Green & Cooper - National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal - , - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Editor-in-Chief (Founded 1`982)

7/28/2019 Green & Cooper - National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal - www.nationalforum.com, - William Al…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/green-cooper-national-forum-of-applied-educational-research-journal-wwwnationalforumcom 1/22

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

VOLUME 26, NUMBERS 1 & 2, 2013

55

An Identification of the Most Preferred Dispositions of Effective

School Leaders

Reginald Leon Green, EdDProfessor

University of Memphis

Tonya CooperPrincipal

Memphis City Schools

Doctoral StudentUniversity of Memphis

______________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to identify dispositions describing effective leaders most

frequently appearing in the literature and to determine those dispositions that leaders of today’s

schools believe to be most preferred in the leadership of their schools. The research was

conducted in three phases. In Phase One, the researchers selected 49 dispositions frequentlyappearing in the literature as descriptors of effective school leaders. In Phase Two, a population

of 123 school leaders was surveyed to determine their preferred dispositions from among the 49

in the literature. Sixteen (16) dispositions were selected during the second phase. To reduce the16 dispositions to a manageable number, during Phase Three, 51 school leaders serving in a

school district in the Southeastern United States were asked to rank the16 dispositions in theorder they most preferred. The outcome was the identification of 6 dispositions that are

representative of those most preferred by leaders of today’s schools: vision, integrity, character,trust, ethics, and communication.

Keywords: dispositions, dispositions of effective school leaders, leaders in today’sschools, effective school leaders

______________________________________________________________________________

Over the past century, American public educators have engaged in a number of reform

movements. Notwithstanding the number of educational reforms that have been implemented, a

large number of students remain classified as underperforming. Consequently, in America’sschools, there are achievement gaps between groups of students. Even in the highest performing

schools, achievement gaps exist, and the challenge of closing those gaps remains problematic.

It is clearly evident that changes have occurred in society. To keep up with those

changes, change has to occur in schools. Now, more than ever before, the leadership of schoolsis being questioned, and the hard questions being asked address the performance of schools and

student achievement.



REGINALD LEON GREEN and TONYA COOPER

56

Individuals who criticize the current educational system argue that a change is needed in

the leadership of schools. Therefore, the major focus of the current reform movement has shifted

to the role of the principal (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009). Principals are being asked to become instructional leaders, responsible for the effectiveness of the school, as well as the

academic achievement of all students in attendance (Clifford & Ross, 2011; Council of Chief

State School Officers, 2008; Lashway, 2002).Part of the process of instructional leadership is the monitoring and supervision of teachers. There is growing agreement among researchers that the school leader is best positioned

to ensure that teaching and learning occur throughout the school, only second to teachers who

have the most immediate effect on student success (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Green, 2009; Hobson-Horton, Green, & Duncan, 2009; Waters & Grubb, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,

2003).

The shift in the role of higher accountability for the principal as instructional leader has

placed greater demands on teachers as principals are observing teachers to ensure that theyimprove student performance. In addition, the public is demanding more information about the

effect individual teachers have on student learning (Consortium on Chicago School Research,

2010). Teachers make up the largest portion of the professional body in a school, have mostcontact with students throughout the day, and influence the environment of the school.

Consequently, principals have raised the evaluation level of teachers, requiring them to increase

their effectiveness. The issue of teacher effectiveness has become a federal and state priority and

a major topic of debate across the country (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Southern RegionalEducation Board, 2011). Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that to enhance teacher

effectiveness, the relationship between teachers and principals must be enhanced. In fact, the

most successful teachers may be the ones inspired by their relationship with their principal(Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006).

Review of the Literature

Research studies have revealed that to be effective in structuring the school for effective

teaching and learning, principals must support teachers and establish and maintain positiverelationships with them. According to Barth (2006), the nature of the relationships between

teachers and principals has a greater influence on the culture of the school and student

achievement than any other elements affiliated with the school. If the relationships between principals and teachers are trusting, helpful, and cooperative, then the relationships between

teachers and students, between students and students, and between teachers and parents, are

likely to be the same (Barth, 2006; Green, 2010). Principals have the ability to improve teacher

perceptions overall by simply attending to fundamental components inherent in qualityrelationships. As teachers begin to feel better about themselves and what they do as a result of

significant interactions with their principals, they become more effective in the classroom

(Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006). The quality of support teachers receive from principals is

associated with their job satisfaction (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008; Markow &Martin, 2005). To that end, functioning in their role as instructional leaders, principals are well

advised to support teachers and develop and maintain positive relationships with them. When

teachers feel positively about their position, they have a positive influence on students and theschool. The reverse is also true; when teachers have negative feelings about their positions, they




57

may negatively impact students and the school (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006).

A critical factor, however, is lacking in this new reform movement, namely the

disposition of the principal and its influence on his/her relationship with teachers and schooleffectiveness. The disposition of the principal is embedded in his or her behavior. It is the

manner in which he/she conducts him/herself; the manner in which he/she responds to events

that occur in the environment, and his/her actions or reactions to external or internal situations(Green, 2013). The disposition of the principal is a combination of his/her beliefs, values, andattitudes, and those beliefs and values influence behavior (Melton, Mallory, & Green, 2010).

Teacher perception of the disposition of the principal and the affect that it has on his/her

behavior is critical to the effectiveness of the school (Blase & Kirby, 2000). Therefore, principalsare well advised to create a supportive environment for teachers.

Dispositions of School Leaders

The disposition of school leaders is a controlling perceptual quality that determines their

natural or usual ways of thinking and acting (Usher, 2002). Qualities, such as integrity, honesty,

trust, and character characterize the disposition of school leaders and provide an explanation asto why they act in a certain way (Fullan, 2002; Perkins, 1995; Reavis, 2008). It is possible for

school leaders to possess some effective skills and positive leadership traits, but lack key

leadership dispositions (Deal & Peterson, 2009). This void has the potential of negatively

impacting the leader’s ability to achieve long term success. In such instances, the disposition of the leader may negatively impact the school environment, interfering with the teaching and

learning process (Deal & Peterson, 2009). For example, McGregor (1960) theorized that a leader

might have a Theory X disposition or a Theory Y disposition. A leader with a Theory Xdisposition acts in ways that are coercive and directive, while a leader with a Theory Y

disposition acts in ways that are democratic and delegating (Green, 2009). Thus, disposition

influences behaviors toward faculty, students, families, colleagues, and communities (National

Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002). Consequently, thedisposition of school leaders can affect student learning and development, the level of motivation

of faculty members, as well as his or her own professional growth.

Above all, it is the leader’s beliefs about schools, teachers, children, parents, and thecommunity that form the foundation upon which leadership for school improvement is based

(Green, 2009). As school leaders make selections from various alternatives, they reveal their

preferences for particular values, interests and beliefs (Green 2009). In order to lead the type of change necessary to transform underperforming schools and ultimately close the achievement

gap, school leaders must know the impact they are having on people and the school in general.

With a deep understanding of self and the impact of their dispositions, leaders can, if necessary,

modify their beliefs and values and enhance skillful performance in schools.

The Impact of Leadership Disposition on School Effectiveness

Teachers are the single most important factor in improving schools and increasing studentachievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). However,

studies have shown that working conditions, particularly in the areas of leadership and teacher

empowerment, impact teachers’ decisions to remain in a particular school or the profession ingeneral (Ingersoll, 2001). New teachers most admire school leaders who establish a culture based




58

on fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness (Ingersoll, 2001). Therefore, it is imperative that school

leaders understand that their dispositions can positively or negatively impact their relationship

with teachers, as well as the climate and culture of the school.The disposition of a school leader influences the potential for teachers to succeed within

a school environment. As a result, students’ achievement is affected. Effective leadership

(principal leadership) brings about supportive followership (teachers and students), and the resultis high performing teachers and students. A school leader with a positive disposition is likely tocreate a school atmosphere wherein effective teaching and learning occurs. The quality of

leadership is directly proportional to the quality of followership (Pringle, 2007). Therefore, it is

reasonable to believe that the disposition of the principal can positively or negatively impactachievement in the school. The question that looms largely is which type of principal disposition

is most influential in developing a positive relationship with teachers and enhancing the

academic achievement of students in the schools they lead.

Statement of the Problem

Principals are being requested to assume the responsibility of enhancing the academic

achievement of all students who enter the schoolhouse. Principal/teacher relationships play a

major role in this process. Several studies appearing in the literature offer evidence of what

school leaders need to know and be able to do in order to effectively lead a 21st

century school.However, little has been written on the preferred disposition of school leaders. To develop

approaches to use in enhancing the relationship between principal and teachers and ultimately

enhance the academic achievement of students, there is a need to identify the disposition of effective school leaders. This information can be used as a foundation for research that addresses

principal/teacher relationships and student achievement.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research was to identify dispositions describing effective leaders most

frequently appearing in the literature and to determine those dispositions that leaders of today’sschools believe to be most preferred in their leadership. Three (3) research questions guided the

study.

Research Questions:

1. What leadership dispositions appear in the literature most frequently as characteristics of

effective school leaders?

2. Which of the dispositions appearing in the literature are perceived by school leaders as

those most preferred for leading their school?

3. What is the relationship, if any, between the dispositions identified as most preferred by

school leaders and the level of their school’s performance?




59

The theoretical perspective we drew on for our research is McGregor’s Theory X Theory

Y (McGregor, 1960) and Transformational Leadership (Bass, 1998). Our premise which

informed the use of Theory X Theory Y is that in administrating today’s schools, a leader interacts with a variety of individuals and groups in situations in which the leader’s disposition is

a major determinant of success. The disposition indicators denote an individual’s beliefs, values,

and type of commitment that tend to be most effective in a school situation (Green, 2009).McGregor ’s theory characterizes how the perception of a leader influences his/her behavior. Inaddition, the leadership style being advocated for school leaders of today’s schools is embedded

in transformational leadership (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978). Transformational Leadership Theory

describes the behavior of leaders and their relationship with followers (Northouse, 2012). Acommitment to the principles of the theory can have a major impact on a school and on student

achievement.

Methodology

The study was designed in three phases. In Phase One, the researches selected Green’s(2013) 49 dispositions as those most representative of the characteristics of effective school

leaders appearing in the literature. Next, a population of 123 school leaders was surveyed to

determine from among the 49 dispositions the ones they most preferred. Finally, 51 school

leaders serving in a school district in the Southeastern United States were asked to rank order thedispositions they most preferred. Using data from the rankings, the researchers conducted a

Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient to determine the difference, if any, that existed among the

leaders based on the performance of their school.

Population

During the 26th

Annual High Schools That Work Staff Development Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in July, 2012, the researchers presented an interactive session on the

topic ―Leadership Dispositions: Implications for Effective School Leadership.‖ During this

session, over 150 school leaders representing schools from across 16 Southeastern states wereasked to complete The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale which contained Green’s (2013)

list of 49 leadership dispositions. From the individuals attending the session, 123 responded to

the scale with complete information. Those 123 participants were included in the study. Forty-nine (49) of the participants were principals; 55 were assistant principals, and19 were central

office administrators.

During the third phase of the study, a survey was sent electronically to 51 principals in a

school district located in the Southeastern section of the United States. Forty (40) of the 51individuals responded with complete information for a return rate of 78%.

Of the forty (40) responses, 14 were males; 26 were females; 27 were Caucasians, and 13

were African-Americans. Eleven (11) respondents, 27.5%, ranged in ages from 25 to 40; 10

respondents, 25%, ranged in ages from 41 to 50; 18 respondents, 45%, ranged in ages from 51 to60, and 1 respondent was over 60, 2.5%. The forty (40) respondents included 18 elementary

school principals, 45%; 13 middle school principals, 32.5%; 6 high school principals, 15%; 2

kindergarten through 8th grade school principals, 5%, and 1 principal who did not identify thegrade configuration of the school.




60

Table 1

Participants in the Study

Source/Phase Number of

Participants

Number of Responses

Literature/Phase One N/A N/A

Conference/PhaseTwo

150+ 123

School District/Phase

Three

51 40

Instrument

Two instruments were used in the study, ―The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale‖ and a modified version of that scale. Both instruments were adapted from the dispositions

appearing in Practicing the Art of Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC Standards (Green, 2013 ). The first instrument consisted of 49 leadership constructs.

Green contends that the 49 leadership constructs characterize the dispositions of effective

leadership as exhibited in major research studies and writings. The second instrument was anadaptation of the ―The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale‖ which contained the 16

dispositions that emerged from an analysis of the data from phase two of the study.

Findings

In Phase I of the study, a list of 49 dispositions were selected from Practicing the Art of

Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC Standards (Green, 2013 ),representing the dispositions most frequently appearing in the literature as characteristics of

effective school leaders. The forty-nine (49) dispositions selected are in the appendix of this

paper. These dispositions were used to comprise The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale. The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale was administered (during a session) at the

26th

Annual High Schools That Works Conference in New Orleans in July, 2012, to an estimated150 attendees. From among the 49 dispositions listed on the scale, participants were asked tocheck all of the dispositions that they most preferred to observe as school leaders. One-hundred

twenty-three (123) respondents fully completed and returned the survey. For each of the

dispositions checked, frequencies were obtained and subsequently ranked from most oftenchosen —―Respect‖ being ranked first, receiving some 99 responses-- to least often chosen — ―Predictability‖ being ranked last, receiving only 3 responses. Desirous of reducing the ranked

dispositions to a manageable number, the researchers used the ranks to select the top 15

dispositions, later increased to 16, given a tie between the dispositions ranked 15th

and 16th

.

Chosen by a minimum of 45 respondents, the dispositions retained for Phase 3 of the study are presented in Table 2, ranked in terms of frequency and percentage from the most often selected

(―Respect‖ chosen by 80.5% of the 123 respondents to the least often selected (―Courage‖ and




61

―Openness,‖ both chosen by 36.6% of the respondents).

Table 2

Dispositions Most Often Selected by Participants at the High Schools That Works Conference

Dispositions % n

Respect 80.5 99

Communication 69.1 85

Honesty 69.1 85

Compassion 65.9 81

Trust 65.9 81

Integrity 60.2 74

Passion 59.3 73

Vision 56.9 70

Commitment 54.5 67

Fairness 51.2 63

Consistency 43.1 53

Ethics 42.3 52

Rapport 41.5 51

Character 37.4 46

Courage 36.6 45

Openness 36.6 45

In Phase 3 of the study, the 16 dispositions from Phase 2 were placed into a second

version of the instrument in which respondents were asked to perform a forced ranking in order

of the importance of the dispositions for being an effective school leader. E-mailed to some 51




62

principals in a Southeastern United States school district, the revised instrument garnered

complete responses from 40 of the original 51 principals, and all descriptive statistics pertinent to

these responses were computed. As summarized in Table 2 below, inspection of these statisticsindicated that 3 dispositions were, by far, considered first in order of importance: Vision (Median

Rank of 2.5); Character (Median Rank of 4.0), and Integrity (Median Rank of 4.0) and that,

along with 3 others, were repeatedly ranked either first, second, or third. As depicted in Figure 1,those dispositions assigned one of the highest three ranks by the largest percentage of respondents were as follows: Vision (57.5%); Character (45%); Integrity (45%); Trust (30%);

Ethics (25%), and Communication (22.5).

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics Pertinent to the Rank Ordering of the 16 Dispositions

Disposition Mdn Rank

Rank 1-3 M Rank

SD Rho

01) Character 4.0 45.0% 5.60 4.42 0.00

02) Commitment 7.5 15.0% 7.48 3.85 0.05

03) Communication 7.0 22.5% 6.98 3.67 -0.07

04) Compassion 11.0 2.5% 10.40 3.77 -0.20

05) Consistency 8.5 2.5% 8.50 3.53 0.08

06) Courage 12.5 2.5% 11.65 3.77 -0.28 *

07) Ethics 6.0 25.0% 6.65 3.94 0.22

08) Honesty 8.0 15.0% 8.28 3.93 0.02

09) Fairness 10.0 2.5% 10.55 3.92 0.03

10) Integrity 4.0 45.0% 5.33 4.22 0.27 *

11) Openness 14.0 2.5% 12.95 3.44 -0.01

12) Passion 11.5 2.5% 10.60 3.89 -0.02

13) Rapport 13.0 10.0% 11.60 4.24 0.03

14) Respect 9.0 20.0% 7.85 3.95 -0.05

15) Trust 7.0 30.0% 7.05 4.22 -0.02

16) Vision 2.5 57.5% 4.55 4.48 0.14

* p < .05, one tailed

In addition to these statistics, Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients were computed to

determine the extent of the relationship between the principals’ disposition rankings and school-level Tennessee ―Value-Added‖ Assessment System (TVAAS) rankings. Inspection of the

matrix of these correlations indicated that only 2 of the 16 dispositions were significantly linkedin some way to student achievement. After reverse-scoring the dispositions’ rankings to

heighten the interpretability of the results, it was shown that there was a significantly positive

relationship between school-wide student achievement based on TVASS and the disposition of

courage ( = .28, p = .040) and a significantly negative relationship between school-wide student




63

achievement based on TVASS and the disposition of integrity ( = .27, p = 0.045).

Figure 1. Percentage of respondents ranking dispositions, first, second, or third.

Discussion

Dispositions are characterized as values, beliefs, and attitudes which are exhibited in the

behavior of leaders (Melton et al., 2010). While differences exist between the various definitions

of disposition, a number of studies appear in the literature that offers evidence that thedisposition of school leaders impact the academic achievement of students (Barge, 2009; Barlow,

Jordan, & Hendrix , 2003; Helm, 2010). Therefore, a study of preferred dispositions of effective

school leaders has merit.

A Discussion of the Findings

Three research questions guided this study. The intent of the first question was todetermine the dispositions most frequently appearing in the literature that characterize effective

school leaders. This question was addressed by the selection of dispositions compiled by Green,

(2013).These dispositions were selected because they address situational leadership, moralleadership, distributive leadership, transformational leadership, and most specifically

45.0%

15.0%

22.5%

2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

25.0%

15.0%

2.5%

45.0%

2.5% 2.5%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

57.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




64

instructional leadership. Comprehensively, they address the processes used by effective school

leaders to communicate, make decisions, manage conflict, and lead change. They are also

underpinned by the Interstate School Leader Licensure Standards (ISLLC Standards) which arethe premier leadership standards guiding leadership preparation programs nationally (―ISLLC,‖

2008).

The second research question sought to identify from among the 49 dispositions theones most preferred by effective school leaders. To address that question, the researchersexplored the preferred dispositions of school leaders in two different groups. The first group

consisted of 123 school leaders from 16 states in the Southeastern region of the United States.

The second group consisted of 40 school leaders from a school district in one of those states.Each group, a convenient sample of school leaders, was asked to select from Green’s (2013) list

of dispositions the ones they most preferred as leaders of their school.

The first group of 123 participants checked from Green’s (2013) list of 49 dispositions,

their most preferred dispositions. Using a descriptive rank order frequency research design, theresearchers were able to identify the 16 dispositions checked most frequently by the group. The

16 dispositions ranked most frequently were character, commitment, communication,

compassion, consistency, courage, ethics, honesty, fairness, integrity, openness, passion, rapport,respect, trust, and vision. These dispositions are frequently referenced in the literature as

necessary for effective school leadership (Avolio, 2007; Barlow et al., 2003; Helm, 2010;

Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Some researchers and writers argue that among them the prevailing

disposition for effective leaders is character (Barlow et al., 2003).Having reduced Green’s (2013) list of dispositions to sixteen, the researchers were

interested in determining from among them the ones most preferred by school leaders in a single

school district and if the dispositions of the leaders in that school district were significantlydifferent when compared to the achievement level of their schools. To investigate this question, a

convenient school district was selected, and the principals of that district were asked to complete

a modified version of the Preferred Leadership Disposition Scale. Data from the participants in

the single school district revealed that the participants ranked vision, integrity, and character aseither their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd preference. Trust, ethics, and communication were the next three

dispositions ranked as preferred.

The Preferred Dispositions

Vision (57.5%): Fifty-seven point five percent (57.5%) of the participants ranked visionas their 1

st, 2

nd, or 3

rdpreference. In order to effectively lead a school, the principal has to have a

vision of what is possible and be able to share that vision with all stakeholders. A visionary

principal facilitates the process of goal-setting within a school and fosters a reputation for

providing unique learning opportunities to all students. He or she has high standards of learningfor all stakeholders (ISLLC, Standard 1). Bennis agrees with this assertion as he suggest that

effective leaders must be able to create a shared vision, have a voice characterized by purpose,

operate from a strong moral code, and be able to adapt to change (as cited in Marzano, Waters &

McNulty, 2005). With a vision of what is possible and what the school can become, the principal can lead the effort of reconstructing a school, working with stakeholders to establish

standards by which the school will operate. Under visionary leadership, students thrive

academically and socially (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).Integrity (45.0 %): Forty-five percent (45%) of the participants in the study ranked




65

integrity as their 1st, 2

nd, or 3

rdpreference. A leader with integrity adheres to a code of ethics,

displays moral or artistic values, and is incorruptible. Cash believes the values of the leader are

consistent, regardless of time, place, and circumstances. When a school leader has integrity, heor she can build trust, and trust builds relationships (2008). According to Maxwell (2010), trust

is the foundation of leadership. In practicing the art of leadership, school leaders with integrity

take responsibility for their actions and ensure that all students have access to knowledge (Strike,Haller, & Soltis, 2005) and that all teachers have the same level of support and resources toestablish the highest quality in educational standards. In actuality, their actions align with their

words (Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012). They acquire a keen understanding of the purpose of

education and the role of leadership in modern society (ISLLC, Standard 5).Character (45.0%): Another disposition ranked by 45% of the participants as their 1

st, 2

nd,

or 3rd

preference was character. School leaders with character have good judgment. They create a

moral climate in the schoolhouse and build relationships that foster respect and fairness. In

addition, they have fortitude, are self-disciplined, put forth effort, and persevere until the task iscompleted.

In practicing the art of leadership, school leaders have to make decisions regarding a

diverse school and community and with character these decisions are made in a fair andequitable manner. The school leader exhibits the type of behavior that demonstrates that he/she

believes that diversity enriches the school (ISLLC, Standard 4) and brings benefits to the school

community (ISLLC, Standard 2). In essence, school leaders with character are what their belief

is. They show consistency between their values, ethical reasoning and actions, and they develop positive psychological states, such as confidence, optimism, hope, and resilience in themselves

and their associates. Also, they are widely known and respected for their integrity (Cooper,

Santora, & Sarros, 2007).Trust (30.0%) The tabulated results revealed that 30% of the participants ranked trust as

their 1st, 2

nd, or 3

rdpreference. When trust is pervasive, the school leader is consistent in words,

actions, and deeds, and there are no gaps between what he or she says and what he or she does

(Ciancutti & Steding, 2001). The faculty members know that they can count on the leader tofollow through on promises. For example, if a principal promises to support the faculty in what

appears to be a difficult initiative, such as the implementation of a new technology-based science

module, the faculty should be able to trust that the principal will provide support by way of resources, encouragement, and professional development to promote the success of the initiative.

The current reform movement strongly advocates distributing leadership throughout the

organization. In order to distribute leadership, school leaders must be able to trust people andtheir judgment (ISLLC, Standard 3). The cornerstone of effective leadership in schools is

relationships, and trust is the foundation on which relationships are built (Waters et al., 2003). A

critical factor in producing positive learning outcomes for students is the trusting behavior

exhibited by the school leader (Wang & Bird, 2011).Ethics (25.0%): Twenty-five percent (25%) of the participants ranked ethics as their 1

st,

2nd, or 3rd preference. Effective school leaders administer their schools using various ethical

frameworks and perspectives (ISLLC, Standard 5). A set of principles guide their behavior, and

the principles are based on informal and formal standards consisting of core values, honesty,respect, and trust (Beckner, 2004). They oversee the proper execution of initiatives within the

school and in doing so, they are careful to assess their beliefs to ensure that the beliefs that they

hold compliment and are in concert with the expectations of the organization.Communication (22.5%): Communication was ranked 1

st, 2

nd, or 3

rdby 22.5% of the

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/author/bcooper

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/author/jsantora






66

participants. Communication is the life blood of the school. When an effective system of

communication is in place in the school, the school leader actively listens to diverse points of

view and uses the process to link individuals, groups, and the organization for the purpose of building relationships, establishing trust, and earning respect for self and others (Green, 2013).

They understand that continuous dialogue with other decision makers affecting education

(ISLLC, Standard 6) is vital to their effectiveness and the success of the school. Througheffective means of communication, school leaders create a culture where faculty, staff, students, parents, and community members are informed of pertinent matters concerning the school

operations.

In summary, there is a constant theme embedded within the top 6 dispositions. The top 6dispositions that emerged in the study are aligned with the principles of moral leadership. The

moral dimension of leadership encompasses at least 4 of the highest ranked dimensions

preferred: character, integrity, trust, and ethics (Muczyk & Adler, 2002). These beliefs impact

how one leads an organization in the sense that a leader’s moral obligation is to use his/her abilities to lead others in transforming the organization into what it could be by making decisions

that are in the best interest of the school (Brown & Anfara, 2003).

The dispositions chosen speaks to the humanistic characteristics of leadership.Cunningham and Cordeiro (2009) validated the human element associated with leaders who

possess humanistic characteristics. They suggest that these leaders are supportive in their efforts

to develop followers who act in the best interest of the organization. Keeping in line with the

importance of attending to the human element associated with leadership, Bennis and Nanus(2003) concluded that when one believes in human growth, this belief generates an environment

of trust and authentic relationships.

The Relationship between Leader Disposition and Level of School Performance

The third question, ―What is the relationship, if any, between the dispositions identified

by school leaders as most preferred for leading schools and the level of school performance?‖was assessed using data from the group of 40 school leaders. With the exception of courage and

integrity, the results of the data analysis revealed that for participants in this study, dispositions

had little impact on the level of performance of their school (See Figure 1). One reason thatcould be offered for this finding is the similar nature in which leaders of the district are required

to lead, the philosophy of central office administrators, and the expectations of members of the

larger community. With regards to courage and integrity, one might reason that, with courage, aschool leader would take the initiative to make the needed changes necessary for school

improvement. Also, with integrity, the school leader might be more inclined to ensure that all

students have access to knowledge and the opportunity to acquire that knowledge. Nevertheless,

as evidenced by their selections, these leaders, regardless of the achievement levels of their schools, encapsulated the characteristics of an effective leader as one who is attentive to the

human element associated with leadership and has worked to forge strong relationships with

his/her followers. However, these researchers realize the inclusiveness of the findings and that it

is evident that additional study is needed in this area.




67

Conclusions

Leadership is not about holding a position; rather, it is about skills and the behaviors thatsurface in the disposition of the individual (Hrebeniuk, 2011). What makes leadership greatness

is leaders who begin something that does not end with them. They realize that the impossible is

generally untried, and the best way to succeed in the future is to create it. Consequently, effectiveleaders take off the blinders and look for new opportunities to assist in the education of allstudents. In the final analysis, school leaders seeking effectiveness must ask themselves: Is my

disposition fostering the creation of a climate in the school wherein a difference can be made in

the academic achievement and social and emotional well-being of students (Tirozzi, 2001)?It is arguable that the 6 dispositions emerging from this study are the ones that effective

leaders should possess as the discourse on dispositions is constrained by ambiguity. The list from

which the participants chose may have contained dispositions that appeared to be similar in

nature as the definition of one disposition incorporates the definition of another. For example,embedded in the definition of character are respect, fairness, consistency, and integrity. Honesty,

respect, and trust are embedded in the definition of ethics. The researchers realize that there is a

need to refine the list of dispositions by collapsing the ones that reflect similar values andmeaning. Nevertheless, there is no denying that the 6 dispositions that surfaced will enhance the

potential success of any leader of today’s schools. Understanding them and their influence in the

schoolhouse is a start in the process of identifying dispositions that today’s school leaders should

possess.Crafting research that identifies dispositions of effective school leaders is necessary if we

are to understand the behaviors that leaders need to exhibit in order to create the type of climate

wherein teacher and learning occurs for all students. Future studies might examine therelationship of dispositions of leaders in a variety of schools. One study could compare the

dispositions of leaders in underperforming schools with those of leaders in high-performing

schools. Another study might explore the most preferred dispositions, using a wider sample

including participants from urban, suburban, and rural schools.What is critical in leading one of today’s schools is the understanding that leaders have of

themselves and the people with whom they work and serve (Green, 2010). Fully aware of the

principles of their disposition, educational leaders can self-reflect, determine how their dispositions influence the behavior of the people with whom they work and serve, and the

behavior, if any, that they need to change in order to lead more effectively. The goal of school

leaders is to transform schools into learning communities focused on the academic achievementof all students. One set of dispositions may not meet this challenge. However, the finding of this

study offers six dispositions that might be used in the process.

References

Avolio, B.J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.

American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25Barge, J. K., (2009). Leadership: Communication skills for organizations and groups.

New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Barlow, C.B., Jordan, M., & Hendrix, W.H. (2003). Character assessment: An examination of leadership levels. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17 (4), 563-584.




68

Barth, R.S. (2006, March). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational

Leadership, 63(6). Retrieved from the ASCD website:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ASCD+website%3A&form=DLCDF8&pc=MDDR&src=IE-SearchBox

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact .

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Beckner , W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York,

New York: Harper Collins.

Blase, J., & Kirby, P. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2001). Leading school improvement what research says: A

review of the literature. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Brown, K. M., & Anfara, V. A. (2003, June 1). Paving the way for change: Visionary leadershipin action at the middle level. National Association of Secondary School Principals,

87 (635), 16.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Cash, J. (2008). Fastball leadership. Leadership, 37 (3), 22-25.

Ciancutti, A., & Steding, T. (2001). Built on trust: Gaining competitive advantages in any

organization. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books.

Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2011). Designing principal evaluation systems: Research to guidedecision-making (An Executive Summary of Current Research in collaboration with the

National Association of Elementary School Principals). Retrieved from the National

Association of Elementary School Principals website: https://www.naesp.orgConsortium on Chicago School Research At The University Of Chicago Urban Education

Institute. (2010). Rethinking teacher evaluations. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from

ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/Teacher%20Eval%20Final.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/EducationalLeadership_Policy_Standards_2008.p

df Cooper, B.K., Santora, J.C., & Sarros J.C. (May – June, 2007). The character of leadership. Ivey

Business Journal , 1-13. Retrieved from

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/the-character-of-leadershipCunningham, W., & Corderio, P. (2009). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice

(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance

assessments can measure and improve teaching. Retrieved from the Center for AmericanProgress website:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997).The quality of teaching matters most. Journal of Staff

Development, 18(1), 38-41.Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture, paradoxes, and promises. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/EducationalLeadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf


http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/the-character-of-leadership

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/the-character-of-leadership






69

Edgerson, D. E., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). Analysis of the influence of principal-teacher

relationships on student academic achievement: A national focus. Doctoral Forum:

National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 1(1).Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

Green, R.L. (2009). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing

the ISLLC standards (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.Green, R.L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21 st

century schools. New York, NY: Pearson.

Green, R.L. (2013). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing

the ISLLC standards (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.Helm, C.M. (2010). Leadership dispositions: What are they and are they essential to good

leadership. Academic Leadership, 8(1). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.

ezproxy.memphis.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=12&sid=4fc3be04-aa39-4a12-9646-

48a0f0e2a351%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=of m&AN=508128551

Hrebeniuk, M. (2011). Leadership Skills Inventory – Self . Retrieved from

http://www.articlealley.com/article_1482387_15.htmlHobson-Horton, L. D., Green, R. L., & Duncan, B. (2009). The usage of the Southern Regional

Board (SREB)’s critical success factors in developing teacher leaders to assume

instructional leadership responsibilities. International Journal of Teacher Leadership,

2(2), 69-88. Retrieved from http://www.csupomona.edu/ijtlIngersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages : An organizational analysis.

American Educational Research Journal , 38(3), 499-534.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards. (2008). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/educational_leadership_policy_standards_2008

Pdf: Author.

Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management

Executive, 5(2), 48-60.Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Lashway, L. (2002, March 6). Trends in school leadership. Educational Management , 14-37.Leroy, H., Pananski, M., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as

drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107 (3),

255-264. Marzano, R.J., Waters, T, & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From

research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Markow, D., & Martin, S. (2005). The MetLife survey of the American teacher, 2004-2005:Transitions and the role of supportive relationships. New York, NY: MetLife. Retrieved

from the MetLife Website:

http://www.metlife.com/WPSAssets/34996838801118758796V1FATS_2004.pdf

Maxwell, J.C. (2010, November). Do they trust you? How to build a solid foundation for leadership. Success, 18-19.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of the enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

http://link.springer.com/journal/10551






70

Melton, T., Mallory, B.J., & Green, J. (2010). Identifying and assessing dispositions of

educational leadership candidates. Education Leadership and Administration, 22(4), 46-

60.Muczyk, J. P., & Adler, T. (2002, October 1). An attempt at a consentience regarding formal

leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 2.

National Council for the Accréditation of Teacher Educators. (2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation instituions. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncate.org/public/102407.asp?ch=148

Northouse, P. ( 2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting I.Q.: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New

York, NY: The Free Press.

Pringle, P. (2007). Top 10 qualities of a great leader (p. IX). Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.

Reavis, C. (2008) Dispositions of educational leaders (Unpublished manuscript).Schulte, L. E., & Kowal, P. (2005). The validation of the Administrator Dispositions Index.

Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development , 17 , 5-

87.Southern Regional Education Board. (2011). Measuring a teacher’s value and

effectiveness in SREB states (Policy Brief No. 11E14). Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved

from http://publications.sreb.org/2011/11E14_Value_Teacher1.pdf

Strike, K., Haller, E., & Soltis, J. (2005). The ethics of school administration. New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Tirozzi, G.N. (2001). The artistry of leadership, the evolving role of the secondary school

principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 434-439.Usher, D. (2002, November). Arthur Combs' five dimensions of helper belief reformulated as five

dispositions of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of the First Annual

Symposium on Educator Dispositions, Richmond, KY.

Wang, C., & Bird, J.J. (2011). Multi-level modeling of principal authenticity and teachers’ trustand engagement. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(4), 125-147.

Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of

standards for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Aurora, CO: Mid-continental Research for Education and Learning.

Waters, J.T., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B.A. (2003) Balanced leadership: What 30 years of

research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement . Aurora, CO: Mid-continental Research for Education and Learning.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:

Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations ( No.R-01-3). University of Washington:

Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (A research report prepared for the U.S.

Department of Education and the Office for Educational Research and Improvement).

Authors

Reginald Leon Green, Ed.D. is Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of Education

at the University of Memphis. Dr. Green teaches courses in educational leadership with a focus

on instructional leadership, leadership dispositions, school reform, and models for turning aroundlow performing schools. His research interests include school leadership, team building for




71

effective teaching and learning, superintendent/board relations, school district restructuring, and

the effects of nurturing characteristics on the academic achievement of students.

Tonya Cooper is Principal of Chimneyrock Elementary School in the Memphis City Schools

system in Memphis, Tennessee, and a doctoral student in the University of Memphis ’ Doctoral

Program. Her research interests are dispositions of effective school leaders, the merger of schoolorganizations, and the transformation of underperforming high, poverty schools.




72

Appendix

The Forty-Nine (49) Dispositions Defined

Insight: The school leader is knowledgeable of situations and issues that occur in schools andcan clearly and intuitively determine the complex nature of those situations and issues for the

purpose of addressing them in an effective manner (Bossidy & Charan, 2002).

Creativity: The behavior of the school leader reveals that he or she has an imagination; his or her ideas are original and can be transformed into reality (Goleman & Kaufman, 1992).

Morality: The actions of the school leader are based on moral principles (Strike, Haller, &Soltis, 2005).

Support: The school leader conveys to faculty members in words and deeds that they can

depend on him or her to assist them in becoming effective instructors (Green, 2013).

Reasoning: The school leader has the conceptual and analytical ability to frame problems and

draw conclusions in a manner that leads to an appropriate course of action (Rest as cited in

Sivanathan & Fekken, 2002).

Passion: The school leader has an entrepreneurial spirit and an infectious desire to achieve a

goal or outcome; a powerful and controlling emotion (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

Ethics: The school leader uses a set of principles to guide his or her behavior. The principles

used are based on informal and formal standards consisting of core values, honesty, respect, and

trust (Beckner, 2004).

Vision: The school leader is continuously searching for high standards of learning for all

students; anticipating what will or may come to reality; imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities ( Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Intelligence: The school leader has the cognitive ability to learn from experience; to reason well;to remember important information, and to cope with the demands of administering a school

daily (Sternberg as cited in Huitt, 2002).

Communication: The school leader actively listens to diverse points of view and uses the process of communication to link individuals, groups, and the organization for the purpose of

building relationships, establishing trust, and earning respect for self and others (Green, 2013).

Tact: The school leader displays a sense of what is fitting and considerate in dealing withothers; gives consideration to the feelings of others; has acquired skills necessary to handle

difficult and delicate situations without insulting others (Green, 2013).

Diplomacy: The school leader has the ability to rally people to a greater cause and to persuade

them to function with enthusiasm doing what they already know is the right thing to do

(Houston, Blankstein, & Cole, 2009).

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/authors/d-goleman

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/authors/p-kaufman

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/authors/p-kaufman

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/authors/d-goleman




73

Reliability: School leaders are consistent and dependable. They display high degrees of integrity

and are able to analyze obstacles to trust, remove those obstacles, and work with members of the

organization to build a culture of trust, (Galford & Drapeau, 2002).

Integrity: The school leader adheres to a set of moral and ethical principles while displaying

soundness of moral character and being honest regarding actions taken. He or she takesresponsibility for his or her actions and is willing to ensure that all students have access toknowledge (Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005).

Character: School leaders exhibit what they believe. They show consistency between their values, ethical reasoning and actions, and develop positive psychological states, such as

confidence, optimism, hope, and resilience in themselves and their associates. Also, they are

widely known and respected for their integrity (Cooper, Santora, & Sarros, 2007).

Fortitude: The school leader exhibits the courage and strength to transform organizations

(Riggio, 2009).

Imagination: The school leader has the ability to form mental images of real and unreal events

and to develop different scenarios or different perspectives on those events. He or she can create

a fresh situation or series of events that might lead to the identification of a vision (Werhane,

1999).

Accuracy: The school leader is thorough in accomplishing a task and shows concern for all

areas involved, no matter how small. He or she organizes time and resources, monitors work products or information, double-checking to ensure accuracy, consistency, and efficiency

(Syracuse University, HR Dept., 2012).

Influence: The school leader is able to mobilize people around a compelling vision of the future,inspiring them to follow in his or her footsteps. He or she shows people what is possible and

motivates them to make those possibilities reality (Bennis & Nanus, 2003).

Trust: The school leader is consistent in words, actions, and deeds, and there are no gaps

between what he or she says and what he or she does. You can count on him or her to deliver on

his or her promises. An individual can be confident in the promised action (Ciancutti, & Steding,2001).

Knowledge: The school leader has an in-depth understanding of school practices, processes, and

procedures and uses this information to move the school toward goal attainment (Green, 2013).

Management: The school leader achieves goals and objectives of the school by organizing tasks

and assignments and monitoring and evaluating operational systems in a manner that ensures a

safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Routines are followed and goals are achievedin an efficient and effective manner (Bennis & Nanus as cited in Ricketts, 2009; ISLLC

Standards, 2007).








74

Planning: The school leader builds a foundation for teaching and learning to occur and creates a

roadmap for successful change when it is needed. He or she outlines and assigns specific tasks

that increase the likelihood of organizational success (Anderson & Anderson, 2010).

Timeliness: The school leader takes actions regarding school issues at the appropriate time. He

or she realizes that addressing issues in an expeditious manner is crucial to the success of theorganization (Chaganti & Sherman, 1998; Blanchard & Johnson, 2003).

Accountability: The school leader complies with established control systems and holds self and

others accountable for measurable high-quality, timely, and cost- effective results. He or shedetermines objectives, sets priorities, delegates work, and accepts responsibility for mistakes

(Kichak, 2008).

Judgment: The school leader exhibits wisdom in taking action and making decisions (Bossidy& Charan, 2002).

Organization: The school leader leads with a detailed plan. He or she exhibits behavior thatindicates that the necessary time has been devoted to considering alternatives and developing

back up plans and contingencies. He or she develops safeguards so that nothing falls through the

spaces (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Brody, 2011; Morgan, 1996).

Charisma: The school leader has the ability to galvanize people to follow his or her style of

leadership. He or she tends to communicate in a way that is effective in drawing people to him or

her through his or her personality (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Tenacity: The school leader has an inner drive that pushes him or her to get to the heart of an

issue and find solutions. As a result of this inner drive, he or she searches tenaciously for

information that is missing and keeps tweaking his or her mental models until he or she arrives ata position that works (Charan, 2007).

Humility: The school leader is aware of self, values the opinion of others, is willing to learn andchange, and share power. He or she has the ability to hear the truth, admit mistakes, and work to

create a culture of openness. Dissent (a difference of opinion) is encouraged in an environment

of mutual trust and respect (Lawrence, 2008).

Dignity: The school leader values the opinion of others, considers all individuals valuable parts

of the school organization, and treats them ethically and with respect (Hicks, 2012).

Consistency: The school leader establishes a standard of excellence and maintains that standard

while performing and making decisions. The behavior of the leader is consistent with minimal

variation as he or she transmits a sense of mission, stimulates learning experiences, and

motivates new ways of thinking (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Fairness: The school leader gives others a voice and treats them with dignity. They base their

decisions on accurate information and are consistent in their practices (Sackett, 2011).




75

Diversity: The school leader works effectively with people across lines of difference which is

integral to creating buy-in and ultimately reaching goals. He or she sets the tone for the group

and helps to foster effective intergroup dynamics (Banks, 2010).

Logic: The school leader is in pursuit of knowledge, engaging in analysis, questioning, and

reasoning to establish depth of comprehension and understanding about a particular topic(Reardon, Reardon, & Rowe, 1998).

Predictability: The school leader consistently provides exactly what is planned and/or expected

(Kaufman, 2012).

Courage: The school leader challenges the process, experiments, and takes risk. He or she has

the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Decisiveness: The school leader makes decisions and when they are in the best interest of the

school organization, he or she sticks with them in spite of difficult challenges (Smith, & Piele,

1997).

Equity: The school leader creates and implements programs and strategies that yield successful

outcomes and advancements for all students (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003).

Honesty: The school leader behaves in a trusting or trustworthy manner, exercising integrity

(Kouzes & Posner, 2002).

Openness: The school leader has the ability to entertain different and non-customary ideas. He

or she is flexible and willing to change his or her way of thinking when the situation warrants.

Displaying openness, the school leader finds ways to celebrate the accomplishments of others

(Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Adaptability: The school leader is flexible, open to alternatives, and able to adjust to new

conditions. He or she is willing to modify his or her position for the sake of other individuals for the good of the school organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Schulte & Kowal, 2005; Wildy &

Louden, 2000).

Compassion: The behavior of the school leader denotes awareness and a sense of caring for the

feelings of others (Green, 2013).

Sensitivity: The school leader is emotionally intelligent and is aware of the impact his or her decisions and perspectives have on himself or herself and others (Ingram & Cangemi, 2012).

Respect: The school leader recognizes the contributions of others and shows appreciation for

individual excellence. He or she treats people in the organization as he or she would like to betreated-with dignity and courtesy (Ciancutti & Steding, 2001; Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Rapport: The school leader aligns his or her actions with others because he or she feels that theyshare similar values (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).




76

Credibility: The school leader is viewed by others as being trustworthy, competent, dynamic,

inspiring, and accountable. Others view him or her as one who is proficient and competent tostrategically execute the goals of the organization (Matthews, 2010).

Commitment: The school leader is dedicated to the growth of the organization and eachindividual within the organization. The professional and personal growth of stakeholders isnurtured (Spears, 2010).

Persuasion: The school leader uses verbal and non-verbal communication to connect with people and to influence them to assist in the achievement of mutually beneficial results

(Williams, 2009).