Running head: SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 1
Annotated Bibliography: The Effects of School Management and Instructional Leadership Tasks
on School Leaders’ Self-Efficacy
Torri Jackson
EDLD 9631: Research Seminar I
Fall 2017
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 2
Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An
empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33-47. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/1368593704/fulltext/D
8D6A5F6E45849ECPQ/5?accountid=11225
This article detailed a study on the school management role of school principals and the
comparison to business managers. The author explained how the pressures of government
policies and mandates influence school administrators’ increased focus on student achievement
based upon performance standards. The enhanced focus on improving student achievement and
school performance while balancing school management responsibilities inspired the need for a
different type of leadership. The assumption was that the transformational leadership style of
corporate managers produces positive outcomes; therefore, it was possible this form of
leadership could help administrators achieve desired results in schools.
The research was conducted in New York with 45 elementary, middle and high school
principals. An instrument was administered to the administrators to determine if the principals’
leadership styles were more characteristic of transformational, transactional or passive avoidance
styles of leadership. The researcher found that transformational leadership was the most evident
leadership style of the school administrators. The school principals’ behaviors were similar to
those of business managers displaying characteristics of “idealized attributes and idealized
behaviors, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration” (Onorato, 2013, pp. 41-42).
The author concluded that the expectations of current school administrators can be compared to
the best practices of corporate business managers due to the focus on overall performance and
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 3
student achievement. Implications for future research included comparisons between school
administrators’ managerial tasks in public and private schools.
The focus on the managerial responsibilities of school principals within this study
provided evidence on the effects of the tasks on leadership style. This study brought the concept
of leadership styles to the forefront of the current study on school leaders’ self-efficacy and
school management and instructional leadership tasks. The information within the article
influences the need for additional research into the specific leadership styles of school leaders
while performing both school management and instructional leadership tasks. The article
discussed the need for school leaders to acquire more business management skills to better
handle the school management tasks of the role. This information inspired the need for additional
research into the amount of and quality of school management preparation provided to school
leaders prior to becoming school principals.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 4
Airola, D. T., Bengston, E., Davis, D. A., & Peer, D. K. (2014). Principals’ sense of efficacy:
The influence of the Arkansas leadership academy. Journal of Educational
Administration, 52(6), 754-774. doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0089.
This article detailed a mixed methods study focused on leadership efficacy of school
principals of low performing schools upon completion of an administrator professional
development program. The participants of the study consisted of 27 Arkansas school principals
who completed a content-specific program, the Arkansas Leadership Academy’s School Support
Program (SSP). Arkansas administrators are evaluated based upon their students’ achievement
scores, and the researchers of this study considered the influence of this high-stakes
accountability on principals’ ability to lead effectively. With an emphasis on building leadership
capacity, the SSP focused on school leaders’ self-efficacy while completing specific leadership
tasks. The program was designed to include school leadership content within “five performance
areas: creating and living the mission, vision and beliefs, leading and managing change,
developing deep knowledge of teaching and learning, building and maintaining collaborative
relationships, and building and sustaining accountability systems” (Airola, Bengston, Davis, &
Peer, 2014, p. 757). Throughout the program and at its conclusion, school principals received
mentorship from an assigned educational leader called capacity-building leaders (CBs). The
researchers believed that school principals’ leadership self-efficacy was negatively impacted by a
lack of external support and studied the outcomes related to participation in SSP to determine if
the program was effective in increasing the leadership self-efficacy of principals in low-
performing schools in Arkansas.
The researchers measured the levels of leadership self-efficacy of the principals using the
Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES) consisting of three subscales: management efficacy,
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 5
instructional leadership efficacy, and moral leadership efficacy. Quantitative data were
disaggregated into cohorts based upon SSP participation years. Upon finding an increase in self-
efficacy of participating principals, a qualitative investigation was conducted to determine the
components of the SSP that influenced the growth. The researchers concluded that program
tenure was indicative of a higher leadership self-efficacy of the school principals, and the
external support provided through the mentorship of the CBs proved to be the most dominant
factor affecting the principals’ efficacy.
This research could be vital to the study of school management tasks and instructional
leadership tasks on school leaders’ self-efficacy. This study emphasized the need for capacity-
building mentorship for school principals by analyzing the influence of support through a
professional development program designed for school leaders. The researchers highlighted the
use of the PSES to measure three levels of school principals’ self-efficacy and possibly provided
another tool to be used for the current research study. While the article focused mainly on the
instructional leadership aspect of administrator duties, it uncovered a need for more research
including the school management component and the potential impact of programs like SSP on
leadership self-efficacy while completing these tasks.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 6
Petridou, A., Nicolaidou, M., & Williams, J. S. (2014). Development and validation of
the school leaders’ self-efficacy scale. Journal of Educational Administration,
52(2), 228-253. doi: 10.1108/JEA-04-2012-0037.
This article intended to create and validate a new leadership self-efficacy scale
specifically designed for school leaders. The authors found very little empirical research and
validation studies on school principal self-efficacy scales, and what research they did find
involved studies of leadership self-efficacy scales that did not fully measure principals’ self-
efficacy while completing job responsibilities. When studying the Teacher and Principals Self-
Efficacy Scale, the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey, and the Principals Sense of Efficacy Scale,
the authors determined that neither scale measured the entire range of school leaders’ everyday
tasks. When studying the more widely used School Administrator Efficacy Scale, the authors
discovered that this instrument was based upon specific local school system standards for school
leaders and was related to the standards of a state certification and professional development
program. To ensure the use of a reliable and valid scale measuring the leadership self-efficacy of
all school leaders based upon daily work tasks, the authors designed the School Leaders’ Self-
Efficacy Scale (SLSES).
To create items for the SLSES, the authors used content from international educational
leadership sources that focused on school leaders’ daily tasks, professional competencies and
standards, leadership skills, professional development, and behaviors. The items were then vetted
by at least three internationally-renowned educational leadership experts prior to completing a
pilot study. Upon completion of the factor analysis and validation process, the 32-question
SLSES instrument was found to be a reliable and valid instrument which measured school
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 7
leaders’ self-efficacy based upon its eight-factor model. The factors proven to adequately cover
the effectiveness of school leadership and school leaders’ self-efficacy are “creating an
appropriate structure, leading and managing the learning organization, school self-evaluation for
school improvement, developing a positive climate-managing conflicts, evaluating classroom
practices, adhering to community and policy demands, monitoring learning, and leadership of
continuing professional development” (Petridou, Nicolaidou, & Williams, 2014, pp. 236-238).
This article provided vital evidence to promote the administration of the SLSES for
future research on the leadership self-efficacy of school leaders. The authors detailed the need
for a new and valid instrument due to the deficiencies and lack of validity of previously designed
school leader self-efficacy tools. The entire process of developing the SLSES was described to
ensure the inclusion of actual school leaders’ tasks, daily behaviors, and professional
development needs regardless of grade level or demographics. The development of the SLSES
and studies to prove its validity and reliability solidified the recommendation for its use as the
sole school leadership self-efficacy instrument to be administered to the school leaders in the
upcoming research study of school leaders.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 8
McCullers, J. F. & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of no child left
behind and Florida school grades. National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin, 94(1), 53-74. doi: 10.1177/0192636510371976.
This article provided an exploratory study on how school leaders’ perceptions of their
leadership capabilities could drive future school leadership actions with respect to accountability.
The study described in this article was conducted in Florida during the tenure of the federal
education law, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and the state’s accountability system, Florida A+
Accountability Plan. While NCLB measured achievement levels to determine if schools met
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and set a proficiency level of 100% by the year 2014, Florida’s
accountability system measured gains on state achievement tests to determine schools’ ratings.
Since implementing the two accountability systems simultaneously, it was not uncommon to
have Florida schools with grades of A or B on the state’s accountability plan fail to make AYP
under the federal accountability plan. The researchers sought to determine if the requirements of
both accountability plans affected the leadership self-efficacy of Florida school leaders.
The theoretical framework for this study was grounded in the reciprocal causality aspect
of social cognitive theory. The researchers discussed how seemingly unattainable goals were
proven to increase stress and lower morale in teachers and how the same could occur in school
leaders as they, too, are directly accountability for student achievement and school improvement.
Thus, leadership self-efficacy could be negatively impacted which could cause a “related
decrease in actual performance” (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010, p. 57). The participants in this
study consisted of 300 school principals from three of the largest, public school districts in
Florida. The web-based, 18-item Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSES) was administered to
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 9
the school leaders once using the jargon of the federal and state accountability systems to ensure
the inclusion of both plans to be studied and reduce bias. The majority of the principals were
elementary school leaders and none of the principals had less than 10 years of experience as a
school leader.
The researchers found that approximately 21% of the school leaders believed that the
proficiency goal of NCLB was attainable while approximately 84% believed that the Florida A+
Accountability Plan’s goal was attainable. The majority of the principals had a high self-efficacy
rating under the state’s accountability system goals and a low self-efficacy rating under the
demands of NCLB. These results led the researchers to imply that the school leaders’ perceptions
were consistent with the tenets of social cognitive theory. The researchers also implied that
further research into the effects of leadership self-efficacy of school leaders should include
principals from a broader range of experience from beginning to veteran leaders. The use of a
leadership self-efficacy instrument that included more personal and environmental factors related
to the role of the school leader was also suggested.
This study informs future studies on leadership self-efficacy of school leaders by
providing insight into the relationship of accountability to leadership self-efficacy. Although the
NCLB Act is no longer used as a federal accountability plan, the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) is on the path to completion and will have a direct impact on the behaviors and
leadership of school principals in the coming days. Future research into the effects of school
leaders’ self-efficacy on student achievement due to federal and state accountability standards is
needed. More specifically, additional research on the leadership self-efficacy of school leaders
across grade levels, from all types of school districts, and with varied amounts of leadership
experience is necessary to inform school leadership practices.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 10
Versland, T. M. (2013). Principal efficacy: Implications for rural ‘grow your own’ leadership
programs. The Rural Educator, 35(1), 13-22. Retrieved from
http://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/1495967443?accountid=11225
The qualitative study detailed in this article is the by-product of a larger mixed-methods
study conducted by the researcher a few years ago. Versland was studying the impact of the
components of school leader preparation programs on leaders’ self-efficacy when data from three
principals signaled a need for further research. The previous study involved the collection and
analyzing of quantitative data on the self-efficacy of 292 principals in Montana. Out of the
sample of 292 participants, 22 principals rated their self-efficacy and leader preparation
programs highly. Out of the 22 principals, 10 were selected for the interview process to collect
qualitative data for the study. Of this last sample of principals, four had completed a “grow your
own” leader preparation program; however, three out of the four disclosed a significant loss of
self-efficacy during their initial experience as an intern and school leader. This data and
unexpected result influenced the study described in this article which intended to determine the
circumstances that possibly impact self-efficacy of rural school leaders from “grow your own”
programs and how rural districts can provide the necessary tools to help rural school leaders be
successful in their schools.
The researcher conducted follow-up interviews with the three leaders of rural schools in
Montana. The two female principals in the study led rural schools (one elementary and one K –
8) of between 150 and 230 students, and the male principal in the study led a rural high school of
605 students. All three participants had over 10 years of teaching experience, and the female
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 11
principals had six and nine years of experience as principals while the male principal had over 20
years of experience. The participants were asked 10 questions designed to examine the
experiences that led to a loss of self-efficacy for the principals. The open-ended questions
focused on how “grow your own” programs in the districts impacted their beliefs about their role
and asked participants to describe “working conditions in schools, relationships between and
among school personnel, prior leadership experiences and leader competence” (Versland, 2013,
p. 17). Upon completion of the one hour interview segments, the data were transcribed and
returned to the three participants for their review to ensure accuracy and credibility. The data
were analyzed using open coding and categorized according to recurring themes.
The researcher found that the lack of previous leadership experience, the leader selection
process, and the relationships with others significantly impacted the three school leaders’ loss of
self-efficacy. Each of the school leaders had only taught in one grade level or at one school and
had no previous leadership experience. They had no experience in any other school district, and
Versland (2013) summarized, “…each had a very narrow frame of reference regarding education
and education leadership as a whole” (p. 18). Each of the principals were appointed to their
positions by district administration. They did not apply to the “grow your own” leadership
preparation program and had not completed leadership coursework prior to their selection. Their
promotions to the role of school leader negatively impacted some of their relationships with
teachers. Former teachers and friends viewed the new school leaders as disconnected from
teachers’ concerns, and the new school leaders were the lone administrators at their schools and
had no other school leader colleague to provide mentoring. All of these factors led to the belief
that they were inadequate and self-efficacy declined. Implications from this study included
developing a competitive selection process for “grow your own” leader preparation programs
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 12
and providing mentoring for school leaders throughout the program and during the initial years
of the school leadership.
This article provided insight into “grow your own” leader preparation programs and their
impact on school leaders’ self-efficacy. It also detailed role concerns specific to rural school
leaders such as minimal district level positions of support (i.e. academic specialists, federal
programs director, etc.), challenges caused by geographic isolation, and limited financial and
human resources. The outcomes of this study indicate a need for further study into the specific
tasks of rural administrators and the impact on leadership self-efficacy. Because previous
research has shown the impact of school leader self-efficacy on collective efficacy, the
information in this article could also influence more research on the impact of rural school
leaders’ self-efficacy on student achievement and school improvement.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 13
Muse, M. D. & Abrams, L. M. (2011). An investigation of school leadership priorities. Delta
Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(4), 49-58. Retrieved from
http://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/905838510?accountid=11225
The researchers of the study described in this article completed a qualitative study
specifically designed to examine elementary school principals’ perception of job tasks and
leadership practices. Due to the school community’s demand for school principals to provide
optimum student achievement results for their schools annually, the accountability of school
principals for schools’ success has increased. While school leaders are held accountable for
student achievement and school improvement, they are also accountable to all responsibilities of
the principalship. This includes fulfilling “the role of instructional leader while relying on
managerial skills” to complete vital tasks (Muse & Abrams, 2011, p. 49). The researchers of this
study were particularly interested in the instructional leadership and managerial tasks of
elementary school leaders because they typically have less administrative resources such as
assistant principals and academic specialists like their middle and high school principal
colleagues.
The authors’ research examined how the Interstate School Leaders Consortium (ISLLC)
standards impacted the ways elementary school leaders perceived their instructional leadership
and managerial tasks. These standards were used because they “have become a national model of
leadership standards and serve as a common language of leadership expectations” (Muse &
Abram, 2011, p. 50). The six function areas of the standards used to describe effective leadership
include: “setting a shared vision of learning; developing a school culture and instructional
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 14
program that supports student learning and staff professional growth; ensuring effective
organizational management, which includes resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning
environment; collaborating with members of the faculty and community, responding to the
diverse interests and needs of the community, and securing community resources; acting in an
ethical manner with integrity and fairness; and understanding, influencing, and responding to the
political, social, legal, and cultural contexts” (Muse & Abram, 2011, p. 50). The participants in
this study were 25 school principals from Virginia school districts of elementary schools ranging
from small schools of 207 students to large schools of more than 1,000 students. There were 20
female principals and five male principals interviewed for the study, and their years of
experience in education ranged from three to 22 years. The researchers conducted the interviews
for approximately 45 minutes each in the principal’s office, and the participants also maintained
a one-day log that detailed each of their activities for the day. In addition to the interview process
and data collection, the researchers utilized a protocol based upon the ISLLC standards
specifically focusing on role responsibilities, leadership, and the demands of the job.
The researchers found that the elementary school leaders desired to be more of an
instructional leader; however, 60% of the principals shared that their frustrations are mounting
due to them spending more time as a school manager than an instructional leader. They also
learned that 48% of the principals interviewed emphasized how much accountability influenced
their decision-making and how they prioritized job tasks. Shared leadership was found to be the
most utilized leadership theory to meet the demands of instructional leadership tasks and
managerial tasks efficiently. Out of the 25 participants, only four believed their leadership
strength was instructional leadership. These findings indicated the need for more study into the
ways the task imbalance of the role affects leadership self-efficacy, thus, impacting student
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 15
achievement. Additional implications indicated a need for professional development for school
leaders to assist with balancing instructional leadership tasks and managerial tasks and a need for
more administrative support in the form of assistant principals, academic coaches, and other
school leader assistance.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 16
Oleszewski, A., Shoho, A. & Barnett, B. (2012). The development of assistant principals:
A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264-286.
doi: 10.1108/09578231211223301.
This article provided insight into the role of the assistant principal and the preparation of
assistant principals to become school principals by detailing a comprehensive review of assistant
principals. The authors characterized the role of the assistant principal as a very unique role that
often is defined on the job based upon the duties and responsibilities assigned by the principal.
While formal training has been provided for the school leadership role, it is often the informal
training that is lacking upon a new school leader’s start as an assistant principal. Oleszewski,
Shoho, and Barnett (2012) proposed that most assistant principals began the role with the
expectation that they would be more of an instructional leader on the path to becoming a
principal in the future. Once actually working within the role of assistant principal, some were
assigned mostly school management tasks such as student discipline and attendance. Because of
the discrepancies between what was learned in leader preparation programs and responsibilities
given on the job, many current assistant principals believed they were unprepared for the role.
This led the authors to further examine three reoccurring themes from the literature on assistant
principals: leader preparation, roles and responsibilities, and career typologies.
The need for specialized formal training, on-the-job training, and professional
development for assistant principals was evident throughout the literature on the role. It was
found that most leader preparation programs designed content around instructional leadership,
and most assistant principals rarely used this skillset on the job. Assistant principals shared how
principals and other assistant principal colleagues provided on-the-job training; however, most
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 17
did not prepare the new leaders for the socialization aspect of the role, specifically, transitioning
from the mindset of teacher to administrator. Also, the literature uncovered a deficiency in
professional development programs designed for assistant principals. Roles and responsibilities
of assistant principals varied; however, most were assigned tasks such as conferencing with
students and parents on discipline and attendance issues and developing the master schedule.
Because of being responsible for a limited number of tasks that actually consumed the largest
portion of their time, assistant principals often felt unprepared to act as a substitute principal in
the absence of their school principal. Therefore, the researchers found that many assistant
principals believed that the actual duties of the role did not prepare them to become principals.
Thus, assistant principals were classified into two categories: the career assistant principals who
either never desired to become principals or were never promoted to the principalship and the
assistant principals who eventually segued into the role of the principal.
The information provided in this article led to the inclusion of the role of the assistant
principal in the self-efficacy study on school leaders. Because assistant principals are responsible
for some of the same tasks as school principals, their self-efficacy must be impacted by the
volume of instructional leadership and school management tasks associated with their role. The
authors shared that the top job responsibility for assistant principals across the United States is
discipline while the most sought-after job responsibility is instructional leadership. This
discrepancy between job tasks and desires is very similar to the task imbalance experienced by
school principals; therefore, more study into the impact of school leaders’ school management
and instructional leadership tasks is needed.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 18
Walker, J. (2009). Reorganizing leaders’ time: Does it create better schools for students?
National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 93(4), 213-226.
doi: 10.1177/0192636510361639.
The mixed-methods research study detailed in this article compares the effects of the
implementation of the School Administration Manager (SAM) project in Kentucky schools and
Iowa schools and the effects on school leaders’ time to complete instructional leadership tasks.
The SAM project began in Kentucky schools as a “change strategy” funded by a grant to
reconfigure the organization of the responsibilities of the school principal by providing
administrative assistance to help with the managerial tasks. The rationale behind the project was
to give the principal the opportunity to be more of an instructional leader while delegating the
school management tasks to a SAM, thus, resulting in “stronger organizations with improved
classroom instruction, greater student engagement, and improved student achievement” (Walker,
2009, p. 215). Because of the results of the Kentucky SAM project, Iowa implemented the
program and incorporated 30 principal-SAM teams in schools at the elementary and secondary
levels. The purpose of this research study is to determine if the SAM project actually increased
school principals’ instructional time with students and teachers and if the perceptions of the
students and teachers concerning their principals’ role changed.
Data were collected via time tracking logs kept by the school principals and SAMs and
via observations conducted by shadowing the teams for five days. The participants were 19
principal-SAM teams in Iowa. Teachers, parents, and students of the participating schools were
also administered surveys and shared their perceptions about the administrators’ time and roles
via interviews. The data analysis showed that school principals increased their instructional time
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 19
by 15% with some principals increasing their instructional time by as much as 40%. Only two of
the principals still spent more time on school management tasks than the previous year. The
instructional leadership tasks completed the most due to the reorganization of school principals’
instructional time were observations (formal and informal) and working with students
individually or in small groups. About 58% of the school principals increased their time in the
classrooms observing and over 50% increased their time working with students on content
directly associated with teaching and learning. Prior to the implementation of the SAM project,
the 19 participating principals spent 68% of their time complete school management tasks. After
the implementation of the SAM project, the principals spent 53% of their time completing
managerial tasks. While the teachers perceived the school principal as more of an instructional
leader throughout the SAM project, a small number of students and parents (22% and 19%,
respectively) saw the school principal as an instructional leader. The researcher saw this as more
of a cultural issue than a valid indication of a discrepancy with the principals’ use of instructional
time.
Implications provided by the author centered around the expansion of the role of the
school principal and the emergence of a new school leader with the inclusion of the SAM. This
research provided additional proof that the school principal cannot do the instructional leadership
tasks and school management tasks alone and administrative assistance is vital to the success of
the school and student achievement. Delegating the school management tasks alone is not the
advised end result of the SAM project because the additional administrative support mirrors the
role of the assistant principal. The author encouraged true distributive leadership to ensure that
the SAM, or assistant principal, received adequate experience in both school management tasks
and instructional leadership.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 20
The article provided insight into the impact of administrative assistance on school
principals’ use of time on instructional leadership tasks. While the delegation of school
management tasks did allow school principals to spend more time on instructional leadership
responsibilities, some school management tasks could not completely disappear. Also, the
emergence of an assistant principal as a SAM showcased how the role of the assistant principal
was originally designed for school management task completion. The task imbalance involved
assistant principals spending most of their time on school management tasks and almost no time
on instructional leadership tasks. Therefore, assistant principals within the SAM project were not
being utilized as instructional leaders; thus, indicating a lack of preparation for a future role as
school principal. This indicated the need for further research into the role of assistant principals
and their leadership self-efficacy based upon their assigned duties.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 21
Fisher, Y. (2014). The timeline of self-efficacy: Changes during the professional life cycle of
school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(1), 58-83. doi: 10.1108/
JEA-09-2012-0103.
Because there was limited research on school leaders’ self-efficacy and their years of
work experience, this quantitative study’s purpose was to examine the relationship between the
two variables while also providing further study into the reliability of the ten-year-old Principal
Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES). The author proposed to study Israeli principals and their self-
efficacy utilizing the PSES due to a lack of research on the influence of self-efficacy on the work
of school leaders in Israel. The author recognized that the demands on school leaders had
increased over the years, and principals are now more responsible for the teaching and learning
in their schools while completing school management tasks. The concern was that leadership
self-efficacy could possibly change over the course of time due to the constant expansion of the
role of the school leader. This study was designed to study the effects of the years of work
experience on leaders’ self-efficacy of school leaders in Israel.
The participants in this study were 123 public school principals ranging in age from 29 to
over 55 years. Thirty percent of the principals had between two and five years of experience
while 18.7% of the sample were first year principals. Eighty-three of the principals were females,
and 40 were males. All grade levels were represented as 78.2% led elementary schools and
21.8% led secondary (middle and high combined) schools. The principals were administered the
electronic questionnaire on the professional self-efficacy of school principals, the PSES. The
instrument was separated into sections containing items pertaining to school management tasks,
working with stakeholders, managing the school organization, teaching and learning and
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 22
professional knowledge, and additional personal leadership capabilities. The last section of the
instrument was designed to collect data from the principals’ backgrounds such as age, education,
gender, years of experience, and grade level of school.
The researcher found that the reliability analysis of the PSES was high; therefore, the
instrument still measured what it was designed to measure. The results showed that work
experience had a definite impact on leadership self-efficacy. First year principals reported higher
levels of self-efficacy than principals with two or more years of experience. This was a
contradiction to the tenets of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory which suggested that self-efficacy
enhances as leadership skills and experiences are acquired. If that were the case in this study,
there should have been a more linear relationship between the variables with lower levels of self-
efficacy during the initial years of school principals and increased levels as the years of
experience mounted. However, in this study the self-efficacy levels actually decreased over time.
Implications for this study included continuing the use of the PSES to measure the self-efficacy
of school principals and providing mentors for the new school leaders as well as the veteran
school leaders to improve leadership self-efficacy throughout the career of school principals.
This study introduced an additional factor within the research of school management
tasks, instructional leadership tasks, and self-efficacy—the impact of tenure. Prior to this study
not much research was done to study the effects of school leaders’ years of experience on
leadership self-efficacy. However, the outcome of this study provides an argument for more
research on these variables to determine possible causes for the decline in leadership self-
efficacy over time. The study also provided some evidence to ensure the reliability of the PSES
should researchers decide to utilize it to study school principals’ leadership self-efficacy;
however, there needs to be further research into the reliability and validity of the PSES when
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 23
measuring the leadership self-efficacy of all school leaders (i.e. assistant principals), not just
principals.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 24
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to
lead learning. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,
97(1), 5-21. doi: 10.1177/0192636512469288.
The authors of this article researched the reasons for the expansion of the role of the
school principal and the barriers to being effective instructional leaders. Like many other
researchers studying school leaders and their managerial and instructional leadership tasks,
increasing accountability for school success and student achievement has proven to be the reason
for the emphasis on the instructional leadership of school principals. The authors shared that
instructional leadership was not used to propose sanctions on schools and school leaders in
previous eras; however, with the stringent expectations of state and federal education mandates,
school principals are being evaluated more on their instructional leadership capabilities than their
ability to effectively manage the school. Many legislators and other school stakeholders failed to
consider the mounting tasks of the school principal that are not related to instructional leadership
that become barriers to leading the teaching and learning in schools. The authors of this article
sought to expose the barriers and provide insight into the desired and actual tasks of school
principals.
Hallinger and Murphy (2012) researched three barriers to school leaders providing
instructional leadership: “expertise to lead learning, time to lead, and the normative environment
of the principalship” (pp. 8 – 11). While it is clear that instructional leadership is a main focus
within leader preparation programs, the acquired instructional leadership skillset does not
encompass all aspects of curriculum and instruction. School principals need additional support
surrounding them with content knowledge that reaches all domains within the school. The
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 25
authors implied that shared leadership is vital to the school principal’s ability to lead the teaching
and learning. This article also pinpointed the desire of principals to exercise instructional
leadership daily; however, they are often interrupted with the day-to-day, impromptu
management tasks associated with their roles. One example provided was the school principal
who planned to observe teaching for most of the day but had to conference with parents and
solve problems related to school management throughout the day instead. The authors
emphasized the direct contradiction between what school principals desired to do and what time
and managerial tasks allowed them to do. The normative environment of the role exposed some
resistance from both district officials and teachers when school principals attempt to practice
instructional leadership skills more. The role of the school principal has traditionally been seen
as that of a school manager; therefore, some teachers still see it as intrusive and outside of the
principals’ role when they enact their instructional leadership skillset. The researchers found that
district administrators were sometimes more concerned with the proficient management of the
school for aesthetic purposes than the instructional leadership.
The information found in the article provided additional insight into the rationale behind
mounting pressures on school leaders to practice more instructional leadership and the challenges
they must overcome to be the instructional leaders they desire to be. This was a clear indication
that more research into the effects of the barriers to leading teaching and learning on leadership
self-efficacy is needed. Scholarly study in this area could empower school leaders to advocate
for a reduction of school management tasks, additional professional learning to help balance
instructional leadership and school management tasks, and advocate for assistant principals or
other administrative support to lessen or remove the barriers to practicing instructional
leadership.
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 26
References
Airola, D. T., Bengston, E., Davis, D. A., & Peer, D. K. (2014). Principals’ sense of efficacy:
The influence of the Arkansas leadership academy. Journal of Educational
Administration, 52(6), 754-774. doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0089.
Fisher, Y. (2014). The timeline of self-efficacy: Changes during the professional life cycle of
school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(1), 58-83. doi: 10.1108/
JEA-09-2012-0103.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to
lead learning. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,
97(1), 5-21. doi: 10.1177/0192636512469288.
McCullers, J. F. & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of no child left
behind and Florida school grades. National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin, 94(1), 53-74. doi: 10.1177/0192636510371976.
Muse, M. D. & Abrams, L. M. (2011). An investigation of school leadership priorities. Delta
Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(4), 49-58. Retrieved from
http://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/905838510?accountid=11225
Oleszewski, A., Shoho, A. & Barnett, B. (2012). The development of assistant principals:
A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264-286.
doi: 10.1108/09578231211223301.
Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An
empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33-47. Retrieved from
SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 27
http://search.proquest.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/1368593704/fulltext/D
8D6A5F6E45849ECPQ/5?accountid=11225
Petridou, A., Nicolaidou, M., & Williams, J. S. (2014). Development and validation of
the school leaders’ self-efficacy scale. Journal of Educational Administration,
52(2), 228-253. doi: 10.1108/JEA-04-2012-0037.
Versland, T. M. (2013). Principal efficacy: Implications for rural ‘grow your own’ leadership
programs. The Rural Educator, 35(1), 13-22. Retrieved from
http://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/1495967443?accountid=11225
Walker, J. (2009). Reorganizing leaders’ time: Does it create better schools for students?
National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 93(4), 213-226.
doi: 10.1177/0192636510361639.