Read Microsoft Word - $ASQ77244_supp_undefined_65AE796C-12C6-11E0-93C4-238DF0E6BF1D.docx text version

Walden University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Robert Butz

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.

Review Committee Dr. Pamela Harrison, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty Dr. Yixin Zhang, Committee Member, Education Faculty Dr. Karen Hunt, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer David Clinefelter, Ph.D.

Walden University 2010

Abstract

The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change

By Robert L. Butz

MS, Walden University, 2007 BS, Liberty University, 1998

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Administrator Leadership

Walden University December 2010

Abstract The problem addressed in this study was the effect of multiple leadership changes on students and teachers at a large suburban high school. Specifically, the problem was the instability of the school organization as a result of the assignment of four principals within a 4-year time period. Avolio and Bass's transformational leadership and Lewin's change theories formed the theoretical foundation for this study. The research question in this study involved understanding whether teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of principal change (independent variable) affect student achievement (dependent variable). This quantitative study included student achievement gain scores and one-shot survey results from 58 teachers who had experienced one principal change a year for 4 years. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) measured teacher perceptions of each principal's leadership style (transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant). Repeated-measures ANOVA identified the most prevalent leadership style as identified by teachers for each principal; independent-measures ANOVA identified significant differences among student gain scores over the 4-year period, and Pearson correlation analyses tested the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data. Significant relationships were found between teacher perceptions of principal transformational leadership style during a time of transition and student achievement. Recommendations for school districts included training principals on how to transition into a school and allowing principals the time and resources to be established before being removed from the position. If applied to principal leadership practices, the results of this study could potentially facilitate social change by improving school leadership and culture, graduating higher quality students, building stronger communities of young leaders, and advancing national work forces through a new generation of learners.

The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change

By Robert L. Butz

MS, Walden University, 2007 BS, Liberty University, 1998

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Administrator Leadership

Walden University December 2010

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere appreciation, first and foremost, to my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I would not have been able to persevere without being in His loving hands. I would also like to thank my loving wife, Victoria, who has been my greatest supporter through this process. Victoria has been able to sacrifice time and effort in ensuring that I had the resources necessary to reach this great feat. For my children Christian, Elijah, Isabel, and Lucas, I thank each of you for supporting your father through love and prayer. I would also like to say thank you to my doctoral chairperson Dr. Pamela Harrison who made sure that I did not throw in the towel when things got tough. Dr. Harrison pushed me to the limit and helped me to go further than I ever thought possible. Thank you to my committee person Dr. Yixin Zhang for his help through the tough statistical issues that have accompanied my doctorate. I am also extremely appreciative of the help and support from the teachers and staff at the study school, the former principals who allowed me to use them in this study, the current sitting principal for helping me in more ways than he will ever know, my parents, and siblings for their love and prayers. Thank you to all.

Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi Figure ................................................................................................................................ vii Section 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 Background of Study .....................................................................................................2 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................3 Nature of Study ..............................................................................................................4 Research Questions and Hypothesis ..............................................................................6 Research Questions ...................................................................................................6 Hypothesis.................................................................................................................6 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................7 Theoretical Foundation ..................................................................................................8 Change Theory ..........................................................................................................8 Leadership Theory ....................................................................................................9 Transformational Leadership Theory .......................................................................9 Significance of Study ...................................................................................................10 Gap in Previous Research .......................................................................................10 Potential for Social Change ....................................................................................11 Application to the Local Problem ...........................................................................12 Operational Definitions ................................................................................................13 Assumptions.................................................................................................................16 Limitations and Threats to Validity ............................................................................16 Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................18 i

Overview ......................................................................................................................19 Section 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................21 Organization and Content of the Literature Review ....................................................22 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................22 Leadership Theory ..................................................................................................22 Research Methodology ................................................................................................34 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ....................................................................35 Other Methodologies ..............................................................................................39 Role of the Principal ....................................................................................................41 The School and Principal Leadership .....................................................................42 Teachers and Principal Leadership .........................................................................42 Connecting the Literature to the Study ........................................................................44 Teacher Self-Efficacy .............................................................................................44 Teacher Commitment..............................................................................................46 Organizational Trust ...............................................................................................48 Teacher Collaboration .............................................................................................51 School Culture ........................................................................................................52 Summary ......................................................................................................................54 Section 3: Methodology .....................................................................................................55 Research Design...........................................................................................................55 Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................57 Research Questions .................................................................................................57 Variables .................................................................................................................58 ii

Population and Sample ................................................................................................59 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................60 Data Collection ............................................................................................................63 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................66 Ethical Issues and Informed Consent ...........................................................................69 Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................70 Summary ......................................................................................................................71 Section 4: Analysis of Data................................................................................................72 Data Collection ........................................................................................................73 Research Questions and Results ...................................................................................74 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................76 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................89 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................95 Consistencies and Inconsistencies in Findings .............................................................99 Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................100 Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................102 Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................103 Interpretations of Data ................................................................................................104 Summary .....................................................................................................................106 Section 5: Overview, Interpretations, Recommendations, and Conclusion.....................109 Overview .....................................................................................................................109 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................110 Interpretation of Findings ...........................................................................................113 iii

Identification of Leadership ...................................................................................113 Impact of Time .......................................................................................................116 Other Factors Affecting Student Achievement ......................................................117 Implications for Social Change ...................................................................................118 Recommendations for Action .....................................................................................119 School Districts ......................................................................................................120 Establishing Principals ...........................................................................................120 Current Principal Practice ......................................................................................121 Recommendations for Further Study ..........................................................................122 Effects on Departments ..........................................................................................122 Loyalty Survey .......................................................................................................123 Overall Leadership and Student Achievement ......................................................123 Established Principals and Student Achievement ..................................................124 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................125 References ........................................................................................................................127 Appendix A: Sample - MLQ Rater Sheet ........................................................................140 Appendix B: Sample - MLQ Scoring Sheet ....................................................................141 Appendix C: Copyright Regulations from Mindgarden.com ..........................................142 Appendix D: Permission Email from Mindgarden.com ..................................................144 Appendix E: Teacher Informed Consent/Invitation for Participation..............................146 Appendix F: Letter of Cooperation with School District.................................................147 Appendix G: Permission to use Principal Names on Survey...........................................148 Appendix H: Principal Permission to use Study School ..................................................152 iv

Appendix I: Follow-up Email to Teacher Participants ....................................................153 Appendix J: Participation Email from Mindgarden.com .................................................154 Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................155

v

List of Tables Table 1. Data Collection for Research Question 2 ............................................................68 Table 2. Means for the Subsets of Transformational Leadership ......................................78 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership ......................................78 Table 4. Repeated-measures ANOVA for Transformational Leadership ..........................79 Table 5. Means for the Subsets of Transactional Leadership ............................................80 Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Transactional Leadership ............................................81 Table 7. Repeated-measures ANOVA for Transactional Leadership ................................82 Table 8. Means for the Subsets of Passive/Avoidant Leadership ......................................83 Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Passive/Avoidant Leadership ......................................83 Table 10. Repeated-measures ANOVA for Passive/Avoidant Leadership .......................84 Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for Extra Effort ................................................................85 Table 12. Repeated-measures ANOVA for Extra Effort ...................................................86 Table 13. Descriptive Statistics for Effectiveness .............................................................86 Table 14. Repeated-measures ANOVA for Effectiveness .................................................87 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics for Satisfaction ................................................................88 Table 16. Repeated-measures ANOVA for Satisfaction ...................................................88 Table 17. FCAT Gain Scores .............................................................................................91 Table 18. Independent-Measures ANOVA for Reading....................................................92 Table 19. Independent-Measures ANOVA for Math ........................................................93 Table 20. Pairwise Comparison for Reading using Student-Newman-Keuls ....................94 Table 21. Correlation matrix Math/Reading and 12 subsets from the MLQ (5X) ............97

vi

Figure Figure 1. FCAT Gain Scores .............................................................................................91

vii

1

Section 1: Introduction to the Study Principals are unable to directly affect student achievement in the classroom because they are not in the classroom daily (Harris, 2005; Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005; Orr & Orphanos, 2007; Perry & Mankin, 2007; Sergiovanni, 2005; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008; Youngs & King, 2002). Principals must find ways to improve student achievement indirectly by influencing teacher commitment, teacher efficacy, and teacher collaboration (Hausman & Goldring, 2001; Martin & Epitropaki, 2001; Postmes, Tanis, & De Wit, 2001; Printy & Marks, 2006; Ross & Gray, 2006). New leadership can hinder teacher commitment because trust between the teachers and the principal has not been built yet (Sarros & Sarros, 2007). When a new principal enters a school, a level of trust must be developed between the principal and teachers for the school to be effective (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006; Sarros & Sarros, 2007; Schein, 1993; Stroh, 2007). Teacher commitment, efficacy, and trust are built on teachers' perceptions of leadership. A frequent change of leadership can cause a decline in all three factors (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). This quantitative study was designed to explore the effect that a frequent change in principal leadership had on student achievement. A public high school in southern Florida was used to provide teacher perceptions of principal leadership. More detailed research concerning factors contributing to teacher perceptions, leadership style, and leadership change will be revealed in section 2 as part of the literature review.

2

Background of Study Organizations depend on leadership for guidance and direction, but when a change of leadership occurs, the organization goes through a period of transition (Schein, 2004). Schools, in particular, rely on strong leadership to ensure success (Sarros & Sarros, 2007). This quantitative study stems from the understanding that all schools will go through a change of leadership at some point. Harris (2005) showed how a change of leadership affects teachers, but the effects on students of a change in leadership remains unclear. This study was designed to reveal how student achievement was influenced by the way teachers perceive leadership when principals change. Teacher commitment is the foundation for student achievement; without teacher commitment, student achievement suffers (Joffres & Haughey, 2001). If teachers do not trust the principal, then teacher commitment is weakened (Gallos, 2008). Schools that go through a change of leadership must embark on a new journey of trust-building as a new principal brings his or her own values and beliefs to the organization (Perry & Mankin, 2007). If teachers trust their principal, their overall morale is higher and they are more likely to be committed to the students within their classroom (Mackenzie, 2007). School reform is centered on classroom instruction and how to increase student learning through teaching techniques (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), but students are ever dependent on teachers to be committed to providing them with an applicable curriculum for maximizing learning opportunities in the classroom. Joffres and Haughy (2001) stated that, if teachers' commitment levels decrease because of continuous leadership change, then student achievement will suffer.

3

A school can have a smooth leadership transition when the new leader follows certain principles (Goldsmith, Lyons, & Freas, 2000; Morrison, Rha, & Helfman, 2003). Teachers can then gain trust in the new leadership quickly and their commitment will not be compromised (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Principals can help to increase teachers' commitment by improving classroom autonomy, increasing teachers' policymaking influence, promoting assistance to new teachers, and increasing awareness of end-ofcareer salaries (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). New leaders, however, are often unable to increase teachers' commitment because they have yet to prove their worth as a new leader in a new culture (Sarros & Sarros, 2007). A change of leadership can be a traumatic experience for teachers and students. According to Nguni et al. (2006), when principal leadership within a school changes, teachers' job satisfaction also changes, resulting in a change in teachers' commitment to student achievement. Problem Statement The problem addressed in this study involved the effects of multiple leadership changes on students and teachers at a large suburban high school in southern Florida, specifically, the instability of the school organization as a result of the assignment of four principals within a 4-year time period. Hausman and Goldring (2001) stated that the problem of instability impacts teachers and students because stable leadership and collegiality are critical to a school's ability to reach current and future goals. Many factors can contribute to the problem of schools losing their effectiveness through a time of transition. Those factors include unclear values and perceptions, different leadership styles of past and present principals, and the lack of a smooth transition between principals (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Spillane, Halverson,

4

& Diamond, 2004). The body of research needed to address the problem of how leadership change affects student achievement tends to be vague (Harris, 2005). This study provides new research on how principal leadership style affects student achievement and reveals teacher perceptions of principal leadership through times of principal change. The problem addressed in this study is focused on a local issue; however, according to Goldsmith et al. (2000), a change in leadership can and will affect any school at any time. Nature of the Study In this quantitative study, I employed a quasi-experimental design consisting of the perceptions of four principal leadership styles from 58 teachers (independent variable), and randomly selected student gain scores the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores collected over an 8-year period (dependent variable). A nonrandom sample of teachers was used for perception data along with a random sample of student test results to provide student achievement data. Anonymous surveys were administered to 58 teachers. The surveys were used to collect perception data from teachers to evaluate the leadership style of each of the four principals. To provide accurate perceptions of leadership, only teachers who served under all four principals were surveyed. Teachers filled out a questionnaire for each principal they served under to compare teachers' perceptions of each principal. Teacher perception data of principal leadership was gathered using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio & Bass, 2004), referenced in Appendix A. Three tests were done to determine if there was a relationship between teacher perception of principal leadership style and student achievement during a time of

5

leadership transition. The first test used teacher perception data to find the leadership styles of four transitioning principals. Repeated-measures (ANOVA) was used to discern the most prevalent leadership style for each principal according to MLQ results. The second test used student achievement data from the FCAT. The FCAT data showed 8 years of sophomore gain results, representing 3 years of the first principal, 1 year of the second principal, 1 year of the third principal, and 3 years of the fourth principal. The mean plotted the central tendency for each year of gain scores. Independent-measures ANOVA was used to break down the mean data to determine any significant differences. The initial ANOVA concluded a significant difference between means and a post hoc test was applied to the year with the highest mean to determine the most effective principal leadership style. The third test was employed to find a correlation between teachers' perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement. Teacher perception results were compared with student achievement data to see if there were any similarities. If student achievement is a result of principal leadership style, then student achievement should rise and fall according to the effectiveness of that leader. Pearson correlation was used to show if there is a relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data. A more in-depth account of the methodology will be provided in section 3.

6

Research Questions and Hypotheses Research Questions The following research questions (RQ) guided this study: RQ1: Which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal change? RQ2: Which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data during a time of principal change? RQ3: How are teacher perceptions of principal leadership style correlated with student achievement during a time of principal change? Hypotheses For this quantitative study each of the previous questions was aligned with the following null ( ) and alternative ( ) hypotheses. The dependent variable was the

student achievement data taken over an 8-year period. The independent variable was teacher perceptions of the principal leadership style of four principals. The hypotheses for RQ1 were: 1: There was no principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals. 1: There was at least one principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals. The hypotheses for RQ2 were: 2: There was no principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals.

7

2:

There was at least one principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals.

The hypotheses for RQ3were: 3: There was no significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of changing principals and student achievement data. 3: There was a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of changing principals and student achievement data. Purpose of Study The purpose of this quasi-experimental quantitative study was to investigate the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style (independent variable) and student achievement (dependent variable). This study focused on how student achievement could be impacted by teacher perceptions of principal leadership during a time of changing principals. Student achievement, for the purpose of this study, was defined as sophomore FCAT gain scores from a high school in suburban southern Florida. Teacher perception data were collected using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), in its third edition (Form 5X; Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ (5X) includes a form to measure employee perceptions of leadership style as well as a self-rating form for leaders (Avolio & Bass, 2004). This study did not include perception data from the leaders themselves.

8

Theoretical Foundation Change theory, leadership theory, and transformational theory provided the groundwork for this study which was focused on how teacher perceptions of principal leadership during a time of leadership change affect student achievement. Briefly, change theory describes how a change in leadership affects an organization (Lewin, 1947), while leadership theory provided a theoretical foundation for how leaders influence all facets of an organization (Blanchard & Hodges, 2005), and transformational leadership theory identifies effective leaders as charismatic leaders (Avolio & Bass, 1998). Each of these theories is explored in further detail in the following sections. Change Theory According to Lewin (1947), change can and will affect all people within an organization. However, change will affect different members of an organization in different ways, according to their positions and the new leadership (Schein, 1995). Gallos, (2008) stated that the first 90 days of a leader's new career are the most critical for building a firm foundation of trust with all stakeholders. New leaders must have a firm grasp on the demands of the organization before making changes (Herold et al., 2008). Once a leader understands the overall structure of an organization he or she can define a mission that can drive an organization, but according to Gallos (2008), defining this mission before fully understanding it could be disastrous. Once the mission is effectively defined, systemic restructuring should take place for employees to be effective (Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000). The restructuring that transpires during transition is necessary because many members of an organization will be searching for answers from the new leader while looking back and comparing to the

9

policies of the past leader (Nguni et al., 2006). Any organization's workers' ability to carry out their jobs on a daily basis in an effective manner can be hindered by constant and unexpected leadership change (Herold et al., 2008). Ma and MacMillan (1999) stated that if a leader can influence the workers to trust the new leadership and empower the workers, then the leader can increase job satisfaction and commitment levels. Leadership Theory Leadership is the result of a relationship between those people within an organization who want to lead and those who are willing to follow (Gallos, 2008). According to Blanchard and Hodges (2005), both leaders and workers must build a relationship based on trust for either to be effective. Increasing worker output by building a strong culture and enhancing worker commitment is also a strong component of leadership theory (Gallos, 2008). Good leaders can build on workers' strengths, and can understand their weaknesses to get the most out of them (Bowman, 2005). Postmes et al. (2001) and Printy and Marks (2006) stated that leadership in any organization is based on the communication between the leader and workers; in essence, both play a role in establishing how leadership is portrayed and the culture instituted. Transformational Leadership Theory Transformational leadership is a leadership style that motivates workers above what they believe they can do by focusing them on the goals of the organization (Avolio, 2007). Leaders who have been proven to be the most effective are referred to as charismatic and have a dynamic personality that influences others to follow (Avolio & Bass, 1998). According to Avolio and Bass (2004), those organizations who have

10

sustained charismatic transformational leaders for a long period of time tend to be the leaders within their respective industries. Significance of the Study This quantitative study was significant because it filled a gap in previous research concerning how teacher perceptions of principal leadership affect student achievement. This study can potentially bring about positive social change by testing how student achievement was affected by teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of principal change. If frequent changes in principals affect student achievement, then actions can be taken by schools and districts to prevent negatively impacting students. Finally, this study will be applied to a local problem that occurred at a public high school in southern Florida that experienced several principal changes and a decrease in student achievement over a relatively short amount of time. Gap in Previous Research This study filled a gap in the literature concerning how a change in principal leadership affects student achievement. Ladyshewsky (2007) studied the importance of preparing new leaders as they begin their tenure, but very little is mentioned about the workers' perceptions of the leaders. Very little research has been done to investigate relationships between transitions in leadership and student achievement (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Wahstrom and Louis (2008) studied how teachers experience principal leadership, but their focus leaves out teacher perception and leadership change. Most teachers will experience principal change but very little research has been done to identify the ramifications the change has on teacher perceptions of principal leadership.

11

Researchers have identified the importance of principals who can organize their schools (Kelley et al., 2005), build school culture (Solvason, 2005), apply practical principles to improve student learning (Doyle, 2004), and build relationships with subordinates (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Principals influence school culture and an environment conducive for learning, but research has shown no direct effect on student achievement (Ross & Gray, 2006). School reform efforts have been focused on classroom management, teacher instruction, and student learning styles, which are directly affected by teachers, but leadership is an afterthought that can indirectly affect student achievement (Youngs & Kings, 2002). In this quantitative study, I proposed the importance of effective leadership styles, stable leadership, and educating aspiring principals on successful transitioning into new schools. Potential for Social Change With student achievement the ultimate goal of education, this study showed stakeholders the effects that a change of leadership has on teacher efficacy, collaboration, trust, motivation, and commitment (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003; Deal & Peterson, 1994; Hausman & Goldring, 2001; Printy & Marks, 2006). Teacher commitment is crucial to student achievement and students who are in schools during a time of principal change may have their academic progress hindered because of teachers' lack of commitment (Joffres & Haughy, 2001). Harris (2005) stated that most teachers are focused on student achievement, but during a time of leadership change, teachers tend to place their focus on adjusting to the new principal's ideals instead of the students. This study positively influences social change by revealing the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of principal

12

change and student achievement. If administrators throughout the field of education are provided a better understanding of how principal leadership affects student achievement, then precautions and professional development can be offered to ensure positive student achievement (Kaplin, Owings, & Nunnery, 2005). Professional development given to school district administrators, current principals, aspiring principals, and teachers can increase the understanding of how students are affected by a principal change. Leadership change within an organization can be managed in such a way to ensure that productivity is still maximized and not hindered (Gallos, 2008). This study can effect positive social change by revealing the importance of educating transitioning principals, school district personnel, teachers, and school faculty so students are not negatively impacted as a result of a principal change. Even though leadership transition is inevitable this study can help improve teachers' ability to teach, graduate higher quality students, build stronger communities through young leaders, and help nations to improve their work forces by improving on a new generation of learners. Application to the Local Problem The overall school grade from student results on the FCAT at a large suburban high school in southern Florida gradually decreased between 2002 and 2005. The Florida Department of Education assigns a school grade to each school according to FCAT results. The school grade works much like student grades, with an "A" being the highest achievers, "B" indicating above average results, "C" being average, "D" showing below average, and "F" resulting from the lowest achievement (Florida Department of Education, 2009). The overall school grade is a culmination of percent of students meeting high standards in reading, percent meeting high standards in math, percent

13

meeting high standards in writing, percent making learning gains, and percent of 11th and 12th grade students retaking the test (Florida Department of Education, 2009). Students must pass the FCAT to graduate from high school. During the 4 years of decreased student achievement, the study school experienced four principals. Operational Definitions The concepts used in this study were defined as follows: 1. Change theory: All people within an organization are affected by a change of leadership in one way or the other (Schein, 2004). Change theory, specifically, refers to how a transition of leadership directly affects all stakeholders in an organization (Schein, 2004). 2. Emotional intelligence: Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand emotions and actions of other people is emotional intelligence (Hartley, 2004). 3. Implicit Leadership Theory: Implicit leadership theory states that all workers make their own assumption about what effective leadership should look like (Martin & Epitropaki, 2001). 4. Laissez-faire Leadership: Laissez-faire leadership is defined as a leader who takes a hands-off approach to leadership. The leader allows subordinates to work their problems out by themselves with little input (Avolio & Bass, 2004). 5. Leadership theory: Leaders influence an entire organization through their style of leadership (Bowman, 2005). Leadership theory states that leaders within an organization have influence over the majority of the components of the organization and must create a sense of credibility with employees to

14

make the organization effective (Gallos, 2008). Leadership theory also states that leadership is created through interactions between leaders and followers (Deal & Peterson, 1994). 6. Operant Conditioning: Operant conditioning was founded by B.F. Skinner and is defined as a way to influence the actions of animals or people by reinforcing their behavior (Rathus, 2003). 7. Organizational trust: "Trust is a willingness to be vulnerable ­ a willingness to take a risk that someone will not harm us" (Stroh, 2007, p. 1). For the purpose of this study, organizational trust will be defined as the openness and willingness for an individual to have confidence and hope in their leader to make decisions to move the organization in a productive manner (Stroh, 2007). 8. Path-Goal Theory: Path-Goal Theory states that leaders should create a goal then show the path for completing that goal to the subordinate (House, 1971). 9. Principal Leadership Style: Principal leadership style serves as the independent variable for this study. Principal leadership style will be gathered from teacher perceptions by using the MLQ. 10. School culture: School culture is a "set of norms, values, and beliefs, rituals and ceremonies" (Peterson 2002, p.34). All stakeholders make up the culture of a school including: students, teachers, administration, parents, janitors, downtown policy makers, and anyone with any vested interest in a school's policies, procedures, personnel, and students (Boxx, Odom, & Dunn, 1991; Schein, 1995).

15

11. Situational Leadership: Situational leadership is defined as leaders who react according to each situation presented to them (Richmon & Allison, 2003). 12. Student Achievement: The dependent variable in this study will refer to student achievement as documented by a random sample of student gain scores on the FCAT (Florida Department of Education, 2010). 13. Student achievement data: For the purpose of this study student achievement data is defined as student gain scores that come from FCAT results. Gain scores are calculated by taking individual student 10th grade FCAT scores in both reading and math, and subtracting them from the same student's individual 9th grade FCAT scores in reading and math. The FCAT tests sophomores in public schools as a graduation requirement. The FCAT also tests juniors and seniors who were unable to pass the test as a sophomore, but this study will only use results from randomly chosen sophomores. 14. Teacher collaboration: Teacher collaboration is defined as teachers who work together to reach a common goal within a school to improve student learning. (Offir, Barth, Lev, & Shteinbok, 2005). 15. Teacher commitment: Teacher commitment is defined as the amount of work and time a teacher is willing to put forth for the sake of student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Teacher commitment can be broken down by teachers' attitude and behavior (Shaw & Reyes, 1992). 16. Teacher efficacy: For the purpose of this study teacher efficacy is how hard a teacher will work at improving student achievement as a result of believing that he or she can positively influence the students (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007).

16

17. Teacher perception: Teacher perception is how a teacher views the school and classroom conditions (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). For the purpose of this study each teacher's perceptions are formed by and focused on principal leadership style. 18. Transactional Leadership: Transactional leadership is defined a leader who lead by using rewards for good behavior and punishment for poor behavior (Avolio & Bass, 2004). 19. Transformational Leadership: Transformational leadership refers to a leader who is able to inspire workers to go above and beyond the performance they thought they could do (Avolio & Bass, 1998). Assumptions Throughout this study, several assumptions were made. First, it must be assumed that teacher survey participants responded honestly due to anonymity. Second, teachers willingly participated in the surveys with no feeling of pressure. The third assumption is that teachers who filled out the surveys filled them out independently of other teachers. Finally, the four principals led the school themselves, and they were not under the direction of an outside source. Limitations and Threats to Validity This quantitative study had few limitations and threats to validity. The first limitation is the external and internal influences on school culture. Research revealed many influences on school culture, including parents and students (Peterson, 2002). Although parents and students play a very important role in a school's culture and inner workings, this study was limited to focusing on the principal and the teachers while

17

collecting school grade and student achievement data. Therefore, the limitations for this study were: 1. Survey model: The MLQ (5X) (Appendix A) model was designed for collecting data on current leaders in an organization but has the flexibility to be used for past employers. 2. Teacher perception data: Teachers filled out four surveys, one survey for each of the principals they served. Filling out four surveys took more time than filling out one survey. 3. Population: This study was limited to a large suburban high school in southern Florida because of the proximity and familiarity the researcher had with the school and personnel. Research was gathered from other studies; however survey data only came from the school in this study. The researcher was a teacher at the study school and is now an assistant principal. A threat to validity could be the researcher's current position of authority over the teacher population. Teachers partook in an anonymous survey to ensure credibility and validity. 4. Time: Survey participants were required to recall leadership styles of past principals dating back 7 years. 5. Causation: Due to the nature of the study, principal leadership during a time of principal change carried the focus for data collection, which excluded teaching styles, students' ability, demographics, and any other outside source affecting student achievement.

18

6. Study design: Survey participation was a possible threat to validity. A total of 58 teachers who have served under all four principals were chosen to participate. Those teachers that retired and moved onto other positions left contact information with the study school. 7. Teachers' response: Teachers completed a survey for each of the four principals. Teachers could have compared each of the four principals instead of completing each survey in isolation to the others. Teachers were instructed to complete the surveys for each principal independently of the other principals. Scope and Delimitations This study was focused on how student achievement was influenced indirectly by principal leadership. Principals have a direct impact on the teachers and overall school organization but do not actually teach students in the classroom (Ross & Gray, 2006). Although the teachers directly affect the students and intervene between the principals and the students, teaching techniques were excluded from this study. Students' views of principal leadership were excluded. Principals have the opportunity to influence teacher commitment to student achievement (Hausman & Goldring, 2001). Teachers who are committed to student achievement tend to have students who are successful in their academics (Joffres & Haughey, 2001). For the purpose of this study, literature was reviewed on teacher commitment along with factors that are influenced by teacher commitment, including school culture, teacher efficacy, teacher collaboration, and organizational trust. Principal leadership styles were also researched because, according to Hausman and Goldring

19

(2001), there is a strong correlation between principal leadership style and teacher commitment. Overview This quantitative study stemmed from the understanding that all schools will go through a change of leadership at some point in time. The problem addressed in this study involved investigating the effects of multiple leadership changes on students and teachers at a large suburban high school in South Florida. This quantitative study employed a quasi-experimental method design consisting of the perceptions of four principal leadership styles from 58 teachers (independent variable), and randomly selected student gain scores from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores collected over an 8-year period (dependent variable). This study focused on how student achievement was impacted by teacher perceptions of principal leadership during a time of changing principals. Forming the methodological foundation of the investigation was change theory, leadership theory, and transformational leadership. To support the methodology research was gathered on teacher commitment along with factors that were influenced by teacher commitment including: school culture, teacher efficacy, teacher collaboration, and organizational trust. This study effected positive social change by revealing the importance of educating transitioning principals, school district personnel, teachers, and school faculty so students are not negatively impacted as a result of a principal change. Appropriate data and conclusions were drawn in Sections 4 and 5 from teacher perception data and student achievement data by using descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Pearson-product moment correlation analysis.

20

Section 2 will include a discussion of research on principal leadership, leadership change, teachers' perceptions of principal leadership, school culture, teacher commitment, teacher collaboration, and organizational trust. Section 3 will include the methodology and establish the quantitative research approach and an in-depth description of the quasi-experimental method to be used. Sections 4 and 5 of this study will give conclusions, provide researcher insight, and make recommendations for future research.

21

Section 2: Literature Review A change of principal leadership within a school will influence all stakeholders, including students, current administration, teachers, staff, parents, and community members who have a vested interest (Nguni et al., 2006; Sarros & Sarros, 2007; Stroh, 2007). The most important members of this group are the students. Recent research has shown a correlation between how teaching affects student achievement (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) and how principal leadership affects teacher efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006), commitment (Postmes et al, 2001), and trust (Doyle, 2004). However, there is little research to connect principal leadership change with student learning (Kelley et al., 2005). This quantitative research study focuses on how teacher perceptions of principal leadership affect student achievement during a time of leadership transition. This section is a culmination of research that includes journal articles, recent publications, online journals, online books, and scholarly presentations. Books have been obtained from Florida Gulf Coast University, Edison State College, libraries from the School District of Lee County, and the Lee County Public Library System. Digital copies of books were viewed from Walden University's online library. The online database from Walden University was used to collect research from ERIC, SAGE, and EBSCO. WorldCat was used to find copies of scholarly books within driving distance. Boolean searches were used with varying combinations of the terms leadership, leadership theory, leadership change, change theory, school culture, teacher efficacy, organizational trust, teacher commitment, and teacher collaboration.

22

Organization and Content of the Literature Review The content of this literature review is organized into six parts. The first section of the review includes an explanation of the theoretical framework of both leadership theory and change theory. The second section is focused on methodologies of change and leadership. The third section includes a description of the importance of the role of the principal as a leader. Next follows additional supporting research connecting the literature to the study by explaining the importance of how teacher perceptions affect their own efficacy, commitment, organizational trust, collaboration, and school trust. The fifth section includes conclusions drawn from the literature review. The concluding section will summarize the literature review and transition into Section 3. Theoretical Framework This study encompasses two different theories, specifically the theories of leadership and change. Leadership theory explains the importance of a leader in an organization and how the stakeholders are affected through leadership (Gallos, 2008). For the purpose of this literature review, leader and principal will be used synonymously where needed. Lewin (1947) explained that change theory deals with how workers handle change both of leadership and common changes that occur within an organization. Leadership Theory "Leadership is a process, not a property of a person" (Vroom & Jago, 2007, p. 17). Increasing worker output by building strong relationships and enhancing worker commitment forms what is known as leadership theory (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Leadership, itself, is defined as "the process of communication (verbal and nonverbal) that involves coaching, motivating/inspiring, directing/guiding, and

23

supporting/counseling others" (Howard, 2005, p. 384). According to Gallos (2008), leadership is the result of relationships between those people within an organization who want to lead and those who are willing to follow. Any organization has an established form of leadership to guide workers and stakeholders in the direction of positive change (Gallos, 2008). Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) stated that good leaders are able to influence stakeholders through interactions known as communication. Strong relationships are built through open communication between leaders and workers (Printy & Marks, 2006). Open communication can assist a leader in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of his or her employees and arrange the organization to build on strong employee assets (Bowman, 2005). If a leader understands the faculty, then he or she is able to motivate the workers to accomplish far above and beyond what they thought they could accomplish (Nguni et al., 2006; Avolio & Bass, 2004). According to Goldsmith et al. (2000), in order for a leader to motivate and be successful he or she must understand people. The higher up the corporate ladder a person climbs the more important personal skills become (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Effective leaders have a quality that sets them apart from ineffective leadership; they have the ability to understand why people do what they do when they do it (Hartley, 2004). This ability is called emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence gives a leader insight into simple and complex conversations with workers (Hartley, 2004). Leaders who have high emotional intelligence are able to understand a person by the way they stand, words they use, tone of voice, gestures, eye contact, and past experience of understanding moods and emotions (Hughes, 2005; George, 2000). When communicating to workers, a leader can use emotional intelligence

24

to get to the heart of the problem. Many workers feel intimidated by leaders and have a hard time communicating the full problem clearly (Gallos, 2008). Gallos (2008) explained that to prevent workers from feeling intimidated leaders must use their ability to decipher another person's emotions to fully understand how to deal with a situation. Leaders can increase output within an organization and improve worker commitment by understanding workers' needs. If workers feel that their needs are being met and their concerns are heard, then they are more satisfied with their jobs and, in turn, improve their work ethic (Mackenzie, 2007). Teachers' abilities to focus on student achievement in the classroom can be a direct reflection of how satisfied they are with their current positions and their leadership (Nguni et al, 2006). Job satisfaction can decrease when workers feel that they are constantly being pushed beyond their limits with little sympathy from leadership (Fuming & Jiliang, 2008). Sarros and Sarros (2007) theorized that job satisfaction can increase when the goals of the organization are focused on the needs of the workers. Organizational goals are not always clear, causing workers to move in the direction of self gratification (Herold et al., 2008). An effective leader should educate all stakeholders on what the goals of the organization are so everyone can move in one accord to reach those goals (Muijs, Harris, Lumby, Morrison, & Sood, 2006). Leaders, in any organization, have the difficult task of understanding their faculty while working toward goals and attempting to increase outcomes. Outcomes and organizations can be disrupted when there is a transition or change in leadership, but Herold et al. (2008) stated that the type of leadership displayed by the leader can either make the transition a positive one or cause the transition to be destructive.

25

Transformational leadership theory. Transformational leadership is the result of years of research to include all components of leadership, instead of narrowing the focus to exclude relevant traits (Avolio, 2007). Transformational leadership can be defined as a type of leadership that motivates subordinates to go above and beyond their normal duties by educating them on the importance of the direction of the overall organization (Herold et al., 2008; Avolio & Bass, 1998). Although transformational leadership was introduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it became better known in the early 1990s when researchers had the opportunity to see its effectiveness. Bernard Bass has been given credit for coining the term transformational leadership (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008). However, Bass based his work on James Burns' publication Leadership, published in 1978 (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008). Transformational leadership became popular when Bass and Avolio constructed a measurement tool known as the "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire" (MLQ; Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ is the instrument chosen for this quantitative study because of its ability to measure leadership. Pounder (2008) described what the MLQ tests: Commonly, the effect of transformational leadership on subordinates centers on three leadership outcomes: (a) the ability of the leader to generate extra effort on the part of those being led, (b) subordinates' perception of leader effectiveness, and (c) their satisfaction with the leader. These outcomes are components of the MLQ. (p. 2) The MLQ has since been revised three times to keep with the needs of current business leaders (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transformational leadership describes what the ideal

26

leader should look like, but Avolio and Bass (2004) also described another leadership style that has positive traits: transactional leadership. Transactional leadership and path-goal theory. Transactional leadership focuses on rewarding workers for performing well and punishing for not performing well (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008). Transactional leadership requires either setting goals and helping workers to reach those goals or waiting to see if workers pass or fail before responding (Avolio & Bass, 2004). While focusing on rewarding workers' performance, the workers become more concerned with their own self-interests instead of goals for the common good (Nguni et al., 2006; Avolio & Bass, 1998). This style of leadership has many similarities to House's (1971) path-goal leadership theory. Path-goal leadership emphasizes creating a goal and showing the path to the subordinate. The leader then gives the subordinate the resources to reach the goal while giving rewards along the way for appropriate performance (House, 1971). Transactional leadership and path-goal theory narrow the vision of the worker by putting the focus on receiving a reward for behavior. These leadership theories reflect the work of B. F. Skinner's operant conditioning. Operant conditioning stated that an animal or person can be trained to do a certain behavior through consequences (Skinner, 1953). This training, according to Rathus (2003), required types of reinforcement that include positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior and negative or aversive reinforcement for incorrect behavior. Situational leadership theory. Situational leadership theory is based on how leaders behave according to each individual situation presented to them (Richmon & Allison, 2003). Situational leadership was coined by Hersey and Blanchard (Blanchard,

27

Zigarmi, & Nelson, 1993). Situational leadership is grounded in the fact that leaders have a certain degree of influence over subordinates (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Vroom and Jago (2007) discussed the importance of this influence: Virtually all definitions of leadership share the view that leadership involves the process of influence. One thing that all leaders have in common is one or more followers. If no one is following, one cannot be leading. One person, A, leads another person, B, if the actions of A modify B's behavior in a direction desired by A. Note that this definition of leading is restricted to intended influence. Eliminated are instances in which the influence is in a direction opposite of that desired by A or in which changing B's behavior was not A's intention. (p. 17) The amount of influence that a leader has over subordinates can be the deciding factor for what type of leadership should be used in each situation presented (Vroom & Jago, 2007). A great deal of influence can cause a very simple request to get a task done because the follower knows what is expected and has the confidence to complete it (Jung & Sosik, 2006). However, if the leader has very minimal influence over a worker, then the leader will have to be creative in figuring how to persuade the subordinate to complete the task (Jung & Sosik, 2006). Leaders are able to use their influence over subordinates to change situations or the result of situations (Jung & Sosik, 2006). People are not able to change their personalities for each situation that arises (Jung & Sosik, 2006). Fiedler (1967) theorized that leaders can alter the situation instead of altering themselves to influence positive change. Hersey, Blanchard, & Natemeyer (1979)

28

theorized that situations can be changed and influence used because of the power that a leader exhibit. Hersey et al. (1979) presented the corporate world with four styles of leading: telling, selling, participating, and delegating. Each of these four styles is connected with how mature the worker is who receives the directive or direction. The four styles are explained below: 1. Telling--For workers who have low maturity and need to be told clear directions with little opportunity to stray away from the directive. 2. Selling--For workers who are low to moderate in maturity and need guidance to complete a task because of a lack of ability. 3. Participating--For workers who have moderate to high maturity and needs and open line of communication with the leader to complete a task because he or she lacks self confidence. 4. Delegating--For workers who have high maturity and only need to be told about the task and can be released, with confidence, to complete the task (Hersey et al., 1979). Each of these four styles can be used by a leader at any time, but the importance is explained here by Hersey et al. (1979): The keys to situational leadership are to accurately assess the maturity level of the follower and to model behavior appropriately. Implicit in situational leadership is leaders helping followers mature. Leadership behavior should be adjusted through the four styles as the follower matures. (p. 422)

29

This excerpt is the key foundation to situational leadership and applying different styles with workers as they progress through their own abilities to produce outcomes efficiently (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Muenjon and Armstrong (2008) stated that transformational leadership includes applying different leadership styles to help workers progress but describes this phenomenon as part of being a charismatic leader. Change theory. Kurt Lewin was a leading theorist on how change within an organization can and will affect the entire organization (Lewin, 1947). Although his focus was not on changes in leadership, his contributions to the corporate world concerning change can be applied to most types of change, including a change in leadership (Lewin, 1947). Lewin began longitudinal studies at Harwood Manufacturing Corporation in 1939 and the studies proceeded until the mid-1970s (Burnes, 2007). One of the major findings in the Harwood studies was that leaders who were assigned according to technical knowledge did not fare as well as leaders who had some technical knowledge but had outstanding interpersonal skills (Burnes, 2007). According to Gallos (2008), interpersonal skills in a leader become increasingly important when change arises. Many workers have a difficult time with change even when they feel change is necessary (Herold et al., 2008). For change to occur within an organization it must be effective and not infective and, to do this, leaders must communicate with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition (Postmes et al., 2001). Lewin (1947) theorized that if the leader could unfreeze, move, then refreeze any policy or procedure that needs to be changed, then the organization will transition easier:

30

1. Unfreeze ­ Let stakeholders know that a policy is going to be changed and why it should be changed. 2. Move ­ Make the changes necessary to the policy in order to reach the vision. 3. Refreeze ­ Hold the policy in place for long enough to evaluate its effectiveness. Although change is necessary in many organizations it does not have to be difficult and cause resistance. Resistance to change does not generally occur with one individual in an organization (Burnes, 2007). For this reason, workers who are resistant to change tend to seek others with similar views and find strength in numbers (Burnes, 2007). The phenomenon of resistance can occur because of organizational change of policies and procedures, but resistance will also occur when there is a change in leadership. A new leader will bring his or her values and beliefs to the organization. Any change in authority results in restructuring, whether the new leader likes it or not (Konczak et al., 2000). Although a principal should learn the people and organization before making any major changes (Sarros & Sarros, 2007) a new leader should let the staff know immediately what his or her expectations are (Riehl & Sipple, 1996). If teachers and staff do not know the goals and expectations of the leader, then according to Muijs et al. (2006) they will not be able to know what their overall focus should be. Talbot (2000) studied the experiences of a newly assigned principal. The case study involved a 54 year-old teaching and administrative veteran who worked through a difficult leadership transition. She was a teacher and guidance counselor who served as an assistant principal for over 10 years. After being named principal at a neighboring high school she failed to understand the needs of the school and attempted to run the school on her personality. The school district did not give her much support in the

31

transition. They provided her a principal mentor but that mentor did not provide the coaching she needed. Her expectations for the school and its stakeholders were not shared and openly communicated causing her first 2 years of service to be very stressful (Talbot, 2000). Although this study is an individual one with unique characteristics, it "illustrates that principal assignments can be viewed as ongoing processes that involve the beliefs and expectations of the new principal, as well as the school's organizational needs and expectations" (Talbot, 2000, p.1). A new principal will have his or her own view of what success looks like but he or she will need to understand the culture of a school before forming long term goals (Hartley, 2004). Schein (1999) theorized that new leaders should find a person who is established in the culture to explain the organization to them. Assumptions are made in the culture of an organization that are not understood by a new leader such as a common language and a common way of thinking (Schein, 1999). Schein (1999) theorized that the common attributes are not initially known by the new leader, and he or she must learn the culture to be effective. Fortunately for new leaders, workers tend to be more open to change during a time of transition (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Teachers will be anxious to share their needs with a new principal and that principal should be willing to listen and assess the importance of those needs (Nguni et al., 2006). Teachers begin evaluating the new principal immediately to see if he or she fits into their perception of what good leadership looks like (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). However, Fink and Brayman (2006) stated that the new principal, in turn, will assess the current situation of the school according to past success or failure.

32

Gallos (2008) theorized that the first 90 days of new leadership is the most important, and that failure during this time could not only ruin success, but also ruin the career of a new leader. A new principal should assess what kind of leadership will be required for the situation in which he or she is inheriting. Gallos (2008) stated that leaders will either be forming a brand new school (start-up), taking a school that has shown a great deal of failure in the past and change its direction (turnaround), moving a school that has shown some success to improve on success (realignment), or taking a school with proven success and keeping it on a successful path. According to Gallos (2008) although every transition is unique, having a better understanding of which of these four roles a new principal is walking into can improve on the chances for success. A principal should allow the staff to know of his or her expectations but make sure those expectations fall within the realm of what has been done in the past (Gallos, 2008). If a principal pushes the teachers and staff too hard at the beginning of a new tenure, then teachers can become dissatisfied right from the beginning before a principal has the opportunity to be proven effective (Funing & Jiliang, 2008). Major changes too early can cause a negative impact on the school's culture. Solvason (2005) calls this negative culture a "toxic" culture. A "toxic" culture is one in which the teachers are too busy rebelling against the new leadership and not focusing on student achievement (Solvason, 2005). Ma and MacMillan (1999) stated that "Toxic" cultures can be prevented if a new principal fully understands all factors within a school before making any major changes. Leadership change is a time of excitement for the new leader as well as the workers, but the new leader may suffer from a great deal of anxiety as he or she attempts

33

to become a part of a new culture (Gallos, 2008). Sarros and Sarros (2007) theorized that the first 100 days for a new leader will provide four experiences that can allow him or her to become accustomed to the new culture: 1. Insight to whom the new leader can trust and who should be asked specific questions about running the organization. 2. Understanding of the type of workload that will be required by the new leader in order to be successful. 3. How accessible workers will be to the new leader and how accessible the new leader needs to be to other workers. 4. A certain degree of loneliness. New leaders tend to feel lonely because they do not know the people or the culture. New leaders will feel less and less lonely as they become accustomed to the culture. According to Gallos (2008) principals within the first 100 days in a new position tend to neglect building relationships with stakeholders because their focus is on not failing as a leader. Teachers will respect a new leader who comes into a school if they know that he or she is focused on student learning and will understand and meet their needs (Deal & Peterson, 1994). With respect comes trust, and when trust is built by both the leader and workers the organization can collaborate and move in a positive direction (Jameson, Ferrell, Kelly, Walker, & Ryan, 2006; Stroh, 2007). The principal can establish a clear mission and vision to share with the faculty, and trust between the principal and teachers can ensure the mission and vision will be carried out (Perry & Mankin, 2007). The

34

strategies to attain the vision and mission, according to Gallos (2008), will be formed through special activities implemented by the principal for his or her teachers. New leaders or principals have a difficult task of building trust with a new organization as they attempt to integrate into the culture. The principal is ultimately accountable for the decisions made in a school (Ross & Gray, 2006) and when taking over a new school, the principal must convince the staff of his or her effectiveness while learning a new building and new workers (Fink & Brayman, 2006). A change of leadership in a school can be a difficult time for both teachers and the new leader but if the focus of both groups is on student achievement then the transition can be a smooth one. Research Methodology Research on leadership has revealed different types of leadership as well as leadership theories. Literature on these types of leadership has exposed several tools to assess leadership. Those tools include the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, The Nature of School Leadership Survey, School and Staffing Survey, Public School Principal Questionnaire, Leader Behavior Analysis II, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, and many more including unnamed survey instruments still in development. Each of these tools has specific uses for assessing leadership. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), found in Appendix A, was chosen because of its flexibility in measuring perceptions of leadership styles. The MLQ, in its original form, was designed by Avolio and Bass (2004) to measure nine parts of leadership. Those nine parts of leadership were broken up by scales according to three

35

leadership styles. Those leadership styles and scales were broken down by Muenjohn & Armstrong (2008): Five scales were identified as characteristic of transformational leadership (Idealized influence attributed and behavior, Inspirational motivation, Individual consideration, and Intellectual stimulation). Three scales were defined as characteristic of transactional leadership (Contingent reward, Management-by-exception-active, and Management-by exception-passive. One scale was described as non-leadership (Laissez-faire). (p. 5) Transformational and transactional leadership have been defined earlier in this paper, and laissez-faire has been given little attention because it represents a lack of leadership. Laissez-faire or passive/avoidant leadership is the last leadership quality tested by the MLQ (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Avolio and Bass (1998) stated that in the scope of leadership laissez-faire describes the least desirable style of leading a group of people because few leadership qualities are actually evident. Tepper and Percy (1994) broke down the structural validity of the MLQ by conducting two studies. One study used an item-level confirmatory factor analysis and the second study used a scale-level analysis. Their results found that the MLQ was able to distinguish between transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Tepper and Percy (1994) stated, however, that more studies need to be done to break down the individual content domains within each leadership style. According to their study that was based off a Chi-square difference and goodness-of-fit they were unable to distinguish between charismatic (Idealized influence) and inspirational motivation.

36

Muenjohn and Armstrong (2008) conducted similar research to Tepper and Percy (1994). They studied the MLQ in three different constructs: 1. One Factor Model ­ Also known as the global leadership model. This model uses the MLQ to study effective leadership as a whole without breaking it down into subparts. 2. Three Factor Model ­ Breaks leadership down into three subsections including: Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and Laissez-fair leadership. 3. Nine Factor Model ­ Breaks down and measures the three subsections into the previously mentioned factors by Muenjon and Armstrong (2008). Tepper and Percy (1994) dissected the MLQ for its inability to differentiate between factors within transformational leadership. Muenjon and Armstrong (2008) stated that the MLQ in its latest form is "successful in adequately capturing the full leadership factor constructs of transformational leadership theory" (Muenjon & Armstrong, 2008, p. 10). Both of these studies show how the MLQ has evolved to fit the expansive need for testing leadership throughout a broad scope of business and industry. Pounder (2008) used the MLQ to test leadership in an undergraduate school in Hong Kong. Pounder (2008) was able to use the flexibility of the MLQ by translating it into Chinese without losing the effectiveness of the tool. Not only was the MLQ translated but it was also adapted to the perception of students. To ensure that these changes did not affect MLQ's effectiveness, confirmatory factor analysis was used to test for reliability and found it to be reliable stating that the adapted tool "kept the original full-range leadership model conceptually intact" (Pounder, 2008, p. 4).

37

Pounder (2008) tested the theory that "transformational leadership generally has a profound and positive effect on those being led" (Pounder, 2008, p. 2). Two groups of students were used throughout two school years with the same teachers being used as the independent variable. To check for relationships between the individual transformational leadership factors Spearman's rho correlation was used. This study showed a strong correlation between student perception of leadership and the transformational qualities of the leaders. MLQ has also been used to distinguish traits between high performing leaders. Charismatic leadership has become known as the most desirable leadership for workers and organizations (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Jung and Sosik (2006) broke down charismatic leadership into high charismatic and low charismatic to do a study comparing managers by surveying over 900 of their subordinates. A 12-item scale was used to break down charismatic leadership by: 1. Inspirational Motivation ­ Works to get subordinated excited about completing a task by presenting the task in an enthusiastic manner. 2. Idealized Influence-Behavior ­ Shares ideals and beliefs with the staff to ensure commonality. 3. Idealized Influence-Attribute ­ Creates opportunities to encourage subordinates (Jung & Sosik, 2006). Jung and Sosik (2006) used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the data collected from the MLQ. ANOVA was able to produce results that displayed the low and high charismatic leaders by each of the leader's personal attributes (Jung & Sosik, 2006).

38

Although Jung and Sosik (2006) tested seven hypotheses and six showed true, the study revealed an interesting trait to charismatic leadership: The results of the two group comparison generally supported the common notion that charismatic leaders tend to be high self-monitors, have a stronger level of motive to attain social power, actively engage in impression management, and are motivated by the higher order need of self-actualization. However, the two groups were not significantly different from each other in terms of their attitudes towards change. (p. 22) Jung and Sosik (2006) also concluded that the MLQ provided substantial data along with the ability to use ANOVA and find correlations between two groups with multiple factors. As previously suggested the MLQ has proved to be flexible when adjusting to the needs of the researcher. The MLQ rates leadership from lowest to highest with laissezfair being the most ineffective, transactional leadership having some effective qualities, and transformational leadership being the most effective (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Avolio and Bass (2004) described the gamete of leadership from lowest to highest as a Full Range Leadership. Avolio and Bass (1998) explained that the MLQ gives researchers the opportunity to compare perceptions of leadership to see where the leadership ranks within a Full Range Leadership that includes transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. For example: A hypothetical business has been through four CEOs in the past 5 years. Production has fluctuated and the board wants to figure out how to improve productivity. The board distributes the MLQ to each of the employees that worked under

39

each of the four leaders. The employees rate the effectiveness for each of the four leaders (one MLQ for each leader). The employees rate themselves using the MLQ Leader Form (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The board collects the production data for the past 5 years and compares it with the results of the MLQ. The overall results can, hypothetically, show the board which of the four CEOs demonstrated transformational leadership and if the production results mirrored perceptions. Avolio and Bass (2004) stated that the MLQ has also been proven to help leaders within an organization to reflect on their own leadership style to find areas of strength or improvement. Other Methodologies The MLQ has been a proven tool to test for transformational leadership style. Although the MLQ is focused on transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles, current studies use other types of survey tools to focus on just one type of leadership. The Nature of School Leadership Survey (NSLS) has been used to study transformational leadership (Clabough, 2006). According to Clabough (2006) the NSLS is more suited to measure how transformational leadership reflects the school climate then it does for culture or commitment. The Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) tested the effects of how an entire organization had on individuals (Eder & Eisenberger, 2008). Specifically the SPOS would, for example, show how the average number of tardies to work within an organization affects the tardiness of individuals (Eder & Eisenberger, 2008). The SPOS would also test the effects of withdrawal behavior had on an individual (Eder & Eisenberger, 2008). The SPOS is more focused on how the tendencies of an organization shape the behaviors of workers (Eder & Eisenberger, 2008). The SPOS would use

40

leadership as part of the organization but would not specifically test for how the perception of subordinates felt about the leadership. Research has provided different mass surveys that have collected perception data from large numbers of educators including the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Public School Principal questionnaire. The SASS was designed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and was developed to collect a massive amount of data from over 56,000 teachers each year (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007). Although the SASS has collected perception data from a large number of teachers and is able to break down different factors of teacher perceptions it does not have the ability to specify teachers and principals who have been through a transitioning period. The Public School Principal questionnaire has collected perception data from a mass number of educators but it does not have the ability to specify those principals who are transitioning (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007). Although both of these tools provide a great deal of data concerning efficacy and commitment they provide little flexibility about leadership transitioning. Many quantitative surveys named and unnamed have been used in research to collect data on leaders. These surveys have been developed to assess both leader and followers' perception of leadership but fail to provide the flexibility to collect data of different styles of leadership. Leithwood and Jantzi (2008) developed a tool for collecting perception data about leadership efficacy. This tool focused on collective efficacy, self efficacy, and different conditions that affected teachers but very little on what type of leadership was most effective (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). The Leader Behavior Analysis II (LBAII) was developed to collect data from subordinates about effective leadership by placing the rater many different hypothetical scenarios (Kelley, et

41

al., 2005). Kelley et al. (2005) theorized that although the LBAII can provide ample data concerning leadership style it can be time consuming for the rater because of the many different scenarios. The majority of research concerning leadership is quantitative in nature to gather large amounts of perception data. Muijs et al. (2006) conducted a mixed methods approach to gather leadership information. Although this study still gathered quantitative data from over 1500 subordinates they included an interview section to ensure a more indepth understanding of leaders' motives (Muijs et al., 2006). The study showed discrepancies between transactional and distributed leadership, and showed transformational leadership as the most sought-after style from subordinates (Muijs et al., 2006). The study done by Muijs et al. (2006) also showed a relationship between leadership development and desirable leadership but was unable to ascertain the best delivery of leadership development. Role of the Principal In the current structure of public education, the principal is typically the person held accountable for all decisions within a school (Ross & Gray, 2006). Principals should organize their schools to focus on the student because the ultimate outcome in education is student success (Orr & Orphanos, 2007). Harris (2005) found that there is an inconclusive link between principal leadership and student success. Although not connecting principal leadership to student success Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) showed that principal leadership affects teacher commitment and overall morale. Martin and Epitropaki (2001) found that high quality instruction will increase as a result of good leadership. If principals can raise teacher morale, then teacher effectiveness will increase

42

(Martin & Epitropaki, 2001). MacKenzie (2007) found a significant relationship between teacher morale and student success. According to Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) a principal should focus on influencing the teachers and the overall organization of the school because he or she is unable to directly affect student success. The School and Principal Leadership A principal should increase the faculty's consciousness about current school goals and how to reach those goals (Muijs et al., 2006). The goals of a school are a result of the principal's guidance (Orr & Orphanos, 2007) and the school policies are a result of principal leadership (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Student success can hinge on the organization of the school and the principal can affect the school conditions without directly affecting the students (Orr & Orphanos, 2007). Teachers are the intervening factor between principal leadership and student success. Teachers and Principal Leadership Principal leadership should focus on what teachers are doing rather than what students have done (Allen, 2003). In the current high stakes testing environment this is a difficult task for a principal, especially when the focus is mostly on hard data (Fuming & Jiliang, 2008). When a principal can help a teacher feel like they can be successful in an activity, then the likelihood of success increases (Ross & Gray, 2004). This concept is called teacher efficacy. A principal should be able to build on a teacher's strength (Bowman, 2005) and allow teachers access to other teachers' teaching styles (Hausman & Goldring, 2001). A principal is able to enhance teacher efficacy and confidence by listening and understanding the teachers (Printy & Marks, 2006). Teachers should have access to the principal and feel like they can voice their concerns in a safe environment

43

(Sarros & Sarros, 2007). Nir and Kranot (2006) theorized that when teachers are being heard and understood their job satisfaction increases along with their ability to grow professionally. Martin and Epitropaki (2001) stated that the implicit leadership theory shows that all workers, including teachers, make assumptions about what an ideal leader looks like. Teachers in different departments and different grades have different perceptions of what good leadership should be (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Principals will not be able to fit into all teachers' perfect perception of what good leadership is, but a principal must change his or her leadership style according to each specific situation to be a successful leader (Howard, 2005). This flexible leadership style is known as situational leadership or the contingency model of leadership (Spillane et al, 2004). Sergiovanni (2005) lists three archetypes of leadership including the artist (visionary), craftsmen (people developers), and technocrat (by the book). Individually these archetypes make very narrow focused leaders, "thus the issue is not whether any of the three should be included or not but how and where they should be distributed in a school" (Sergiovanni, 2005, p. 166). According to Bowman (2005) principals who can be flexible with their leadership style can adapt to each situation and serve both teachers and students effectively. Principals can show flexibility by sharing leadership in their school and allowing teachers to lead. Teachers tend to be more motivated in their teaching practices when they feel like they have a say in the school's policies and procedures (Youngs & King, 2002). Many principals believe that teacher leadership takes away from their power (Allen, 2003). Oftentimes when principals and teachers lead together they lead in tension (Deal & Peterson, 1994). Principals should allow teachers to share in creating the

44

school's mission and vision. Teachers can help to develop the mission and vision but the principal needs to supply the tools for teachers to reach them both (Nguni et al., 2006). Sarros and Sarros (2007) stated that a mission and visions that are understood by not only teachers but all stakeholders can increase the likelihood that the goals will be reached and enhance school culture. Connecting the Literature to the Study Avolio and Bass (2004) explained that transformational leadership is the most effective style of leadership for producing the best results from subordinates. This study will use the MLQ (Avolio & Bass, 2004) to test leadership within the field of education by collecting perception data from teachers concerning principals they have served. Teacher perceptions of principal leadership can influence how motivated the teacher is to perform their duties in the classroom (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). According to Ross and Gray (2006) teachers who are motivated to increase student achievement tend to have higher self efficacy, are more committed to their duties, display higher trust in their principal, are willing to collaborate, and positively influence the overall school culture. Teacher Self-Efficacy Bandura and Lock (2003) described self-efficacy as what it takes an individual to be motivated enough to work through difficult times and achieve a desired result. The desired result in education is student success. Teacher self-efficacy is the extent to which a teacher feels capable to help students learn (Printy & Marks, 2006). When teachers feel like they are helping students be successful, then they are more committed to teaching (Ross & Gray, 2006). Nir and Kranot (2006) stated that many factors go into teachers'

45

efficacy including job satisfaction, support from home, stress, end of career salaries, and principal leadership. Teachers who have low self-efficacy tend to blame many outside forces for student failure instead of taking responsibility (Printy & Marks, 2006). Students receive the majority of the blame for their lack of success, then parents, and finally the principal (Ross & Gray, 2006). Teachers who have high self efficacy believe that they will be able to help a child who has failed in the past and, according to Printy and Marks (2006), will work diligently to improve their learning. The current organization of the public school system has caused a major push for teachers to teach their students a specific curriculum focused on passing a state-mandated test (Fuming & Jiliang, 2008). Many teachers enjoy autonomy in the classroom but when they are expected to teach to the state test they feel like they lose the ability to be creative (Nir & Kranot, 2006). Teachers feel the stress from these tests as they attempt to deliver the curriculum to their students. When students from a class do not perform well on a state mandated test, then teacher satisfaction decreases, resulting in low teacher efficacy (Fuming & Jiliang, 2008). According to Nir and Kranot (2006) principal leadership plays an important role in increasing teacher efficacy by minimizing the unnecessary stresses. Principals can minimize stress and help self-efficacy by increasing teacher learning, sharing leadership, and celebrating success (Youngs & King, 2002). The principal, who is responsible for the overall organization of the school (Ross & Gray, 2004), can help teachers feel like they are appreciated by the leadership of the school. According to Young and King (2002) when teachers feel like they are appreciated they tend to work harder. The principal can organize the school to celebrate success and share

46

in leadership decisions to allow those teachers who suffer from low self-efficacy to feel like they are successful on certain tasks (Ross & Gray, 2004). According to Printy and Marks (2006) principals who go out of their way to make teachers feel like they are being successful will reap teachers who will passionately work for improved student learning. Proactive principals can help teachers feel successful by giving them opportunities to grow professionally (Muijs et al., 2006). Professional development can help a teacher feel more adequate to service students (Johnson & Fargo, 2010). Teachers' professional development should include allowing teachers to observe other teachers' teaching styles (Hausman & Goldring, 2001). Teachers who share their teaching practices enjoy learning from other teachers and tend to collaborate with peers (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Collaboration among teachers can improve efficacy and overall teaching practices on a campus (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Buysse et al. (2003) stated that teachers who have the opportunity to collaborate feel self-confident and tend to become more involved in school activities, and desire to influence the school in and out of the classroom. Teacher Commitment "Commitment is defined as the degree of positive, affective bond between the teacher and the school" (U.S. Department of Education, 1997, p. 2). Mackenzie (2007) studied the correlation between teacher commitment and student success. Student success can improve when teachers are committed, but measuring the success tends to take time. For this reason, Desimone (2002) stated that principals can measure commitment through teacher participation. When teachers are more committed to the school they will work harder for the students and even volunteer for extracurricular

47

activities (Ross & Gray, 2006). Volunteering for activities to support the students and the school is a behavior that shows commitment (Shaw & Reyes, 1992). A positive attitude towards others tends to be another reflection of dedication to the profession (Shaw & Reyes, 1992). Although attitude and behavior can be reflective of committed teachers Reihl and Sipple (1996) claimed it is easier to determine when teachers are not committed. Teachers tend to have higher than normal absenteeism and rebel against directives and goals from leadership when not committed (Reihl & Sipple, 1996). Teachers who are not content in their current school and position tend to have a high rate of job turnover and show intention to search for jobs (Martin & Epitropaki, 2001). Many teachers who are not committed to student achievement tend to be compliant to leadership goals but rarely put forth any effort above compliance (Allen, 2003). Committed teachers tend to feel like they have a positive bond with the principal as a result of open communication (Postmes et al., 2001). Open communication is a key component to increasing teacher commitment (Postmes et al., 2001). According to Youngs and King (2002) when teachers and principals can share the development and implementation of goals teachers tend to be more committed to the organization. Nguni et al., (2006) shared the theory of organizational commitment which is accepting a school's goals and values along with a willingness to give effort for the school and a desire to be affiliated with the school. High organizational commitment can result from teachers who feel like they belong to the organization and have a strong connection or bond to co-workers and leaders (Martin & Epitropaki, 2001). Strong

48

organizational commitment will cause the school culture to be strengthened and, according to Solvason (2005), enhance the overall school atmosphere. Boxx et al. (1991) theorized that teacher commitment is the result of a leader's ability to manage the organization. Perceived failures by teachers can cause a reduction in commitment, but effective schools have a strong principal who can help teachers learn from failures and celebrate success (Joffres & Haughey, 2001; Printy & Marks, 2006). Hausman & Goldring (2001) stated that there are three keys to for principals to increase commitment in teachers: 1. Professional development ­ Give teachers the opportunity to grow professionally. 2. Collegiality ­ Allow teachers to access other teachers' teaching styles. 3. Efficacy ­ Assist teachers in feeling like they can and will be successful. Hausman and Goldring (2001) stated that teachers are more committed to students when they felt like they were successful at increasing their achievement level. Organizational Trust "Trust is a willingness to be vulnerable-a willingness to take a risk that someone will not harm us" (Stroh, 2007, p. 1). Employees must build trust with both other employees and the leaders they serve for the organization to be successful (TaylorDunlop & Lester, 2000). Postmes et al. (2001) theorized that trust is built vertically and horizontally through communication. Trust is built vertically with the leader at the top and defines what the organization stands for (Postmes et al., 2001). Horizontal trust is built between the employees and increases overall employee involvement (Postmes et al., 2001). Communication is the foundation for building trust within an organization (Deal & Peterson, 1994). However, not all employees are trustworthy (Stroh, 2007). When

49

building relationships within an organization Stroh (2007) claimed that it is often easier to tell who cannot be trusted as opposed to who can be trusted. Stroh (2007) stated that untrustworthy people can tell on themselves without even knowing it. Untrustworthy people have a tendency to gossip, manipulate, speak harshly to others, criticize others, and consistently not return calls. Stroh (2007) stated that certain situations can be arranged by the leader of an organization to test who is trustworthy and who is not. The way a person responds to the word "no" can tell a lot about a person's character and trustworthiness (Stroh, 2007). According to Stroh (2007) if a person responds poorly when told "no" they tend to be untrustworthy because a person's past behavior is a great predictor of future behavior. Organizations that have been proven to be effective have cultures of trust between leaders and employees (Nguni et al., 2006). Schools have also shown to be effective when a culture of trust between teachers and the principal is reflected (Nguni et al., 2006). Teachers desire to trust their principal (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Trust can be built between teachers and their principal through principal support (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). According to Deal and Peterson (1994) when principals support their teachers through difficult times or a difficult parent then they find more value in their leader and develop a deeper trust. Teachers' job satisfaction is a direct result of trust that has been built with their principal (Nguni et al., 2006). Principals that have built trust with their employees are able to sustain a safe working environment (Stroh, 2007) where the teachers can focus on teaching instead of their own safety. Teachers learn to trust their principal through experiences and interaction (Muijs et al., 2006). If a principal is unwilling to interact

50

with his or her teachers then there will be no opportunities to build trust. Principals should be visible and accessible to teachers to build strong trust (Sarros & Sarros, 2007). Bowman (2005) theorized that teachers who have the opportunity to openly voice their opinions to the principal feel more integrated into the organization and are more willing to build relationships with both the school and the principal. Schools with a high degree of trust tend to be more focused and goal driven. Trust between teachers and administration tend to build momentum and cohesiveness because they are able to rely on others within the organization (Gallos, 2008). Momentum that a school has built seems to be hindered during a time of leadership transition (Deal & Peterson, 1994). This hindrance is the result of subordinates attempting to build trust with a new leader (Stroh, 2007). According to Deal and Peterson (1994) the new relationship between leaders and subordinates lacks a deep meaning because trust takes time to build and must be built with consistent interaction. Leaders or principals entering into a new position desire to build trust but feel pressure to ensure trust is built (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Principals feel this pressure to build trust because they want to integrate their ideas into the new school but do not know how welcome those ideas will be until they become more comfortable (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Goldsmith et al. (2000) theorized that workers during a time of leadership change tend to be more open to new ideas. These workers were more open during a time of transition because they want to see if the leader's ideas will be successful. According to Goldsmith et al. (2000) if a new leader's ideas are successful, then the workers feel like they can trust future ideas.

51

Teacher Collaboration Collaborate is a word that is used ubiquitously and the true meaning can be lost (Dufour, Eaker, & Dufour, 2005). When referring to student achievement the word "collaborate" means to co-labor, or work together. Teaching should be a social practice where teachers share what they do rather than practice of isolation (Deal & Peterson, 1994). Dufour et al. (2005) stated that teachers have worked in isolation for long enough with minimal results. If teachers can work together and share best-practices, then both students and teachers can benefit. All levels of education can benefit from working together (Solvason, 2005). Secondary schools tend to have a more difficult time forming cohesive collaborative groups since they teach in isolation with little input from outside forces (Solvason, 2005). Teachers of secondary schools feel like they are working in competition with other teachers. Teachers who feel like they are in competition have a difficult time collaborating with other teachers (Solvason, 2005). Solvason (2005) also stated that competition prevents teachers from sharing their failures; they tend to only share their successes. Competition can also prevent teachers from sharing effective teaching practices for students who tend to be more difficult to reach (Buysse et al., 2003). Collaborative groups can discuss what has worked and what has not for specific students and overall class curriculum (Buysse et al., 2003). Teachers who share best practices in a collaborative group are able to share mistakes they have made so other teachers can learn from them (Konczak et al., 2000). As teachers learn from other teachers' mistakes their teaching practices improve because they do not have to try something that has already failed. This is especially important to new teachers who are attempting to try classroom

52

management practices (Hausman & Goldring, 2001). According to Peterson (2002) teachers who have access to curriculum and management practices of other teachers tend to believe more strongly that their school works as a cohesive community. A community is a group of people who have something in common, and schools should be communities of practice (Buysse et al., 2003). A community of practice in a school is a group of teachers who collaborate to establish goals, share ideas, and seek to reach goals (Buysse et al., 2003). For collaboration to occur within a school a principal must develop a community of practice that encourages teachers to share responsibility for both student success and failure. Sharing responsibility means that teachers place the blame on themselves when students are not successful and will work to improve on past failures (Allen, 2003). Teachers who take responsibility for student failure will also use their community of practice to influence school leadership decisions to improve the overall school culture so that student failure is reduced (Allen, 2003). Schools that share responsibility for leadership decisions tend to have teachers who are more involved in school functions and are more willing to collaborate with other teachers (Desimone, 2002). According to Muijs et al. (2006) collaboration can build cohesiveness between teachers, while Sarros and Sarros (2007) stated that cohesiveness yields teachers who are more willing to set aside their own needs to pursue the needs of the school. School Culture Schein (1999) stated that any group who shares common experiences will form a culture. Culture has gained a wide variety of ubiquitous meanings (Solvason, 2005) and Schein (1999) has a simple definition: "the way we do things around here" (Schein, 1999,

53

p. 24). Peterson (2002) defined school culture as the "set of norms, values and beliefs, rituals and ceremonies, symbols and stories that make up the `persona' of a school" (Peterson, 2002, p. 34). Schein (1999) stated that the `persona' of a school is formed in any school no matter the size or grade level as long as the teachers and staff are able to share students, curriculum, or experiences. Schools are organizations that develop different ways of doing things and different cultures. For example, if school "A" were to look at how school "B" delivers a certain curriculum to their students, school "A" would say that school "B" is ineffective in delivering the curriculum (Schein, 1999). One culture cannot judge the culture of another school fairly without being immersed in it for some length of time (Schein, 1993). According to Schein (1999) each culture has a common language and a way of thinking that can be taken for granted in an organization because of how universal they are used in everyday business. Culture can be a delicate part of a school if it is taken for granted and should be guided by its leader (Boxx et al., 1991), but the culture of a school is ultimately formed by its teachers (Gunbayi, 2007). Teachers who have experienced extensive change in the school environment, including leadership, tend to become apathetic towards teaching students, and the school culture is negatively impacted (Solvason, 2005). Teachers in a negative culture tend to deflect responsibility for students' failures back to the students, parents, and leadership (Peterson, 2002). According to Stroh (2007) the blaming of leadership for students' failures tends to be increased during a time of leadership change.

54

Summary This literature review presented historical, theoretical, and present research to describe leadership and change in the business and education fields. Theories concerning both topics were given along with studies that support the literature. The role of the principal was described as well as the importance of the school and teachers to keep the focus on student learning. The connection was made between literature and the study with research confirming the importance of teacher perceptions and efficacy, teacher commitment, organizational trust, teacher collaboration, and school culture. Section 3 will provide greater detail concerning the survey instrument and overall study.

55

Section 3: Methodology The purpose of this quasi-experimental quantitative study was to investigate the relationship between student achievement (dependent variable) and teacher perceptions of principal leadership style (independent variable). Teachers directly affect students but principals have been shown to indirectly influence students through the teachers by the way in which they lead the school (Hausman & Goldring, 2001). Principals are leaders who must use effective leadership best practices to be successful (Muijs et al., 2006). Transformational leadership has been shown by employee surveys to be the most effective leadership style for increasing employee performance (Avolio & Bass, 2004), but little research has been done on the impact of transformational leadership during a time of leadership change. A survey design was used to collect data from 58 teachers who worked under four different principals in the same suburban high school in southern Florida over a 4-year time span. Research Design The quantitative research design provided "a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population" (Creswell, 2003, p. 153). Survey design was chosen because of the large population that was needed to gather sufficient data for a valid outcome (Creswell, 2003). The surveys collected teacher perception data from 58 teachers who served four principals who each led the same school over a 4-year period of time. The surveys were combined with student achievement data to answer the research questions. The student achievement data showed 8 years of sophomore gain scores representing 3 years of the first principal, 1 year of the second principal, 1 year of the third principal, and 3 years of the fourth

56

principal. Descriptive data were analyzed and displayed for each principal, leadership style, and outcomes of leadership according to the results of the MLQ (5X). This quantitative study included a nonequivalent quasi-experimental design (Creswell, 2003). The nonequivalent quasi-experimental design included a preobservation, exposure to a leader, then a post-observation (Creswell, 2003). For the purpose of this study, nonequivalent quasi-experimental design refers to student gain scores from before and after each principal. Gain scores were calculated by taking individual student 10th grade FCAT scores in both reading and math, and subtracting them from the same student's individual 9th grade FCAT scores in reading and math. The gain scores were taken from a simple random sample of students by numbering each student and using computer randomization to choose the students. The following diagram explains the nonequivalent quasi-experimental design: Group A (student achievement data under principal 1) Group B (student achievement data under principal 2) Group C (student achievement data under principal 3) Group D (student achievement data under principal 4) Opre ----Opre ----Opre ----Opre -----

x x x x

1

-----Opost -----Opost -----Opost -----Opost

2

3

4

The "Opre" represents the observation of student achievement data from before principal influence. The "Opost" represents student's gain scores after the principal has influenced the students. The "X" represents the principal influence as measured by the MLQ (Creswell, 2003).

57

Research Questions and Hypotheses Research Questions To guide this study, the following research questions and hypotheses were used: RQ1: Which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal change? 1: There was no principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals. 1: There was at least one principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals. RQ2: Which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data during a time of principal change? 2: There was no principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals. 2: There was at least one principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals. RQ3: How are teacher perceptions of principal leadership style correlated with student achievement during a time of principal change? 3: There was no significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of principal transition and student achievement data.

58

3:

There was a significant relationship between teacher perception of principal leadership style during a time of principal transition and student achievement data.

Variables This quasi-experimental quantitative study had different variables that vary according to the research question. RQ1: Principal leadership style served as the independent variable that influenced teacher perceptions. Teacher perceptions rely on principal leadership style, and thus served as the dependent variable. Leadership perception data were gathered from 58 teachers using the MLQ. RQ2: Principal leadership style was the independent variable that influenced the dependent variable of student achievement. Gain scores were used as the Student achievement data from the FCAT that was expressed in numeric form between 2001 and 2008. The student gain scores were gathered from the study school's district mainframe. RQ3: Teacher perception of principal leadership style served as the X value that indirectly affected student achievement. Principals influenced the school and policies but need the teachers to directly impact the students. Teachers directly influenced the Y value which was students and, more specifically, student achievement.

59

Population and Sample In the field of education, the focus is on student achievement, with teachers being the primary group who influence them. For the purpose of this study the overall population was twofold: 1. All teachers at any level who experience a change in principal leadership. 2. All students who are directly affected by teachers who will experience a change in principal leadership. The majority of teachers will experience a change in principal leadership (Sarros & Sarros, 2007). All principals have to begin their career by inheriting a staff, beginning a new school, or by being promoted within the school in which they were a subordinate (Sarros & Sarros, 2007). There were three samples used for this study. The first sample was a specific sample that included a small group of teachers who served four principals between 2001 and 2008. The sample was taken from the population of teachers who experience leadership changes at some point in their teaching careers. Therefore, a specific sample was used because the study criterion required a group of teachers who experienced many leadership changes in a short period of time. The sample population for this study consisted of 58 teachers who had the opportunity to serve under each of four transitional principals during an 8-year period. During the 8-year period, many teachers were hired, served one principal, and then changed positions or professions. These teachers were not used for this study. A single stage sampling was used since all the names of the teachers and principals are known (Creswell, 2003). Choosing the sample did not involve

60

stratification with the population representing the specific students, teachers, and principals (Creswell, 2003). The second sample, used for question 2, consisted of a random sample of 200 sophomore FCAT gain scores. The third sample, for question 3, consisted of 58 sophomore FCAT gain scores. These samples were selected from each year between 2001 and 2008. A simple random sample of students was taken by numbering each student and using computer randomization to choose the students. For the protection of the students no other information was used or divulged outside of the number given to the student and the gain scores. After the student data were collected from the district data base the students' names were deleted and replaced with numbers. Those numbers were placed into an online number randomizer. The number randomizer chose both random samples of gain scores within each school year's FCAT data. Instrumentation The instrument for this study was the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 5X (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ is a proven instrument for showing signs of transformational and transactional leadership within an organization (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Avolio and Bass (2004) describe the benefits of using the MLQ as: Transformational and transactional leadership are both related to the success of the group. Success is measured with the MLQ by how often the raters perceive their leader to be motivating, how effective raters perceive their leader to be at interacting at different levels of the organization, and how satisfied raters are with their leader's methods of working with others. (p. 98)

61

The MLQ breaks down leadership into 12 different subsets: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), management-by-exception (passive), laissez-faire leadership, extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction (Bass & Avolio, 1989). The survey consists of 45 questions (Bass & Avolio, 1989). According to Bass and Avolio (1989), 10 of the 12 subsets have four questions, but extra effort has three questions and satisfaction has two. The 12 subsets within the MLQ (5X) can be used to collect teacher perception data concerning principal leadership. Each factor has four questions that are specific to the factor itself except for extra effort (3 questions) and satisfaction with the leadership (2 questions). Ten of the 12 items tested by the MLQ (5X) show positive leadership ability if scored highly by the rater. Laissez-faire leadership and management-by-exception (passive) reflect negative leadership traits if scored high by the rater. The MLQ (5X) is a 45 question Likert scale survey based off a 5 point scale with 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently, if not always. Of the 45 questions in the MLQ (5X) 20 of them are focused on gathering perception data on transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is the focus for questions 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, and 36. Questions 1, 4, 11, 16, 22, 24, 27, and 35 are focused on gathering perception data for transactional leadership. Passive/Avoidant or Laissez-Faire leadership can be found in numbers 3, 5, 7, 12, 17, 20, 28, and 33. Questions 37 through 45 for the MLQ (5X) are used to collect perception data on the outcomes of leadership. The outcomes of leadership are effectiveness, satisfaction,

62

and extra effort. According to Avolio and Bass (2007), extra effort is the ability of a leader to influence subordinates to work harder than they would under normal working conditions. Effectiveness relates to how effective the leader was in the overall organizational duties, and satisfaction measures how well the leader worked with subordinates. The MLQ is described as the MLQ 5X because it has been revised five times to increase validity (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The first MLQ was produced in 1985 and underwent criticism for its inability to be flexible and cause for concern because of how complex the survey and results were (Avolio & Bass, 2004). From the original MLQ in 1985 the instrument experienced many research samples and testing for 19 years. The MLQ has gone through both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to prove its validity (Hinkin & Tracey, 1999: Singh & Krishman, 2007). Although the MLQ, as a whole, provides perceptions of leadership validity, tests have broken it down into transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant (laissezfaire) leadership (Tepper & Percy, 1994). The original MLQ showed alpha levels of passive/avoidant as .49, transactional as .60, and transformational as .95 (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Hetland, Sandal, and Johnsen (2008) took the revised version of the MLQ, called the MLQ(5X), and showed that alpha levels for all three leadership styles demonstrated validity with passive/avoidant being .70, transactional being .83, and transformational being .92. The high alpha level for transformational leadership shows that the MLQ successfully tests for transformational leadership. Transactional and passive/avoidant leadership are lower than transformational leadership but still show that they are valid and can be used for testing. Transformational leadership

63

characterizes the most effective style of leadership. This study will focus on high trends of perceptions of transformational leadership to represent effective leadership. Data Collection Two hundred and thirty-two surveys were collected from 58 teachers who served each of the four principals. Permissions for using the MLQ (5X) were purchased through Mind Garden Incorporated. Mind Garden Incorporated also offered online completion of the survey that was used for this study. The MLQ (5X) is a five response Likert scale survey (Avolio & Bass, 2004). A sample of the MLQ (5X) can be found in Appendix A along with a sample of the scoring sheet in Appendix B. Copyright regulations are in Appendix C and a permission email is in Appendix D. Mind Garden Incorporated offers digital results for the MLQ (5X). The survey results were compiled for raw data by using the MLQ (5X) scoring key. Accompanying the MLQ (5X) were gain scores taken from sophomore FCAT scores between 2001 and 2008. Gain scores were calculated by subtracting the 9th grade scores from the 10th grade scores in both reading and math. The gain scores were calculated automatically in the school district data base for both reading and math. The student gain scores and perception data were entered into SPSS version 14.0 for Windows. Research Question 1 was designed to find which principal leadership style was significantly perceived for each principal according to teacher perception data. Each principal was used as a separate treatment while 58 teachers were used as the sample population. To find which principal leadership style was significantly perceived, repeated-measures ANOVA was used. Repeated-measures ANOVA was chosen because

64

it can evaluate one group of participants who received more than two different treatments (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). The treatments within this study are the four different principal leadership styles. The mean differences from perception data for each principal were compared. The principal leadership style that reflected the greatest significance from repeated-measures ANOVA was considered the one most perceived by teachers. The principal leadership that yielded the best results according to student achievement data was the focus of Research Question 2. Student gain scores from FCAT results were used to determine which principal leadership style yielded the best results. The student achievement data from the school district database were taken from the 8year period of time. The student achievement data showed 8 years of sophomore gain scores representing 3 years of the first principal, 1 year of the second principal, 1 year of the third principal, and 3 years of the fourth principal. For the purpose of this study and to ensure anonymity each principal's name was removed and replaced with a letter. The first principal was Principal D, the second principal was represented by Principal A, the third principal was Principal B, and the fourth principal was represented by Principal C. The Florida Department of Education grades each school according to student achievement on the FCAT. The school grade works much like student grades with an "A" being the highest achievers, "B" producing above average results, "C" being average, "D" showing below average, and "F" resulting in the lowest achievement (Florida Department of Education, 2009). The overall school grade is a culmination of the percent of students meeting high standards in reading, percent meeting high standards in math, percent meeting high standards in writing, percent making learning

65

gains, and percent of 11th and 12th grade students retaking the test (Florida Department of Education, 2009). Individual test results were ranked in terms of levels. Level 5 is the highest level a student can receive on each section of the test with level 1 being the lowest (Florida Department of Education, 2009). A level 3 or higher is required for the student to reach graduation requirements (Florida Department of Education, 2009). The FCAT tests sophomores, juniors, and seniors as a graduation requirement. However the juniors and seniors who were tested did not pass one or more sections and were retested to graduate. For the purposes of this study only sophomore gain scores in both math and reading were used by subtracting the 9th grade test scores from the 10th grade scores. A sample of 200 sophomore math and reading gain scores from each year between 2001 and 2008 were used to determine student achievement. Although the population for each school year varied from year to year the sample size of 200 remained the same. The means from student gain scores for each year were calculated and compared to the other years to find which year yielded the highest results. Research Question 3 was designed to find if a correlation between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data existed. Teacher perceptions from the MLQ (5X) and FCAT data were used to answer this question. The MLQ (5X) was scored according to the MLQ scoring key to find the average score for each of the 12 items tested by the MLQ. The averages for the 12 items were paired with student gain scores to determine if the student achievement data rose or fell along with teacher perception results. To determine if there was a relationship, or correlation, for Research Question 3 the Pearson correlation was used. The Pearson correlation was used

66

because it can measure the relationship between two separate variables (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). Data Analysis To find the leadership styles of each principal question 1 asked: Which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal transition? Teacher perception results were taken from a sample of 58 teachers (n = 58) using the MLQ (5X). Principals' names were replaced with letters to protect identities. Descriptive data was taken from each of the subsets from the MLQ (5X) before using repeated-measures ANOVA to analyze overall leadership styles. For the purpose of this study descriptive data included: the sample of teachers (n = 58), overall number of responses in each leadership style, subset, and outcome of leadership, mean responses for each subset, and mean results for each leadership style. The MLQ (5X) was used in its entirety to find which leadership style was prevalent according to a full range leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004). A sample of the MLQ (5X) is found in Appendix A along with a sample of the scoring sheet in Appendix B. Repeated-measures ANOVA was applied to Research Question 1 to determine which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers. Perception data were gathered from 58 teachers. The results of the teacher perception data were placed into SPSS to determine if any of the three leadership styles tested by the MLQ (5X) including transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire leadership styles were significantly perceived by teachers. A sample of the subscales and scoring key can be found in Appendix B.

67

Research Question 2 asked: Which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data during a time of principal change? Student achievement data were gathered from sophomore FCAT gain scores. The gain scores were used from both math and reading for each year between 2001 and 2008. FCAT data were displayed in numeric form. A sample of 200 gain scores was collected randomly from an online number randomizer. Measures of central tendency were found to plot student gain scores in both math and reading across the 8 years between 2001 and 2008. The mean was used to find the central tendency for each year of gain scores. To calculate the mean score (M) the following formula was used:

. Taking 200 students from 1-year of the student

population produced a sample of n=200. The sum of scores ( ) was determined by adding the 200 math gain scores from 1-year of the random sample, then the same was done with the reading scores. The sample and the sum of scores were placed into the formula determining the mean in both math and reading for 1-year. The mean for each year was calculated and placed into a line graph to show any patterns. Although the highest mean score could be assumed to reflect the most effective principal leadership style, a more in-depth statistical analysis was done to determine if there was a significant difference in means. Independent-measures ANOVA was used to determine if any one leadership style significantly yielded better student gain scores. All 8 years were plotted to find any patterns of mean distribution, but only the years of principal change required deeper analysis. Independent-measures ANOVA was used for the years from 2003 to 2006. The

68

student gain scores from 2003 to 2006 were used to determine if there was a significant leadership style that yielded higher student achievement. Table 1 shows how the data collected was applied to Research Question 2: Table 1 Data Collection for Research Question 2

Principal D 2003 200 gain scores M=X Principal A 2004 200 gain scores M=X Principal B 2005 200 gain scores M=X Principal C 2006 200 gain scores M=X

Note : Overall means will then be calculated to determine the total variability.

After the total variability was determined the variance was tested between all 4 years to distinguish variability between principals' influence. Variability was also tested within each year of gain scores to determine "how much difference is reasonable to expect just by chance" (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008, pg. 342). If a significant difference was found according to the independent-measures ANOVA then a post hoc test was done from year to year. The post hoc test was used to find if the year with the highest mean produced a significant difference to determine the most effective principal leadership style during a time of principal change. Research Question 3 asked: How are teacher perceptions of principal leadership style correlated with student achievement during a time of principal change? To analyze Research Question 3 the teacher perception data from the MLQ was compared with the student achievement data to find if there was a significant relationship. The mean from

69

teacher perceptions taken from the 12 individual items of the MLQ was the X value. Eight years of student gain scores between 2001 and 2008 were the Y value within the Pearson correlation. Each year of student achievement data (Y value) was combined with the appropriate principal results from teacher perception data (X value). A Pearson correlation was done for each year to determine if the averages of each leadership style according to MLQ results correlate with random sample of student achievement data. The critical values for the Pearson correlation found Gravetter and Wallnau (2008) were used to determine the levels of significance according to the degrees of freedom. If there was a correlation between principal leadership style and student achievement then the Pearson correlation showed more effective leadership styles yielded higher student achievement while less effective leadership styles yielded lower student achievement. Ethical Issues and Informed Consent This quantitative study followed the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Walden University as represented by the IRB approval number 05-12-100328405. Each participant filled out a survey independently without any outside influence. The participants' survey results were completely anonymous to follow the policies set forth by Walden University. An example of the participant consent form can be found in Appendix E. Each participant received a participant consent form that included the right to willingly participate, the purpose of the study, procedure of the study, and a right to ask for a copy of the results. Participants showed they agreed to consent by willingly participating. A Letter of cooperation with the school district can be found in Appendix F. Consent to use the names from the principals who changed schools

70

can be found in Appendix G and permission to use the study school from the current sitting principal is in Appendix H. These studies was done under the assumption that all participants were open and honest concerning their answers and were not under any outside influence affecting their responses. Each of the teacher participants were given four surveys, one for each principal, requiring an ample amount of time for them to be completed. These surveys were distributed during the standard school year and two weeks were provided to ensure that teacher's instructional practices were not disturbed. Emails were sent to teacher participants during the two weeks to remind them of the completion time. The student achievement data were collected from the school district mainframe for the study school. No student names or any other student information were used for this study. Student rights were protected according to according to Walden University IRB and the National Institutes of Health Regulations. Role of the Researcher The researcher is currently an assistant principal at the study school and had the opportunity to work with each of the four principals. Although many of the teacher participants still teach at the school some have changed schools, changed professions, or retired. The teachers participated in an anonymous survey for confidentiality to prevent any risk to the participants. Principal D was the original principal who opened the school in 1988. Principal A was the assistant principal for curriculum during the Principal D's tenure before being promoted to principal. The Principal B was a teacher, coach, and assistant principal within the school before serving as principal in two neighboring middle schools.

71

Principal C was an assistant principal at a neighboring high school and middle school with no experience at the study school. The teachers were chosen because they served under each of the four principals. Teacher survey data were collected online by Mind Garden Incorporated. The online surveys provided equal access to those teachers who still work at the school and those who do not. This was explained to the participants in the participant consent form in Appendix E. Summary This quasi-experimental quantitative study was designed to gather data concerning teacher perceptions of principal leadership style in a time of principal change. This study had a dependent variable (student achievement data) and an independent variable (teacher perception of principal leadership during a time of leadership change). These variables were placed into non-equivalent quasi-experimental design using pre and post observations of teacher perceptions and student achievement (Creswell, 2003). The teachers and students who were used in this study reflect a population of teachers and students, who could, potentially, experience a change in leadership. The teacher and student sample were taken from a public high school in southern Florida. Teacher perception data were gathered by the MLQ (5X) to ensure validity for this quantitative research study. Two hundred and thirty-two surveys from teachers and randomly selected FCAT gain scores were gathered. To evaluate teacher perception and student achievement data ANOVA, Pearson procedures were used (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). The results of this quantitative study are reported in section 4. The interpretation of the findings can be found in section 5.

72

Section 4: Analysis of Data The purpose of this quasi-experimental quantitative study was to investigate the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement during a time of principal change. To examine this relationship, a school was chosen in suburban south Florida at which four principals were hired over 4 years. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) was used to collect teacher perceptions of principal leadership style (Avolio & Bass, 2007). Student achievement data from sophomore gain scores in both math and reading were collected from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The FCAT data were collected from the 4 years of principal change to determine if student gain scores on the FCAT were affected by teacher perceptions of principal leadership style. This section presents the results of this quantitative study. Data analyzed from the MLQ (5X) determined which principal leadership style was significantly perceived among teachers for each principal. Student achievement data were analyzed with the MLQ (5X) and used to determine which principal leadership style significantly yielded the highest student achievement results and if there was a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement. Transformational leadership theory, change theory, leadership theory, and situational leadership theory, which together comprised the theoretical foundation for this study, provide support for its outcomes. This section also includes graphical and tabular presentations of the data, interpretations and explanations of those data, and descriptions of how the data were analyzed and interpreted for each research question and corresponding hypothesis.

73

Data Collection Perceptions data collected for this quantitative study came from 58 teachers who worked under four principals within 4 years. Seventy-three teachers served under all four principals, and 64 of them were reached to participate in the survey. Of the 64 teachers who were reached, 43 still teach at the study school. The 64 teachers were initially contacted through email by the current principal to participate in the study. After receiving the initial email from the sitting principal, the potential participants received an introductory email from Mindgarden.com (Appendix J). Mindgarden.com is the company that housed the electronic survey. Of the 64 teachers who were contacted through email to take the survey 58 chose to participate. Those 58 teachers who chose to participate filled out one MLQ (5X) (Appendix A) survey for each of the four principals they served resulting in 232 surveys for analysis. Principals' names were used for the teacher survey but, for the purpose of confidentiality in this paper, each principal's name was replaced with a letter. The MLQ (5X) results were broken down into the 12 subsets (Appendices A-D) identified by Avolio and Bass (2004). Those subsets and corresponding MLQ (5X) questions included: idealized influence attributed (Questions 10, 18, 21, & 25), idealized influence behavior (Questions 6, 14, 23, & 34), inspirational motivation (Questions 9, 13, 26, & 36), intellectual stimulation (Questions 2, 8, 30, & 32), individual consideration (Questions 15, 19, 29, & 31), contingent reward (Questions 1, 11, 16, & 35), management-by-exception active (Questions 4, 22, 24, & 27), management-by-exception passive (Questions 3, 12, 17, & 20), laissez-faire (Questions 5, 7, 28, & 33), extra effort (Questions 39, 42, & 44), effectiveness (Questions 37, 40, 43, & 45), and (38 & 41)

74

satisfaction (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The results of the MLQ (5X) were analyzed with student achievement data to determine if there was a relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of principal change and student achievement. The overall FCAT results from the study school's district office were received in the form of Excel spread sheets. The FCAT results included each school within the district in eight spreadsheets representing each year from 2001 through 2008. The filtering process for the data were as follows: All schools other than the study school were removed; all students' names were removed and assigned a number; ninth-grade results were removed; 11th- and 12th-grade make-up results were removed; and, all other FCAT results were removed except the gain scores in both math and reading. The only information left on each spreadsheet was a number (representing each student), 10th grade gain scores in both math and reading, and the year of the results. The numbers representing students were put into a computer randomizer and 200 randomly selected FCAT gain scores were chosen. All other numbers representing students were removed. Research Questions and Results This quantitative study was based on three questions to determine if there was a relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement: RQ1: Which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal change? RQ2: Which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data during a time of principal change?

75

RQ3: How are teacher perceptions of principal leadership style correlated with student achievement during a time of principal change? Perceptions data were collected from 58 teachers who served four principals within 4 years. Those 58 teachers who chose to participate filled out one MLQ (5X) survey for each of the four principals they served. The MLQ (5X) was used to find which leadership style was prevalent according to a full range leadership scale (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The full range leadership scale divides leadership into 12 subsets to determine which principals were more or less transformational, transactional, or laissezfaire than others. The full range leadership scale is as follows: Transformational leadership has five subsets within the MLQ (5X) that include idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration; transactional leadership has two subsets that include contingent reward and management-by-exception (active); and passive/avoidant leadership also has two subsets that include management-by-exception (passive) and laissez-faire leadership with four questions each, resulting in eight questions. To answer Research Question 1 scores for transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and passive/avoidant leadership were attained by combining the results within each subset. To answer Research Question 3, each subset was used to investigate the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data during a time of principal change. The response scale for the MLQ (5X) ranges from 0 to 4 according to the following scale: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently, if not always. Bass and Avolio (2004) stated that the higher the average for

76

each question within the subset the more that leader represents the leadership style depicted. The survey results and student achievement data were placed in SPSS for Windows. Descriptive statistics were used from both repeated-measures ANOVA and independent-measures ANOVA to determine which principal leadership style was significantly perceived and if teacher perceptions of principal leadership style affected student achievement. Research Question 1 Research Question 1 was designed to determine which principal leadership style was most significantly perceived for each principal according to teacher perception data during 4 years of principal change. The hypotheses for Research Question 1 were: 1: There was no significant principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals. 1: There was at least one significant principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals. Data for Research Question 1 were divided into the three leadership styles of the MLQ (5X), specifically transformational leadership (Questions 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, & 36), transactional leadership (Questions 1, 4, 11, 16, 22, 24, 27, & 35), and passive/avoidant leadership (Questions 3, 5, 7, 12, 17, 20, 28, & 33). Transformational leadership stems from Bass and Avolio (1989)'s theory on transformational leadership. Bass and Avolio (1989) stated that those leaders who are transformational are able to able to motivate subordinates to be more committed, feel better about their ability to finish projects, and have more trust in leadership.

77

Transactional leadership is another effective leadership quality that can be both constructive and corrective (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Avolio and Bass (2004) described productive leaders as being more transformational while exhibiting transactional skills with the ability to choose between the two styles in different circumstances. The MLQ (5X) includes the outcomes of leadership extra effort (Questions 39, 42, & 44), effectiveness (Questions 37, 40, 43, & 45), and satisfaction (Questions 38 & 41). The outcomes of leadership were included in the data analysis. Descriptive statistics for each outcome of leadership and leadership style were analyzed to show the means for each principal. After the means for each outcome of leadership and leadership style were calculated a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between the means. Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was broken down by adding the responses from each teacher for Questions 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, and 36. Each of the 58 teachers (n = 58) answered 20 questions within each subset for transformational leadership, resulting in N = 1160 teacher perception answers. For data analysis each principal's name was replaced with a letter. The order of the principals' tenures was changed to ensure anonymity. Transformational leadership is broken down into five subsets that include: idealized influence attributed (IA), idealized influence behavior (IB), inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation (IS), and individual consideration (IC). The MLQ (5X) uses a 5-point Likert scale that includes: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently, if not always. The descriptive means for each subset of transformational leadership are found in Table 2.

78

Table 2 Means for the Subsets of Transformational Leadership Principal A B C D IA 2.46 2.8 1.95 3.52 IB 2.68 2.86 2.2 3.52 IM 2.64 2.97 2.43 3.65 IS 2.28 2.39 1.49 2.92 IC 2.29 2.59 1.47 3.11

The subsets from Table 2 are combined to find each principal's perceived transformational mean. The transformational mean for each principal is found in Table 3. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership

Principal A B C D

Mean 2.4681 2.7207 1.9034 3.3397

Std. Deviation 1.20139 1.10435 1.35921 0.89006

The higher the mean for the survey results the more transformational the leader (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The descriptive statistics showed that Principal D's leadership style was perceived as more transformational than the other three. Principal C's leadership style was perceived as the least transformational, and Principals A and B's leadership styles fell between the two extremes. To determine if the differences between the four

79

principals were significant, a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Repeatedmeasures ANOVA was chosen because it can evaluate one group of participants who received more than two different treatments (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). Treatments are different influences affecting the study group. For the purpose of this study, each of the four principals represents a different treatment. Table 4 shows the results from the repeated-measures ANOVA between-treatments (principals) conducted through SPSS for Windows. Table 4 Repeated-measures ANOVA for Transformational Leadership Style Transformational Leadership *represents significant difference at .05 According to Gravetter and Wallnau (2008) an F ­ ratio is significant with df = (3, 3477) at a .05 level when the critical value exceeds 2.60. Table 3 depicts that F = 314.8 with a .05 level and the df = (3, 1389). With F = 314.8 each principal's leadership style was significantly perceived according to teacher responses to the MLQ (5X). Research Question 1 asked: Which principal leadership style was most significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal change? According to the repeated-measures ANOVA results Principal D's leadership style was significantly perceived as being the most transformational. Principal B's leadership style was significantly perceived as the second most transformational in the group, and Principal A's leadership style was perceived as the third most. The averages for both SS 1234.22 df 3 F F(3, 3477) = 314.8*

80

Principal B and Principal C's leadership styles were the closest proximal averages, while Principal C's leadership style was perceived as the least transformational leader with a mean of 1.90. Transactional leadership. The second leadership style tested by the MLQ (5X) was transactional leadership. Each of the 58 participating teachers (n = 58) answered 8 questions for transactional leadership including Questions 1, 4, 11, 16, 22, 24, 27, and 35 resulting in N = 464 teacher perceptions answers. Table 5 represents the mean results for the subsets of transactional leadership including contingent reward (CR) and management-by-exception active (MBEA). The subsets were scored according to the 5point Likert scale that includes: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently, if not always. Table 5 Means for the Subsets of Transactional Leadership Principal A B C D CR 2.78 2.76 2.04 3.56 MBEA 2.3 1.67 2.24 2.3

The subsets from Table 5 are combined to find each principal's perceived transactional mean. The transactional mean for each principal is found in Table 6.

81

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for Transactional Leadership

Principal A B C D

Mean 2.5366 2.2091 2.0905 2.7996

Std. Deviation 1.13016 1.23547 1.29645 1.24387

Table 6 depicts that the mean for Principal D's leadership style was higher than the other principals and reflects that this principal was more of a transactional leader. Unlike the results for transformational leadership, Principal A's leadership style was perceived as the second highest transformational and Principal B's leadership style was the third. In short, the perception results for transactional leadership for Principals A and B were reversed from transformational. Table 6 depicts Principal C's leadership style as perceived to be the least transactional. Repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to find any significant differences. Table 7 shows the results for repeated-measures ANOVA between-treatments for transactional leadership. Each principal constitutes a different treatment. Table 7 shows that df = (3, 1389) and according to Gravetter and Wallnau (2008) an F ­ ratio is significant at the .05 level when the critical value exceeds 2.60. Table 5 depicts that F = 33.59 with a .05 level and the df = (3, 1389).

82

Table 7 Repeated-measures ANOVA for Transactional Leadership Style Transactional Leadership *represents significant difference at .05 SS 143.95 df 3 F F(3,1389) = 33.59*

Although the F ­ ratio for the transactional leadership style was not as substantial as it was for the transformational leadership style, the difference was still significant. With the F ­ ratio for transactional leadership being significant, Principal D's leadership style was significantly perceived as more transactional than the other principals. Principal A's leadership style was significantly perceived as the second most transactional, and Principal B's leadership style was the third. Principal C's leadership style was significantly depicted as the least transactional of the principals. Passive/avoidant leadership. The final leadership style for Research Question 1 was passive/avoidant or laissez-faire. According to Avolio and Bass (2004), passive/avoidant leadership tends to be more reactive and does not bring about the desired results within an organization. Each of the 58 participating teachers (n = 58) answered Questions 3, 5, 7, 12, 17, 20, 28, and 33 for passive/avoidant leadership resulting in N = 464 teacher perception answers. Table 8 represents the mean results for the subsets of passive/avoidant leadership that include: Management-by-exception passive (MBEP) and laissez-faire leadership (LF). The subsets were scored according to

83

the 5-point Likert scale that includes: 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently, if not always. Table 8 Means for the Subsets of Passive/Avoidant Leadership Principal A B C D MBEP 1.3 1.4 1.48 0.83 LF 0.76 0.86 1.22 0.29

The subsets from Table 8 are combined to find each principal's perceived passive/avoidant leadership mean. The passive/avoidant leadership mean for each principal is found in Table 9. Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Passive/Avoidant Leadership Principal A B C D Mean 1.0302 1.1358 1.375 0.5517 Std. Deviation 1.19897 1.26972 1.31838 1.10248

84

The descriptive statistics show that Principal C's leadership style was perceived as the most passive/avoidant. The perceptions for passive/avoidant were in the opposite position for Principal C's leadership style than from transformational and transactional. Similarly opposite, Principal D's leadership style was the least passive/avoidant. These results were the exact opposite of transformational and transactional results, while Principal A and Bs' leadership styles still fell between Principal C and Ds' leadership styles. To test if the descriptive statistics were significant repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Table 10 shows the results of the repeated-measures ANOVA betweentreatments for passive/avoidant leadership. Table 10 Repeated-measures ANOVA for Passive/Avoidant Leadership Style Passive/Avoidant Leadership SS 166.47 df 3 F F(3,1389) = 40.53*

*represents significant difference at .05 Although all of the means for passive/avoidant leadership were below 1.5 the repeatedmeasures ANOVA showed that F = 40.53. Similar to transactional leadership the df = (3, 1389) and for an F ­ ratio to be significant at the .05 level, its value must exceed 2.60. With F = 40.53 Principal C's leadership style was perceived as the most passive/avoidant while Principal D's leadership style was the least. As with transformational and transactional leadership, Principals A and B's leadership styles fell between the other principals' perceived leadership styles.

85

Outcomes of leadership (extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction). The MLQ (5X) includes the dimensions of extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction to support the results for the three leadership styles. According to Avolio and Bass (2007) extra effort is the ability of a leader to influence subordinates to work harder than they would under normal working conditions. Effectiveness relates to how effective the leader was in the overall organizational duties, and satisfaction measures how well the leader worked with subordinates. Within the MLQ (5X) extra effort consisted of questions 39, 42, and 44. Table 11 shows the descriptive results for extra effort. Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Extra Effort

Principal A B C D

Mean 2.431 2.454 1.5057 3.4655

Std. Deviation 1.34867 1.31495 1.46933 0.92272

Table 11 shows Principal D's leadership style is perceived as bringing about more extra effort than the other principals. Principal C's leadership style is perceived as bringing about less extra effort than the other principals, while the means for Principals A and B fell between Principals D and C. Table 12 displays the results of the repeated-measures ANOVA between-treatments to calculate if the mean differences were significant. The

86

outcomes of leadership were scored according to the 5 point Likert scale with 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently, if not always. Table 12 Repeated-measures ANOVA for Extra Effort Style Extra Effort SS 334.51 df 3 F F(3,519) = 67.16*

*represents significant difference at .05 Table 12 shows that df = (3, 519) and according to Gravetter and Wallnau (2008) an F ­ ratio is significant at the .05 level when the critical value exceeds 2.61. Table 12 shows that F = 67.16 depicting that there was a significant difference in means for extra effort. These results of extra effort support the results for both transformational leadership and passive/avoidant leadership by revealing the same perception data for both. Within the MLQ (5X) effectiveness was the foundation for questions 37, 40, 43, and 45. The descriptive results for effectiveness are depicted in Table 13. Table 13 Descriptive Statistics for Effectiveness Principal A B C D Mean 2.5819 2.4052 1.7629 3.5690 Std. Deviation 1.21042 1.17682 1.38007 .77542

87

Table 13 shows that Principal D's leadership style was perceived as the most effective and follows the order for the results of transactional leadership, with Principal A's leadership style being the second most effective, Principal B's leadership style the third, and Principal C's leadership style the fourth. To ascertain if the mean differences were significant a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Table 14 shows the results for the repeated-measures ANOVA between-treatments for effectiveness. Table 14 Repeated-measures ANOVA for Effectiveness Style SS Df F

Effectiveness

388.88

3

F(3,693) = 103.54*

*represents significant difference at .05 Table 14 shows that df = (3, 693) and according to Gravetter and Wallnau (2008) an F ­ ratio is significant at the .05 level when the critical value exceeds 2.61. The results for the repeated-measures ANOVA shows that F = 103.54 depicting that there was a significant difference in means for effectiveness. The final subset for the MLQ (5X) was satisfaction. Items 38 and 41 were used for the outcome of leadership satisfaction within the MLQ (5X). Table 15 shows the descriptive results for satisfaction. According to Table 15, Principal D's leadership style was perceived as bringing about the most satisfaction. The order for satisfaction supports the order for transformational leadership. To find if the means for satisfaction were significant repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Table 16 shows the results for the repeated-measures ANOVA between-treatments for satisfaction.

88

Table 15 Descriptive Statistics for Satisfaction Principal A B C D Mean 2.5 2.75 1.6983 3.4569 Std. Deviation 1.26834 1.18597 1.4991 0.8687

Table 16 Repeated-measures ANOVA for Satisfaction Style Satisfaction SS 183.27 df 3 F F(3,345) = 40.15*

*represents significant difference at .05 According to Gravetter and Wallnau (2008), an F ­ ratio is significant with df = (3, 345) at a .05 level when the critical value exceeds 2.60. Table 13 depicts that F = 40.15 with a .05 level and the df = (3, 345). According to Table 16 the mean differences for satisfaction were significant. Research Question 1 was designed to find which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal transition. The hypotheses for Research Question 1 were: 1: There was no principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals.

89

1:

There was at least one principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals.

Three styles of leadership and three outcomes of leadership were tested according to teacher perceptions data from the MLQ (5X). The data results for the mean differences of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, passive/avoidant leadership, extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction were all found to be significant. Each mean difference for each principal leadership style was found to be significant compared to the other principal leadership styles. According to the results from the repeated-measures ANOVA for Research Question 1, the leadership styles for each principal were significantly perceived. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected with all four principals' leadership style being significantly perceived. Principal D's leadership style was significantly perceived as being the most transformational and transactional while being the least passive/avoidant. Principals A and Bs' leadership styles were perceived as being either 2nd or 3rd highest rankings through all three leadership styles and the three outcomes of leadership. Principal C's leadership style was the least transformational and transactional and the most passive/avoidant. Principal C's outcomes of leadership were also ranked as the least in all three subsets. Research Question 2 Research Question 2 was designed to find which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data during a time of principal change. The hypotheses for Research Question 2 were:

90

2:

There was no principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals.

2:

There was at least one principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals.

The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) was used as student achievement data for Research Question 2. FCAT results vary between reading and math. The total reading scores ranged between 86 and 3008 while math scores ranged between 375-2709. Both math and reading tests only gave points for correct answers according to the question format. The FCAT questions were divided into 4 formats that included: Multiple-choice, gridded-response, short-response, and extended response. Students' total scores were calculated for each year they took the FCAT. This study used a sample of students from the focus school that tested in both ninth and 10th grade. Gain scores were calculated by taking the total score from a student's ninth grade year and subtracting it from the student's 10th grade score. Gain scores were taken from 200 randomly selected students between 2001 and 2008 in both math and reading. Table 17 shows the mean gain scores from 2001 and 2008 of the study school. The data in Table 17 are also depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 reveals the general trend for gain scores for both math and reading. The years between 2001 and 2003 show the gains during Principal D's administration, while 2004, 2005, and 2006 were years of principal change.

91

Table 17 FCAT Gain Scores Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Reading Mean 32.13 49.4 117.555 69.885 23.76 22.1 5.84 38.44 Math Mean 36.4 41.15 61.305 49.21 45.495 48.71 43.29 57.875

FCAT Gain Scores

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mean for Reading Figure 1. FCAT Gain Scores

Mean for Math

92

Principal A led in 2004 and Principal B led in 2005. Figure 1 reveals 3 years of Principal C's administration as being 2006, 2007, and 2008. A gradual increase in gain scores occurred each year of Principal D's leadership. A slight decrease was noted in math for Principal A's leadership style, and a considerable decrease was noted in reading. Under Principal B's leadership style a slight decrease in math scores occurred and a considerable decrease in reading was noted. Under the first year of Principal C's leadership style, a slight decrease in reading was noted but a slight increase in math occurred. The second year of Principal C's leadership style had a decrease in both math and reading but showed an increase the last year. Figure 1 shows that reading scores between 2003 and 2006 during the time of principal change had a dramatic decrease and math showed very little change. To find if the gain changes in both math and reading were significant an independent-measures ANOVA was conducted. The results of the independent-measures ANOVA are shown in Tables 18 and 19. Only the 4 years of principal change were analyzed in the independent-measures ANOVA. Table 18 Independent-Measures ANOVA for Reading Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1388090.385 2.767E7 2.906E7 df 3 796 799 Mean Square 462696.795 34764.8 F 13.309* Sig. 0

*represents significant difference at .05

93

Table 19 Independent-Measures ANOVA for Math Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 48145.794 7738466.445 7786612.239 df 3 796 799 Mean Square 16048.598 9721.692 F 1.651 Sig. 0.176

For Research Question 2 the df = (3, 796) and for an F ­ ratio to be significant at .05 of significance the value must exceed 2.61. Table 15 shows that F = 13.31 for reading and Table 16 shows F = 1.65 for math. The gain scores were significant for reading but not significant for math. Research Question 2 asked which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data, and the hypotheses were as follows: 2: There was no principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals. 2: There was at least one principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals. Table 19 did not show a significant difference for math; however one was found in reading. A significant difference was found in the reading portion of the FCAT gain scores showing that at least one principal leadership style did significantly yield better results. Although math did not show a significant difference in means reading did.

94

According to the independent-measures ANOVA results found in Table 18 the null hypothesis was rejected. A post hoc test was done to show if the year with the highest mean produced a significant difference to determine the most effective principal leadership style during a time of principal change. Table 20 shows the results of the Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc pairwise comparison. Table 20 shows that the principal leadership styles from 2005 and 2006 were listed as being homogeneous. The principals from 2003 and 2004 have means that were significantly different from the other two. With the mean from Principal D being significantly different than the other three the null hypothesis for research question 2 was rejected. The transformational leadership style of Principal D significantly yielded the best FCAT gain scores in reading. Table 20 Pairwise Comparison for Reading using Student-Newman-Keuls Student-Newman-Keulsa Year N 2006.00 2005.00 2004.00 2003.00 Sig. 200 200 200 200 .535 1.000 Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 2 3 12.1900 23.7600 69.8850 117.5550 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 200

95

Research Question 3 Research Question 3 examined relationships between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data. The hypotheses for Research Question three were: 3: There was no significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of principal transition and student achievement data. 3: There was a significant relationship between teacher perception of principal leadership style during a time of principal transition and student achievement data. Research Question 3 used perception data from 58 teachers, all of whom worked under the four principals. The 200 samples of student achievement data used for Research Question 2 were placed into a computer randomizer to choose 58 for a comparable sample to the 58 teachers. Fifty-eight teacher perceptions data from the MLQ (5X) were compared with 58 randomly selected student achievement data to find if there was a significant relationship. For Research Question 3 the years between 2001 and 2008 were used, including 3 years of both Principals C and D and 1 year each for Principals A and B. A Pearson analysis was conducted to determine if the rising and falling of teacher perceptions of principal leadership style correlated with the rising and falling of student gain scores in both math and reading. All 12 subsets within the MLQ (5X) were analyzed with the corresponding year of FCAT gain scores for both math and reading, and a Pearson analysis was conducted using SPSS for Windows. The Pearson analysis was conducted

96

with N = 58 and = .05. Table 21 shows the result of the Pearson analysis for each year with all 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X). The 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X) are represented as follows for Table 18: CR = Contingent Reward, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, MBEP = Management-by-Exception (Passive), MBEA = Management-by-Exception (Active), LF = Laissez-Faire, IB = Idealized Influence (Behaviors), IM = Inspirational Motivation, IA = Idealized Influence (Attributes), IC = Individual Consideration, EF = Extra Effort, SAT = Satisfaction, and EE = Extra Effort. Gain scores from 8 years in both math and reading were analyzed with the 12 subsets from the MLQ (5X) for Research Question 3. There were 192 different correlations tested. Table 21 showed 25 significant correlations between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement out of 192 tested correlations. Significant correlations were shown for reading 2001 (MBEP), math 2002 (IB and IM), reading 2002 (IS, IM, EF, SAT, EE), math 2003 (MBEP), reading 2003 (MBEA, IB, IM), math 2004 (LF), reading 2005 (IM), reading 2006 (IB and IM), math 2007 (MBEA), and math 2008 (IS, LF, IB, IA, IC, EF, SAT, and EE). Only 2002 (reading gain scores) and 2008 (math gain scores) showed more than three significant correlations between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data. Only 13% of the 192 tested correlations were found to be significant. Research Question 3 was designed to discern a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data. The hypotheses for Research Question 3 were:

Table 21 Correlation Matrix Math/Reading and 12 Subsets from the MLQ (5X) CR Math 01 Reading 01 Math 02 Reading 02 Math 03 Reading 03 Math 04 Reading 04 Math 05 Reading 05 Math 06 Reading 06 * table continues 97 -0.02 0.09 0.19 0.14 0.04 0.09 -0.02 0.00 -0.06 0.10 -0.15 0.17 IS -0.07 -0.05 0.18 0.22* 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.16 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.08 MBEP 0.05 0.24* 0.10 0.07 0.25* 0.03 -0.06 0.15 0.01 0.09 0.13 -0.10 MBEA 0.05 0.04 -0.21 -0.19 0.10 0.25* -0.06 0.06 0.02 0.15 0.03 -0.04 LF -0.06 -0.01 -0.14 -0.12 0.06 0.03 -0.24* 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.02 -0.04 IB -0.01 0.07 0.29* 0.20 0.04 0.23* 0.11 0.08 -0.09 0.19 -0.04 0.24* IM 0.02 -0.03 0.29* 0.31* 0.07 0.22* 0.12 0.03 -0.06 0.24* -0.15 0.23* IA 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.20 -0.02 0.21 0.08 0.12 -0.03 0.16 -0.04 0.10 IC 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.02 0.13 -0.04 0.00 -0.01 0.06 EF 0.06 0.03 0.15 0.24* -0.03 0.18 0.08 0.10 -0.09 0.13 -0.06 0.14 SAT -0.01 0.02 0.10 0.23* 0.00 0.15 0.07 0.14 -0.12 0.14 -0.11 0.11 EE -0.13 0.03 0.10 0.23* 0.08 0.15 0.10 0.09 -0.09 0.09 -0.05 0.10

Math 07 Reading 07 Math 08 Reading 08

0.05 0.05 1.00 0.12

0.00 0.08 0.28* 0.19

-0.19 -0.12 0.13 -0.09

-0.26* 0.07 -0.12 -0.12

-0.16 -0.20

0.13 0.11

0.15 0.08 0.14 0.06

0.18 0.15 0.24* -0.07

0.06 0.09 0.22* 0.19

0.05 0.19 0.21* 0.19

0.11 0.18 0.24* 0.15

0.04 0.21 0.24* 0.19

-0.28* -0.23* -0.13 0.01

*p < .05 one- tailed test, n= 58

98

99

3:

There was no significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of changing principals and student achievement data.

3:

There was a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of changing principals and student achievement data.

The basis for Research Question 3 was the assertion that while teacher perceptions of principal leadership rise and fall so will student achievement data. Twenty-five out of 192 correlations were found to be significant suggesting a weak statistical relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership during a time of principal change and student achievement. The weak relationship found in Research Question 3 is still a relationship; therefore, the null hypothesis will neither be accepted nor rejected. Recommendations for further research as a result of Research Questions 3 can be found in section 5. Consistencies and Inconsistencies in Findings The results of this quantitative study revealed some consistencies and inconsistencies with the three research questions. Significant differences were found consistently throughout the results for Research Question 1 and Research Question 2. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted for Research Question 1 to determine if there was a significant difference in means between leadership styles from teacher perceptions data. An independent-measures ANOVA was conducted for Research Question 2 to determine if the gain changes in both math and reading FCAT results were significant. Pearson analysis was used for Research Question 3 to determine if there were

100

relationships between the 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X) and student achievement results in both math and reading. Twenty-five significant relationships were found out of 192 tested relationships for Research Question 3, but very few significant relationships were found consistently between years and subsets. Research Question 1 Research Question 1 was designed to find which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal transition. The MLQ (5X) was the tool used to determine if a principal leadership style was significantly perceived for principals A, B, C, and D. The MLQ (5X) tests for transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership styles. All three leadership styles were analyzed by descriptive statistics along with the three supporting leadership outcomes. Repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to find any significance differences between mean results from teacher perceptions data for the three leadership styles and three outcomes of leadership tested by the MLQ (5X). Principal D's leadership style was significantly perceived as the most transformational and transactional. According to Avolio & Bass (2004), leaders who are more transactional focus on identifying mistakes and correcting them while transformational leaders work to raise the level of subordinates overall performance but leaders can use both styles. Principal C's leadership style was significantly perceived as the least transformational and transactional. Principal B's leadership style was significantly perceived as the second most transformational but the third most transactional. Principal A's leadership style was perceived as the third most transformational and the second most transactional. Principals A and B's leadership styles rotated between the second

101

and third positions from transformational and transactional, with the means being significant for both. Principal C's leadership style was significantly labeled as the most passive/avoidant of the four principal leadership styles. Principal D's leadership style was perceived as the least passive/avoidant. The repeated-measures ANOVA results for Principals C and D's leadership styles were consistent in all leadership styles and outcomes of leadership. Passive/avoidant leadership is the least desirable by subordinates according to Avolio and Bass (2004), and transformational leadership is the most desirable. Effective leaders have been known to use transformational and transactional leadership qualities as tools with the ability to rotate between the two according to the situation (Avolio & Bass, 1989; Richmon & Allison, 2003). Principal A's leadership style was labeled as the second highest passive/avoidant but the second highest transformational as well. Principal B was labeled as the third highest passive/avoidant leader and the third highest transformational leader. The results for Principals A and Bs' leadership styles suggest some inconsistencies. For the six sets being measured in Research Question 1, including transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction, both Principals A and Bs' leadership styles were perceived as being either the second or third highest. According to Avolio and Bass (2007) those leaders who are more transformational tend to also rate higher in extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Tables 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 show the results for both Principals A and Bs' leadership styles according to perception results as rotating between the third and fourth position. Table 3 shows that Principal B was

102

more transformational than Principal A but rated less in extra effort according to Table 8 and less in satisfaction according to Table 15. According to perceptions data for Research Question 1 Principal D was rated as the highest transformational and transactional leader. According to O'Shea (2009) effective leaders are able to change their leadership style between transformational and transactional according to the situation suggesting that the results for Research Question 1 support previous research on situational leadership. Richmon and Allison (2003) stated that effective leaders have the ability to adapt their leadership style according to the situation. Avolio and Bass (2004) revealed that effective leaders can be both transformational and transactional. Principal D was rated as the highest transformational and transactional leader suggesting that the leadership style of Principal D helped him adapt to situations more easily than the other principals. Research Question 2 Research Question 2 was designed to find which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data during a time of principal change. Figure 1 depicts Principal D's leadership style as gradually increasing student achievement in both math and reading before leaving the school. Principal A's leadership style showed a slight decrease in math scores and a considerable decrease in reading scores. Principal B's leadership style also resulted in a slight decrease in math scores and a considerable decrease in reading scores. The first year of Principal C's leadership style only showed a gradual decrease in reading scores but showed a slight increase in math scores. The second year of Principal D's leadership

103

style showed a decrease in math and reading while the third year yielded an increase in both. The repeated-measures ANOVA showed that the Principal D's leadership style significantly yielded the highest results in reading. Principal D's leadership style also yielded the highest gain scores in math. Principal D's leadership style, however, yielded the highest gain scores for math in 2003 but the mean for the gain scores was not significant. Principal D's leadership style yielded a gradual increase for the three years tested, and Principal C's leadership showed an increase in the last year tested. Both principals who were established for more than two years showed an increase in gain scores in both math and reading. The results for Research Question 2 suggests that principals who are more established tend to yield higher student achievement results regardless of leadership style. Sarros and Sarros (2007) stated that leadership takes time to build trust with subordinates in order for the organization yield higher results. Recommendations for further action concerning established principals will be discussed in section 5. Research Question 3 Research Question 3 was designed to find a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data. Within the 8 years tested for Research Question 3 there were 25 significant correlations found out of 192. Only 2002 (reading) and 2008 (math) showed more than three significant correlations between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement data. Several years had no correlations between any of the MLQ (5X) subsets and student achievement data, including; 2001 (math), 2004 (reading), 2005

104

(math), 2006 (math), 2007 (reading) 2008 (reading). Math 2008 was the only test to reveal more than half of the subsets as significant. Table 21 showed 25 significant correlations of the 192 tests revealing 13% were significant. Research Question 3 was designed to reveal if a significant relationship existed between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement, and if increases in teacher perceptions of principal leadership would result in increases in student achievement. The results for Research Question 3, however, did not reveal sufficient significant relationships to reject the null hypothesis. Interpretation of Results The results for this quantitative study are as follows: (a) Principal leadership styles were significantly perceived for each of the four principals according to teacher perceptions; (b) Principal D's leadership style significantly yielded higher results according to student achievement data in reading but not significantly in math; (c) there were some significant relationships found between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement according to the Pearson analysis. The results for Research Questions 1 and 2 were consistent with the theoretical foundations used for this study. Principal D's leadership style was significantly the most transformational and transactional. Principal D's leadership style was also perceived as bringing about the highest outcomes of leadership as measured by the constructs of extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Situational leadership theory states that effective principals are able to choose between leadership styles to improve output (Richmon & Allison, 2003). Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are both effective styles of leadership and the results for Research Questions 1 and 2 suggested

105

that principal D was more likely to demonstrate both leadership styles than the other principals. The results for Research Question 2 show an increase in student achievement results for both principals who were established for more than 2 years. Change theory suggests that leaders need time to build trust to be effective (Ma & MacMillan, 1999), and the results for Research Question 2 supported change theory by revealing increases in student achievement in both principals who led the school for more than 2 years. Principal D showed an increase in student achievement for each year of the study, and Principal C showed an increase in both math and reading the last year of the study. Leaders have an influence over the many components in an organization, and, as stated in both leadership theory and change theory, a change in leadership reduces the ability of a new leader to increase worker effectiveness (Avolio & Bass, 1998; Gallos, 2008; Schein, 2004). The results of Research Question 1 supported Avolio and Bass (2004)'s leadership theory by significantly perceiving the leadership styles of four principals by 58 teachers. Research Question 2 supported leadership theory by showing that leaders may need time to build stronger relationships with teachers for a school to be effective (Blanchard & Hodges, 2005). An alternative interpretation can also be made according to the results for each of the three research questions. The results for Research Question 3 do not seem to support Research Questions 1 and 2. Research Question 1 showed that each principal leadership style was significantly perceived; Research Question 2 revealed Principal D as significantly yielding better student achievement results; and Research Question 3 failed to significantly find a correlation between a specific leadership style and student

106

achievement. If, according to Research Question 1, principal leadership styles were significantly perceived, and, according to Research Question 2, one principal leadership style yielded higher student achievement data, then it could be assumed that Research Question 3 should consistently show the correlation between the two. The Pearson analysis, however, revealed a weak statistical relationship for Research Question 3. Summary The purpose of this quasi-experimental quantitative study was to investigate the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement during a time of principal change. The three research questions were designed to guide this study to find if a relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement existed. Research Question 1 used repeated-measures ANOVA to analyze teacher perceptions of principal leadership style of four principals as measured by the MLQ (5X). The results of Research question 1 revealed that all four principal leadership styles were significantly perceived. Principal D's leadership style was significantly perceived as the most transformational, transactional, and brought about more extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction then the other three principals. Principal C's leadership style was significantly perceived as being the most passive/avoidant while being the least in transformational, transactional, extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Principals A and Bs' leadership styles rotated through being the second and third most effective for each of the leadership styles and subsets. The null hypothesis for Research Question 1 was rejected. Research Question 2 was designed to find the principal leadership style that yielded the highest results according to student achievement data. Figure 1 displays the

107

first principal's leadership style as generating the highest results in both math and reading. Figure 1 also shows a declining trend in both math and reading during the principal changes. An independent-measures ANOVA was used to analyze student achievement data through the four years of changing principals. The independentmeasures ANOVA showed significance in the reading gain scores but not in math. A post hoc test was conducted and confirmed that the Principal D's leadership style significantly yielded the greatest mean results in reading according to student achievement data. The null hypothesis for Research Question 2 was rejected. Research Question 3 was designed to find if there was a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement. Pearson analysis was used to find if there was a significant relationship between the 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X) and student gain scores in both math and reading. Each year of gain scores between 2001 and 2008 was broken down into reading and math and analyzed with the 12 subsets of teacher perception data from the MLQ (5X). Only 25 of the 192 correlated tests showed any significant relationship. Twenty-five tests showed significant relationships, but only two tests (reading, 2002 and math, 2008) consistently showed correlations. The null hypothesis for Research Question 3 was neither accepted nor rejected. Principal leadership styles were significantly perceived according to Research Question 1 and a significant relationship was found between principal leadership style and student achievement data according to Research Question 2. The results from this study supported the theoretical foundations of transformational, leadership, change, and situational theory. Principal D's leadership style was perceived as being the most

108

transformational and yielded the highest student achievement results. Evidence was found through this study that leadership can influence the entire school organization and a change in leadership can negatively impact student achievement. Further analysis of the three research questions is presented in section 5. Section 5 will also interpret the findings, show implications for social change, make recommendations, and draw conclusions.

109

Section 5: Overview, Interpretations, Recommendations, and Conclusion Overview In this quantitative study, I investigated the effects of multiple leadership changes on students through teachers' perceptions at a large suburban high school in southern Florida. Business organizations, schools among them, depend on leadership for guidance and direction. When a change occurs in leadership, the organization goes through a period of transition (Schein, 2004). This quantitative study stems from the understanding that all schools will go through a change of leadership at some point. When a change in leadership occurs, trust must be built with the new leader, if teachers do not trust the principal, then teacher commitment is weakened (Gallos, 2008). Joffres and Haughey (2001) stated that a lack of teacher commitment causes instability, decreases in student. The problem addressed in this study was the leadership instability experienced in a school organization as a result of the assignment of four principals there in 4-years. Hausman and Goldring (2001) stated that the problem of instability impacts teachers and students because stable leadership and collegiality are critical to the school's ability to reach current and future goals. This study addressed low student achievement as a potential consequence of leadership instability. Change, leadership, transformational, and situational leadership theories provided the theoretical foundation for this study. Change theory refers to the effect of leadership transition on all stakeholders in an organization (Schein, 2004). Leadership theory refers to the influence organizational leaders have over the majority of the components of the organization and the need to create a sense of credibility with employees to make the organization effective (Gallos, 2008). Transformational leadership describes a leader

110

who is able to inspire workers to go above and beyond what they thought they could do (Avolio & Bass, 1998). Richmon and Allison (2003) stated that situational leadership theory is based on how leaders behave according to each individual situation presented to them. Summary of Results This quantitative study employed a quasi-experimental design to study the perceptions of 58 teachers, the leadership styles of 4 principals, and randomly selected student gain scores. The following three research questions guided this study in determining whether teacher perceptions of principal leadership style affect student achievement: RQ1: Which principal leadership style was significantly perceived by teachers according to teacher perception data during a time of principal change? RQ2: Which principal leadership style significantly yielded the best results according to student achievement data during a time of principal change? RQ3: How are teacher perceptions of principal leadership style correlated with student achievement during a time of principal change? These research questions were accompanied by hypotheses that were tested through this quantitative study. The hypotheses are as follows: 1: There was no principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals. 1: There was at least one principal leadership style significantly perceived according to teacher perception data during a time of changing principals.

111

The hypotheses for RQ2 are: 2: There was no principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals. 2: There was at least one principal leadership style that significantly yielded better results according to student achievement data during a time of changing principals. The hypotheses for RQ3are: 3: There was no significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of changing principals and student achievement data. 3: There was a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style during a time of changing principals and student achievement data. The results of Research Question 1 revealed that, over 4 years, the leadership styles of four principals were significantly perceived by 58 teachers. Through repeatedmeasures ANOVA the survey results from the MLQ (5X) showed that Principal D's leadership style was significantly perceived as the highest in transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and effectiveness, and in bringing about the most extra effort and satisfaction. Principal C's leadership style was significantly perceived as being the most passive/avoidant as well as the least transformational and transactional. Principal C was also perceived as the lowest in the three outcomes of leadership: effectiveness, satisfaction, and bringing out the most extra effort from teachers. Principals A and B

112

were significantly perceived by the 58 teachers as rotating between the second and third positions for all leadership styles and outcomes of leadership. The outcomes for Research Question 2 revealed that, based solely on the randomly selected student gain scores without controlling for differences in student demographics among the selected classes, the highest reading scores were achieved by students under Principal D's leadership. Students' scores also yielded the highest results in math during Principal D's leadership, but the math results were not found to be significant. Figure 1 showed student achievement results for all principals as having similar trends in both math and reading. Student achievement data showed a decreasing trend during years of principal leadership change and increases for the third years of both Principals C and D. The increase in student achievement for the third years of both Principals C and D suggests that time may be a factor to consider when studying effective principals. Research Question 3 was designed to examine correlations between student FCAT gain scores and teacher perception data from the MLQ (5X). The MLQ (5X) was analyzed by its 12 subsets that included: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), management-byexception (passive), laissez-faire, extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leadership. Of the 192 correlations done for Research Question 3, only 25 significant relationships were found. Table 21 shows sporadic correlations, both vertically and horizontally, between the 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X) and student achievement data. Pearson analysis was

113

chosen for Research Question 3 to find if there were consistent correlations found between the 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X) and student achievement data; however, Table 21 showed sporadic correlations with very little consistencies (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). No patterns of consistency could be found for years and subsets according to Table 21. With 13% of the tested correlations found to be significant, the null hypothesis for Research Question 3 was not accepted. Research Question 3, however, was designed to identify patterns of significance among the 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X) from teacher perceptions and student achievement data, rather than sporadic correlations as noted in Table 21. In spite of the 25 significant relationships, then, the null hypothesis also could not be rejected. Interpretation of Findings This study was designed to explore the relationships between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement during a time of principal change. The interpretations for the findings for this quantitative study are as follows: (a) Leadership can be significantly identified and measured by subordinates (i.e. teachers) in school settings, (b) principals may need more than 2 years to increase student achievement, and (c) there are other factors outside the scope of this study that could affect student achievement. Identification of Leadership Leadership theory indicates that leaders have influence over the majority of components within an organization including subordinates perceptions and production (Gallos, 2008). The results for Research Question 1 revealed that the perception data from 58 teachers concerning four principals were significantly perceived for all three

114

leadership styles and three outcomes of leadership tested by the MLQ (5X). Research Question 2 showed that at least one principal leadership style significantly yielded higher student achievement results than the other three leadership styles. This study revealed significant results in teacher perceptions data as well as randomly selected student achievement data. Principals have influence over all aspects of the school including subordinate perceptions and production, and the results of Research Questions 1 and 2 support leadership theory by revealing significant perceptions of principal leadership styles and at least one principal leadership style significantly yielding higher student achievement results. Results from Research Questions 1 and 2 supported Lewin's (1947) change theory by showing that a change in leadership can affect the entire organization. During the 4 years of principal leadership change a tendency of student achievement to decrease was noted according to randomly selected student achievement data without controlling for changing student demographics during each principal's leadership. The results of the outcomes of leadership from the MLQ (5X) showed that teachers perceived the transitioning principals (Principals A, B, & C) as less effective, less likely to bring about extra effort, and less satisfactory than Principal D, the principal with the longest tenure at the school. The highest student achievement was achieved during Principal D's leadership style while being perceived as the most transformational, transactional, most effective, and able to bring about the most effort and satisfaction. O'Shea (2009) stated that effective leaders rate high in both transformational and transactional leadership styles and have the ability to choose which one to use according to the situation. According to the results of Research Question 2, student achievement

115

results were the highest under Principal D's leadership styles, and Research Question 1 revealed Principal D as yielding the highest ratings in both transformational and transactional leadership. Principal D, according to the results of Research Questions 1 and 2, would be said to be the most effective leader, and effective leaders have the ability to choose between different leadership styles according the situation that is presented (Blanchard, Ziqarmi, & Nelson, 1993). This style of leadership is known as situational leadership (Richmon & Allison, 2003). The results of Research Questions 1 and 2 supported situational leadership by showing that student achievement was the highest during Principal D's leadership and Principal D was also perceived as the most transformational and transactional leader. Leaders who are transformational are said to motivate subordinates to go above and beyond their normal duties to perform at higher levels and improve organizational outputs (Avolio, 2007; Avolio & Bass, 1998; Herold et al., 2998). In the field of education, teachers perform at higher levels by increasing their commitment, efficacy, and organizational trust (Perry & Mankin, 2007). When commitment, efficacy, and organizational trust increase then student achievement increases (Hausman & Goldring, 2001; Postmes et al., 2001; Printy & Marks, 2006). Transformational leadership, therefore, should yield more teacher commitment, enhanced teacher efficacy, better organizational trust, and improved student achievement. Although many other factors go into student achievement outside the scope of this study, Research Questions 1 and 2 supported the theory of Avolio and Bass (2004) that leaders who are more transformational tend to be associated with higher results.

116

Impact of Time Trust between principals and teachers can only be developed through interaction and time (Deal & Peterson, 1994). The principal leadership styles from Principals A, B, and C were not allowed time to become established transformational or transactional leaders. Teacher perceptions data showed that principal leadership styles that had the lowest outcomes of leadership according to the MLQ (5X) results also yielded the lowest means in transformational and transactional leadership. The results for Research Question 1 suggest that teachers may not have had enough time to form accurate pictures of principal leadership style. During the last year of Principal C's tenure, student achievement data showed some signs of improvement in both reading and math but not enough to be significant. Perry and Mankin (2007) theorized that new leaders may need more than 2 years to yield better leadership skills and the results of Research Question 2 showed data to support this idea. When leaders are only given a short window of time to interact and build trust the organization being led by those leaders tends to suffer (Deal & Peterson, 1994). Research Question 2 supports the research by Deal and Peterson (1994) revealing that lower student achievement results are yielded when frequent principal leadership changes occur. Principal C's leadership style showed lower transformational and transactional leadership even though Principal C had the opportunity to remain in the school for more than 2 years. The third year of tenure for Principal C resulted in a slight improvement in mean scores for both math and reading. The leadership styles of both Principals C and D showed an increase in the third year of the study. The results of Research Question 2

117

were consistent with research by Perry and Mankin (2007) who stated that when leaders have the opportunity to build trust over time the organizational outcomes can improve. Other Factors Affecting Student Achievement Research Question 3 revealed 13% of the tested correlations as being significant according to Table 21. The results of Research Question 3 revealed very little consistency between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement. The results for Research Question 2 suggested that principal leadership style can influence student achievement, but the inconsistencies found in the results of Research Question 3 suggested that other factors may influence student achievement. Table 21 revealed a sporadic distribution of correlations between the 12 subsets tested by the MLQ (5X) and student achievement data without taking into account factors that may influence both. Principal leadership and student achievement are factors that make up the overall culture of a school (Peterson, 2002). The culture of a school can be guided by its principal (Boxx et al., 1991), but the culture is ultimately formed by its teachers (Gunbayi, 2007). A school culture will change as the factors within a school change including: principal leadership, teacher turnover, overall student body, academic focus, and even athletic focus (Peterson, 2002). The results of Research Question 3 suggest that other factors within the culture of a school can influence both teacher perceptions and student achievement and could potentially cause a lack of consistent correlations between the two.

118

Implications for Social Change Social change can be achieved through improving those processes in education that hinder student achievement. The results of this study revealed that student achievement could be negatively affected by changes in principal leadership. Harris (2005) stated that most teachers are focused on student achievement, but during a time of leadership change teachers tend to place their focus on adjusting to the new principal's ideals instead of the students. The results of Research Question 2 revealed a decline of student achievement during a time of principal change. Research Question 2 outcomes also revealed that the established principals tended to have a better track record for improving student achievement, when other factors, such as demographics, are not controlled. An established principal within a school has the ability to better understand the needs of the school, the students, and teachers (Goldsmith et al., 2000). Allowing new principals the time to establish their leadership style within a school could be important to improve social change by improving stability within a school. The time of principal transition can be a delicate time for a school because teachers and students could be negatively impacted unless a principal has effective leadership skills while becoming established in a new school (Talbot, 2000). Effective leadership skills can be ascertained through the professional development of prospective principals (Kaplin et al., 2005). The results of Research Question 2 revealed higher gains in student achievement during Principals C and D's tenures. Both Principals C and D were tenured longer than Principals A and B. The results of Research Question 2 suggested that principals who have the opportunity to establish their leadership over time

119

can improve student achievement. Allowing principals the time to establish their leadership style may positively influence student achievement and social change. Kaplin et al. (2005) stated professional development for prospective principals can minimize the negative impact on student achievement while principals attempt to establish their leadership style. The results of Research Question 2 showed that Principals A, B, and C all yielded a decreasing trend in student achievement during their first year as principal. Professional development can be offered to ensure positive student achievement even during a change of principal leadership (Kaplin et al., 2005). Professional development given to school district administrators, current principals, aspiring principals, and teachers can increase the understanding of how students are affected by a principal change (Kaplin et al., 2005). Positive social change could be achieved by improving the processes of professional development for prospective principals and allowing new principals the time establish their leadership. Recommendations for Action The results of this study showed a decrease in student achievement for each first year principal, a rise in student achievement in the third year for each established principal, and that principal leadership can be significantly perceived by teachers in a school setting. The recommendations for action according to the results of this study are as follows: (a) School districts should train principals how to transition into a school with follow-up throughout the principal's initial year, (b) Principals who are transitioning into a school should be given the opportunity to establish themselves before being removed, and (c) Leadership styles can be significantly perceived by teachers and current

120

principals should work to receive anonymous feedback from their staff to evaluate how their leadership is perceived. School Districts The results for Research Question 2 revealed that a change in principal can have a negative impact on student achievement. Most school districts offer training to prepare new principals, but this type of training is usually focused on teaching the logistics of being a principal (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). Current professional development for preparing new principals tends to focus on the budget, employee discipline, the hiring process, student services, curriculum, staff development, and the role of downtown personnel (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). If principals could also be trained on how to positively influence student achievement as they begin their principal tenure, then the principal could have a greater opportunity for success (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Research Question 2 showed that transitioning principals yielded lower student achievement results within the first year of being named principal. The results of Research Question 2 suggest that training aspiring principals through professional development could, potentially, improve new principals' leadership and effectiveness as they enter into a school. Establishing Principals The second recommendation as a result of this study is that new principals be given the opportunity to establish themselves within a school before being removed. Both principals in this study who established themselves for more than 2 years showed improvements in student achievement. Browne-Ferrigno and Muth (2004) stated that if

121

principals are given the opportunity to establish their leadership style for more than 2 years, then their chances to improve student achievement will increase. Allowing principals the time to establish themselves has the potential to positively affect all stakeholders. Teachers do not automatically trust a new principal as the principal begins his or her tenure (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). When teachers have more trust in their principal their self-efficacy rises, their teaching techniques improve, and student achievement increases (Wahstrom & Louis, 2008). Principals who have only been in a school for 1 year have very little time to build a relationship of trust with teachers and students. If principals are given the time and opportunity to build trust then student achievement could, potentially, be positively influenced. Current Principal Practice The results of Research Question 1 showed that principal leadership style could be significantly perceived by teachers. The results of the perception data for the four principals were specific to this study; however, most principals do not have the opportunity to understand how their leadership affects teachers (Kelley et al., 2005). Bass and Avolio (1989) theorized that those leaders who continually analyze their own leadership style develop into successful leaders. Most principals will not see how their leadership style affects teachers (Kelley et al., 2005). Principals can see how students perform on state mandated tests; however, unless principals are able to gain perceptions data from subordinates they will be unable to understand how their leadership style affects the school. The results of Research Question 1 revealed that principal leadership style can be significantly perceived by teachers. It is recommended that principals collect leadership

122

style perceptions from their teachers by distributing anonymous surveys, allowing teachers to respond without fear of reprisal from the principal. The principals will have an opportunity to see how their leadership influences the teachers. Leaders who understand their own leadership style and how it affects subordinates can evaluate their leadership practices for future improvement (Bass & Avolio, 1989). Avolio and Bass (2004) stated that leaders could benefit from having the opportunity to evaluate their leadership practices through the perceptions of subordinates, thus, enhancing their ability to lead an organization more effectively. Recommendations for Further Study Four recommendations for future research are offered as a result of this study: (a) Study the effects that principal leadership style has on different departments within a school, (b) test subordinate perception data for those leaders who hired them as compared to leaders who followed, (c) test for a correlation between the overall teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement instead of the 12 subsets of the MLQ (5X), and (d) study the relationship between a tenured principal whose leadership style is more passive/avoidant and student achievement. Effects on Departments The first recommendation is to study the effects that principal leadership style has on different departments in a school. This research questions did not ask how principal leadership styles affect different departments or subjects within a school. The results of Research Question 2 revealed significant changes in reading but not in math during the changes in principals. Math gain scores are influenced mainly by the math department within a school, while reading is influenced by the entire school (O'Reilly & McNamara,

123

2007). Reading achievement levels are greatly affected by principal leadership style (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). The correlation between principal leadership style and student achievement within different curricular areas including; science, social studies, business, art, physical education, and special needs could be an area of future research. The following research question is proposed: What affect does principal leadership style have on different curricular areas in a school? Loyalty Survey The second recommendation for further research is to test how subordinate perceptions change according to who hired them. All of the teachers in this study were hired by the first principal. A teacher's perception of the leadership style of the principal who hired him or her may be distorted due to the loyalty towards the hiring principal. A principal who follows another principal who hired the staff may have to overcome the teachers' loyalty to the previous principal before building trust. The following research question is proposed: Is there a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of the hiring principal and principal leadership style? Overall Leadership and Student Achievement The third recommendation is to examine relationships between the overall teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement. For Research Question 3, this study used the 12 subsets within the MLQ (5X) to test for a correlation between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement. The results of Research Question 1 revealed that each principal leadership style was significantly perceived. Previous research revealed that transformational and transactional leadership styles have a tendency to bring about the highest output from

124

subordinates (Avolio & Bass, 2007). The results Research Question 2 showed that Principal D's leadership style was associated with the highest student achievement, and Principal C's leadership style with the lowest. Research Question 3 was designed to find a relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership and student achievement data and found only 13% of the tested correlations to be significant. The following redesign for Research Question 3 is proposed: Is there a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principals who exhibit transformational, transactional, or passive/avoidant leadership styles and student achievement data during a time of principal change? Established Principals and Student Achievement The fourth recommendation is to study the correlation between a tenured principal whose leadership style, as perceived by teachers, is more passive/avoidant and student achievement. This study showed that Principal C's leadership style showed an increase in student achievement in both math and reading gain scores on the last year of the study. New leadership can hinder student achievement because trust between teachers and the principal has not been built (Sarros & Sarros, 2007). Trust is built over time; as such, new principals may need time to build their own leadership style along with trust. Perhaps the ability to choose between different leadership styles, even passive/avoidant leadership, can still yield higher student achievement for effective leaders. Effective leaders can change their leadership style according to the situation that is presented to them (Richmon & Allison, 2003). The results for Research Question 1 revealed Principal C's leadership style as being the most passive/avoidant, while Research Question 2 revealed an increase in student achievement for the last year of Principal C's leadership.

125

As a result of this study the fourth recommended research question: Are tenures of established principals associated with higher student achievement than are those of new principals? Conclusion The purpose of this quasi-experimental quantitative study was to investigate the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement during a time of principal change. The results of Research Question 1 revealed that 58 teachers' perceptions of four principals were found to be significant according to the MLQ (5X). The results of Research Question 2 found significant evidence that a change in principal leadership can impact student achievement. The results of Research Question 3 found 13% of the total tested correlations between teacher perceptions of principal leadership and student achievement to be significant. Overall there was evidence that principal leadership style, according to teacher perceptions, does affect student achievement. The results of this study helped to fill a gap in research by finding a significant relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership during a time of transition and student achievement. Very little research has been done to investigate relationships between transitions in leadership and student achievement (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Most teachers will experience principal change, and the results of this study revealed some evidence that a change in principal leadership can affect both teacher perceptions and student achievement. The ultimate goal of education is to improve student achievement, and the results of this study revealed that a change in leadership can negatively impact student

126

achievement. The process of changing principals can be improved through professional development or enhanced by allowing new principals to develop their leadership style. Prospective principals could receive professional development to establish effective leadership qualities and be granted the time and resources to establish their leadership before being removed. Administrators throughout the field of education do students a disservice if new principals are not adequately prepared to positively influence student achievement. Principals are unable to directly affect student achievement in the classroom because principals are not in the classroom daily (Harris, 2005; Kelley et al., 2005; Orr & Orphanos, 2007; Perry & Mankin, 2007; Sergiovanni, 2005; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008; Youngs & King, 2002). This study has shown that a change in principal leadership can affect student achievement. Schools can lose their stability with an increased number of leadership changes, and both teachers and students are influenced. As a result of this study, positive social change can be achieved by increasing district leadership awareness of the importance of preparing and providing prospective principals the resources necessary to be effective leaders. Prospective principals can have the opportunity to improve teaching and learning; build stronger communities of young leaders, and create a more successful national workforce.

127

References Allen, R. (2003). Building school culture in an age of accountability, principals lead through sharing tasks. Education Update, 45(7) 1-4. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_update/eu200311_allen.pdf Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25 Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1998). You can drag a horse to water but you can't make it drink unless it is thirsty. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 5(1) 4-17. doi: 10.1177/107179199800500102 Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire third edition manual and sampler set. Published by Mindgarden Inc., received April 28, 2009. Bandura, A., & Lock, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 88(1) 87-99. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87 Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, lenience, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings or transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 49, 509-527. doi: 10.1177/001316448904900302 Bennett, T., & Percy, P. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734-744. doi: 10.1177/0013164494054003020 Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2005). Lead like Jesus. Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group.

128

Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. (1993). Situational leadership after 25 years: retrospective. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 22-36. doi: 10.1177/107179199300100104 Bowman, R. (2005). Teacher as servant leader. The Clearing House, 78(6), 257-259. doi: 10.3200/TCHS.78.6.257-260 Boxx, R., Odom, R., & Dunn, M. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency and their impact on satisfaction commitment, and cohesion: An empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20(1), 195205. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=77971ECA401DABCF0817ED3147EE207C.inst3_1b?docId=5000131001 Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Fusarelli, B., (2005) The Kentucky principalship: Model of school leadership reconfigured by ISLLC Standards and reform policy implementation. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 4(2), 127-156. doi: 10.1080/15700760590965587 Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R., (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468-494. doi: 10.1177/0013161x04267113 Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood Studies: The foundations of OD. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 213-231. doi: 10.1177/0021886306297004

129

Buysse, V., Sparkman, K., & Wesley, P. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263-277. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001908148 Clabough, P. (2006). The relationship between leadership style, school climate and violence in middle schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Aurora University, received February 20, 2009. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Deal, T., & Peterson, K., (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass Inc. Den Hartog, D., Van Muijen, J., & Koopman, P. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 70, 19-34. http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=199703981-002 Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479. doi: 10.3102/00346543072003433 Doyle, L. (2004). Leadership for community building: Changing how we think and act. Clearing House, 77(5), 196-199. doi: 10.3200/TCHS.77.5.196-201 DuFour, Ri., Eaker, R., & DuFour, Re. (ED.) (2005). On common ground, The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

130

Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R., (2008). Perceived organizational support: Reducing the negative influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 34(1), 55-68. doi: 10.1177/0149206307309259 Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62-89. doi: 10.1177/0013161X05278186 Florida Department of Education. (2009). Florida school grades & adequate yearly Progress. Retrieved from www.schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809/SchoolGrades2009.pdf. Florida Department of Education. (2010). Report on Florida's school grade scores ­ Center for assessment. Retrieved from www.fldoe.org/schoolgrades.asp. Fuming, X., & Jiliang, S. (2008). Research on job satisfaction of elementary and high school teachers and strategies to increase job satisfaction. Chinese Education And Society, 40(5), 86-96. doi: 10.2753/CED 1061-1932400509 Gallos, J. (ED.), (2008). Business leadership. San Fransisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Inc. George, J. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027-1055. doi: 10.1177/0018726700538001 Goldsmith, M., Lyons, L., & Freas, A. (2000). Coaching for leadership. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2008). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Thompson Learning Inc.

131

Gunbayi, I. (2007). School climate and teachers' perceptions on climate factors: Research into nine urban high schools. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(3), 70-78. http://www.tojet.net/articles/637.pdf Harris, A. (2005). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 255-265. doi: 10.1080/00220270500038602 Hartley, D. (2004). Management, leadership and the emotional order of the school. Journal of Education Policy, 19(5), 583-594. doi: 10.1080/0268093042000269153 Hausman, C., & Goldring, E. (2001). Sustaining teacher commitment: The role of professional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 30-51. doi: 10.1207/S15327930pje7602_3 Herold, D., Fedor, D., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346 Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Natemeyer, W. (1979). Situational leadership, perception, and the impact of power. Group & Organization Management, 4(4), 418-428. doi: 10.1177/105960117900400404 Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Grid principals and situationalism: Both! A response to Blake and Mouton. Group Organization Management, 7(2), 207-210. doi: 10.1177/105960118200700207

132

Hetland, H., Sandal, G., & Johnsen, T. (2008). Followers' personality and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 14(4), 322-331. doi: 10.1177/1548051808315550 Hinkin, T., & Tracey, J., (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods. 2(2), 175-186. doi: 10.1177/109442819922004 House, R. (1971). A path goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 16(1), 321-339. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2391905 Howard, W. (2005). Leadership: Four styles. Education, 126(2), 384-391. http://www.projectinnovation.biz/education.html Hughes, J. (2005). Bringing emotion to work: Emotional intelligence, employee resistance and the reinvention of character. Work Employment Society, 19(3), 603625. doi: 10.1177/0950017005055675 Jameson, J., Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S., & Ryan, M. (2006). Building trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning practice: Collaborative leadership in the JISC, ELISA, and CAMEL lifelong learning projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 949-967. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00669 Joffres, C., & Haughey, M. (2001). Elementary teachers' commitment declines: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. The Qualitative Report, 6(1), 1-20. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-1/joffres.html

133

Johnson, C., & Fargo, J. (2010). Urban school reform enabled by transformative professional development: Impact on teacher change and student learning of science. Urban Education, 45(1) 4-29. doi: 10.1177/0042085909352073 Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2006). Who are the spellbinders? Identifying personal attributes of charismatic leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 1226. doi: 10.1177/107179190601200402 Kaplin, L., Owings, W., Nunnery, J., (2005). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting interstate school leaders licensure consortium with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(28), 28-44. doi: 10.1177/019263650508964304 Kelley, R., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17-26. http://mt.educarchile.cl/mt/jjbrunner/archives/ai_n.pdf Konczak, L., Stelly, D., & Trusty, M. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development on an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 301-313. doi: 10.1177/00131640021970420 Ladyshewsky, R. (2007). A strategic approach for integrating theory to practice in leadership development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 28(5) 426-457. doi: 10.1108/01437730710761733 Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly. 44(originally published online), 503-528. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321501

134

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social Science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(5), 5-41. doi: 10.1177/001872674700100103 Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers' job satisfaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39-47. doi: 10.1080/00220679909597627 Mackenzie, N. (2007). Teacher morale: More complex than we think? The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(1), 89-104. https://www.aare.edu.au/aer/online/0701g.pdf Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2001). Role of organizational identification on implicit leadership theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes. Group processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 247-262. doi: 10.1177/1368430201004003005 Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Morrison, J., Rha, J., & Helfman, A. (2003). Learning awareness, student engagement, and change: A transformation in leadership development. Journal of Education Business, 79(1), 11-17. doi: 10.1080/08832320309599081 Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3-14. http://www.cmr-journal.org/article/view/704/2045

135

Muijs, D., Harris, A., Lumby, J., Morrison, M., & Sood, K. (2006). Leadership and leadership development in highly effective further education providers. Is there a relationship? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(1), 87-106. doi: 10.1080/03098770500432096 Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177. doi: 10.1080/09243450600565746 Nir, A., & Kranot, N. (2006). School principal's leadership style and teachers' selfefficacy. Planning and Changing, 37(3&4), 205-218. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ756251.pdf Offir, B., Barth, I., Lev, J., & Shteinbok, A., (2005). Can interaction content analysis research contribute to distance learning? Educational Media International. 43(2), 161-171. doi: 10.1080/09523980500060324 O'Reilly, T., McNamara, D., (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional "High-Stakes" measures of high school students' science achievement. American Educational Research Journal. 44(1), 161-196. doi: 10.3102/0002831206298171 O'Shea, P., (2009). Are the best leaders both transformational and transactional? A pattern oriented analysis. Leadership. 5(2), 237-259. doi: 10.1177/1742715009102937

136

Orr, M., & Orphanos, S. (2007). Learning leadership matters: Teachers' experiences of innovatively and conventionally prepared principals. Paper prepared for annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Perry, R., & Mankin, L. (2007). Organizational trust, trust in the chief executive and work satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 36(2), 165-179. http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/advertising-related-services/45063201.html Peterson, K. (2002). Positive or negative? Journal of Staff Development, 23(3), 10-15. http://www.learningforward.org/news/articleDetails.cfm?articleID=430 Postmes, T., Tanis, M., & de Wit, B. (2001). Communication and commitment in organizations: A social identity approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(2), 227-246. doi: 10.1177/1368430201004003004 Pounder, J. (2008). Transformational leadership: Practicing what we teach in the management classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 2-6. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.84.1.2-6 Printy, S., & Marks, H. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 125-132. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4502_4 Rathus, S. (2003). Psychology principles in practice. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reihl, C., & Sipple, J. (1996). Making the most of time and talent: Secondary school organizational climates, teaching task environments, and teacher commitment. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 873-901. doi: 10.3102/00028312033004873

137

Richmon, M., & Allison, D. (2003). Toward a conceptual framework for leadership inquiry. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(1), 31-50. doi: 10.1177/0263211X030311003 Ross, J., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822. http://www.jstor.org/pss/20054196 Ross, J., & Gray, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. doi: 10.1080/09243450600565795 Sarros, A., & Sarros, J. (2007). The first 100 days: Leadership challenges of a new CEO. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(3), 349-371. doi: 10.1177/1741143207078179 Schein, E. (1993). Legitimating clinical research in the study of organizational culture. Journal of counseling & Development, 71, 703-708. http://mit.dspace.org/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2355/SWP-3288-23906810.pdf?sequence=1 Schein, E. (1995). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/kurt_lewin's_change_theory.htm Schein, E. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Inc.

138

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Shaw, J., & Reyes, P. (1992). School cultures: Organizational value orientation and commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 295-302. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1992.9941129 Singh, N., & Krishman, V. (2007). Transformational leadership in India: Developing and validating a new scale using grounded theory approach. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 7(2), 219-236. doi: 10.1177/1470595807079861 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan. Solvason, C., (2005). Investigating specialist school ethos...or do you mean culture? Educational Studies, 31(1), 85-94. doi: 10.1080/0305569042000310985 Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000106726 Stroh, L (Ed.). (2007). Trust rules how to tell the good guys from the bad guys in work and life. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Talbot, D. (2000). Out with the old, in with the new: Principal succession at Liberty High. The Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership. 3(1), 12-18. doi: 10.1177/155545890000300103 Taylor-Dunlop, K., & Lester, P. (2000). The development of an instrument to measure organizational trust. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED441835.pdf

139

Tepper, B., & Percy, P. (1994). Structural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734-744. doi: 10.1177/0013164494054003020 U.S Department of Education. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A multilevel analysis. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 97-069, Wachington, DC. Vroom, V., & Jago, A. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. http://content.apa.org/journals/amp/62/1/17 Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321502 Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 303-310. doi: 10.3200/JOER.100.5.303-310 Youngs, P., & King, B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02239642

140

Appendix A: Sample: MLQ Rater Sheet 1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts...................1 2 3 4 5 7. Is absent when needed...........................................................1 2 3 4 5 18. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group........................1 2 3 4 5 43. Is effective in meeting my job-related needs.................................1 2 3 4 5 42. Heightens my desire to succeed................................................1 2 3 4 5 MLQ Manual, Copyright 1995, 2000, 2004 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. All rights reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

141

Appendix B: Sample: MLQ Scoring Sheet 1. Contingent Reward............................................................. 0 1 2 3 4 7. Laissez-faire Leadership....................................................... 0 1 2 3 4 18. Idealized Influence(Attributed)............................................... 0 1 2 3 4 43. Effectiveness.................................................................... 0 1 2 3 4 42. Extra Effort...................................................................... 0 1 2 3 4

MLQ Manual, Copyright 1995, 2000, 2004 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio. All rights reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

142

Appendix C: Copyright Regulations from Mindgarden.com

Permission to put sample items into a dissertation or thesis

Permission to put sample items of an instrument into a dissertation or thesis appendix is provided when license to reproduce is purchased. This provides permission for up to five sample items to show the characteristics of the instrument. Mind Garden will only provide permission for up to five sample items. Even if permission is given for up to five sample items for reproduction, they should not represent a whole scale (e.g., the MLQ has four item scales). The goal is to provide an example of content, not to provide a usable scale.

Permission for sample items in published works

To request permission to include sample items in a published work, please click here to complete our online request. Or you can just email us the following information: 1. your contact information 2. a copy of what you want to reproduce 3. the instrument and/or manual the reproduction is extracted from 4. the author of the publication 5. the title of the article or book (publication) 6. where it is to be published 7. the publisher contact information.

Mind Garden will only provide permission for up to five sample items. Even if permission is given for up to five sample items for reproduction, they should not represent a whole scale (e.g., the MLQ has four item scales). The goal is to provide an example of content, not to provide a usable scale.

The copyright statement

All reproductions--whether the five sample items, the whole instrument for research, or any other reproduction--need to include the word "Copyright" and/or ©, the date of the publication, the name of the copyright holder(s), the words "All rights reserved," the publisher and the publisher's web address (e.g., www.mindgarden.com).

143

This statement should be either on the first page of the instrument if the whole instrument is reproduced or immediately following a partial use of the instrument (e.g., a table where permission has been received).

144

Appendix D: Permission Email from Mindgarden.com

From: [email protected] To: "Robert butz" Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 12:30:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: MGWeb: Comment from robert butz (Product Question) No, you cannot attach the instrument or scoring key to your dissertation. What you can do is choose 5 questions from the instrument and put them in an appendix. The questions cannot be from the same scale. We do allow the entire instrument to be submitted with proposals because IRB committees wish to see it and because the proposal document is not public. Hope this helps. Best, Valorie Mind Garden, Inc. > Actually I have already purchased the sampler set for the MLQ (5X), > purchased the test for 4 leaders, distributed the test, and > collected the data. Even after reading your copyright policy I am > still confused. For my proposal I was able to use a copy of the > sample rater and scoring sheet and attached them to my proposal. > Now I am finishing up my dissertation and wanted to make sure that I > was still able to attach them since the dissertation will be a > published document? > > Robert >> ----- Original Message ----> From: [email protected] > To: Robert Butz > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 7:05:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: MGWeb: Comment from robert butz (Product Question) > > Hello Robert, > > In order to obtain permission to administer an instrument, you need to > order ?License to Reproduce? for the intended number of > administrations. We usually recommend you purchase the PDF/electronic > form of the instrument and/or manual. NOTE: Whether you order the > paper form or the PDF/electronic form, you will receive just ONE copy > and a written license to reproduce/administer the purchased number. > > Next, you may wish to read our copyright policy. > http://www.mindgarden.com/copyright.htm#sample > > Hope this helps. > Best, > Valorie

145

Appendix D: Permission Email from Mindgarden.com

> Mind Garden, Inc. > > > >> Name: robert butz >> Company/Institution: walden university >> Country: USA >> Order/Invoice number: >> Purchase Order number: >> Topic of comment: Product Question >> >> Comment: >> I am currently working on my dissertation and I used the MLQ for my >> study. I was able to use the sample of the MLQ rater and scoring >> sheet in my proposal, will I also be able to use them in my final >> dissertation? If I am not, I will need an official email that >> explains that I will not be allowed to use them so I can attach it >> to my dissertation. Thank you.

146

Appendix E: Teacher Informed Consent/Invitation for Participation

To Whom It May Concern: You are invited to participate in an anonymous survey. This survey is part of a research project conducted by Robert Butz. Robert is currently a doctoral student at Walden University working on his doctoral dissertation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership style and student achievement during a time of principal change. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have been chosen for this study because you served four different principals within 4 years. The purpose of this survey is to ascertain your perceptions of the leadership of each of the four principals under whom you taught under between 2003 and 2006. If you agree to participate you will complete four Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) surveys. You will complete one survey for each of the four principals with whom you served taking approximately 10 minutes each. These surveys will all be conducted online. After you have signed this agreement form you may access the survey at (Add survey Link). Your login information will be (Add login information). The answers to your survey will be anonymous and confidential. There are no risks to your participation in this study. This study will, however, benefit the field of education by providing research on how teacher perceptions of leadership affect student achievement. This study will also provide data showing the importance of preparing principals as they transition into a new school. As a voluntary participant you have the right withdraw participation or choose not to participate at any time with no risk or penalty. If you agree to participate please sign on the line below labeled "Participant Consent." You may keep a copy of this consent/invitation form for your records. If you feel any pressure to participate because of the researcher's current position of authority please feel free to contact the principal or superintendent of schools and the research study will cease immediately. You have the right to ask questions to clarify this study at any time. You may also request a copy of this informed consent form at any time. If you have any questions concerning this study please contact Robert at. You may also contact Robert's doctoral chairperson Dr. Pamela Harrison. Her contact information is: [email protected] or by phone. If you have any questions concerning your rights during this study please contact Dr. Leilani Endicott, 800-925-3368, ext. 1210 from Walden University. To protect your privacy, no consent signature is requested. Instead, your return of the completed questionnaires will indicate your consent, if you choose to participate. Kind Regards, Robert Butz

147

Appendix F: Letter of Cooperation with School District

Robert, Our District Research Committee has reviewed your proposed study, The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change, and approved your going ahead with this study in Lee County. Please note the following conditions and suggestions from our Committee: 1) Dr. Itzen will notify the current administration of Mariner High School to let teachers know that they may be contacted by you. 2) Please make it clear to teachers that participation is voluntary. 3) Be sure to provide a copy of results to the Dept. of Accountability when your study is complete. 4) Consider the following suggestions for your study: Data Analysis: Look at a period of at least 4 years before or after the study period to make comparisons with the study period ­ preferably a 4 year period of principal stability. This way an overall look at performance during stability versus non-stability can be examined. Use FCAT gain scores for your analysis instead of simply looking at performance. The performance of any one year of students may be influenced by how proficient they were to begin with. Consider that each principal had only 6 or 7 months to influence achievement during that year (since testing is done in February and March). Attributing achievement completely to one principal may not be appropriate when the principal is at a school only one year. Reporting: Do not designate Principal A, B, C, D in the chronological order they served as principal of the school. In this way, the identity of principals will be protected. We look for to receiving the results of your study. Please let me know when you are ready to contact teachers. Thanks.

Richard Itzen, Director Dept. of Accountability, Research, and Continuous Improvement

148

Appendix G: Permission to use Principal Names on Survey

Absolutely, whatever you need. Hope all is going well. Talk to you soon,

Principal C

Principal

From: Butz, Robert Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:49 AM To: Subject: Butz Proposal I am currently a doctoral student at Walden University. I am working on my proposal entitled, "The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and

Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change." To conduct this study I will be surveying approximately 60 teachers who served 4 principals during a 4 year period of time. Those teachers will complete one survey for each principal. The survey instrument is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire that describes the style of leadership according to the teachers' perceptions. This study has been approved by the School District of Lee County, and in order for me to proceed I need permission from you to use your name for the survey. Your name will only be used in the survey and not be used in the dissertation itself. The only people with access to your name will be the teachers who are taking the survey and me as the researcher. If you grant me permission to move forward with my proposal please reply to this email. If you have any questions concerning my proposal you can email me or call me @ Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Robert Butz

149

Appendix G: Permission to use Principal Names on Survey

From: Principal D Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:59 AM To: Butz, Robert Subject: RE: Butz Proposal GO FOR IT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SAMPLE OF YOUR SURVEY QUESTION WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE

From: Butz, Robert Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:49 AM To: Subject: Butz Proposal I am currently a doctoral student at Walden University. I am working on my proposal entitled, "The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and

Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change." To conduct this study I will be surveying approximately 60 teachers who served 4 principals during a 4 year period of time. Those teachers will complete one survey for each principal. The survey instrument is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire that describes the style of leadership according to the teachers' perceptions. This study has been approved by the School District of Lee County, and in order for me to proceed I need permission from you to use your name for the survey. Your name will only be used in the survey and not be used in the dissertation itself. The only people with access to your name will be the teachers who are taking the survey and me as the researcher. If you grant me permission to move forward with my proposal please reply to this email. If you have any questions concerning my proposal you can email me or call me @ Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Robert Butz

150

Appendix G: Permission to use Principal Names on Survey

From: Principal B Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:39 AM To: Butz, Robert Subject: Re: Butz Proposal

You have my blessing and permission. Principal B On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Butz, Robert wrote:

I am currently a doctoral student at Walden University. I am working on my proposal entitled, "The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and

Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change." To conduct this study I will be surveying approximately 60 teachers who served 4 principals during a 4 year period of time. Those teachers will complete one survey for each principal. The survey instrument is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire that describes the style of leadership according to the teachers' perceptions. This study has been approved by the School District of Lee County, and in order for me to proceed I need permission from you to use your name for the survey. Your name will only be used in the survey and not be used in the dissertation itself. The only people with access to your name will be the teachers who are taking the survey and myself as the researcher.

If you grant me permission to move forward with my proposal please reply to this email.

If you have any questions concerning my proposal you can email me or call me @ 239980-0789.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Robert Butz

151

Appendix G: Permission to use Principal Names on Survey

Robert, You have my permission to proceed with the questionaire and survey. I wish you luck on your proposal. Principal A

-----Original Message----From: Butz, Robert To: Sent: Fri, Feb 5, 2010 4:00 pm Subject: Robert Butz Proposal I am currently a doctoral student at Walden University. I am working on my proposal entitled, "The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and

Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change." To conduct this study I will be surveying approximately 60 teachers who served 4 principals during a 4 year period of time. Those teachers will complete one survey for each principal. The survey instrument is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire that describes the style of leadership according to the teachers' perceptions. This study has been approved by the School District of Lee County, and in order for me to proceed I need permission from you to use your name for the survey. Your name will only be used in the survey and not be used in the dissertation itself. The only people with access to your name will be the teachers who are taking the survey and myself as the researcher. If you grant me permission to move forward with my proposal please reply to this email. If you have any questions concerning my proposal you can email me or call me @ Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Robert Butz

152

Appendix H: Principal Permission to use Study School

Permission granted. Brian Mangan Principal

From: Butz, Robert Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:00 AM To: Mangan, Brian Subject: Butz Proposal I am currently a doctoral student at Walden University. I am working on my proposal entitled, "The Relationship Between Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Style and

Student Achievement During a Time of Leadership Change." To conduct this study I will be surveying approximately 60 teachers who served 4 principals during a 4 year period of time. Those teachers will complete one survey for each principal. The survey instrument is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire that describes the style of leadership according to the teachers' perceptions. The majority of teachers that will be used in this study are teachers at the school in which you are sitting principal. This study has been approved by the School District of Lee County, and in order for me to proceed I need permission from you to survey those teachers still at the school. The surveys will be anonymous and voluntary. If you grant me permission to move forward with my proposal please reply to this email. If you have any questions concerning my proposal you can email me or call me @ Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Robert Butz

153

Appendix I: Follow-up Email to Teacher Participants

To Whom It May Concern: The timeline for the study ends after two weeks. Please complete the survey by (Enter Date). If you are having a hard time logging in please contact Mind Garden Inc. at (Enter Mind Garden link) or me. If you have any questions you may contact me directly at 239980-0789 or my doctoral chairperson Dr. Pamela Harrison. Her contact information is: [email protected] or by phone (254) 773-8840.

Kind Regards, Robert Butz

154

Appendix J: Participation Email from Mindgarden.com Subject: Participation Information from Robert Butz From: [email protected] To: Sample Participant <[email protected]> From Mind Garden: Dear Sample Participant, Robert Butz has invited you to participate in an online leadership evaluation. All questions about selecting your raters for your evaluation or about this program should be addressed to Robert Butz ([email protected]). If you have technical problems, please contact Mind Garden, Inc.. To complete your self rating and select raters to evaluate your leadership behaviors, please: Click or copy into your browser address bar to access Web page: https://www.mindgarden.com/welcome/2/1/SAMPLE_ If you are new to Mind Garden, you will be asked to create a password. Use the email address to which this message was sent. It is important that you respond by: 6/1/10 You should save this email to get back to this important page or bookmark it in your browser. Thank You. Mind Garden www.mindgarden.com

155

Curriculum Vitae For: Robert Butz Education: 2007-2010 Walden University Ed.D Administrative Leadership for Teacher Learning Minneapolis, Minnesota 2005-2007 Walden University M. Ed. Educational Leadership Minneapolis, Minnesota 1993-1998 Liberty University Social Sciences B.S. Lynchburg, Virginia Experience: 2007-present Lee County School District, Assistant Principal Cape Coral, Florida 2008-2009 2000-2007 SIP Committee Chair Lee County School District, Teacher Cape Coral, Florida 2002-2007 Lee County School District, Head Football Coach Cape Coral, Florida 2004-2007 1999-2000 1999-2000 Technology Committee Founder and Chair School Safety Advisor Nicholls State University Assistant Football Coach

Information

Microsoft Word - $ASQ77244_supp_undefined_65AE796C-12C6-11E0-93C4-238DF0E6BF1D.docx

167 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

21875


You might also be interested in

BETA
Microsoft Word - Ferrie Resume.doc
Microsoft Word - $ASQ77244_supp_undefined_65AE796C-12C6-11E0-93C4-238DF0E6BF1D.docx
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades
Microsoft Word - 04 Lawson March 31, 2008.doc