An Analysis of Principal Attrition in a Large Urban School District

Principal attrition is a national problem particularly in large urban school districts. Research confirms that schools that serve high proportions of children living in poverty have the most difficulty attracting and retaining competent school leaders. Principals who are at the helm of high poverty schools have a higher turnover rate than the national average of three to four years and higher rates of teacher attrition. This leadership turnover has a fiscal impact on districts and negatively affects student achievement. Research identifies a myriad of reasons why administrators leave the role of principal: some leave the position for retirement; some exit based on difficulty of the role and lack of support; and some simply leave for other opportunities within and outside of the profession altogether. As expectations for both teacher and learner performance drive the national education agenda, understanding how to keep effective principals in their jobs is critical. This study examined the factors that principals in a large urban district identified as potentially affecting their decisions to stay in the position. The study utilized a multi-dimensional, web-based questionnaire to examine principals’ perceptions regarding contributing factors that impact tenure. Results indicated that: • having a quality teaching staff and establishing a positive work-life balance were important stay factors for principals; • having an effective supervisor and collegial support from other principals, were helpful supports; and • having adequate resources, time for long-term planning, and teacher support and resources were critical working conditions. Taken together, these indicators were the most frequently cited factors that would keep principals in their positions. The results were used to create a framework that may serve as a potential guide for addressing principal retention.

CREATING ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENS: A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL AND QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION OF SUPERVSIOR- AND PEER-BASED INTERVENTIONS

Research suggests that supervisors and peers can help employees make sense of what is important or expected from them at work and, thereby, shape their behaviors. In this dissertation, I examine how employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), such as helping and voice, are differentially affected by these two sources of influence over time. In particular, I compare the relative and joint effectiveness of two field interventions to enhance OCB: (a) a role clarification intervention in which supervisors are trained to set expectations for OCB for their employees and encourage them to engage in OCB and (b) a norm establishment intervention in which peers are trained to set expectations for each other and encourage each other to perform OCB. I utilize a mixed methods approach involving a quasi-field experiment to test for changes in OCB and qualitative data to explore the theoretical mechanisms over the course of three months in a large food processing plant. I find that role clarification interventions alone have immediate positive effects on OCB, whereas norm establishment interventions alone take a longer period of time to increase OCB. In addition, in the condition where both interventions were combined, norm establishment interventions weaken the effects of role clarification earlier on; however, at later stages in time, this pattern reverses as norm establishment enhances the effects of role clarification on OCB. Through these findings, I highlight how (a) organizations seeking quick increases in citizenship might be better off focusing on supervisors as sources of influence; (b) organizations need to persist with peer-focused interventions to see positive gains; and (c) despite initial hurdles with peer-focused interventions, over time, they can lead to the highest increases in OCB when combined with supervisor-focused interventions.

SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNANCE AND KNOWLEDGE-FIT IN DECISION RIGHTS: HOW DISTRICTS RECRUIT AND HIRE SCHOOL LIBRARIANS

This study examines the organizational structures and decision-making processes used by school districts to recruit and hire school librarians. For students to acquire the information and technology literacy education they need, school libraries must be staffed with qualified individuals who can fulfill the librarian’s role as leader, teacher, instructional partner, information specialist, and program administrator. Principals are typically given decision rights for hiring staff, including school librarians. Research shows that principals have limited knowledge of the skills and abilities of the school librarian or the specific needs and functions of the library program. Research also indicates that those with specific knowledge of school library programs, namely school district library supervisors, are only consulted on recruiting and hiring about half the time. School districts entrust library supervisors with responsibilities such as professional development of school librarians only after they are hired. This study uses a theoretical lens from research on IT governance, which focuses on the use of knowledge-fit in applying decision rights in an organization. This framework is appropriate because of its incorporation of a specialist with a specific knowledge set in determining the placement of input and decision rights in the decision-making processes. The method used in this research was a multiple-case study design using five school districts as cases, varying by the involvement of the supervisors and other individuals in the hiring process. The data collected from each school district were interviews about the district’s recruiting and hiring practices with principals, an individual in HR, library supervisors, and recently hired school librarians. Data analysis was conducted through iterative coding from themes in the research questions, with continuous adjustments as new themes developed. Results from the study indicate that governance framework is applicable to evaluating the decision-making processes used in recruiting and hiring school librarians. However, a district’s use of governance did not consistently use knowledge-fit in the determination of input and decision rights. In the hiring process, governance was more likely to be based on placing decision rights at a certain level of the district hierarchy rather than the location of specific knowledge, most often resulting in site-based governance for decision rights at the school-building level. The governance of the recruiting process was most affected by the shortage or surplus of candidates available to the district to fill positions. Districts struggling with a shortage of candidates typically placed governance for the decision-making process on recruiting at the district level, giving the library supervisor more opportunity for input and collaboration with human resources. In districts that use site-based governance and that place all input and decision rights at the building level, some principals use their autonomy to eliminate the school library position in the allotment phase or hire librarians that, while certified through testing, do not have the same level of expertise as those who achieve certification through LIS programs. The principals in districts who use site-based governance for decision rights but call on the library supervisor for advisement stated how valuable they found the supervisor’s expertise in evaluating candidates for hire. In no district was a principal or school required to involve the library supervisor in the hiring of school librarians. With a better understanding of the tasks involved, the effect of district governance on decision-making, and the use of knowledge to assign input and decision rights, it is possible to look at how all of these factors affect the outcome in the quality of the hire. A next step is to look at the hiring process that school librarians went through and connect those with the measurable outcomes of hiring: school librarian success, retention, and attrition; the quality of school library program services, outreach, and involvement in a school; and the perceptions of the success of the school librarian and the library program as seen from students, teachers, administrators, parents, and other community stakeholders.

Counseling Self-Efficacy and the Relational Efficacy Model

Relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE), a relatively new concept, is defined as a target individual’s beliefs about how an observer, often a relationship partner, perceives the target’s ability to perform certain actions successfully. Along with self-efficacy (i.e., one’s beliefs about his or her own ability) and other-efficacy (i.e., one’s beliefs about his or her partner’s ability), RISE makes up a three part system of interrelated efficacy beliefs known as the relational efficacy model (Lent & Lopez, 2002). Previous research has shown this model to be helpful in understanding how relational dyads, including coach-athlete, advisor-advisee, and romantic partners, contribute to the development of self-efficacy beliefs. The clinical supervision dyad (i.e., supervisor-supervisee), is another context in which relational efficacy beliefs may play an important role. This study investigated the relationship between counseling self-efficacy, RISE, and other-efficacy within the context of clinical supervision. Specifically, it examined whether supervisee perceptions about how their supervisor sees their counseling ability (RISE) related to how supervisees see their own counseling ability (counseling self-efficacy), and what moderates this relationship. The study also sought to discover the degree to which RISE mediated the relationship between supervisor working alliance and counseling self-efficacy. Data were collected from 240 graduate students who were currently enrolled in counseling related fields, working with at least one client, and receiving regular supervision. Results demonstrated that years of experience and RISE predicted counseling self-efficacy and that the relationship between RISE and counseling self-efficacy was, as expected, moderated by other-efficacy. Contrary to expectations, however, counseling experience and level of client difficulty did not moderate the relationship between RISE and counseling self-efficacy. These findings suggest that the relationship between RISE and counseling self-efficacy was stronger when supervisees saw their supervisors as capable therapists. Furthermore, RISE was found to fully mediate the relationship between supervisor working alliance and counseling self-efficacy. Future research directions and implications for training and supervision are discussed.