Search

Recently, researchers and policymakers have been calling on principal preparation programs to equip prospective leaders with education and training in effective instructional leadership practices as well as in school improvement strategies (Grossman, 2011; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; The Wallace Foundation, 2009). Kellar and Slayton’s (2013) and Martinez-Kellar’s (2012) review of the historical progression of school leadership studies identified a transition from a concern with leadership effects on schools (often examined through a quantitative framework) to a concern with the psychological and organizational dimensions of leading people in an organizational context. Martinez-Kellar’s (2012) case study of two high school principals indicated that high leader self-efficacy interacted with mental models to foster conditions to promote organizational improvement. The purpose of the current study was to explore two new elementary principals’ views of instructional leadership (including possible tensions between evaluation and supervision) as well as views of their roles to facilitate organizational improvement in low-performing schools. Principal interviews were semi-structured, and following the lead of earlier research (Kellar & Slayton, 2013), focused on the conditions/ability new principals believed were important for organizational improvement. Data collection also included two teacher interviews from each site, district and site documentation, and site walkthroughs with each principal. Case descriptions were constructed examining the organizational setting and principal perspectives on instructional leadership and organizational improvement using the conceptual framework guiding the study.

Recently, researchers and policymakers have been calling on principal preparation programs to equip prospective leaders with education and training in effective instructional leadership practices as well as in school improvement strategies (Grossman, 2011; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; The Wallace Foundation, 2009). Kellar and Slayton’s (2013) and Martinez-Kellar’s (2012) review of the historical progression of school leadership studies identified a transition from a concern with leadership effects on schools (often examined through a quantitative framework) to a concern with the psychological and organizational dimensions of leading people in an organizational context. Martinez-Kellar’s (2012) case study of two high school principals indicated that high leader self-efficacy interacted with mental models to foster conditions to promote organizational improvement. The purpose of the current study was to explore two new elementary principals’ views of instructional leadership (including possible tensions between evaluation and supervision) as well as views of their roles to facilitate organizational improvement in low-performing schools. Principal interviews were semi-structured, and following the lead of earlier research (Kellar & Slayton, 2013), focused on the conditions/ability new principals believed were important for organizational improvement. Data collection also included two teacher interviews from each site, district and site documentation, and site walkthroughs with each principal. Case descriptions were constructed examining the organizational setting and principal perspectives on instructional leadership and organizational improvement using the conceptual framework guiding the study.

This research is an extension of the Baseline Officer Longitudinal Development Study (BOLDS), an ongoing longitudinal project initiated at the United States Military Academy at West Point (USMA) in 1994. West Point graduates from the class of 1998 were recruited from a 10-year reunion celebration during the fall of 2008. Ninety-nine Soldiers completed online measures of leadership and performance. The focus of the present research was on four potential predictors of leader self-development: leader identity, leader self-efficacy, motivation to lead, and learning goal orientation. Contrary to expectations, leader identity was not a strong predictor of leader-initiated developmental activity. Consistent with prior research and theory, support for a strong relationship between leader identity, leader self-efficacy, and motivation to lead was demonstrated. Finally, results indicate that motivation to lead alone does not mediate the relationship between identity, self-efficacy, and leader self-development behavior. Overall, results suggest that seeing oneself as a leader and believing in one's capabilities to lead may be precursors to feeling motivated to participate in leadership roles. Additionally, Soldiers who are motivated to lead are more likely to engage in leader self-development behaviors when they view abilities as something that can be developed.