potential predictors of those variables.

Therefore, their presence must be accounted for in the model. If this is not done, the

estimates of the effects of the focal variables will be incorrect (Jung-Grant, 2007). The

results that follow are included for comprehensiveness.

Hypotheses 5 posited that contextual factors do not significantly predict school

performance in the study sample. The percentage of students eligible for Free and

Reduced Price Lunch acts directly to predict achievement (B=-1.17, SE=0.27, =-0.72, p

< .001). Each one-point increase above the sample mean in the percent of students who

are eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch at the school predicts a 1.17-point decrease in

School Grade Points, meaning that high poverty schools tend to perform more poorly

than schools that are more affluent. Another contextual factor that was found to have a

major influence on School Grade Points was the percent of Minority students enrolled in

88
the school. The percent of Minority students predicts a decrease in school grade points

(B=-0.70, SE=0.31, =-0.34, p= .04). Each one- point increase in Minority above the

sample mean predicts a 0.70 decrease in school performance. This means that the higher

the percentage of Minority students present, the lower the student achievement.

Hypotheses 6 evaluated a series of propositions needed to establish whether and

how contextual factors act through school climate to influence school performance: (a)

contextual factors do not significantly predict school climate in the study and (b) the

effect of contextual factors on school performance is not mediated by school climate.

Student Disruptions influence School Performance (B=-44.95, SE=20.43, =

0.39, p= .01), and the relationship between them is moderated by Gender (B=-72.21,

SE=44.18, =-0.31, p= .04). In other words, Gender moderates the negative effect of

44.95 points on school grade points of each one-point increase in Student Disruptions. At

schools headed by female principals, the negative effect is reduced by 72.21 points from

what is seen at male- led schools. While at male led schools, each one point increase in

Student Disruptions predicts a 94.05 decrease in school grade Points, at female led

schools, each one point increase in Student Disruptions predicts only a 21.84 point

decrease. The influence of Gender on the relationship between Student Disruptions and

School Performance represents a weak-moderate effect size (f2 = .13). Therefore, in

schools headed by female principals, Student Disruptions had less of an effect on student

achievement than in schools headed by male principals.

Another contextual factor that was found to have a major influence on School

performance was Poverty as measured by percent of students eligible for Free or Reduced

Lunch. The influence of Free and Reduced Lunch actions on school performance is

89
mediated by Climate in that Free and Reduced Lunch acts directly to predict achievement

(B=-1.17, SE=0.27, =-0.72, p < .001) and acts through Staff Attitudes and Student

Disruptions to predict achievement. The indirect effect through Staff Attitudes (M=-

0.345) has a 95% confidence interval (-0.704, -0.073) that does not include zero and the

indirect effect through Student Disruptions (M=-0.19) also has a 95% confidence interval

that does not include zero (-0.521, -0.003). Free and Reduced Price Lunch predicts Staff

Attitudes (B=-0.01, SE=0.00, =-0.40, p= .01). Each one-point increase in Free and

Reduced Lunch above the sample mean predicts a decrease of 1.17 school grade Points.

Each one-point increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the sample mean

predicts a decrease of 0.01 points in Staff Attitudes. Alternatively, each one standard

deviation increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the sample mean predicts a

0.40 standard deviation decrease in Staff Attitudes. Staff Attitudes in turn, have a positive

effect on student achievement (B=117.03, SE=25.44, =0.60, p= <.001). Each one- point

increase in Staff Attitudes above the sample mean predicts a 117.03 increase in Points.

Free and Reduced Price Lunch influences Student Disruptions (B=0.01, SE=0.00,

= 0.29, p= .04). Each one-point increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the

sample mean predicts an increase of 0.01 points in Student Disruptions. Alternatively,

each one standard deviation increase in Free and Reduced Price Lunch above the sample

mean predicts a 0.29 standard deviation increase in Student Disruptions. Student

Disruptions in turn, have a negative effect on student achievement (B=-44.95, SE=20.43,

=0.39, p= .02). Each one- point increase in Student Disruptions above the sample mean

predicts a 44.95 decrease in Points. Alternatively, each one standard deviation increase in

Student Disruptions above the sample mean predicts a 0.39 standard deviation decrease

90
in Points. This means the greater the Free and Reduced Price Lunch, the disruptive

behaviors increase and Staff Attitudes worsen. Another contextual factor that was found

to have a major influence on School performance was School Level. As School Level is

dichotomous the interpretation of its effect is different than a continuous variable such as

Free and Reduced Lunch percentage. School Level acts through Staff Attitudes and

Student Disruptions to predict achievement. The results of the tests conducted by the

Sobel Macro indicated that the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect of School

Level through Staff Attitudes to School Performance (M=-64.69) did not pass through

zero (-100.64 -28.75). School Level predicts Staff Attitudes (B=-0.40, SE=0.06, =-0.70,

p < .001). The difference in Staff Attitudes between Secondary (M = 4.05) and

Elementary schools (M = 4.45) represents a strong effect size (d=1.96). Staff Attitudes in

turn, have a positive effect on student achievement (B=117.03, SE=25.44, =0.60, p <

.001). Each one- point increase in Staff Attitudes above the sample mean predicts a

117.03 increase in Points. This means that the influence of Staff Attitudes on student

achievement is lower at secondary schools than at elementary schools. If this was passed

through as an indirect effect then the effect of Staff Attitudes on Points would be 122.36

points at elementary schools and 107.10 at secondary schools.

School Level also influences Student Disruptions (B=0.84, SE=0.70, = 0.87, p <

.001). The difference in Staff Attitudes between Secondary (M = 1.72) and Elementary

schools (M = 2.56) represents a strong effect size (d=3.52). Each one-point increase in

School Level above the sample mean predicts an increase of 0.84 points in Student

Disruptions. Alternatively, each one standard deviation increase in School Level above

the sample mean predicts a 0.87 standard deviation increase in Student Disruptions.

91
Student Disruptions in turn, have a negative effect on student achievement (B=-44.95,

SE=20.43, =0.39, p= .02). Each one- point increase in Student Disruptions above the

sample mean predicts a 44.95 decrease in Points. This means that the influence of

Student Disruptions on student achievement is higher at secondary schools than at

elementary schools. The results of the tests conducted by the Sobel Macro indicated that

the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect of School Level through Student

Disruptions (M=-100.18) did not pass through zero (168.75 -35.85). If this was passed

through as an indirect effect then the effect of Student Disruptions on Points would be -

56.50 points at secondary schools and -38.73 at elementary schools.

Context, culture, and school performance. Hypotheses 7 evaluated a series of

propositions needed to establish whether and how contextual factors act through school

climate to influence school performance: (a) contextual factors do not significantly

predict school culture in the study and (b) the effect of contextual factors on school

performance is not mediated by school culture.

Free and Reduced Price Lunch acts to directly predict Business culture (B=-0.01,

SE=0.002, =-0.38, p= .02). Each one-point increase above the sample mean in the

percent of students who are eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch at the school predicts a

0.01-point decrease in the Business scale, meaning that in high poverty schools,

respondents rating of the strength of the Business-like atmosphere, tends to be lower.

Free and Reduced Price Lunch acts to directly predict Social Justice culture (B=-

0.004, SE=0.002, =-0.28, p= .02). Each one-point increase above the sample mean in

the percent of students who are eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunch at the school

predicts a -0.004-point decrease in the Social Justice scale, meaning that in high poverty

92
schools, respondents rating or perception of Social Justice at the school, tends to be

lower.

Chapter Summary

This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal leader

influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study

sought to determine if the influence of these variables, or the relationship among them, is

altered by fixed individual and/or institutional characteristics. Seven main hypotheses

extracted from the conceptual framework were tested through a series of multiple

regression analyses.

H1 addressed the extent to which contextual factors had a direct effect on

perceived leadership actions of the schools in the study sample. School level was found

to have a significant effect on Managing actions. The mean frequency of perceived use at

secondary schools (3.84) was smaller than was seen at elementary schools (4.17).

Because the structure and organization of schools differs considerably at those levels, this

effect may indicate that leadership actions operate in a different way or to a different

degree to produce achievement outcomes in elementary and secondary schools.

Therefore, the null H1 was rejected.

H2a addressed the extent to which perceived leadership actions had a significant

direct effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. The

analyses did not reveal the presence of any significant direct effects between leadership

influence actions and school performance. Therefore, the null H2a was not rejected. H2b

examined whether fixed contextual factors significantly moderated the relationship

between the perceived leadership influence actions and school performance. The results

93
of these analyses failed to identify any significant moderators of the direct relationship

between leader influence actions and school performance achievement. Based on these

results, H2b was not rejected.

H3 examined the relationship between leader influence actions, school climate,

and school performance. As reported in previous paragraphs, transforming actions by

school principals impacted school performance when mediated by school climate factors.

Transforming influenced staff attitudes and student disruptions and staff attitudes and

student disruptions influenced school performance. The use of transforming actions was

associated with improved staff attitudes, which resulted in a positive association with

school performance. This impact was amplified among younger principals, and

attenuated among older principals. Transforming also influenced the effect of Student

Disruptions and Student Disruptions in turn, negatively influenced School Performance.

Transforming actions and School Performance were found to be significantly mediated

by Staff Attitudes, but not to be significantly mediated by Student Disruptions.

Transforming actions were not found to significantly predict student achievement

directly. Moreover, Age was found to significantly moderate the relationship between

Transforming leadership influence actions and climate in the study sample such that the

impact of Transforming actions on climate was amplified among younger principals, and

attenuated among older principals. None of the other leader influence actions was found

to have a significant effect directly or indirectly on achievement. The power available

(0.16) to detect an effect for the remaining leadership influence actions similar to the

lower limit of what was found for Transforming was limited by the sample size of 37. To

achieve a level of power (0.80) would have required a sample size of 250 or greater.

94
 Fixed contextual variables were also found to moderate the relationship between

school climate and school performance. For instance, Gender was found to significantly

moderate the relationship between Student Disruptions and school performance.

Specifically, the negative effects of Student Disruptions were significantly reduced in

female-led schools when compared to male-led schools at both levels. This was

associated with higher school performance. Additionally, the percent of Minority students

in a school influenced school performance. The higher the percentage the lower the

school performed. Free and Reduced price lunch was also found to have a negative direct

effect as well as negative indirect effects through climate on school performance.

Because significant moderation and significant prediction were found between the

leader influence-actions and school climate and between school climate and school

performance, each of the five hypotheses included in H3 was rejected.

H4 examined the relationship between leader influence actions, school culture

(i.e., Business and Social Justice), and school performance. Four of the five leader

influence actions (i.e., Transforming, Managing, Bonding, Bridging, and Bartering) were

found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture. All five leaders influence

actions were also found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice culture.

However, neither cultural dimension was found to have a direct effect on school

performance. Minority was also found to moderate the relationship between

Transforming and Social Justice. As the percentage of minority students in the school

rose, the potency of Transforming leader influence actions were found to decrease.

Based on these findings, H4a and H4b were rejected and each of the remaining three sub

hypotheses was not rejected.

95
 H5 addressed the extent to which fixed contextual factors had a significant direct

effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. Fixed contextual

factors (Free and Reduced Price Lunch and Minority concentrations) were each found to

have a negative direct effect on school performance. This indicates that as the

concentration of students who are poor and/or minority increases, school performance

tends to decline.

H6 examined the relationship between fixed contextual factors, school climate,

and school performance. Both school Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status and

school level (secondary relative to elementary) were found to depress climate such that

Staff Attitudes declined and Student Disruptions increased. The presence of both effects

indicates that climate serves to mediate the influence of those contextual factors. Based

on these findings, H6 was rejected.

H7 examined the relationship between fixed contextual factors, school culture, and

school performance. School Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status was found to

depress staff perceptions of the extent to which both aspects of culture (i.e., Business and

Social Justice) were present at the school. However, because neither culture dimension

was found to significantly influence school performance, no mediation effects were

found. Moreover, no significant moderation effects were found between either dimension

of culture and student performance. Based on this finding, H7a was rejected and H7bwas

not rejected. Table 11 provides a summary of the 18 null hypotheses tested in this

analysis and shows 12 to have been not accepted and six to have been accepted.

96
Table 11

Hypothesis Table

Status
Not
No. Text Rejected Rejected
H1 Contextual factors do not significantly predict perceived leadership actions x
of the schools in the study sample
H2a Perceived leaders actions do not significantly predict the performance of x
the schools in the study sample
H2b Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
perceived leadership actions and performance of schools in the study
sample
H3a Perceived leader actions do not significantly predict the climate of the x
schools in the study sample
H3b Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
perceived leadership actions and school climate of schools in the study
sample
H3c School climate does not significantly predict the performance of the x
schools in the study sample
H3d Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
school climate and the performance of schools in the study sample
H3e The effect of perceived leadership influence actions on the performance of x
the schools in the study sample is not mediated by school climate
H4a Perceived leadership influence actions do not significantly predict the x
culture of the schools in the study sample
H4b Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
perceived leadership actions and school culture of schools in the study
sample
H4c School culture does not significantly predict the performance of the schools x
in the study sample
H4d Contextual factors do not significantly moderate the relationship between x
school culture and the performance of schools in the study sample
H4e The effect of perceived leadership actions on performance of the schools in x
the study sample is not mediated by school culture
H5 Contextual factors do not significantly predict the performance of schools x
in the study sample
H6a Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school climate of schools x
in the study sample
H6b The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the study x
sample is not mediated by school climate
H7a Contextual factors do not significantly predict the school culture of schools x
in the study sample
H7b The effect of contextual factors on performance of the schools in the study x
sample is not mediated by school culture

97
 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The final chapter of this dissertation revisits the research problem and reviews the

primary methods used in this study. The major sections of this chapter summarize the

results, discuss the limitations, and provide recommendations for future research.

Statement of the Problem

The last fifteen years have seen tremendous growth in statewide accountability

systems designed to monitor the performance of teachers and schools, delineate how

performance in measured, and specify how students are taught. These laws have placed

considerable additional demands on schools, while at the same time transforming the role

of principal to that of chief executive officer and strategist. Both students and faculty are

being asked by the states to do more with less (Clark, et al., 2009).

School principals have been squarely placed in the position of serving as both the

instructional and strategic leaders of schools. Their ability to effectively meet these new

demands is increasingly critical to the success of the school organization. That is why

there is renewed interest in how and why successful school leaders perform their roles.

The present study investigated the link between school principal influence actions,

climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study sought to determine if

the influence of these variables or the relationship among them was altered by individual

and/or institutional characteristics.

99
 Review of the Methodology

This study was conducted to determine the dimensionality of school climate and

to investigate the link between school principal influence actions, climate, and school

performance. Additionally, this study sought to determine if the influence of these

variables or the relationship among them was altered by individual and/or institutional

characteristics.

This study will be guided by one primary research question: Is the relationship

between perceived leadership influence actions and school performance mediated by

school climate and/or culture? Three secondary questions are also investigated: Is the

relationship between leader influence actions and school performance moderated by fixed

individual and institutional factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions,

school climate, and school performance moderated by fixed individual and institutional

factors? Is the relationship between leader influence actions, school culture, and school

performance moderated by fixed individual and institutional factors?

The dimensionality of school climate was investigated by conducting a principal

axis factor analysis on aggregated school level data from The Broward Customer Survey.

Summated scales for each construct were then computed for use in other parts of the

study.

The relationship between the leadership actions, climate dimensions, contextual

factors and outcome was examined by sequentially conducting a series of ordinary least

squares regression analyses. Then, the relationship between the leadership actions, school

culture as defined by Reyes-Guerra (2009), contextual factors and outcome was also

examined by sequentially conducting a series of ordinary least squares regression

100
analyses. The regression procedures were conducted in order to examine the relationships

depicted in the theoretical framework. Bootstrap resampling was conducted to deal with

non-normality.

Summary of the Results

This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal influence

actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study sought to

determine if the influence of these variables or the relationship among them is altered by

individual and/or institutional characteristics. This study used multiple quantitative, non-

experimental designs to ascertain the dimensionality of school climate and then explored

the relationships among the leader influence actions, climate variables, culture variables,

and contextual factors.

The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether or not the

Customer Survey aligned to distinct dimensions. A principal axis factor analysis using

oblique rotation was conducted to answer this question. Based on the results of this

analysis two factors were identified that accounted for 85.96% of the response variation.

The second part of the study used a series of regression models to examine the

relationship among Leadership Actions, School Climate, Culture, Context, and Student

Achievement. This analysis was conducted in two phases. Seven main hypotheses

extracted from the conceptual framework were tested through a series of multiple

regression analyses.

H1 addressed the extent to which contextual factors had a direct effect on

perceived leadership actions of the schools in the study sample. School level was found

to have a significant effect on Managing actions. The mean frequency of perceived use at

101
secondary schools (3.84) was significantly smaller than was seen at elementary schools

(4.17). Because the structure and organization of schools differs considerably at those

levels, this effect may indicate that leadership actions operate in a different way or to a

different degree to produce achievement outcomes in elementary and secondary schools.

Therefore, the null H1 was rejected.

H2a addressed the extent to which perceived leadership actions had a significant

direct effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. The

analyses did not reveal the presence of any significant direct effects between leadership

influence actions and school performance. Therefore, the null H2a was not rejected.

However, the power available to detect effects in the population was severely limited due

to the small sample size. Had sufficient power been available, an effect may have been

observed. H2b examined whether fixed contextual factors significantly moderated the

relationship between the perceived leadership influence actions and school performance.

The results of these analyses failed to identify any significant moderators of the direct

relationship between leader influence actions and school performance achievement.

Based on these results, H2b was not rejected.

H3 examined the relationship between leader influence actions, school climate,

and school performance. As reported in previous paragraphs, transforming actions by

school principals impacted school performance when mediated by school climate factors.

Transforming influenced staff attitudes and student disruptions and staff attitudes and

student disruptions influenced school performance. The use of transforming actions was

associated with improved staff attitudes, which resulted in a positive association with

school performance. This impact was amplified among younger principals, and

102
attenuated among older principals. Transforming also influenced the attitudes toward

student disruptions and attitudes toward student disruptions negatively influenced school

performance. Transforming actions and student achievement was found to be

significantly mediated by Staff Attitudes but not to be significantly mediated by Student

Disruptions. Transforming actions were not found to significantly predict student

achievement directly. Moreover, Age was found to significantly, but weakly moderate

the relationship between Transforming leadership influence actions and climate in the

study sample such that the impact of Transforming actions on climate was amplified

among younger principals, and attenuated among older principals. None of the other

leader influence actions was found to have a significant effect directly or indirectly on

achievement.

Fixed contextual variables were also found to moderate the relationship between

school climate and school performance. For instance, Gender was found to significantly

moderate the relationship between Student Disruptions and school performance.

Specifically, the negative effects of Student Disruptions were significantly reduced in

female-led schools when compared to male-led schools at both levels. This was

associated with higher school performance. Additionally, the percent of Minority students

in a school influenced school performance. The higher the percentage the lower the

school performed. Free and Reduced price lunch was also found to have a negative direct

effect as well as negative indirect effects through climate on school performance.

Because significant moderation and significant prediction were found

between the leader influence-actions and school climate and between school climate

and school performance, each of the five hypotheses included in H3 was rejected.

103
 H4 examined the relationship between leader influence actions, school culture

(i.e., Business and Social Justice), and school performance. Although, four of the five

leader influence actions (i.e., Transforming, Managing, Bridging, and Bartering) were

found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture and all five leaders influence

actions were found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice culture, neither

cultural dimension was found to have a direct effect on school performance. Minority

was also found to moderate the relationship between Transforming and Social Justice. As

the percentage of minority students in the school rose, the potency of Transforming

leader influence actions were found to decrease. Based on these findings, H4a and H4b

were rejected and each of the remaining three sub hypotheses was not rejected.

H5 addressed the extent to which fixed contextual factors had a significant direct

effect on the achievement outcomes of the schools in the study sample. Fixed contextual

factors (Free and Reduced Price Lunch and Minority concentrations) were each found to

have a negative direct effect on school performance. This indicates that as the

concentration of students who are poor and/or minority increases, school performance

tends to decline.

H6 examined the relationship between fixed contextual factors, school climate,

and school performance. Both school Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status and

school level (secondary relative to elementary) were found to depress climate such that

Staff Attitudes declined and Student Disruptions increased. The presence of both effects

indicates that climate serves to mediate the influence of those contextual factors. Based

on these findings, H6 was rejected.

H7 examined the relationship between fixed contextual factors, school culture, and

104
school performance. School Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility status was found to

depress staff perceptions of the extent to which both aspects of culture (i.e., Business and

Social Justice) were present at the school. However, because neither culture dimension

was found to significantly influence school performance, no mediation effects were

found. Based on this finding, H7a was rejected and H7b was not rejected. Of the 18

null hypotheses tested in this analysis, 12 were rejected and six were not rejected.

Discussion

The questions of what makes principals effective and which principal behaviors

are most consistent with school improvement have sparked substantial scholarly inquiry

that link high quality leadership with positive school outcomes. However, there remains

scant research to guide leaders toward improved student and school performance. As

accountability requirements have burgeoned it has become urgent that leaders be

equipped with the specific actions needed to lead effective organizations. This study

explored the link between school principal influence actions, climate, culture, and school

performance and determines if fixed individual and/or institutional characteristics alter

the influence of these variables or their relationship.

Review of the Theoretical Framework

The study delved into whether there was a relationship between the influence

actions employed by school principals and school performance, inclusive of student

achievement, climate, and culture. It concluded by exploring whether the relationship

between leader influence actions and school performance was moderated by individual

and/or institutional characteristics.

105
 In this study, Pisapias (2009) five-dimensional theoretical strategic leader

framework was used as the predictor variable. The framework delineates transforming,

managing, bonding, bridging, and bartering actions that leaders can use while directing

organizations in environments.

Alterable contextual variables are modifiable through the actions of decision

makers within a short time period of one year or less. Often these refer to technical

variables associated with specific programs such as design, fidelity, and dosage and/or

organizational factors such as administrative support and leadership (Fullan & Pomfret,

1977; Newman et al., 2001). But, institutional factors such as school climate and school

culture have also been shown or have the potential to directly influence student

performance by mediating the relationship between leader influence actions and school

performance (Fazzino, 2012; Reyes-Guerra, 2009).

The primary measure of culture used in this study is the Business Survey (Reyes-

Guerra, 2009) designed to represent two major theoretical cultures (i.e., Business and

Social Justice) found in schools. The social justice model (Schein, 2005) is based on a

need to address the inequities found in current society and to address those inequities by

developing social structures to deal with unequal power relationships (Furman &

Gruenewald, 2004). The Business model of school culture promotes the modern

industrial economy, which was characterized by scientific management and mass

production. The school climate data used in the current study was drawn from the Annual

Report of Stakeholders also known as the Customer Survey administered annually by

Broward County Public Schools. Custom forms gauge stakeholders impressions of

safety, cleanliness, resources, leadership, support, instruction, and training at their school.

106
 Fixed contextual variables are not modifiable through the actions of decision

makers within a short time period. Included are school characteristics such as aggregate

achievement, school level, socio-economic level, and percent of minority students;

characteristics of the leader such as gender and age. These attributes or characteristics of

a unit of analysis within a research problem can potentially act as confounding variables

in an experiment.

The system for evaluating schools in Florida is an amalgam of each schools

student performance on the statewide assessments. At the time of this study, the grading

system was solely based on student performance on the Florida Comprehensive

Assessment Test. The sum of these eight components referred to as points earned

constitutes the outcome variable for this study.

Interpretation of the Results

The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether or not the

Customer Survey aligned to distinct dimensions. Based on the results of this analysis two

factors were identified (i.e. Staff Attitudes and Student Disruptions) that accounted for

over four-fifths of the response variation.

National School Climate Council (2007) defines school climate in terms of

patterns of peoples experiences of school life that reflect shared expectations that

support people feeling safe. Purkey & Smith (1983) believed that shared norms and

values permeate the organization and manifest in a culture of high expectations that

would define the ethos of the school. The empirical evidence associates climate with

healthy relationships, engaged teaching and learning, safety, and school improvement

efforts (Cohen et al., 2009; Cohen & Geier, 2010; Thapa et al., 2013). Urdegar (2008)

107
analyzed the Staff Form of the M-DCPS School Climate Survey to operationalize these

constructs. He found it to be comprised of Administration, Delinquency, Preparedness,

and Professionalism. Hanushek, et al. (2004) explored the environmental factors that

drive teacher retention and identified (a) characteristics of the job, (b) alternative job

opportunities, (c) work and family preferences, and (d) district personnel policies.

Newman et al. (2001) also analyzed the various elements of the learning environment to

identify what they called instructional program coherence from among the various

elements of school climate. Although the dimensions of climate were found to differ

depending on what instrument was used, these studies support the notion that climate is

not a one dimensional construct, but is rather a representation of the various facets of the

schools environment.

The second phase of analysis in the study was undertaken to determine the

relationship between leader actions and contextual factors. School level was found to

have a significant effect on Managing actions. The mean frequency of perceived use at

secondary schools was smaller than was seen at elementary schools. Because the

structure and organization of schools differs considerably at those levels, this effect may

indicate that leadership actions operate in a different way or to a different degree to

produce achievement outcomes in elementary and secondary schools. Several studies

have determined leader actions to be influenced by role and context (Yasin, 2006, Reyes-

Guerra, 2009; Pisapia & Lin, 2011; Pisapia & Pang 2011; Pisapia & Pang, 2013). The

findings of this study support the findings of the other studies with regard to the effect of

school level. While contingency theory (Fiedler, 1972) posits that leaders with certain

styles can only be effective in specific situations, path-goal theory (House, 1971),

108
transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004), and strategic leadership (Pisapia,

2009) theorize that the leaders can alter their styles to fit both individuals and context.

Reyes-Guerra (2009) confirmed this latter conception by finding that specific types of

leadership actions influenced culture/context in his study of principal actions in the

Broward County Public Schools.

The third phase of the process model examined the relationship among the

Leadership Influence Actions, the dimensions of Climate, Culture, Context, and School

Outcomes. This task was accomplished by conducting a series of multiple regression

analyses. Staff Attitudes significantly mediated the impact of Transforming on School

Performance, but Student Disruptions did not significantly mediate the impact of

Transforming on School Performance. These findings have been amply supported in the

literature. For example, Kouzes and Posner (2003) assert that leaders who engage in

transformational behaviors will be more effective than those who do not, regardless of

culture. Additionally, Leithwood (1994) proposed that transformational school leaders

promote teachers commitment to change by boosting their confidence in their ability to

change school culture. Finally, the empirical research suggests that the influence of

school leaders is more directly associated with school climate and culture which in turn

influence student performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood &

Mascall, 2008).

Moreover, Age was found to significantly moderate the relationship between

Transformational leadership influence actions and climate in the study sample such that

the impact of transformational actions on climate was amplified among younger

principals, and attenuated among older principals. Simonton (1984) examined the

109
relationship between age and leader effectiveness in a longitudinal study of European

absolute monarchs and found that the age of the monarch had a connection with the state

of the nation: As monarchs aged they were less likely to invade other countries, or to

conquer foreign territories, and were more likely to lose territory in battle.

Climate was found to align to two factors labeled Staff Attitudes and Student

Disruptions, both of which were influenced by leadership actions as previously discussed

and that influence student achievement. Staff Attitudes were found to have a positive

influence on student achievement. This aspect of school climate has also been shown to

promote meaningful student learning, because when students feel safe, cared for,

supported, and gently pushed to learn, their academic progress should increase. Bulach

et al. (1995) found a strong positive correlation between student achievement and school

climate and concluded that school climate was a significant factor in successful school

reform. An orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning is an important

characteristic of an effective school (Edmonds, 1982; Roach & Kratochwill, 2004; Ross

et al., 2005).

Student Disruptions were conversely found to have a negative impact on student

achievement in the present study. About half of responding teachers in one study agreed

that learning was impacted by disruptive student behavior, while over two thirds of

teachers agreed that students were disrespectful and defiant to teachers (Williams, 2009).

Around two-thirds of respondents agreed behavioral standards, and the penalties for

violating them, should be integrated into the curriculum and explicitly taught (Williams,

2009). Hanushek et al. (2004) identified teacher turnover as an important predictor of

student achievement that operates by creating interruptions in instruction and by reducing

110
morale. The authors found teacher turnover was highest in high poverty schools and

worst among the inexperienced teachers concentrated there. Such schools were also

associated with a variety of other negative working conditions that included safety and

disciplinary problems.

Contextual factors were found to significantly moderate the relationship between

the climate and the achievement outcomes of schools in the study sample. Gender was

found to significantly moderate the relationship between Student Disruptions and student

achievement. Specifically, the negative effects of Student Disruptions were significantly

reduced in female-led schools when compared to male-led schools. Research conducted

into the comparability of performance between men and women in these administrative

roles reveal that women are adopting differing approaches to leadership. Eagly and

colleagues carried out a meta-analysis of studies conducted over twenty-five years and

found that women displayed a tendency toward interpersonal styles and men displayed a

tendency toward a task-orientation (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003).

These findings of the present study suggest women may have a propensity toward

adopting school-wide discipline policies that are more geared toward consensus building

and other non-punitive strategies such as token economies, parental involvement, and

professional development as opposed to punitive strategies such as suspensions. Women

may also employ a more participative/ democratic leadership style than men, i.e., have a

more personalized leadership style, and potentially focus greater efforts on core

technologies, whereas men are hypothesized to be more structural and oriented toward

direct management (Lee et al., 1993). Gender was not found to moderate the relationship

between leadership influence actions and climate in this study.

111
 The relationship between leader influence actions, school culture, and school

performance was also examined. Although, each of the five leader influence actions

except Bonding were found to have a positive direct effect on Business culture and all

five leaders influence actions were found to have a positive direct effect on Social Justice

culture. Moreover, Minority was found to diminish the potency of the relationship

between Transforming and Social Justice. However, neither cultural dimension was

found to have a direct effect on school performance.

Culture, refers to historically rooted; socially- transmitted deep patterns of

thinking and ways of acting that when regularly utilized are reinforced by reward

structures that become the norms of the organization. Newman et al. (2001) identified a

unified attribute of schools associated with positive outcomes for students through the

development of a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and

climate. Reyes-Guerra (2009) studied culture from the position of schools on Business

and Social Justice continua and examined the extent to which these factors were present

and/or developed because of leadership actions. Numerous studies have identified sets of

cultural characteristics related to high performing schools (e.g., Ogbanna & Harris, 2000;

Deal & Peterson, 1990), while other studies have established a relationship between

leadership and cultural change (Stone, 2003; Mees, 2008). However, all of these

conceptions support the notion that cultural changes are realized through changes to

climate resulting from the transmission of shared norms and values (Bolman & Deal,

2006). Changes in the climate of the school resulting from leadership actions may

eventually lead to changes in the culture over an extended period.

Free and Reduced price lunch was also found to have a direct effect on climate, as

112
well as indirect effects, through Staff Attitudes and Student Disruptions, on school

performance. Contextual factors (age, gender, and free/reduced price lunch) were found

to have had a significant direct effect on the climate of schools in the study sample and

Minority was found to have a significant direct effect on school grade Points. In high-

poverty schools, concerns about school climate are especially acute. However, high

poverty schools are much less likely than low poverty schools to be perceived as safe by

staff or to feel that the environment is conducive to learning (Horowitz, 2013). The

findings indicated that when teachers perceived their principals behaviors were focused

on improving the school climate, achievement was improved.

Limitations

This study examined a small sample of schools that was very restricted in nature.

Because of the small sample, the power to detect all but the largest of effect sizes was

very limited. This limitation extended to the number of simultaneous variables that can be

considered in any regression model that examined the interrelationship among a series of

variables. To compensate for this limitation, the relationships depicted in this study were

analyzed in clusters of three at a time. Because of this limitation, it was not possible to

ascertain the results that would have obtained had all the variables of interest be

evaluated simultaneously. Therefore, the results of this study should be considered to be

exploratory in nature.

Transforming appeared to have the most far- reaching influence of the

leadership influence actions examined in this study. Transforming had a moderate effect

on both school climate factors and the Business factor of school culture, and a strong

effect on the Social Justice factor of school culture. Age was also found to weak-

113
moderately effect the relationship between Transforming and school climate. Although, a

relationship with Age and Transforming actions was identified, this study did not take

into account the effect of tenure, or years at present school.

School Level had a strong effect on both climate factors and Managing actions,

while Free and reduced price lunch had a moderate influence on both climate and culture

factors and a strong effect on School Performance.

The sample of schools used in this study was not selected at random. Rather,

principals of pre-identified schools were invited to participate in the study. The use of

such a convenience sampling technique limits the external generalizability of the study.

Furthermore, the results of characteristics may be subject to bias, which would not be the

case if a randomized assignment and selection were employed.

Part of the limitations associated with small samples is the inability to evaluate

candidate moderators and/or predictors simultaneously. Instead, these variables were

evaluated one at a time. Doing so increases the risk of committing Type I errors. To

control for this risk, corrections for multiple comparisons are typically employed. This

was not done in this study.

The accountability grades of the schools in this study averaged an "A" (i.e., 525

points earned) and, as such, are not typical of schools within the subject county or of

schools in general. Therefore, the results obtained in this study may not generalize to

schools with other levels of performance. Moreover, a school grading system using this

study is a composite of the results from instruments that are unique to the state of Florida.

As such, the results from this study may not generalize to other states.

The primary measure of school climate in this study, the Customer Survey, has

114
not been psychometrically validated. Therefore, it is not clear whether or not the results

in this study will replicate themselves in other situations.

Data to conduct this study were based partially on self-report, which may be

prone to social response bias, that results when respondents tend to answer items the way

they feel others would expect them to answer. Acquiescent bias where respondents

choose items that happen to be in the same place within a scale may also occur (Trochim,

2013). Although the SLQ contains controls such as an inconsistency index to reduce the

impact of social response bias, care should be taken when interpreting the results.

Using school level data to estimate individual data runs the risk of committing an

ecological fallacy, which occurs when the results at the group level differ from those

obtained at the individual level (Trochim, 2013). As such, it is possible that the

dimensions that obtain from polling individuals will differ from those obtained by

measuring schools. It is likely that an individual level analysis will result in the

identification of more numerous factors. Moreover, because only variance and covariance

among schools is being considered, the variance among individuals may be far greater

and the individual unit of analysis dimensionality may have be underestimated and/or

may reflect very different constructs.

The results of the regression procedures are presented in the form of a graphic

diagram that adheres to the relationships depicted in the theoretical framework. This was

done to provide a graphic aid to assist the reader in conceptualizing the results. This

diagram is not to be confused with a path model in which the interrelationships among

the variables are examined simultaneously via maximum-likelihood estimation. The

models depicted in this study were fitted one at a time, using one predictor and on

115
criterion to evaluate direct effects, one criterion, a predictor, moderator and criterion to

evaluate mediation effects, and one criterion and three predictors to evaluate moderation

effects.

The measure of poverty used in this study was based on eligibility for the federal

free and reduced-price lunch program, which is a categorical designation that does not

capture the gradations of income of the applicants. Furthermore, research has suggested

there is a difference between rural poverty and urban poverty (McLoyd, 1990).

Therefore, the demographic composition of the subject district may make it unique within

the state in which it is situated. Therefore, the results may not be able to be generalized

outside of the context of this study.

Implications

The information from this study can be used to suggest relationships between

leadership, climate, and achievement. Leadership can be used as tool to shape school

environment and counteract many of the challenges that present. National trends continue

to force schools to operate as businesses in terms of competition, resource efficiency, and

quality control measures. Based on such analyses, principals can affect the learning and

working environment of schools and make them function better and more harmoniously.

The merits of this study suggest specific implications with regard to policy, principal

selection and techniques. The role of policy- makers lies in the relationship between

mandated policies and the changing role of the principal and teachers. Essentially, the

role of policy- makers is to stay tuned to the ever-changing national trends, which force

schools to operate differently in this era of increased accountability. But due to the small

sample and the inability to address these factors simultaneously, the relationships must be

116
considered exploratory. Future studies should seek to examine these factors at the same

time. Additionally, although, a relationship with Age and Transforming actions was

identified, this study did not take into account the effect tenure, or years at current school,

might have on this result.

Moreover, the importance of culture should be investigated by extending the

inquiry over time. The findings suggest that there are effective ways to lead and that

certain characteristics make for leaders that are more effective.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study explored how leadership actions influenced climate, which in turn

influenced student achievement and examined how contextual factors moderated the

relationship between them. This study also explored how leadership actions influenced

culture, which in turn influenced student achievement and examined how contextual

factors moderated the relationship between them. Student achievement was theorized to

be dependent upon leadership actions, which were posited to separately work through

school culture and climate. Further, the relationship between leadership and climate;

leadership and achievement; and climate and achievement and the relationship between

leadership and culture; and culture and achievement were all modeled as being influenced

by contextual (i.e., individual and institutional) variables. Factor analyses were used to

separately identify patterns within climate. Finally, the school level relationships

between the school grade points, contextual factors, climate dimensions, culture

dimensions, and leadership actions were examined through a series of regression

analyses.

117
Conclusions

1. Climate was found to align to two factors labeled Staff Attitudes and Student

Disruptions suggesting that the school environment is comprised of at least two separate

dimensions that operate independently. Staff Attitudes were found to have a positive

influence on student achievement, while Student Disruptions were found to have a

negative impact on student achievement in the present study.

2. Transforming actions were found to act through Staff Attitudes to influence

student achievement. Additionally, transforming actions were found to improve Staff

Attitudes. Transforming actions did not significantly predict student achievement

directly. This suggests that leaders who engage in transformational behaviors will be

more effective than those who do not.

Age was found to moderate the relationship between Transformational

leadership influence actions and climate in the study sample such that the impact of

transformational actions on climate was amplified among younger principals, and

attenuated among older principals. Although, a relationship with age and transforming

actions was identified, this study did not take into account the effect tenure, or years at

present school, might have on this result.

3. Business and Social Justice Culture as defined by Reyes Guerra (2009) were

each found to be influenced by most of the leadership influence actions. Although, higher

concentrations of minority students were found to diminish the relationship between

Transforming and Social Justice, culture was not found to influence student achievement.

Although, culture has been shown to influence organizational outcomes, (Bolman &

Deal, 2003), suggest that culture is deeply ingrained and may take a long time to modify.

118
As such the effects of changes to culture may not have been sufficient to affect student

achievement during the timeframe of this study.

4. Gender was found to moderate the relationship between Student Disruptions

and Student Achievement in this study. Although this study is exploratory, due to small

sample size, the results may indicate that schools led by female principals have their

school performance reduced less by Student Disruptions than schools led by male

principals.

Recommendations

This study was conducted to investigate the link between school principal

influence actions, climate, culture, and school performance. Additionally, this study

sought to determine if the influence of these variables or the relationship among them is

altered by individual and/or institutional characteristics. Based on the study, the

following recommendations are made:

Principals should be provided training and encouraged to use Transforming

influence actions during the performance of their professional duties due to their

demonstrated positive impact on the staff morale and attitudes, and on safety and

discipline, which led to improved school performance. Moreover, when selecting

principals, perhaps preference should be given to younger candidates, given the evidence

that they are able to use Transforming actions more often in this study.

Finally, future research efforts should be conducted to understand the reason the

female principals are more successful at lessening the impact of student discipline and

safety issues on school performance.

119
APPENDICES

120
 Appendix A: Dimensions of Climate

The first phase of the study was conducted to determine whether the Customer

Survey exhibited patterns or was instead one-dimensional. The sample for this portion of

the study was comprised of the 213 schools that were administered the climate survey

during the time of the study. The source of data was a report that delineated for each

school the percentage of respondent staff that selected each of the five possible response

options. A total of three schools did not respond to the survey and 13 were removed from

the sample, as they were not considered typical for the goals of the study, e.g., Primary

Learning Centers, Alternative Centers, ESE and Vocational Centers, as were 8 items

designed for specific types of schools. As the recoded response options adhered to a five

point Likert-type scale format that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). An additional response option was provided for a Dont Know response, which

is effectively a missing value. A distribution of those responses is presented in Table A1.

121
Table A1
Distribution of Missing Responses to Customer Survey by Item
Percentiles
Item 50 75 90 95 Maximum
1 -- -- -- -- 2.50
2 -- -- -- -- 3.57
3 -- -- -- 1.68 14.61
4 -- -- -- 1.35 3.23
5 -- -- -- 0.75 3.70
6 -- -- -- -- 2.50
7 -- -- -- -- 2.50
8 -- -- -- 1.10 2.50
9 -- -- -- -- 2.50
10 -- -- 1.91 2.50 4.20
11 -- -- -- -- 2.56
12 -- -- -- -- 2.50
13 -- -- 2.27 3.35 6.25
14 -- 1.92 3.13 4.06 7.89
15 -- 1.10 2.50 3.34 8.00
16 -- -- 1.95 2.65 7.61
17 -- -- -- 0.27 6.67
18 -- -- 1.06 2.13 5.41
19 -- -- 0.84 1.81 9.89
20 -- -- -- 1.66 5.41
21 -- -- -- 1.27 2.50
22 -- -- -- 1.69 5.00
23 11.54 16.16 21.65 23.22 37.25
24 12.22 18.39 22.30 25.00 34.75
25 -- 0.97 2.26 2.86 6.67
26 -- -- -- 1.41 5.26
27 -- 1.55 2.68 3.33 7.41
28 -- -- -- -- 3.23
29 -- -- -- -- 2.70
30 -- 3.02 5.26 6.38 9.32
31 1.35 3.64 5.24 6.67 17.78
32 -- 2.00 2.94 3.45 6.45
33 -- -- 2.16 2.70 7.69
34 -- 1.57 2.56 3.49 6.38
35 -- 2.21 3.68 5.18 14.44
37 -- 1.95 3.38 3.87 8.33
43
Note. Cells with zero percent missing are displayed as dashed.

122
Table A1 shows that percentage of missing items is relatively small with the exception of

items 23 and 24, which are uncharacteristically large and a follow-up analysis revealed

that this difference did not vary with school level. This suggests that respondents were

either confused or uncomfortable with the specific items at all school levels. Therefore,

caution should be exercised when attempting to interpret the results from these items. See

Table A2.

Table A2
Customer Survey Item Means
Item Item Stem M SD Min Max
No.
Q1 I believe all students can succeed. 4.61 0.17 4.03 4.93
The school provides adequate resources for me to teach my
Q2 students. 4.18 0.40 2.94 4.93
Q3 I inform parents of their childrens progress regularly. 4.52 0.25 3.31 4.95
Q4 I regularly inform students of their progress. 4.66 0.15 4.00 4.97
Q5 I explain material to each student in a way they will understand. 4.69 0.14 4.26 4.98
Q6 I treat all my students with fairness. 4.83 0.09 4.52 5.00
Q7 My students show me respect. 4.27 0.24 3.56 4.82
4.36
The students are safe at school.
Q8 0.41 2.94 4.96
Q9 I feel safe at my school. 4.40 0.36 3.00 4.98
Q10 Rules are applied fairly to students at my school. 3.89 0.47 2.33 4.91
Q11 I am proud of my school. 4.41 0.38 2.94 5.00
Q12 My school is kept clean and in good condition. 4.19 0.42 2.64 4.92
Students and parents have access to an adult at school to discuss
Q13 problems. 4.46 0.26 3.20 5.00
Q14 I give challenging homework assignments. 4.16 0.25 2.79 4.68
Q15 Students have access to the Guidance Counselor at my school. 4.24 0.39 1.65 4.92
Q16 Parents share in the academic responsibility of students. 3.55 0.50 2.33 4.60
Q17 I respond quickly to parents requests. 4.60 0.16 3.90 4.95
Q18 The principal at my school responds to my concerns. 4.29 0.38 2.94 4.93
I can rely on parents to assist with students behavioral or
Q19 academic issues. 3.45 0.44 2.33 4.39
Q20 The principal does an effective job of running my school. 4.23 0.45 2.72 4.96
Q21 Administrators are highly visible throughout my school. 4.30 0.39 3.19 4.95
Q22 I am aware of the purposes and goals of my school. 4.51 0.25 3.50 5.00
Q23 Students bring drugs or alcohol to school. 1.72 0.62 0.96 3.26
Q24 Students carry weapons at this school. 1.62 0.44 0.97 3.07
Q25 Students bear responsibility for what they learn. 3.64 0.36 2.63 4.55
Staff Development I have received has made me a better
Q26 teacher. 4.17 0.29 3.30 4.75
Q27 My input on school decisions is solicited and valued. 3.78 0.40 2.33 4.72

123
Table A2 continued

Q28 I am satisfied with the learning environment at my school. 4.02 0.47 2.65 4.83
Q29 I am satisfied with the working conditions at my school. 4.02 0.42 2.65 4.85
Q30 All students are accepted and feel like they belong at this school. 4.04 0.44 2.83 4.83
Adequate after-school programs/activities are provided at my
Q31 school. 4.05 0.49 1.94 4.88
This year, I have discussed my students recent test scores with
Q32 faculty. 4.14 0.27 3.23 4.72
Q33 Students have access to computers/technology at my school. 4.04 0.41 2.74 5.00
I have taught my students how to use technology to do
Q34 schoolwork. 4.10 0.26 3.41 4.66
The school contacts parents when behavior problems occur at
Q35 school. 4.24 0.32 3.24 5.00
Q36 This year, staff has assisted my students in selecting High Level 3.80 0.43 2.27 4.60
courses.
I have used the BEEP Web site to plan activities for my
Q37 students this year. 2.85 0.59 1.18 4.13
Q43 Students at school bully one another. 2.86 0.56 1.15 4.13

An examination of the distribution of the items in the able shows a restriction in the range

of the responses. This is because each response represents a school-level as opposed to an

individual attitude. Furthermore, the items are skewed indicating that there was a

considerable amount of social desirability in the responses. A proportionally weighted

average value was created for each school. Because only variance and covariance among

schools was considered, the variance among individuals could be greater and the

individual unit of analysis dimensionality may have been underestimated (Morris, 2014,

personal communication). Using school level data to estimate individual data runs the

risk of committing an ecological fallacy, which occurs when the results at the group level

differ from those obtained at the individual level (Trochim, 2013). Proportional

weighting also treats all schools the same regardless of size, which would not be the case

if responses were analyzed individually. The responses were not weighted to account for

the different number of respondents at each site, because to do so would be tantamount to

assuming that all respondents answered in exactly the same way. However, if the

124
responses had been weighted, a different structure may have emerged. Finally, the bulk of

the school level means appear to be very positive due to social response bias. Such

attenuated variance severely limits what you can find with factor analysis. To minimize

the risk of committing an ecological fallacy, identified dimensions were compared

against those obtained in other studies that use individual data. Therefore any dimensions

that emerge must be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, this was done to determine

how climate should best be represented because it could not be assumed that climate even

when estimated using school as the unit of analysis, could be assumed to be was one-

dimensional.

A principal axis factor analysis was then used to ascertain the structure

empirically manifested by the recoded responses to the survey items that resulted. The

communalities were estimated from iterated squared multiple correlation estimates. The

Scree plot was used as the factor extraction criterion. A Direct Oblimin rotation was used

to orient the pattern matrix that reproduced the items from the factors and to aid in the

identification of cross-loaded items. An item was considered to have cross-loadings if

statistically significant factor loadings were present on two or more factors unless the

strongest factor loading was twice the magnitude of the next strongest factor loading for

that item. No cross-loaded items were identified. The factors were then interpreted by

examining all survey items with loadings of .50 and above.

The data in the residual correlation matrix reveals that only 9.0% (n=63) of the

residuals are statistically significant (p < .05). The presence of both low and high

correlations between the items is indicative of discriminant validity. The determinant of

125
the correlation matrix is 8.02 x 10-41 indicating that many of the items approximate linear

combinations of one another.

Bartletts Test of Sphericity which tests the null hypothesis that the correlation

matrix is an identity matrix, was statistically significant, 2 (666, N=213) = 19,649.62, p <

.00. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) for all of the items

was meritorious. Overall, the MSA for the dataset was .97, which is more than adequate

for factor analysis. Examination of the Scree plot yielded a two-factor solution. Table A3

presents the communalities and rotated factor-pattern-matrix for the factor solution.

Table A3

Factor Pattern Matrix for the Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Items Comprising the
Customer Survey Conducted on the Sample of all Broward County Public Schools a
Loadings
No. Item a Cb 1 2
1. Staff Attitudes
Q22 I am aware of the purposes and goals my school. .98 .98 .07
Q11 I am proud of my school. .97 .97 -.11
Q9 I feel safe at my school. .99 .97 -.13
Q8 The students are safe at school. .99 .96 -.21
Q7 My students show me respect. .98 .95 .05
Q28 I am satisfied with the learning environment at my school. .98 .95 -.28
Q29 I am satisfied with the working conditions at my school. .97 .95 -.17
Q18 The principal at my school responds to my concerns. .98 .94 -.03
Q30 All students are accepted and feel like they belong at this school. .96 .94 -.26
Q2 The school provides adequate resources for me to teach my students. .94 .94 -.09
Q13 Students and parents have access to an adult at school to discuss problems. .97 .94 .16
Q25 Students bear responsibility for what they learn. .94 .93 -.17
Q5 I explain material to each student in a way they will understand. .99 .93 .23
Q26 Staff Development I have received has made me a better teacher. .94 .93 .05
Q3 I inform parents of their childrens progress regularly. .97 .93 .12
Q4 I regularly inform students of their progress. .99 .93 .25
Q17 I respond quickly to parents requests. .98 .93 .24
Q27 My input on school decisions is solicited and valued. .96 .93 -.13
Q20 The principal does an effective job of running my school. .97 .92 -.11
Q21 Administrators are highly visible throughout my school. .93 .92 -.04
Q1 I believe all student scan succeed. .97 .92 .23
Q10 Rules are applied fairly to students at my school. .93 .92 -.27
Q34 I have taught my students how to use technology to do schoolwork. .94 .92 .14
Q35 The school contacts parents when behavior problems occur at school. .92 .91 .10
Q6 I treat all my students with fairness. .99 .91 .31
Q14 I give challenging homework assignments. .93 .89 .19
Q32 This year, I have discussed my students recent test scores with faculty. .88 .88 .21
Q19 I can rely on parents to assist with students behavioral or academic issues .96 .88 -.24

126
Table A3 continued

Q33 Students have access to computers/technology at my school. .90 .86 .00

Q12 My school is kept clean and in good condition .84 .85 .03
Q16 Parents share in the academic responsibility of students .95 .85 -.24
Q15 Students have access to the Guidance Counselor at my school .91 .82 .17
Q31 Adequate after-school programs/activities are provided at my school .73 .77 .00
Q37 I have used the BEEP Web site to plan activities for my students this year .83 .73 .11
2. Student Disruptions
Q24 Students carry weapons at this school. .93 -.00 .92
Q43 Students at school bully one another. .84 .10 .84
Q23 Students bring drugs or alcohol to school. .92 -.04 .76
Percent Variance Explained 76.88 9.08
Eigenvalues 28.45 3.36
Reliability d .99 .87
Note. Summated scales based on items with factor loadings exceeding designated cutoffs.
a
Excludes special centers and vocational schools b C represents initial communalities. C represents initial
communalities. c Extraction method is Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation resulting in
an inter-factor correlation (r = .08)

The communalities represent the proportion of each items variance that is held in

common with the other variables. The internal consistency of the scales of .99 (Factor 1)

and .87 (Factor 2) was more than adequate for a psychometric instrument.

Extraction communalities are those that result from the truncated factor matrix

with the initial communality estimates substituted for the diagonal elements (Gorsuch,

1983). None of the communalities appeared to be attenuated due to truncation. However,

18.94% (n = 94) of the cells in the residual correlation matrix (not shown) had values in

excess of .05. The percent of variance explained by this solution, 85.96% of the variance

in the dataset, indicates that extraction of the two factors represented the acceptable

solution for both exploratory and social science research (Hair et al., 1998).

The first factor, comprised of items that addressed Staff Attitudes toward the

school, accounted for the vast amount (76.88%) of the variation among the respondents.

The second factor, comprised of items that Student Disruptions at the school, accounted

for the greatest amount of residual variance that remained after the first factor was

extracted, and explained 9.08% of the total variance in the dataset. The inter-factor
127
correlation of .08 represents a weak effect size according to Cohens (1988) classification

for the Pearson correlation coefficient. Because this overlap represents such a negligible

proportion of the variance in either factor, the factors may be considered to be distinct.

128
 Appendix B: Hayes Sobel Macro for Testing a Simple Mediation Effect

/* Written by Andrew F. Hayes */.

/* School of Communication */.
/* The Ohio State University */.
/* See Preacher, KJ, & Hayes, AF (2004). SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating */.
/* Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models, in Behavior Research Methods, Instruments
*/.
/* and Computers, 36, 717-731 */.
/* Version 3.6 uploaded April 13, 2011 */.
/* This version implements a new sorting routine to greatly decrease time to output */.
/* Since original publication, procedures have been added to SOBEL for estimating models
with */.
/* dichotomous outcomes and the computation of five different effect sizes fo r indirect
effects */.

DEFINE SOBEL (y = !charend('/')/x = !charend('/')/m = !charend('/')/varord =

!charend('/') !default(2)/iterate = !charend('/') !default(10000)
/converge = !charend('/') !default(0.0000001)/boot = !charend('/') !default(0)/effsize
= !charend('/') !default(0)).
PRESERVE.
SET MXLOOPS = 10000001.
SET SEED = RANDOM.
SET PRINTBACK = OFF.
MATRIX.

/* READ ACTIVE SPSS DATA FILE */.

get dd/variables = !y !x !m/names = nms/MISSING = OMIT.
compute n = nrow(dd).
/* DO SOME CHECKS FOR DATA ERRORS */.
compute converrb = 0.
compute converre = 0.
compute daterr = 0.
do if (n < 5).
compute daterr = 1.
end if.
compute ones = make(n,1,1).
compute sigma = (t(dd)*(ident(n)-(1/n)*ones*t(ones))*dd)*(1/(n-1)).
compute var = diag(sigma).
do if csum ((abs(var < 0.000000001)) > 0).
compute daterr = 2.
end if.
do if (rank(dd(:,2:3)) < 2).
compute daterr = 3.
end if.
compute mvals = ncol(design(dd(:,3))).
do if (mvals < 3).
compute daterr = 4.
end if.
compute bdbp = 0.
compute corrxtt = 0.
compute sdchkt = 0.
/* START THE COMPUTATIONS */.
do if (daterr = 0).
compute mndd = csum(dd)/n.
compute std = sqrt(var).
compute vr = sqrt(var).
compute corrx = sigma&/(std*t(std)).
compute cpath = corrx(2,1)*vr(1,1)/vr(2,1).
/* DEFINE NUMBER OF BOOTSTRAP SAMPLES */.
do if (!boot > 999).
compute btn = trunc(!boot/1000)*1000.
compute btnp = btn+1.
else.
compute btn = 1000.

129
 compute btnp = btn+1.
end if.

compute res=make(btnp,1,0).
compute varord = !varord.
do if (varord <> 1).
compute varord = 2.
end if.
compute ovals = ncol(design(dd(:,1))).
do if (ovals = 2).
compute omx = cmax(dd(:,1)).
compute omn = cmin(dd(:,1)).
compute dd(:,1) = (dd(:,1) = omx).
compute rcd = {omn, 0; omx, 1}.
end if.
compute dat = dd.

/* START OF THE LOOP FOR BOOTSTRAPPING */.

loop #j = 1 to btnp.
do if (#j = 2 and !boot < 1000).
BREAK.
end if.
/* DO THE RESAMPLING OF THE DATA */.
do if (#j > 1).
loop.
compute v = trunc(uniform(n,1)*n)+1.
compute dat(:,1:3)=dd(v,1:3).
compute sig = (t(dat)*(ident(n)-(1/n)*ones*t(ones))*dat)*(1/(n-1)).
compute vr = sqrt(diag(sig)).
compute sdchk = (csum(vr < .00000001) > 0).
compute corrxt = sig&/(vr*t(vr)).
compute rsq = t(ryi)*bi.
do if (!effsize = 1).
compute r2my = corrxt(3,1)*corrxt(3,1).
compute r2xy = corrxt(2,1)*corrxt(2,1).
compute ryi = corrxt(2:3,1).
compute rii = corrxt(2:3,2:3).
compute bi=inv(rii)*ryi.
compute rsq = t(ryi)*bi.
compute r245 = r2my-(rsq-r2xy).
compute cpath = corrxt(2,1)*vr(1,1)/vr(2,1).
end if.
compute corrxt = (abs(corrxt(3,2)) > .99999999).
compute bdbp = bdbp+((sdchk = 1) or (corrxt = 1)).
compute corrxtt = corrxtt + corrxt.
compute sdchkt = sdchkt + sdchk.
end loop if (corrxt = 0 and sdchk = 0).
end if.
/* SET UP THE DATA COLUMNS FOR PROCESSING */.
compute y = dat(:,1).
compute x = dat(:,2).
compute z = dat(:,3).
compute xz = dat(:,2:3).

/* CALCULATE REGRESSION STATISTICS NEEDED TO COMPUTE indirect effect */

/* product of a and b is held as variable 'ind' */.

compute con = make(n,1,1).

compute xo = {con,x}.
compute bzx = inv(t(xo)*xo)*t(xo)*z.
compute bzx = bzx(2,1).
compute xzo = {con,xz}.
/* If Y is not dichotomous */.
do if (ovals <> 2).
compute byzx2 = inv(t(xzo)*xzo)*t(xzo)*y.
compute byzx = byzx2(3,1).
compute byxz = byzx2(2,1).

130
compute converrb = 0.
end if.
/* if Y is dichotomous */.
do if (ovals = 2).
compute pt1 = make(n,1,0.5).
compute bt1 = make(ncol(xzo),1,0).
compute LL1 = 0.
loop jjj = 1 to !iterate.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byzx2 = bt1+inv(t(xzo)*vt1*xzo)*t(xzo)*(y-pt1).
compute pt1 = 1/(1+exp(-(xzo*byzx2))).
compute LL = y&*ln(pt1)+(1-y)&*ln(1-pt1).
compute LL2 = -2*csum(ll).
do if (abs(LL1-LL2) < !converge).
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byzx = byzx2(3,1).
compute byxz = byzx2(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xzo)*vt1*xzo).
compute selgb = sqrt(diag(covb)).
break.
end if.
compute bt1 = byzx2.
compute LL1 = LL2.
end loop.
do if (jjj > !iterate).
do if (#j > 1).
compute converrb = 1.
else if (#j = 1).
compute converre = 1.
end if.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byzx = byzx2(3,1).
compute byxz = byzx2(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xzo)*vt1*xzo).
compute selgb = sqrt(diag(covb)).
end if.
end if.
compute ind = bzx*byzx.
compute res(#j,1) = ind.

/* GENERATE STATISTICS FOR BARON AND KENNY AND NORMAL SOBEL SECTION OF OUTPUT */.
do if (#j = 1).
compute sd = sqrt(((n*cssq(dat))-(csum(dat)&**2))/((n-1)*n)).
compute num = (n*sscp(dat)-(transpos(csum(dat))*(csum(dat)))).
compute den = sqrt(transpos((n*cssq(dat))-(csum(dat)&**2))*((n*cssq(dat))-
(csum(dat)&**2))).
compute r = num&/den.
compute sdbzx = (sd(1,3)/sd(1,2))*sqrt((1-(r(3,2)*r(3,2)))/(n-2)).
compute ryi = r(2:3,1).
compute rii = r(2:3,2:3).
compute bi=inv(rii)*ryi.
compute rsq = t(ryi)*bi.
compute sec=sqrt((1-rsq)/(n-3))*sqrt(1/(1-(r(3,2)*r(3,2)))).
compute sdyzx = (sd(1,1)/sd(1,3))*sec.
compute sdyxz = (sd(1,1)/sd(1,2))*sec.
compute byx = r(2,1)*sd(1,1)/sd(1,2).
compute sebyx = (sd(1,1)/sd(1,2))*sqrt((1-(r(2,1)*r(2,1)))/(n-2)).
compute amx = mndd(1,3)-(bzx*mndd(1,2)).
compute msres = (z-(amx+bzx*x))&*(z-(amx+bzx*x)).
compute msres = csum(msres)/(n-2).
do if (!effsize = 1).
compute eff = make(btnp,5,-999).
compute r2my = r(3,1)*r(3,1).
compute r2xy = r(2,1)*r(2,1).
compute r245 = r2my-(rsq-r2xy).
compute r245o = r245.
compute pm = ind/byx.

131
 compute rm = ind/byxz.
compute abps = ind/sd(1,1).
compute abcs = abps*sd(1,2).
end if.
do if (ovals = 2).
compute sdyzx = selgb(3,1).
compute sdyxz = selgb(2,1).
compute xo = {con,x}.
compute pt1 = make(n,1,0.5).
compute bt1 = make(ncol(xo),1,0).
compute ll1 = 0.
loop jjj = 1 to !iterate.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byx = bt1+inv(t(xo)*vt1*xo)*t(xo)*(y-pt1).
compute pt1 = 1/(1+exp(-(xo*byx))).
compute LL = y&*ln(pt1)+(1-y)&*ln(1-pt1).
compute LL2 = -2*csum(ll).
do if (abs(LL1-LL2) < !converge).
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byx = byx(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xo)*vt1*xo).
compute sebyx = sqrt(diag(covb)).
compute sebyx = sebyx(2,1).
break.
end if.
compute bt1 = byx.
compute LL1 = LL2.
end loop.
do if (jjj > !iterate).
compute converre = 1.
compute vt1 = mdiag(pt1&*(1-pt1)).
compute byx = byx(2,1).
compute covb = inv(t(xo)*vt1*xo).
compute sebyx = sqrt(diag(covb)).
compute sebyx = sebyx(2,1).
end if.
end if.
compute seind = sqrt(((byzx*byzx)*(sdbzx*sdbzx))+((bzx*bzx)*(sdyzx*sdyzx))+
((sdbzx*sdbzx)*(sdyzx*sdyzx))).
do if (varord = 1).
compute seind = sqrt(((byzx*byzx)*(sdbzx*sdbzx))+((bzx*bzx)*(sdyzx*sdyzx))).
end if.
compute se = {sebyx; sdbzx; sdyzx; sdyxz}.
compute bb = {byx; bzx; byzx; byxz}.
compute tt = bb&/se.
compute p =2*(1-tcdf(abs(tt),n-2)).
compute p(3,1)=2*(1-tcdf(abs(tt(3,1)),n-3)).
compute p(4,1)=2*(1-tcdf(abs(tt(4,1)),n-3)).
compute tst = ind/seind.
compute bw = {bb,se,tt,p}.
compute p2=2*(1-cdfnorm(abs(tst))).
compute LL95 = ind-1.96*seind.
compute UL95=ind+1.96*seind.
compute byxstd = byx*sqrt(1+(((byzx*byzx)*msres)/((3.14159265*3.14159265)/3))).
compute op={ind, seind, LL95,UL95, tst, p2}.
end if.
do if (!effsize = 1 and !boot > 999 and ovals <> 2).
compute eff(#j,3) = r245.
compute eff(#j,2) = ind/byxz.
compute eff(#j,1) = ind/cpath.
compute eff(#j,4) = ind/vr(1,1).
compute eff(#j,5) = ind*vr(2,1)/vr(1,1).
end if.
end loop.
/* END OF BOOTSTRAPPING LOOP */.

do if (!boot > 999).

132
compute res10 = res((2:nrow(res)),1).
save res10/outfile = bootstrp.sav/variables = bootstrp.
end if.

/* COMPUTE MEAN AND STANDARD DEV OF INDIRECT EFFECT ACROSS BOOTSTRAP SAMPLES */.

compute res = res(2:btnp,1).

do if (ovals <> 2 and !effsize = 1 and !boot > 999).
compute res={res, eff(2:btnp, :)}.
end if.
compute mnbt = csum(res)/btn.
compute se = (sqrt(((btn*cssq(res))-(csum(res)&**2))/((btn-1)*btn))).

/* SORT THE BOOTSTRAP ESTIMATES */.

do if (!boot > 999).
loop #j = 1 to ncol(res).
compute res2 = res(:,#j).
compute res2(GRADE(res(:,#j))) = res(:,#j).
compute res(:,#j) = res2.
end loop.

/* GENERATE BOOTSTRAP CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FOR INDIRECT EFFECT */.

compute lower99 = res(.005*btn,1).
compute lower95 = res(.025*btn,1).
compute upper95 = res(1+.975*btn,1).
compute upper99 = res(1+.995*btn,1).
compute bt = {op(1,1),mnbt(1,1), se(1,1), lower99, lower95, upper95, upper99}.
end if.

/* GENERATE OUTPUT */.

print/title =
"*************************************************************************".
print/title = "Preacher and Hayes (2004) SPSS Macro for Simple Mediatio n".
print/title = "Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University".
print/title = "http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/".
print/title = "For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS".
print/title = "procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models".
print/title = "Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717 -731.".
compute temp = {"Y"; "X"; "M"}.
compute temp = {temp, t(nms)}.
print temp/title = "VARIABLES IN SIMPLE MEDIATION MODEL"/format = A8.
compute corrx = {t(mndd), std, corrx}.
compute nmsc = {"Mean", "SD", nms}.
print corrx/title = "DESCRIPTIVES STATISTICS AND PEARSON CORRELATIONS"/rnames =
nms/cnames = nmsc/format = F9.4.
print n/title = "SAMPLE SIZE"/format F8.0.
do if (converre = 0).
print bw/title = "DIRECT AND TOTAL EFFECTS"/clabels = "Coeff" "s.e." "t "
"Sig(two)"/rlabels = "b(YX)" "b(MX)" "b(YM.X)" "b(YX.M)"/format f9.4.
do if (ovals = 2).
print byxstd/title = "TOTAL EFFECT, b(YX), STANDARDIZED TO THE METRIC OF THE DIRECT
EFFECT, b(YX.M)"/
clabels = "Coeff"/rlabels = "b(YX)"/format = F9.4.
end if.
print op/title = "INDIRECT EFFECT AND SIGNIFICANCE USING NORMAL DISTRIBUTION"/rlabels
= "Effect"/clabels = "Value" "s.e." "LL95CI" "UL95CI" "Z" "Sig(two)"/format f9.4.
do if (!boot > 999 and converrb = 0).
print bt/title = "BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECT"/rlabels ="Effect"/clabels
"Data" "Mean" "s.e." "LL99 CI" "LL95CI" "UL95CI" "UL99CI"/format f9.4.
print btn/title = "NUMBER OF BOOTSTRAP RESAMPLES"/format F8.0.
end if.
do if (ovals <> 2 and !effsize = 1).
compute effsz = {op(1,1); pm; rm; r245o; abps; abcs}.
do if (!boot > 999).
compute effsz = {effsz, t(mnbt), t(se)}.
compute cimat = make(6,4,-999).

133
loop #j = 1 to 6.
compute cimat(#j,1) = res((.005*btn),#j).
compute cimat(#j,2) = res((.025*btn),#j).
compute cimat(#j,3) = res((1+.975*btn),#j).
compute cimat(#j,4) = res((1+.995*btn),#j).
end loop.
compute effsz = {effsz, cimat}.
end if.
print effsz/title = "POINT AND INTERVAL ESTIMATES OF EFFECT SIZE FOR INDIRECT
EFFECT"/rlabels = "ab" "P_m" "R_m" "R2_45" "ab_ps" "ab_cs"
/clabels = "Data" "Mean" "s.e." "LL99CI" "LL95CI" "UL95CI" "UL99CI"/format F9.4.
end if.
end if.
print/title = "********************************* NOTES
**********************************".
do if (ovals = 2 and converre = 0).
print/title = "Model coefficients involving the binary outcome are logistic regression
coefficients.".
compute nm = {nms(1,1), "Analysis"}.
print rcd/title = "Coding of binary Y for analysis:"/cnames = nm/format = F9.2.
do if (ovals = 2 and !effsize = 1).
print /title = "Effect size estimates not available for models with dichotomous
outcomes.".
end if.
end if.
do if (converre = 1).
print/title = "Convergence error in estimation of binary logistic model. Try adjusting
iteration criteria.".
end if.
do if (converrb = 1 and converre <> 1 and !boot > 0).
print/title = "At least one convergence failure while bootstrapping, so bootstrap output
is suppressed.".
end if.
do if (bdbp > 0).
print bdbp/title = "Bootstrap samples replaced due to singularity or constants after
resampling:".
end if.
end if.
do if (daterr = 1).
print/title = "ERROR: Insufficient data for analysis. There are too few cases in your
data file.".
else if (daterr = 2).
print/title = "ERROR: One of the variables in the model is constant.".
else if (daterr = 3).
print/title = "ERROR: M is a perfect function of X".
else if (daterr = 4).
print/title = "ERROR: There is no variance in M, or M is dichotomous".
end if.
do if (!boot < 1000 and daterr = 0).
print/title = "Bootstrap confidence intervals are preferred to the Sobel test for
inference about indirect effects.".
print/title = "See Hayes, A.F.(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation
analysis in the new millennium.".
print/title = "Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.".
end if.
END MATRIX.
RESTORE.
!ENDDEFINE.

134
 REFERENCES

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.

Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third

edition manual and sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bailey, F. G. (1988). Humbuggery and Manipulation: The Art of Leadership. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Bantel, K. A & Jackson, S.E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does

the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management

Journal Special Issue: Strategic Leaders and Leadership of School. 10(S1), 107-

124.

Baron, J. (1994). Thinking and Deciding. London: Cambridge University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research and

managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

135
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm

transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2),

130139.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and

sampler set. (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leadership: The strategies for taking charge. New

York, NY: Harper & Row.

Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Blas, J., & Blas, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers perspective on

how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational

Administration, 38(2), 130-141.

Blatt, D. A. (2002). A study to determine the relationship between the leadership styles of

career technical directors and school climate as perceived by teachers

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Block, P. (1996). Servant leadership. Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Boal, K. B. (2004). Strategic Leadership. In G.R. Goethals, J.M. Burns & G.J. Sorenson

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Leadership. (pp. 1497-1504). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1994) Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G, & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and

leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

136
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2006). The wizard and the warrior: Leading with passion

and power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Borman, K., & Lee, R. G. (2003, August). Floridas A+ Plan: Education Reform Policies

and Student Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p107833_index.html

Brennan, P. (2010). Pursuing success without scandal: Exploring the relationship

between transformational and authentic leadership (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Cappella University, Minneapolis, MN.

Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high

schools. Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 281-292.

Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979) School

systems and student achievement: Schools make a difference. New York, NY:

Greenwood Pub Group.

Bulach, C., Malone, B., & Castleman, C. (1995). An investigation of variables related to

student achievement. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 8(2), 23-29.

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between

organizational virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist,

47(6), 766-790.

Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: A science for sustainable living. New York,

NY: Harper Collins.

137
Carpenter, M. A. & Frederickson J. W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic

posture and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal,

44 (3), 533-545.

Chapman J. & Boyd, W. L. (1986). Decentralization, devolution, and the school

principal: Australian lessons on statewide educational reform. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 22 (4), 28-58.

Cheng, Y. (1991). Leadership style of principals and organizational process in

secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 29, 25-37.

Chirichello, M. P. (1997). A study of the preferred leadership styles of principals, and the

organizational climates in successful public elementary schools in New Jersey.

South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall Press.

Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J.E. (2009). School Principals and School

Performance. CALDER Working Paper 38. Washington, DC: The Urban

Institute.

Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J., Fege, A., & Pickeral, T. (2009). Measuring and improving school climate: A

strategy that recognizes, honors and promotes social, emotional and civic learning

the foundation for love, work and engaged citizenry. Teachers College Record,

Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org.

Cohen, J., & Geier, V. K. (2010). School climate research summary: January

2010. School Climate Brief 1(1), 16. Retrieved from

http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/SCBrief_v1n1_Jan2010.pdf

138
Coral, M. & Castle, J. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals.

Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3) 409-433.

Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and

distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership can

enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. L.

Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys

of leadership (pp. 4876). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cunningham, B. C. (2003). A study of the relationship between school culture and

student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central

Florida, Orlando, FL.

DAveni, R. A. (1990). Top managerial prestige and organizational bankruptcy. Strategic

Management Journal, 19(9), 833-852.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson K. D. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P.

W. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership

theories: Are attributes of charismatic/ leadership universally endorsed? The

Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219256.

Dewey, J. (1933) How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the

educative process (Revised ed.). Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.

Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San

Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

139
Eagly, A. H, Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003).Transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing

women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.

doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569

Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting

influences on the academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 163-174.

Edmonds, R. (1982, February). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Paper

presented at National Institute of Education Conference, The Implications of

Research for Practice, Warrenton, VA.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & L. J. Bourgeois III. (1988). Building theories from case study

research. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737-770.

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Building theories from case study

research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 504-529.

Ekvall, G., & Ryhammer, L. (1999). The creative climate: Its determinants and

effects at a Swedish university. Creativity Research Journal, 12 (4), 303-

310.

Elenkov, D., & Manev, I. (2005). Top management leadership and influence on

innovation: The role of sociocultural context. Journal of Management, 31(3), 381-

402.

Fazzino, T. (2012). The relationship between principal strategic leadership profiles and

school performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic

University, Boca Raton, FL.

140
Fiedler, F. E. (1972). The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency

model interpretation [Electronic version]. Administrative Science Quarterly,

17(4), 453470.

Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1974) Leadership and Effective Management,

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

Florida Department of Education (2007). 2007 guide to calculating school grades

[Technical Assistance Paper]. Retrieved from

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0607/2007SchoolGradesTAP.pdf.

Florida Department of Education (2008). School grades calculation guide 2008-2009

[School Accountability Report]. Retrieved from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/

Fowler, W. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189-202.

French, J. P. R., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A.

Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics (pp. 607-623).

Froman, T. (2009). School climate factors, 2008-09 (Research Brief No. 0807) Retrieved

from Miami-Dade County Public Schools website:

http://drs.dadeschools.net/ResearchBriefs/RB0807.pdf.

Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United

States and China. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 251-266.

Fullan, M. G, & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction

implementation [Electronic Version]. Review of Educational Research, 47(2),

335-397.

141
Furman, G. C., & Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice:

A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 47-

76.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

Goldring, E., Huff, J., May, H., & Camburn, E. (2008). School context and individual

characteristics: What influences principal practice? Journal of Educational

Administration, 46(3), 332-352.

Goldring, E. B., & Pasternak, R. (1994). Principals coordinating strategies and school

effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239-253.

Goldstein, J. A., Hazy, J. K., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010). Complexity and the nexus of

leadership: Leveraging nonlinear science to create ecologies of innovation.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job

satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance, Journal of Educational

Administration, 42(3), 333 356.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13,

423451.

Gruenert, S. (2005). Correlations of collaborative school cultures with student

achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 43-55.

Gruenert, S., & Valentine, J. (1998). School climate survey. Columbia, MO: Middle

Level Leadership Center, University of Missouri.

142
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th

ed). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of

instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,

33(3), 329-351.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and

student reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96 (5), 527-549.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996a). The principals role in school effectiveness: An

assessment of methodological progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J.

Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of

educational leadership and administration (pp. 723783). The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996b). Reassessing the principals role in school

effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 32 (1), 5-44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principals contribution to school

effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-

191.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership

and school improvement. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of

research on educational administration, second edition (pp. 141-162). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

143
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of

vision, mission, and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K.

Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational

leadership and administration (pp. 9-40). The Netherlands: Kluwer.Hallinger, P.,

& Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of

principals. The Elementary School Journal. 86(2). 217-247.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing the instructional leadership

of school principals. Educational Leadership, 86(2), 60-64.

Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and Research in Educational Administration, New York,

NY: Macmillan.

Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago, IL:

Midwest Administration Center of the University of Chicago.

Halpren D. (1996). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management

Review. 32(2), 334-343.

Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between

polar views of organizational outcomes. In L. L. Cummings and B. Staw (Eds.),

Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 369-406). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press. Reprinted in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), The Evolution and

Adaptation of Organizations (pp. 101-138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

144
Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. (2005). Executive job demands: New

insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of

Management Review, 30, 472-491.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflec-

tion of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004).The revolving door: A path-

breaking study in Texas reveals that working conditions matter more than salary.

Education Next. Retrieved from http://www.educationnext.org/.

Hayes, A. F. (2011). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. Retrieved from http://afhayes.com/spss-

sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Hemphill, J. K. (1949) Situational factors in leadership. Columbus, Ohio: State

University.

Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organization behavior: Utilizing

human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organization behavior: Utilizing

human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hill, L. A. (2007). Becoming the boss. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 48-57.

Horowitz, A. (2013). In high- poverty schools, principals are key to a positive climate for

teaching and learning. Retrieved from the Educational Trust Web site at:

http://www.edtrust.org/dc/presgs-room/news/in-high-poverty-schools-principals-

145
 are-key-to-a-positive-climate-for-teaching-and.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness [Electronic version].

Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321339.

House, R. J. (1991). The universality of charismatic leadership. Paper presented at the

National Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Miami, Florida.

House, R. J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on

organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C.

Earley and M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives in international

industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 535625). San Francisco, CA: The New

Lexington Press.

Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (2003). Instructional leader: A learning-centered guide.

Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research, and

practice (4th ed.). New York, NY: Random House.

Hoy, W. K. & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hoy, W., Tarter, C., & Bliss, F. (1990). School characteristics and faculty trust in

secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 294-309.

Hurst, D., Rush, J., & White, R. (1989). Top management teams and organizational

renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 87-101.

146
Institute for School Improvement. (2006). Examining the relationship between school

climate and student achievement (Research Brief). Retrieved from Missouri State

University website:

http://education.missouristate.edu/assets/isi/SchoolClimateBrief.pdf

Jantzi, K., & Leithwood, D. (1997). Explaining variation in teachers perceptions of

principals leadership: A replication. Journal of Educational Administration,

35(4), 312-331.

Jung-Grant. S. (2007). Experimental design and analysis. Marketing Department of the

Leeds.

Kelley, E. (1980). Improving school climate. Educational leadership, 39(3), 180-183.

Kenny, D. A. (2014). Moderation: An introduction. Retrieved from the David A. Kenny

website: http://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm#DD.

Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The leadership mystique: A users manual for the human

enterprise. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lane, B. (1992). Cultural leaders in effective schools: The builders and brokers of

excellence. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 85-96.

Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Cioci, M. (1993). Teachers and principals: Gender related

perceptions of leadership and power in secondary schools. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 153-180.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 30, 498-518.

147
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership and educational accountability, International

Journal of Educational Leadership, 3(4), 217-237.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A

replication. School Leadership and Management, 20, 415-434.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The

contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly October

44, 496-528.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., & Fullan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership

for large-scale reform. School Leadership and Management.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Silins, H., & Dart, B. (1993). Using the appraisal of school

leaders as an instrument for school restructuring. Peabody Journal of Education,

68, 85-109.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing

times. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student

achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 529-561.

Leithwood, K., Riedlinger, B., Bauer, S., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Leadership program effects

on student learning: The case of the greater New Orleans school leadership center.

Journal of School Leadership and Management, 13(6), 707-738.

148
Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership

influences student learning. Retrieved from University of Minnesota, Center for

Applied Research and Educational Improvement website:

http://www.sisd.net/cms/lib/TX01001452/Centricity/Domain/33/ReviewofResear

ch-LearningFromLeadership.pdf

Leithwood, K. & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school

leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 48(3) 387-423.

Lichtenstein, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orten, J. D., & Schreiber, C.

(2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading

incomplex adaptive systems. ECO, 8, 212.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Allieger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation

between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity

generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the developments of

leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591-615.

Lord, R. G., & Shondrick, S. J. (2011). Leadership and knowledge: Symbolic,

connectionist, and embodied perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 207

222.

149
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and

climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 12(1), 73-84.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Marcoulides, G. A., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Student perceptions of school culture and

achievement: Testing the invariance of a model. Retrieved from

http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC/IRC_2004/Papers/IRC2004_Marco

ulides_Heck_etal.pdf

Marcy, R. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). Leader cognition: Improving leader

performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 119.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An

integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.

Martins E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates

creativity and innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-

74.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From

research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful

executives get derailed (Technical Report No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for

Creative Leadership.

150
McLean, D. V. (2006). The relationship between school climate and school performance

in Miami-Dade County's schools of choice (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertations

& Theses @ Florida Atlantic University - FCLA. (Publication No. AAT

3212897).

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children:

Psychological stress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child

Development, 61(1).

McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1999). Relational responsibility: Resources for

sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mees, G. W. (2008). The relationship among principal leadership, school culture, and

student achievement in Missouri middle schools (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., & Gaddis, B. (2003). How creative leaders think:

Experimental findings and cases. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 411-432.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. (Stock No. 065-00-00177-2). Washington:

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National School Climate Council (2007). Retrieved from

http://www.schoolclimate.org/about/council.php

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

151
Newman, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect

school sense of efficacy, community, and expectations [Electronic version].

Sociology of Education, 62(4), 221-238.

Newman, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program

coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy

[Electronic version]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321.

Nye, B., Konstantopolous, S., & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 (3), 237 257.

Ogbanna, E., & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and

performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766788.

Oliva, M., & Anderson, G. L. (2006). Dilemmas and lessons: The continuing leadership

challenge for social justice. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for

social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 279-306). Boston: Pearson

Education.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate.

In W. C. Borman, & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and

organizational psychology (12, pp. 565-593). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Pang., N. S. K., & Pisapia, J. (2012). The strategic thinking skills of Hong Kong school

leaders: Usage and effectiveness. Educational Management and Administration,

40, 343.

152
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings

of shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership:

Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 118). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Penney, G. (2010). The use of strategic thinking skills and technology tools by Fire

Chiefs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic University, Boca

Raton, FL.

Pisapia, J. (2006). Mastering change in a globalizing world: New directions in leadership

(Education Policy Studies Series No. 61). The Hong Kong Institute of

Educational Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader. Charlotte, NC; Information Age Press.

Pisapia, J. (2014). The fabric of leadership (Working paper). Florida Atlantic University.

Pisapia, J., & Lin. Y. (2011). Leader values and actions: An exploratory study of school

principals in the mainland of China. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(3), 361-

387.

Pisapia, J., & Pang, N. (2011, December). Influence actions of school principals in Hong

Kong, Mainland China, and the United States: A cross-cultural perspective. Paper

presented at the World Education Research Association Focal Meeting,

Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Pisapia, J., & Pang, N. S. K. (2013). Influence actions of school principals in Hong Kong,

Mainland China, and the United States: A cross-cultural perspective. School

Leadership & Management, 33(1), 1-17.

153
Pisapia, J., Pang, N. S. K., Hee, T. H., Lin, Y., & Morris, J. D. (2009). A comparison of

the use of strategic thinking skills of aspiring school leaders in Hong Kong,

Malaysia, Shanghai, and the United States: An exploratory study. International

Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2), 48-58.

Pisapia, J., & Reyes-Guerra, D. (2009). The Strategic Leader Questionnaire v3 (SLQ).

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Current 2009 revisions.

Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D., & Coukos-Semmel, E. (2005). Developing the leaders

strategic mindset: Establishing the measures. The Leadership Review, 5(1), 41-68.

Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D., & Yasin, M., (2006, April). Successful thinkers do think

differently than less successful leaders! Paper presented at annual meeting of

American Educational Researchers Association, San Francisco, CA.

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006).

Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate

attitudes, perceptions and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new

research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113-

142.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review [Electronic version].

Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 426 452.

Raghavan, S., Shukla, A., & Shaid, S. (2010). Strategic thinking and its impact on

performance: An upper echelons perspective. Paper presented at the Society of

Strategic Management Conference, Finland.

154
Remondini, B. (2001). Leadership style and school climate: A comparison between

Hispanic and Non-Hispanic women principals in Southern New Mexico

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Reyes-Guerra, D. (2009) The relationship of strategic leader actions and normative

structures (Doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.

Roach, A. T., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2004). Evaluating school climate and school culture.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 9-17.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on

school outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to

organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-199.

Ross, S. M., McDonald, A. J., Alberg, M., McSparrin-Gallagher, B., & Calloway, F.

(2005, April). Urban school reform: Achievement and school climate outcomes

for the Knowledge Is Power program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved

from http://crep.memphis.edu/web/research/pubAERA%2005%20KIPP.pdf

Rubio, J. J. (1999). A descriptive study of principal leadership style and social system

variables of school climate through the perceptions of elementary school teachers

[Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(1), 39.

155
Sackney, L. (1988). Enhancing school learning climate: Theory, research and practice

for the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association. Sask. Educational Leadership,

U.of S. (Research Report No. 180). Retrieved from SSTA Research Centre

website: http://www.saskschoolboards.ca/research/school_improvement/180.htm

Salfi, N. A., & Saeed, M. (2007). Relationship among school size, school culture and

students' achievement at secondary level in Pakistan. International Journal of

Educational Management, 21(7), 606 620.

Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan

Management Review, 3-16.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: JosseyBass.

Schein, E. H. (2005). Taking organization culture seriously. In Rothwell, W. J. &

Sullivan, R. (Eds.) Practicing organization development (pp. 365-375). San

Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Schneider, M. & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex and adaptive systems:

Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership

Quarterly, 351-365.

Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

156
Senge, P. M., & Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning:

Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. In T.A.

Kochan and M. Useem (Eds.), Transforming Organizations (pp. 353-371). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sergiovanni, T. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Silins, H. C., & Murray-Harvey, R. (1999). What makes a good senior secondary school?

Journal of Educational Administration, 37(4), 329-344.

Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1984). Leader age and national condition: A longitudinal analysis of 25

European monarchs. Social Behavior & Personality, 12(2), 111-114.

Sims, C. E. (2005). The effects of principals leadership practices on school climate and

student achievement in Title I elementary schools (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Union University, Jackson, TN.

Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis

in schools. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York,

NY: Free Press.

Stone, C. M. (2003). A study of the relationship between principals leadership behaviors

and the school culture as perceived by teachers (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). University of Mississippi, Oxford.

157
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tableman, B., & Herron, A. (2004, December). School climate and learning. (Issue

Brief No. 31). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-DAlessandro, A. (2013). A review of school

climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357-385.

Tracy, J. B., & Hinkin, T. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial

practices? Group Organization Management September, 23(3), 220-236.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trochim, W. M. (2013). Two research fallacies. Research Methods Knowledge Base.

Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/fallacy.php

Udwadia, F. E. (1990). Creativity and innovation in organizations: Two models and

managerial implications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38,

65-80.

Uurluolu, . U. (2009). Assessment of strategic leadership characteristics of hospital

managers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Turkey.

Uurluolu, . U., elik, Y., & Pisapia, J. (2010). Strategic leader actions related to

effectiveness of hospital managers in Turkey. American Journal of Business

Research, 3(1), 33-52.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of

leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654676.

158
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:

Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership

Quarterly, 11, 551579

Urdegar, S. M. (2008). Beyond fidelity: Relating educational practices and their

determinants to student learning gains (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

Florida Atlantic University database

http://digitool.fcla.edu/R/SU6Q63163683941MCQGKSUDPRAIDYL3INHCND

CCGBM7XJV63VL00957?func=dbinjumpfull&object_id=77653&local_base=G

EN01&pds_handle=GUEST

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). A nation at risk [Archived report]. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

U.S. Senate Committee Report on Equal Educational Opportunity (1977). [Archived

report]. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-

records/groups/012.html#12.2.12

Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic

transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of

Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60.

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning.

Academy of Management Review, 29, 222-240.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American

Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.

159
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years

of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora,

CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Whitaker, B. (1997). Instructional leadership and principal visibility. The Clearing

House, 70(3), 155-156.

Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently. Larchmont, NY: Eye on

Education.

Williams, M. G., (2009). Student behavior and its impact on climate (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Dissertations Publishing 2009.

Yasin, M. (2006). The use of strategic leadership actions by deans in Malaysian and

American public universities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic

University, 2006).

Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. Leadership

Quarterly, 19, 708722.

Yukl, G., Fu, P. P., & McDonald, R. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in perceived

effectiveness of tactics for initiating or resisting change. Applied Psychology. An

International Review, 52, 68-82.

Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations.

In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 3, (pp. 147197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

160
Zsiga, P. (2008). Leader effectiveness from self-directed learning and strategic thinking.

International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 8(4).

161