1

Assessing the Level of Cultural Competence and Mentoring Experiences of Educational Leaders and Identifying Strategies for Culturally and Globally Competent Leadership

Julia Ballenger, Ph.D., Associate Professor Texas A&M University-Commerce, TX

Frank Young Education North 903-886-5583

Julia.ballenger@tamuc.edu

Kriss Kemp-Graham, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Texas A&M University-Commerce, TX

Frank Young Education North 903-468-6042

kriss.kemp-graham@tamuc.edu

2

Culture influences all aspects of personal and professional life. House, Hanges, Javida,

Dorfman and Gupta (2004) define culture as “shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and

interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experience of

members of collectives that are transmitted across generation” (p. 5). The seminal work of

Cross, Bazron, Dennis, and Isaacs (1989) provides a definition of cultural competence that has

established a solid foundation for the health field. Cross et al. define cultural competency as “a

set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency or

among professional and enable that system, agency or those professionals to work effectively in

cross-cultural situations” (para 3).

Cultural competence is the ability to understand and respect values, beliefs, and

differences across cultures. Thus, this understanding of cultural competence enables principals

to work effectively with internal and external stakeholders across cultures as well as globally. In

addition, Cross et al. posit that cultural competence is an “Inside-Out process” (1989, para 3).

Viewing cultural competence from this perspective allows educational leaders to understand that

what they believe influences the actions and behaviors of others. Therefore, the changes that

leaders need to make while working with diverse stakeholders are from the inside-out (Terrell &

Lindsey, 2009).

Cultural competence is a behavioral outcome of cultural awareness. The concept of

cultural awareness consists of many facets such as sensitivity, empathy and cultural competence.

Hoopes and Pusch (1981) noted that “the ways of thinking and perceiving, cultural awareness,

are culturally conditioned than being universal aspects of human nature” (p. 19).

3

Terrell and Lindsey (2009) distinguished cultural proficient leadership from other

leadership approaches in that it is centered in the belief that a leader must understand one’s own

assumptions, beliefs, and values about people and cultures different than one’s self in order to be

effective in cross-cultural settings. Thus, they defined cultural competence from a leadership

perspective as the ability to be conscious of and to respect differences in values, beliefs, and

attitudes across cultures. Cultural competent leaders who lead effectively in diverse

environments realize that it is not about changing others but about changing the way they work

with those who are culturally different (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). Cultural competent leaders

realize this process begins with them. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the

level of cultural competence and mentoring experiences of educational leaders in an effort to

determine if they are culturally competent and if they use their mentoring experiences to increase

their cultural and global competence. Finally, we will identify strategies these leaders can use to

strengthen their cultural and global competence.

Literature Review

Functions of Mentoring

Mentoring has become a commonly accepted phenomenon in business, industry, and

educational institutions. The traditional model of mentoring originated with the research

conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. This traditional form of mentoring was based on the mentors

sharing knowledge and support and their protégé receiving it (Kram, 1985). This form of

mentoring was hierarchical with the flow of knowledge and support downward (Jones & Brown,

2011). The overarching purpose of the traditional form of mentoring was to enhance an

individual’s career and psychosocial functions.

Kram’s (1985) pivotal work on mentoring was the first to identify the career and

psychosocial functions of mentoring for the protégé. The psychosocial functions were labeled as

4

role modeling, acceptance, confirmation, counseling, and friendship. The psychosocial functions

of mentoring are more personal, and are associated with the quality of the mentoring

relationship. The mentor is a role model, and the protégé will frequently assimilate the mentor’s

attitudes, values, and behaviors. Social influence literature supports this premise, proposing that

the norms, values, and beliefs of an ‘influence agent’ (such as a mentor) may have an effect on

an individual even without that individual’s realization (Forgas & Williams, 2001). Acceptance

and confirmation occur when the mentor provides support, encouragement, and nurturing.

Counseling happens when the mentor has created a safe environment for the protégé to express

and explore personal concerns and issues. Friendship also frequently develops, with the mentor

and protégé enjoying interactions both inside and outside of the work environment (Dougherty,

Turban, & Haggard, 2010; Kram, 1985).

Kram (1985) noted the career functions are identified as sponsorship, exposure,

visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments. Sponsorship involves the mentor

nominating the protégé for promotions, lateral moves, and other recognitions such as awards,

assignment to research projects, and recommendations for fellowships. Exposure and visibility

is provided when the mentor creates opportunities for the protégé to interact with senior

colleagues and other gatekeepers who can open doors for the protégé. Coaching is the practical

act of helping the protégé develop work-related skills and may lead to the mentor giving the

protégé challenging work assignments to help him/her develop further as a professional.

Forms of Mentoring

The traditional form of mentoring described by Kram in 1985 was based on a mentoring

dyad, in which one mentor was paired with one protégé. In more recent mentoring literature, the

concept of a developmental network of mentors has been explored (Higgins & Kram, 2001),

5

sometimes referred to as a mentoring “constellation” (Higgins & Thomas, 2001), or a mentoring

“mosaic” (Mullen, 2005). This draws from social network theory and is based on the concept

that individuals may rely on a number of different mentors to provide career support, and that the

network may be quite diverse (Higgins & Kram, 2001). The developmental network or

mentoring constellation consists of “the set of people a protégé names as taking an active interest

in and action to advance the protégé’s career by providing developmental assistance” (Higgins &

Kram, 2001, p. 268).

Although the terms “mentoring mosaic” and “mentoring constellation” may be newer, the

concept of network mentoring is not a new phenomenon. Swoboda and Miller (1986) identified

network mentoring as a process involving a series of contacts between two or more people in

which each plays the role of mentor and protégé at different times. For instance, an older

individual might fulfill the traditional role of “grooming-mentor” (Levinson, Darrow, Kelin,

Levinson, & McKee, 1978), whereby, special assistance is provided by a more experienced

professional who grooms his/her protégé during a transitional period (e.g., entry into a

profession) in order to enhance a quicker movement up the career ladder. The younger protégé

may play the role of mentor to the seasoned professional when it comes to learning about new

tools in the workplace.

Professional Development and Mentoring for Principals

Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, and Cohen (2007) evaluated eight

exemplary principal professional development programs across the United States. Their findings

revealed that effective professional development programs include a focus on leadership teams

and cohorts that allow for collaboration in practical experiences. These findings suggested that

mentoring programs may be effective to allow these aspiring principals to engage in

6

collaboration with their peers. Furthermore, Daresh (2004) noted one of the benefits of

mentoring experiences for principals was an increased confidence in their personal competence.

Research studies on principal professional development revealed that principals value mentoring

experiences (Golman & Kempner, 1988; Nicholson & Leary, 2001).

Smith (2007) evaluated a peer group mentoring process for a group of experienced school

principals. Smith found that these principals advised, guided, and supported each other. In

addition, Smith concluded that group mentoring was “a powerful and productive vehicle through

which these principals experienced worthwhile and significant professional learning” (p. 289).

However, Smith did not address building cultural awareness as a facet of this peer group

mentoring process. Alsbury and Hackman (2006) evaluated the effects of the

mentoring/induction program for novice principals and superintendents. The recommendations

from this study focused on encouraging principals to engage in reflective practices and assigning

mentor and protégés. Absent from the recommendations was any reference to mentoring

principals to increase their cultural competence. Over a decade ago, Malone (2002) posited that

providing a mentoring program was the most effective way to prepare and support principals in

their career. However, Malone’s research did not address the need for addressing cultural

competence in these mentoring programs.

The Conceptual Framework for Cultural Competent Practices

For this research, the researchers used Terrell and Lindsey’s (2009) leadership and

cultural proficiency conceptual framework that describes how school leaders examine their own

values and behaviors as well as the policies and practices in diverse schools settings that support

the tenets of cultural competence. Terrell and Lindsey’s (2009) framework of leadership and

cultural proficiency continuum includes six points toward the acquisition of cultural proficiency.

7

This continuum provides a unique way of seeing and responding to differences. The six points

along the continuum include the following: cultural destructiveness, cultural incapacity, cultural

blindness, cultural pre-competence, cultural competence, and cultural proficiency. Terrell and

Lindsey note that the first three points along the continuum consist of unhealthy thinking. These

points focus on looking out the window blaming others (Collins, 2001).

According to Terrell and Lindsey (2009), cultural destructiveness is the first point on the

continuum. At this point, leaders lead in a manner that seeks to eliminate the cultures of others.

At the second point of cultural incapacity, leaders lead in a way that trivialize other cultures and

see to make the culture of others appear to be wrong. Cultural blindness, the third point in the

continuum, involves leaders who do not acknowledge the cultures of others and choose to ignore

the differences.

The last three points of the Terrell and Lindsey (2009) continuum focus on one’s practice

as transformational leaders. This represents healthy thinking. The leader is looking in the mirror

and examining his/her educational practices and seeking to learn and improve upon how to serve

the needs of the diverse students and stakeholders in the community (Collins, 2001). At the

fourth point of cultural pre-competence, leaders possess an awareness of the limitations of their

own skills or an organization's practices when they interact with members of other cultural

groups (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).).

According to Terrell and Lindsey (2009), when leaders reach the fifth point of cultural

competence, they see cultural differences and understand the contributions that they make. The

school’s policies and practice and one’s personal values and behaviors are aligned in a manner

that is inclusive with cultures that are new or different. When leaders reach cultural proficiency,

the sixth and final point on the continuum, they see cultural differences, and they respond

8

positively with affirmation toward these differences. The leaders are becoming increasingly

effective in serving the educational needs of cultural groups. This conceptual framework of

Cultural Proficiency provides leaders with lenses, tools, and structures to better understand and

appreciate the cultural groups in the school and in the community.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine principals’ understanding and

practices of cultural competence in relation to their work in diverse settings. Next, we explored

the extent to which these principals were engaged in cultural awareness activities and mentoring

experiences to build their cultural competence. The following research questions guided this

mixed-methods study.

1. What are principals’ understanding of their cultural identity and competence?

2. What are principals’ understanding and awareness of cultural competence in their school

settings?

3. Were principals engaged in activities to build cultural competence?

4. How do principals use mentoring in the school setting to improve cultural competence?

5. What strategies do principals use to improve their cultural competence knowledge and

practices within the school setting?

Method

This study used a mixed-methods research approach. This type of research design

consists of using both qualitative and quantitative data collection and data analyses techniques.

Triangulation of the qualitative and quantitative data afforded the researchers in this single study

9

to glean a better understanding of the phenomenon we sought to study. In other words, using

this mixed-methods approach provides strengths that offset the weaknesses of both qualitative

and quantitative research (Creswell, 2008). Thus, the researchers were able to get a complete

picture of these participants’ understanding of cultural competence, their practices employed in

developing cultural competence, and their mentoring experiences and relationships established to

build cultural competence. In March 2014, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at this regional

university approved the researchers IRB application, granting permission to conduct this research

study.

Criteria for Selecting Quantitative Participants

A purposive sampling technique was used to select the participants for this study. The

criteria for selection were that the participants had to be: (a) current or past principal, and

(b) enrolled in the Department of Educational Leadership Program at one particular institution

for four consecutive semesters from Fall 2012 to Spring 2013, Summer I and II, 2013 through

Fall 2014. The researchers received the names and email addresses of these students from the

Coordinator at the University and invited them via email to participate in the research study. The

online survey program Qualtrics Mailer was used to send out the survey. Once the participants

agreed to participate, the first screen the participants saw was the consent screen. Consent to

participate had to be selected before the participant was allowed to answer the survey questions.

Quantitative Survey Instrument

In an effort to answer the quantitative research questions, the researches employed the

use of an online survey to gather current administrators’ perceptions of cultural competencies

and mentoring experiences and relationships. Survey quantitative data were obtained from the

administration of the Cultural Competency Self-Assessment of Public Interest Leaders developed

10

by the Maryland Non-Profits Organization. This open-accessed survey was obtained online at

the www.marylandnonprofits.orgThe survey is a 39 item self-report survey that includes three

sections: (a) Individual understanding of cultural competence (19 items), (b) Awareness of

Cultural Competence in Relations to the Workplace (10 items), and (c) Engagement in Learning

Activities and Experiences to Build Cultural Competence (10 items). Subscales scores were

reported for each section of the survey.

There were 188 surveys that were distributed online, and 52 participants agreed to

participate in the study, for a response rate of 28%. Of the 52 respondents, 25 indicated that they

had not served nor were current active building principals; therefore, they were not included in

the data. Seven participants did not complete the entire survey; therefore, their data were not

included. The remaining 20 respondents answered the entire survey question set. This mixed-

methods research study’s findings cannot be generalized to the general population of school

principals because of the small sample size.

Quantitative Data Analyses

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 was used for all of the

quantitative analyses for this research. All participant survey responses data and corresponding

demographic data were imported into the SPSS from Qualtrics. All survey responses and

demographic data such as school location and school type was coded in Qualtrics prior to

exporting to SPSS, Each respondent was assigned a random numerical identifier by Qualtrics to

ensure respondent anonymity. Descriptive statistics of the survey and subscales were used to

report self-perception of current campus administrators’ cultural competency and engagement in

mentoring experiences and relationships. .

11

Responses to the survey for this research were given in a 5 point Likert scale ranging

from “1”(Not At All) to “5” (To Maximum Extent); missing responses or a NA response

received a score of “0.” Respondents’ level of cultural competence was determined based on a

subscale score ranging from 0 to 100 and 0 to 200 for the survey. To determine internal

consistency of the survey and each subscale, reliability analysis were performed at the .05

confidence level. The survey and each subscale were highly reliable with Cronbach's Alphas

ranging from .697 to .912.

.Qualitative Method

The qualitative portion of this mixed-methods research design used a focus group to

obtain more in-depth information about the principals’ understanding of cultural competence,

their practices employed in developing cultural competence, and their use of mentoring to build

cultural competence.

Qualitative Data Collection

Participants were asked to volunteer to participate in a focus group at the conclusion of

the online survey. Agreeing to participate in the focus group acted as a trigger which placed

those respondents name in a separate database in Qualtrics. The names with corresponding

email addresses provided by the respondents were sent to the lead researcher with information

about their desire to participate in the focus group. The lead researcher determined that 10% (3)

of the respondents agreed to participate in the line focus group.

Qualitative data were obtained from a focus group session that allowed the researchers to

develop in-depth information on the participants’ understanding and demonstration of cultural

competence. A one hour focus group hosted by Google Hangout was convened with three of the

12

campus principals who completed the survey in its entirety. The open-ended questions were

structured to supplement the content assessed in the survey: participants’ ability to self-identify

culture and cultural identity, using mentoring experiences to implement culturally competent

practice in their building, and the engagement of professional development activities to building

cultural competence.

The participants in the focus groups were asked 10 open-ended questions. Focus group

participants were provided with copies of the questions prior to the discussion so that they were

aware of the questions that would be asked. All three participants participated fully in the focus

group and all three respondents responded to and engage in detailed conversations of all

questions that were asked.

Qualitative Data Analyses

To ensure the internal validity of the study, content analysis of the data obtained from the

focus groups occurred in several phases. Prior to the interview, the researchers created a code

matrix based on the conceptual framework developed by Terrell and Lindsey (2009) on cultural

competency and Higgins and Kram’s research (2001) on mentoring. The codebook consisted of

the following codes: type of mentoring, quality of mentoring, outcomes of mentoring, mentoring

experiences, engagement in cultural competent activities, and understanding of culture

competence.

During the focus groups, one researcher served as the facilitator of the focus group and

the other two researchers scripted the responses from each of the participants. The individual

interview scripts were transcribed and coded using the predetermined coding matrix.

Discussion of Quantitative Results

13

The researchers used Terrell and Lindsey’s (2009) framework of leadership and cultural

proficiency continuum to frame the discussion of the results. The continuum includes six points

toward the acquisition of cultural proficiency. The findings identified that the principals were at

three of the six stages of the continuum – see Table 1. These three stages consisted of cultural

pre-competence, cultural competent and cultural proficient. The stage of cultural pre-

competence indicates that leaders possess an awareness of the limitations of their own skills or

an organization's practices when they interact with members of other cultural groups.

Leaders at the cultural competence stage see cultural differences and understand the

contributions that they make. The school’s policies and practice and their personal values and

behaviors are aligned in a manner that is inclusive with cultures that are different. This level of

cultural competence suggests that these principals respond positively with affirmation toward

these differences. This stage reveals that leaders are becoming increasingly effective in serving

the educational needs of cultural groups (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).

Descriptive statistics of participants’ survey and subscale scores are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Principals’ Self-Reported Levels of Cultural Competence by Subscales Subscales N Min Max Mean SD Level Individual Understanding of cultural Competent Practices at Work

20 58 94 75.4 9.94 Culturally Competent

Awareness of cultural competence in relations to the workplace

20 34 49 42.15 4.43 Culturally Proficient

Engagement in learning activities and experiences to build cultural competence

20 0 43 29.25 9.17 Cultural Pre-Competence

Cultural Competency Self-Assessment

20

106

177

146.80

18.65

Culturally

14

Survey Competent

The overall mean survey scale score as depicted in Table 1for all respondents in the survey

was (N=20) was M=146.80, SD=18.656. These data suggest that respondents placed in the

culturally competent stage for the overall survey results. This indicates that the respondents see

cultural differences and understand the contributions that these different cultures make to the

school. In addition, this result reveals that these respondents understood their own biases and

recognize how cultural identity can influence their interactions with teachers and staff. Lastly,

this finding suggests that these principals were aware of disparities in outcomes of different

cultural groups in their schools and are becoming increasingly more effective in serving these

needs of their students.

The overall mean subscale score for the Individual Understanding and Culturally

Competent Practices at Work as depicted in Table 1 for all respondents (N=20) was M=75.4,

SD=9.94. This suggests that respondents placed in the culturally competent range on the

continuum related to their understanding of cultural competence and their cultural competence

practices in the workplace. This finding reveals that principals self-reported that they were

aware of their cultural identity and how their background may influence their actions. Also, the

finding suggests that principals deliberately address individual teacher behavior to demonstrate

and build cultural competency as a part of staff supervision.

The overall mean subscale score for the Awareness of Cultural Competence in Relations

to the Workplace subscale for all respondents (N=20) as depicted in Table 1 was M=42.15,

SD=4.43. This suggests that respondents placed in the culturally proficient stage on the

continuum. This result suggests that the principals perceive they are committed to life-long

15

learning for the purpose of increasing their knowledge and effectiveness in serving the needs of

the cultural groups in their respective schools. Several of the specific survey responses aligned

to this subscale revealed that the principals understood their prejudices and consciously worked

to question their assumptions about people. The survey responses revealed they recognized their

cultural values.

The subscale mean score for Engagement in Learning Activities and Experiences to Build

Cultural Competence subscale for all respondents (N=20) as depicted in Table 1 was M=29.25,

SD=9.17. This suggests that respondents placed in the cultural pre-competence range on the

continuum. This placement informs us that respondents’ self-reported that they are becoming

more aware of what they lack in knowledge in working in diverse settings. Respondents are

making a concerted effort to improve their interaction with cultural groups who are different than

them.

Discussion of Qualitative Findings

The purpose of the focus group was to explore the types, purpose and outcomes of the

mentoring experiences of the participants. Interview questions were asked to determine how

these mentoring experiences increased the participants’ cultural competence. We also sought to

discover how these participants increased cultural awareness in their schools. The themes that

emerged from the analyses of the qualitative data were: Formal mentoring, informal mentoring,

intentional mentoring, outcomes of mentoring, and strategies for increasing cultural competence.

The three participants in this focus group were in different stages of their principalship.

Participant one was in the first year of the principalship, participant two was in the sixth year as a

principal, and participant three was an experienced principal but had just acquired a new

principal position on a new campus. All three participants worked in diverse school settings.

16

Formal Mentoring

The participants reported on their participation in a formal mentoring program. One of

the three participants did not participate in a formal mentoring program. The other two

participants did participate in a formal mentoring program. Participant one reported, “I meet

once a month in the New Principal Orientation Program. The goal of this program is to build the

capacity of principals.” Participant two also participated in a formal mentoring program, which

was the Texas Excellence Principal Program This formal mentoring program was sponsored by

the school district. Participant two reported:

During my first year as a principal, I enrolled in the Texas Excellence Principal program.

It was a 120 credit hour program that covered one year. The program included

information on school and community leadership, developing vision and mission

statements. We learned how to build culture in our school, and how to work with our

staff on analysis of AEIS reports. We were also assigned a mentor.  

Informal Mentoring

All of the participants received informal mentoring. The informal mentoring varied

across participants. Participant three who did not participate in a formal mentoring program did

report some participation in informal mentoring. Participant three noted the following, “I have to

trust the person who I ask for help. I have to have a comfort level with this person. I have asked

for help with principals who I have a relationship with and feel comfortable in sharing my

problems.” Participant three spoke of the importance of developing a relationship with a person

before seeking out this person as a mentor.

Intentional Mentoring

17

Two of the three participants intentionally sought out mentors. Participant three reported,

“I seek out principals I can trust, who are proven to be successful to help guide me.” Participant

two noted, “I sought out a principal. We worked on the calendar and discipline. She was my

academic mentor and helped me with personnel issues and problems with teachers. We have had

a mentoring relationship for six years.”

Outcomes of Mentoring

The outcome of the mentoring experiences of these participants varied. Participant three

who reported that he had not been involved in a formal mentoring program noted that he sought

advice and support from an experienced principal with whom he had developed a relationship.

He described the outcome of the informal mentoring experiences in the following way, “I bounce

ideas off another principal with different perspectives and one who has experience. These

principals give me wisdom. I can learn from their experiences. It takes an element of trust and

confidence in the person I seek advice from.”

Participant one who is in her first year as a principal reflected on the outcomes of the

formal mentoring experiences in the following manner:

We are taught how to prepare the budget. There are no surprises. I feel more prepared as

the year goes by. We have been taught more about community, how to broaden our

perspectives on many things. I have learned that there are multiple perspectives in

handling things.

Participant one noted that the outcomes of this formal mentoring experience did not focus on

cultural awareness or cultural competence. In fact, she stated:

My mentoring has not trained me for cross-cultural awareness. I did participate in

teacher training. We learned about different types of cultures such as individualistic and

18

collectivism. In the teacher training, we did a lot of reading in cultural, linguistic and

diversity.

Participant two, who had six years of principal experience, spoke about the outcomes of

his mentoring experiences. He said, “My mentor provided me with emotional support and

instructional and academic support. I am still employed as a principal.” This participant spoke

to career and psychosocial benefits of mentoring.

Strategies for Increasing Cultural Competence

The strategies described to increase cultural competence varied across participants.

Participant One, who is in her first year of the principalship, focused on how she worked with

her teachers to increase their cultural awareness by stating:

I help teachers be ready for the changing demographics in the school by encouraging

them to practice sensitivity across cultures. I used the information I learned from the

Bolman and Deal textbook on the four frames by helping teachers to refrain things from

different perspectives. Not all children are the same. Students need equal access to

quality instruction. We want to focus on the actual issues of children and to be blinded

by stereotypes. What I am working on is for my teachers to be more understanding of

differences among students and respecting these differences.

Participant two, who has six years of principal experience, described the strategies he is

using to increase his cultural competence as well as cultural awareness of his teachers. He

stated:

I received Ruby Payne training on language of poverty. I intend to conduct a book study

with my staff on developing cultural awareness. I have teachers read articles. I am also

providing in-service for teachers on a school-wide behavior support program based on

19

Unity. I encourage teachers to teach lessons on diversity and tolerance. I use a software

program to disaggregate to data to see how students are progressing. I bring teachers in

to look at their plan for improving student performance. We are a Recognized school but

we still have achievement gaps between our low-SES students and other students.

Participant three, who was an experienced principal but in a new principal position this

year, discussed the strategies he used to increase the teachers’ cultural competence:

I send a survey to my teachers at the beginning of the year to determine their beliefs

about the importance of cultural awareness of their students. I call this micro-inequities. I

want to know what the inequities are of teachers related to their cultural awareness. I

asked teachers if they are aware of the different cultures in their class. The results of the

survey open the door to a discussion on culture awareness.

Participant three further explained, “I also provide cultural relevant training for my teachers. I

invited Patrick Briggs to my campus to discuss cultural competence. He is the National AVID

Coordinator. I cannot have teachers who have low expectations for students.” The importance

of teacher expectations was expressed in the following excerpt:

I also let teachers know my expectations of them. Race and cultural competence are not

addressed in the district. Therefore, I provide professional development for my teachers

and staff on celebrating and acknowledging diversity. I work on getting the climate and

culture right in my school.

Participant three noted the importance of understanding different cultures and improving

teacher relationship with students. He exclaimed:

Understanding different cultures is vital to relational capacity building. Some of my

strong instructional teachers do not relate well with all children. Teachers need to

20

understand the background of their students and their culture. Teachers need to respect

cultural differences and be aware of how culture affects student learning outcomes.

Participant three also described an activity he conducted with his teachers at the

beginning of the year to determine their perceptions of students of different race, ethnicity and

culture. He stated:

I give the teachers pictures of students who are African American, Hispanic, White, and

Asian. I asked them to grade these students. They gave A’s to the White and Asian

students. Lower grades were given to the African American and Hispanic students.

These teachers did not know these students. I asked them why they graded them as they

did. They replied that they had students in class like these students and they graded them

based on the performance of these students. This type of behavior is stereotypical. I

want to eliminate this type of stereotypical thinking. The first step is cultural awareness

of these teachers’ micro inequities. They must deal with these micro-inequities.

Conclusions/Discussion

This mixed-methods research study builds on and expands previous research on school

leadership, mentoring and cultural competency. The quantitative findings revealed principals in

this study were: (a) culturally competent in their understanding of their cultural identities and

values and (b) culturally proficient in their awareness of how to improve interactions with

cultural groups who were different. However, these principals were on the pre-competence

range of the continuum as related to the application of their understanding and cultural awareness

within the school setting. Qualitatively, the findings revealed that these principals were: (a)

intentional in seeking mentors, (b) engaged in both formal and informal mentoring experiences,

21

and (c) used strategies to build the cultural competence of their teachers and staff. The findings

also revealed that these principals did not use mentoring experiences to build their cultural

competence.

The researchers drew several conclusions from the quantitative results and qualitative

findings of this study. Conclusion one is that principals received both career and psychosocial

benefits from mentoring. The principals in this study benefited from the advice received from

veteran principals, and the opportunity to learn from the experiences of these principals. One

principal attributed his continued employment as a principal to mentoring received from an

informal mentoring relationship. The psychosocial benefits of mentoring for these principals

consisted of counseling received and friendships established. These mentoring experiences were

more personal and were associated with the quality of mentoring. One of the principals shared

that he had maintained this established relationship with his informal mentor for the length of his

principalship. This conclusion is supported by seminal mentoring research of Kram (1985) and

the educational mentoring research of Daresh (2004).

Conclusion two revealed that mentoring was intentional. One of the principals who was

in her first year did not have a mentor; however, she was a part of a formal mentoring program.

The other experienced principals engaged in informal mentoring. They intentionally sought out

mentors who they trusted and had established a relationship with. This conclusion is consistent

with the earlier work of the National Association of Elementary Schools Principals (2003) which

also identified mentoring as the key issue for new and existing principals. In addition, the

NAESP and other researchers found that formal mentoring programs connect principals with

other people who help them navigate challenging situations and reflect on their practices

(Alsbury & Hackman, 2006; National Association of Elementary Principals, 2003).

22

Conclusion three revealed that these principal’s did use mentoring experiences to provide

support for their teachers in order to build their cultural competence. These principals conducted

book studies on cultural awareness, invited cultural competent speakers to their campus to

provide professional develop related to cultural awareness, and engaged in courageous

conversations about the importance of holding high expectations for all students. Additionally,

these principals recognized that there were disparities in performance outcomes among all

student populations, and made a concerted effort to address these inequities through monitoring

of the curriculum used and the teaching in the classroom.

Conclusion four revealed that the principals did not use mentoring experiences to build their

own cultural competence. Neither did the literature reviewed address the use of mentoring

experiences to build the cultural competence of principals; therefore, the research findings in

this study add to the mentoring and cultural competence body of knowledge on mentoring to

build cultural competence. Conclusion five recognized that becoming culturally competent

is intentional. It is the principal who must engage in self-reflection about his/her own

beliefs, knowledge and dispositions about cultures that are different. Principals may also

encourage teachers and staff to engage in self-reflections about their cultural identity and

practices.

Finally, conclusion six revealed that the principals in this study did not address global

issues in their discussion of mentoring and cultural awareness activities. An absence of a

deep interest or understanding of contemporary global issues and their impacts was

worrisome, as the expectations of our future leaders are to solve complex global challenges

will remain unmet. Principal preparation programs need to prepare leaders to critically

explore and deconstruct perspectives to increase their leadership capacity and strengthen

23

their knowledge, skills and dispositions to understand and act on issues of global

significance. These findings have implications for how we prepare school leaders who have

an understanding of global issues and their impact, and make us pause and think about

curriculum and professional development to enhance the global competence of pre-service

and practicing educational school leaders.

Recommendations for Practice and Future Research

Culture is a framework through which a person views the world. This framework

includes beliefs, values, traditions, experiences, education, gender, and ethnicity, and social

status all of which work together to guide behavior and decision making. Some

districts/campuses assign mentors to protégés. When assignments are made, it is recommended

that districts/campuses provide high-quality training for principal mentors and protégés who so

often are from very different cultural backgrounds and may have difficulty communicating

effectively. Training to increase their cultural competence may help the mentor/protégé

recognize the value of a culture different from one’s own is necessary to work together

effectively. In addition, this training should enable the mentor/protégé to acknowledge that

cultures are neither inferior nor superior to one another, implying appreciation for differences. A

healthy mentor/protégé relationship includes respect, empathy, genuineness and warmth.

In a research report published by the George W. Bush Institute, an estimated 40% of

current principals will retire in 2014 (Briggs, Cheney, Davis, & Moll 2013). To further

exacerbate this situation there is a supply crisis in the US, particularly in rural and urban school

districts. Thus, demand will exceed the supply which may prove disastrous for school districts

located in areas where principals are reluctant to work such as in poor urban and rural schools.

As school districts scramble to fill these positions with novice principals, the need for new

24

principal support will be a necessity in ensuring that the principals and their schools are

successful in educating ALL students. This principal support can be provided through mentoring

experiences.

Educational leaders who are not culturally competent cannot be fully effective (The

Institute of Educational Leadership, 2005). Obtaining cultural competence is a life-long process;

it is not a skill that can be achieved overnight by reading a book, attending diversity workshops,

hosting or attending a multicultural event, it is an awakening—it is an enlightened state of

becoming that is not static. Novice principals will need help in building their cultural

competence, thus the need for active mentoring.

The urgency for the development of comprehensive mentoring programs that embrace the

tenets of cultural competence is crucial for the success of new principals. Long gone are the

days of Ozzie and Harriet. The homogeneity of schools and communities that existed in the

1950s is rare if not extinct. The shifting demographics of communities due to the economy,

federal lawsuits, sanctions or redistricting/rezoning of schools have resulted in changes in

student populations that demand school leaders to be culturally aware and knowledgeable about

and respectful of the customs, traditions, family structures and beliefs systems of students and

families belonging to many different cultures. Mentors can facilitate a dialogue with their

protégés in which cultural information is flowing both ways. The mentor can express interest

and participate in the protégé’s cultural traditions when appropriate (Pedersen & Ivey, 1993).

No one Principal Preparation Program can expose and/or prepare students with the tools

to masterfully address all of the situations and challenges that they will encounter as a school

administrator. Mentors can fill this gap. Mentors play an integral role in the development and

success of novice principals by guiding and providing them with the support, knowledge and

25

tools needed for them to develop into informed, effective leaders for ALL children. Are we

investing enough funds and time to prepare the school leaders we need to lead the diverse

twenty-first century schools? Effective culturally competent principals are not born, they are

mentored.

State Departments of Education, Principal Preparation Programs, and School Districts

must stand in solidarity on the importance of culturally competent principals leading our state

and national school districts. State department of education and Universities can make the

following requirements:

1. Require that all Principals have access to a formal principal mentoring program

that includes components of cultural and global competence.

2. Develop standards for principals that address cultural and global competency.

3. Include in the requirements for aspiring principals to demonstrate cultural

competence prior to exiting their principal preparation programs.

4. Provide state-wide professional development opportunities to build the cultural

and global competence of novice and veteran principals.

5. Redefine principal internships to include real-time, school-based learning

experiences focused on self-reflection about one’s values, attitudes, and beliefs

and other culture’s values, attitudes, and beliefs.

In summary, we must address the unique challenges of our educational leaders as our

schools, universities, and communities continue to become more culturally diverse. In the public

schools, between fall 2012 and fall 2023, the percentage of students who are White is projected

to be less than 50 percent beginning in 2014 and to continue to decline as the enrollments of

Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders are expected to increase. Although the number of Black

26

students is projected to fluctuate between around 7.6 million and 7.8 million during this period,

their enrollment share is projected to decrease from 16 to 15 percent (U.S. Department of

Education, 2014). From a global perspective, international students studying in the U.S. have

increased. There are now 40 percent more international students studying in the U.S. than 10

years ago. (Kent, 2012Universities and principal preparation programs must prepare future

leaders to understand the interconnectedness of peoples and systems and to accept and cope with

the existence of different cultural values, attitudes, and beliefs. These new leaders need to be

resourceful, flexible, open-minded in deed and practices, and need to be respectful of the

richness and benefits of these different cultures (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). That is, cross-

cultural awareness and interactions are key factors at becoming more cultural and globally

competent.

References

Alsbury, T. L., & Hackmann, D. G. (2006). Learning from experience: Initial findings of

mentoring/induction program for novice principals and superintendents. Planning and

Changing, 37(3-4), 169-189.

Briggs, K., Cheyney, G. R., Davis, J., & Moll, K. A. (2013). Operating in the Dark: What

Outdated State Policies ad Data Gaps Mean for Effective School Leadership. George W

Bush Institute. Dallas, TX: George W. Bush Institute.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap. New York, NY:

Harper and Row.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and methods approaches.

27

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cross T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of

care, 1, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP

Technical Assistance Center.

Daresh, J. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems?

Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(5), 495-517.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing

school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development

programs, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, Stanford, CA.

Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Haggard, D. L. (2010). Naturally occurring mentoring

relationships involving workplace employees. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.),

Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 139–158). West

Sussex, UK: Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. East

Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Goldman, P., & Kempner, K. (1988). The administrator’s view of administrative training. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational

Administration., Cincinnati (ERIC Document Production Service no. ED 32579).

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E., (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental

network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264–288.

Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the

effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,

223–247.

28

Hoopes, D., & Pusch, M. (1981). Definition of terms. In M. Pusch (Ed.), Multicultural

education: A cross-cultural training approach (pp. 2-8). Chicago: Intercultural Press.

House, R. J., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Institute for Educational Leadership. (2005). Preparing and supporting diverse, culturally

competent leaders: Practice and Policy Considerations. Institution for Educational

Leadership. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Leadership, Inc.  

Jones, R., & Brown, D. (2011). The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system:

Finding a model of our experience. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,

19(4), 401-418. DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2011.622077.

Kent, J. (2012). First-time enrollment of international students from 2011-2012 up to 8% surge

in students from China, the Middle East, and Brazil. Graduate Council of Graduate

Schools. One Dupoint Circle, Suite 230, NW, Washington, DC, 20036-1173.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Levinson, D., Darrow, C., Kelin, E., Levinson, M, & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s

life. New York, NY: Knopf.

Malone, R. J. (2002). Principal mentoring: An update. National Association of Elementary

School Principals. Alexandria, VA: ERIC clearinghouse on Educational Management,

Eugene, OR.

McCall, M. W., Jr., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons of

international experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

29

Mullen, C. (2005). Mentorship primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Nicholson, B. I., & Leary, P. (2001). Appalachian principals assess the efficacy and

appropriateness of their training. Planning and Changing, 32, 199-213.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2003). Principal mentoring. North

Education Alliance Brown University, retrieved from the website

www.alliance.brown.edu.

Pedersen, P. B., & Ivey, A. (1993). Culture-centered counseling and interviewing skills: A

practical guide. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Region 4, Education Service Center. (2014). Texas Education Agency Principal Induction

Program: §241.20, Requirement for the First-Time Principal in Texas, 7145 West

Tidwell Road, Houston, Texas 77092-2096.

Smith, A. A. (2007). Mentoring for experienced school principals: Professional learning in a safe

place. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(3), 277-291.

Stoddard, D., & Tamasy, R. J. (2003). The heart of mentoring. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress.

Swoboda, M. J., & Miller, S. B. (1986). Networking-mentoring: Career strategy of women in

academic administration. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans,

Administrators, and Counselors, 50(1), 8–13.

Terrell, R. D., & Lindsey, R. B., (2009). Culturally proficient leadership: The personal journey

begins within. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools, Institute of

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Wanberg, R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic

process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 39–124.

30