See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330546155

Balance of Instructional and Managerial Tasks as it

Relates to School Leaders' Self-Efficacy

Article · December 2018

DOI: 10.1177/105268461802800502

CITATIONS

0READS

18

5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assistant Professors View project

The correlation between self-efficacy and time to degree completion of educational leadership doctoral students View

project

Juliann McBrayer

Georgia Southern University

7 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Summer Pannell

University of Houston – Victoria

4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Antonio P Gutierrez de Blume

Georgia Southern University

39 PUBLICATIONS   455 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Teri Melton

Georgia Southern University

6 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio P Gutierrez de Blume on 29 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

596 Journal of School Leadership Volume 28—September 2018

INTRODUCTION

State school achievement policies, such as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and, specifically in Georgia, the College and Career Readiness Per-formance Index (CCRPI) have strongly influenced school districts to lend more attention to institutional (school districts) and to individual (school

JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYERTORRI JACKSONSUMMER S. PANNELLCARL H. SORGENANTONIO P. GUTIERREZ DE BLUME TERI DENLEA MELTON

Balance of Instructional and Managerial Tasks as It Relates to School Leaders’ Self-Efficacy

ABSTRACT: This study examined school leaders’ self-efficacy in relation to time spent on school instructional leadership and managerial tasks. Descriptive statistics yielded a mean score for leadership self-efficacy of 4.1/5.0. For every unit increase in time spent on instructional tasks, leadership self-efficacy scores increased and for every unit increase in time spent on managerial tasks, leader-ship self-efficacy decreased. In addition, 7% of school leaders spent more than 50% of their time on instructional tasks and 93% spent less than 50% and 45% of school leaders spent more than 50% of their time on management tasks and 55% spent less than 50%.

KEY WORDS: Instructional Leadership, Leadership Self-Efficacy, School Leader, School Leadership, Self-Efficacy

Address correspondence to Juliann Sergi McBrayer, Ed.D., College of Education, Depart-ment of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, Georgia Southern University, PO Box 8131, Statesboro, Georgia 30460-8131, United States. Email: jmcbrayer@georgia-southern.edu

597Leadership Self-Efficacy

leaders) accountability to enhance school improvement. According to the United States Department of Education (USDE), the reauthorization of the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) charged school districts and schools with embracing a commitment to equal oppor-tunity for all students, which resulted in identifying a clear goal of fully preparing all students for success in college and careers. However, when schools do not progress and students do not adequately achieve, the onus is on school leaders to aid improvement initiatives to attain school reform and accountability. State policymakers are increasingly holding school districts more accountable for the performance of each school within the system. Argon (2015) defined accountability as a “tool that ensures orga-nizational managers have appropriate conduct in line with the law and its regulations during the administration of organizational goals” (p. 926). These accountability standards are based on students’ performance on state assessments and the need to meet or exceed state standards on these assessments causes district administrators to focus their attention on the performance of school leaders.

These constant and evolving demands of the job add to the current pres-sures associated with the administrative role, which include both instruc-tional leadership and managerial tasks, and thus a balance of these tasks must be sought to allow principals to effectively lead their schools and ensure high academic performance for all students. Schools change princi-pals frequently and about 20% of public school principals in the United States (US) leave their positions each year due to the complex nature of the job (Miller, 2013). A common challenge is that “the shifting paradigms and the choppy political waters that accompany major school reforms can decrease principals’ beliefs in their ability to fulfill their supervisory obligations and be instructional leaders” (Kelleher, 2016, p. 73). School principals tend to determine their leadership self-efficacy based upon their ability to balance instructional and managerial tasks, as they attempt to lead their schools to success. Any support that school leaders’ self-efficacy could be shaped by balancing school instructional and management tasks may inform the deter-mination of administrative roles and responsibilities, as schools continue to focus on reform and accountability. If school leader responsibilities are unbalanced, achieving a balance may result in higher leadership self-efficacy. With an increase in the principal’s overall responsibilities, finding a balance between what instructional leaders want to do and have time to create seri-ous challenges for school leaders and their work in making a difference in schools (Walker, 2009). Leadership self-efficacy and ones’ capabilities are vital to improving school performance, and thus, there is a need to maintain high levels of leadership self-efficacy, as any decrease in a principal’s leader-ship self-efficacy could prove detrimental to the entire school community.

598 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

For reasons related to accountability and school improvement, school leaders are working diligently to find a balance between completing both instructional leadership and managerial tasks effectively and thus, it is imperative to take into account the leadership self-efficacy of school lead-ers and examine how it shapes school performance. With the increased amount of time on both school instructional leadership and managerial tasks comes a concern about the additional responsibilities of school lead-ers while maintaining their role as an instructional leader. Hence, this study sought to examine school leaders’ (principals and assistant principals) self-efficacy in relation to time spent on school instructional leadership and managerial tasks.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

To achieve a sufficient understanding of the roles and responsibilities asso-ciated with school leadership, research on school instructional leadership and managerial leadership proved to be extensive. While much research has been conducted on self-efficacy, research on the school leadership self-efficacy based on roles and responsibilities (in terms of balancing school instructional leadership and management tasks) was limited and thus, a gap in the literature indicated a need for further study in this area. An effort to better understand school leaders’ self-efficacy and find a balance between completing both instructional leadership and school management tasks effectively, led to the following overarching research question: What are school leaders’ perceptions of their leadership self-efficacy based on the School Leaders’ Self-Efficacy Scale? (SLSES; Petridou, Nicolaidou, & Williams, 2014). The following sub-questions were utilized to address the overarching question: What predictive effect does the time spent on school instructional leadership tasks have on the school leaders’ self-efficacy? and What predictive effect does the time spent on school managerial tasks have on the school leaders’ self-efficacy? Thus, a review of the literature was conducted to frame these research questions and better understand the potential need for balance when examining the time spent on school instructional leadership tasks versus management tasks to better address the required roles and responsibilities of effective school leaders.

SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

For the purpose of this study, school instructional leadership roles and responsibilities will be defined as a strong focus on “curriculum, instruc-tion, and assessment” (Walker, 2009, p. 217) and will also be referred to as

599Leadership Self-Efficacy

instructional tasks. Effective instructional school leaders spend the major-ity of their time on tasks associated with teaching and learning, such as supervision, modeling, observation, feedback, and professional develop-ment. School management tasks involve “the work necessary to maintain organizational stability, including tasks such as planning, gathering and dispersing information, budgeting, hiring, scheduling, and maintaining the building” (Spillane & Hunt, 2010, p. 295). “The increase in the principal’s responsibilities and the incongruence between what instructional leaders want to do and have time to do create serious consequences for school leaders and their work in making a difference in schools” (Walker, 2009, p. 214).

The instructional tasks of administrators include those responsibilities that directly impact teachers’ ability to provide effective instruction and students’ opportunities to learn. The responsibilities include, but are not limited to, conducting classroom and student observations, providing vital professional learning opportunities for the staff, analyzing data to deter-mine school improvement needs, and monitoring student learning (Zepeda, 2003). Principals who exhibit strong instructional leadership skills devote an ample amount of time to improve the quality of teaching and learning and are committed to the academic achievement of all students, especially exceptional learners. Zepeda (2003) emphasized “the final responsibility for the success of the instructional program and its people rests squarely on the shoulders of the principal” (p. 2). However, factors were noted that potentially impede school administrators attending to the work of instruc-tional leadership, and the results included managerial tasks associated with student discipline, budget work, building and facilities work, and required paperwork. Also, noted was that school principals value their time as instructional leaders more than those on the management end.

Per Ediger (2014), “management is poignant, but being a leader in improving teaching and learning situations is more salient” (p. 265). When given an appropriate amount of time to focus on instructional leadership tasks, principals spent most of their time observing teaching and learning via walkthroughs and working with a variety of students in small groups or individually (Walker, 2009). This was a possibility as principals were pro-vided additional full-time personnel, such as vice or assistant principals, to handle some of the school’s management tasks.

Principals have a strong desire to lead the teaching and learning within their schools and are committed to student success and teacher growth (Robbins & Alvy, 2004). Hallinger and Murphy (2012) discovered that principals have strong intentions to perform the duties necessary to be exemplary instructional leaders, but “expertise to lead learning,” “time to lead,” and the “normative environment of the principalship” can all impede

600 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

administrators’ abilities to be effective instructional leaders (p. 8). They went on to express school administrators’ desire to have more time for their instructional leadership role, but they often fail to spend an appropri-ate amount of time in this role due to management tasks that are needed.

SCHOOL MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP

For the purpose of this study, Spillane and Hunt (2010) define school man-agement roles and responsibilities as the “work necessary to maintain organizational stability” such as building maintenance, discipline, and human resource management (p. 295) and will also be referred to as man-agement tasks and managerial tasks. Their research involved the study of school principals’ daily tasks to verify or nullify the common perception of administrators’ work in educational leadership. Spillane and Hunt (2010) found that approximately half of the principals participating in the study spent close to 70% of their time performing school management tasks, such as dealing with student discipline, planning budgets and schedules, and managing school staff and building maintenance. In addition, Gilson (2008) found that between 30% and 50% of principals spent most of their time each week working at after-school events, working on paperwork, and handling student discipline, all considered to be on the management side. Spillane and Hunt (2010) noted elementary principals studied spent 32.5% of their time facilitating unexpected conferences and completing paperwork and only 2.5% of their time observing teaching.

Onorato’s (2013) study of management tasks in the business world and those of school administrators expressed some similarities between the two. While the management practices and expectations of business people and those of school principals were similar, the focus on local and state accountability standards and the influence of school stakeholders were the main factors that caused differences in the leadership capabilities and leadership styles of the principals and business people. These studies pro-vided no evidence to discount the value of the management tasks of school administrators, as effective school administrators need to work to achieve a systemic balance between instructional leadership and school manage-ment tasks and responsibilities for the success of their schools (Onorato, 2013).

THE INCLUSION OF ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS

It is clear that school principals cannot complete all instructional or administrative and management tasks in a silo and be effective leaders for their schools. Because of the expanding amount of time spent on school

601Leadership Self-Efficacy

instructional leadership and management tasks, “principals are increas-ingly aware that they need support to meet growing administrative and leadership responsibilities” (Killion & Roy, 2009, p. 78). Walker’s (2009) research was specifically designed to elevate the role of the principal to that of a building instructional leader by including additional adminis-trative support to handle both instructional leadership and management tasks, such as through the role of an assistant principal. While this new delegation of management tasks enhanced the principal’s position as an instructional leader through increased sightings and involvements with teachers and students, it also helped to define the role of the assistant prin-cipal as the school manager. The responsibilities of the assistant principal as school manager included student discipline, office paperwork, facility management, employee management, and facilitator of parent conferences (Walker, 2009).

In response, Pounder and Crow (2005) saw this role definition as “nar-rowly focused,” and it distanced the role of the assistant principal from that of an instructional leader (p. 59). The concern was for the lacking skillset of the assistant principal who will either serve as a substitute for the princi-pal during a principal’s absence or become a school principal in the future. One must develop capabilities to accomplish and balance both instruc-tional leadership and managerial tasks in effort to best prepare assistant principals for the principalship.

Hilliard and Newsome’s (2013) study focused on ways to best utilize the instructional leadership skills and management tasks of assistant princi-pals to positively impact school achievement. The authors concluded that school principals as mentors should help enhance assistant principals’ skills by providing more opportunities for assistant principals to learn about and use both school instructional leadership skills and management tasks. This could be done through principals’ use of shared leadership, by providing specific professional development options based upon leader-ship needs, and by encouraging the facilitation of leadership teams and professional learning communities by assistant principals (Hilliard & New-some, 2013).

Research has portrayed the assistant principal as a disciplinarian and while discipline is a necessary responsibility in education, an overwhelm-ing amount of tasks related to discipline and student management can have negative effects on assistant principals’ effectiveness and job satisfaction (Oleszewski, Shoho, and Barnett, 2012). Assistant principals’ desire to acquire more instructional leadership responsibilities for school improve-ment purposes (Oleszewski et al., 2012). The assistant principal is an inte-gral member of an administrative team that influences school effectiveness and academic performance and needs to be prepared to move into the

602 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

principalship with confidence. In addition, assistant principals perceived themselves as being inadequately prepared to lead schools in the absence of the principal or to become school principals due to the disproportion-ate volume of instructional leadership experiences to school management experiences (Oleszewski et al., 2012).

GENERAL AND LEADERSHIP SELF-EFFICACY

School leaders directly impact the school’s academic capacity and indi-rectly influence student growth (Heck & Hallinger, 2009). Specifically, school leaders’ thoughts, perceptions, and actions have an influence on the success of the schools and both the climate and culture (Kelleher, 2016). Therefore, more attention needs to be given to leadership self-efficacy and its impact on the outcome of school performance and student achievement. Bandura (2012) defined self-efficacy as “a judgment of capability” (p. 29), and it is task-specific based upon social cognitive theory of motivation and behavior. According to Bandura (1977) the notion of perceived positive general self-efficacy has been loosely referred to as a personal reflection of an optimistic self-belief in one’s ability and their capabilities to produce effects. In addition, perceived general self-efficacy affects people’s choice of actions and behaviors, how much effort they exert, and the time they will commit to persisting in the face of obstacles. The higher the perceived general self-efficacy, the more aggressive the efforts will be to achieve the intended goal (Bandura, 1977). As Bandura (2012) proposed, the strength of general self-efficacy should be measured across a wide range of perfor-mances, not just performance on a specific item. While general self-efficacy is constrained to a particular task, general self-efficacy is the belief in one’s competence to cope with a broad range of stressful or challenging demands (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005). “Self-efficacy describes indi-viduals’ beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over challenging demands and over their own functioning” (Luszczynska et al., 2005, p. 441). In addition, to support the notion of general self-efficacy, research has shown there is a positive relationship between students’ self-efficacy and academic performance (Lambie, Hayes, Griffith, Limburg, & Mullen, 2014; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991).

In an educational leadership context, leadership self-efficacy is pre-sented as “a person’s judgment that he or she can successfully exert leader-ship by setting a direction for the work group, building relationships with followers in order to gain their commitment to change goals, and working with them to overcome obstacles to change” (Paglis & Green, 2002, p. 217).

Furthermore, leadership self-efficacy is noted as “a leader’s estimate of his or her ability to fulfill the leadership role” (Murphy & Johnson, 2016,

603Leadership Self-Efficacy

p. 74). The growing list of tasks, which are based upon school manage-ment and instructional leadership responsibilities of a school principal may shape the principals’ leadership self-efficacy during their tenure in leadership. Goolamally and Ahmad (2014) proposed leadership self-efficacy as the “self-assessment of one’s ability to organize and carry out the work or actions required in order to achieve a performance target” (p. 126). The goal of their study was to pinpoint the characteristics of school administrators necessary to maintain strong school leadership and positively impact student achievement. The study determined that the five leadership characteristics that excellent school administrators must possess are “integrity, forward looking, inspirational, competency, and self-efficacy” (Goolamally & Ahmad, 2014, p.130). Lastly, leadership self-efficacy is referred to as “one’s self-perceived capability to success-fully lead a group” (McCormick, Tanguma, & López-Forment, 2002, p. 43). Leadership self-efficacy is often influenced by the wide variety of exter-nal and internal factors school administrators experience while leading schools and is directly related to the frequency of leadership opportuni-ties granted, the effectiveness of previous leadership experiences, and the level of self-confidence in leadership skills (McCormick et al., 2002). Overall, for the purpose of this study, the researchers defined school leaders’ self-efficacy as “self-assessment of one’s perceived capability to organize and implement action required to effectively lead organizational change to achieve a performance outcome” (McBrayer & Pannell, unpub-lished manuscript).

Efforts to adequately measure the leadership self-efficacy of school administrators have been found to be limited due to the narrow focus on selected tasks or dimensions of the school leaders’ role (Petridou et al., 2014). To measure school leadership self-efficacy, the study used the work of Petridou et al. (2014), who noted current leadership scales to be limited because they were based on specified standards utilized to guide teachers’ licensing programs and professional development and in turn developed a new measure, the School Leaders’ Self-Efficacy Scale (SLSES). The SLSES is based on the research of effective school leadership skills internation-ally and leadership development standards being used both by graduate schools for testing or program evaluation purposes, and by current princi-pals for reflection purposes.

METHODS

The purpose of this study was to better understand school leaders’ self-efficacy. Furthermore, the study sought to analyze the relationship between

604 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

the school instructional leadership and management tasks of school lead-ers in relation to their leadership self-efficacy.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The design for this study was a quantitative study utilizing descriptive sta-tistical measures. The school instructional leadership and management tasks and the leadership self-efficacy of school administrators were the variables to be measured for this research study. The data were analyzed to determine leadership self-efficacy and how it is related to the amount of time spent on school instructional and management tasks by school admin-istrators. The survey design involved data collection from the sample at one point in time. The data were analyzed to determine current trends in leadership self-efficacy and administrative responsibilities and therefore, it was best to conduct the study as a cross-sectional survey design (Creswell, 2015).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To better understand school leaders’ self-efficacy and find a balance between completing both instructional leadership and school management tasks effectively, led to the following overarching research question:

1. What are school leaders’ perceptions of their leadership self-efficacy based on the School Leaders’ Self-Efficacy Scale (SLSES)?

The following sub-questions were utilized to address the overarching question:

2. What predictive effect does the time spent on school instructional lead-ership tasks have on the school leaders’ self-efficacy?

3. What predictive effect does the time spent on school managerial tasks have on the school leaders’ self-efficacy?

SETTING

Because the study focused on leadership self-efficacy and the duties and responsibilities of school administrators, data were collected from the principals and assistant principals from one rural southeastern, Georgia school system. The pseudonym United County School District (UCSS) will be used in this study. According to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) data for all schools in UCSS for the 2016–2017 academic school year, seven schools were included consisting of one elementary school, three middle schools, one high school, and one school reporting as an

605Leadership Self-Efficacy

institute. The total district overall student enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12 was 9,839 students.

PARTICIPANTS

Because the study focused on leadership self-efficacy tasks of school administrators, data were collected from the principals and assistant prin-cipals from each of the seven schools within the UCSS. The sample was selected as a convenience sample given the role of the researcher and access to the participants. The participants selected for the study were 12 principals and 15 assistant principals for a sample size of n = 27.

INSTRUMENT

The instrument was administered electronically to collect data on the lead-ership self-efficacy of the administrators (principals and assistant prin-cipals) within UCSS using Qualtrics™ survey software. The instrument included a first section on general demographics to include the participants’ current role (principal or assistant principal) and work setting (elementary, middle, and high school). In addition, participants indicated the percentage of the school week spent on instructional leadership responsibilities (work that relates to the curriculum, instruction, and assessment) and percentage of school week spent on school management responsibilities (work neces-sary to maintain organizational stability).

The next section of the instrument contained 31 items from the School Leader Self-Efficacy Scale (SLSES; Petridou et al., 2014). The SLSES instru-ment measured eight factors affecting school leaders’ self-efficacy, includ-ing 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; adher-ing to community and policy demands; monitoring learning; and leader-ship of continual professional development. The SLSES was selected as it allows leadership candidates to determine their preparedness for admin-istrative roles and for current school administrators to evaluate their per-ceptions of their leadership. At the end of the survey administration, the reliability of the scores was checked using Cronbach’s α. The results of this measure of internal consistency equaled 0.94. Therefore, it was determined that the instrument proved to properly measure the intended dimension.

The last section of the instrument was researcher-developed to exam-ine time spent on school instructional tasks compared to managerial tasks. This section of the instrument included 21 items of both admin-istrator tasks. The items for the administrator tasks included items on

606 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

both instructional and managerial tasks from a review of the literature and each question was aligned to specified literature as appropriate (Oleszewski et al., 2012; Spillane & Hunt, 2010; Walker, 2009). The identi-fication of these items enabled the comparison of school administrators’ instructional and managerial tasks to school administrators’ leadership self-efficacy.

Each item required a response prior to completing subsequent items to nullify concerns of disproportionate item responses. Each item asked the administrators to rate their confidence in their leadership capabili-ties within eight key areas of effective school leadership. The participants responded to the survey questions from the SLSES using the following 5-point Likert Scale: 1 = Not at all confident; 2 = Not confident; 3 = Some-what confident; 4 = Confident; and 5 = Very confident. The participants responded to the items based upon school administrators’ time spent on school instructional leadership and management tasks using the following 4-point Likert Scale: 1 = Less than 10%; 2 = Between 10%-30%; 3 = Between 30%-50%; 4 = More than 50%.

DATA COLLECTION

To ensure that all school administrators had an opportunity to participate in the study, the survey was administered through the system’s email sys-tem. The instrument was administered electronically to collect data on the leadership self-efficacy of the administrators (principals and assistant prin-cipals) within UCSS using Qualtrics™ survey software over a two-week period.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics were reported to provide answers to the questions posed in the study. For the first research questions pertaining to leadership’ self-efficacy, an individual self-efficacy score from the SLSES was calcu-lated and a mean for the overall participants was presented, as well as the overall sample size (n) and standard deviation.

A multiple regression was used to answer the second and third research questions. For research question two, the length of time spent on school instructional leadership tasks was calculated and served as the predictor (independent variable) and the self-efficacy of administrators served as the criterion (dependent variable). For research question three, the length of time spent on school management tasks was calculated and served as the predictor (independent variable) and the self-efficacy of administrators served as the criterion (dependent variable).

607Leadership Self-Efficacy

Standardized coefficients were calculated as estimates from the regres-sion analysis to standardize the variances of the independent and dependent variables. The beta coefficients denoted how many standard deviations the variables changed per unit of measurement (time spent on tasks) based on increase in this predictor variable. In addition, the p-value was reported to demonstrate the level of marginal significance of an occurrence (instruc-tional and managerial tasks) on a given event (school leader self-efficacy). Lastly, R2 was reported as the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is predictable from the independent variable.

FINDINGS

Based on these descriptive analyses, the overall mean score for adminis-trator self-efficacy as per the SLSES was calculated at 4.1 out of 5.0 with a standard deviation of .42 for the sample (n = 27) and answered the first research question. These results were used to compare the leadership self-efficacy scores of the school administrators to the time spent on school instructional and managerial tasks.

The data were analyzed to answer the second and third research ques-tions concerning the effect of the length of time spent on school instruc-tional leadership responsibilities and management tasks on school leaders’ self-efficacy (Table 1). For the overall SLSES scale, the results indicated that administrators’ leadership self-efficacy increased by .36 of a standard deviation for every unit increase in amount of time spent on instructional leadership responsibilities. Within the eight subscales of the SLSES, the data disclosed some important points. Of importance, for every one unit increase in instructional tasks and based on a p-value at or near .05 denot-ing statistical significance, self-efficacy for Creating an Appropriate Struc-ture (β = .46), Developing a Positive Climate-Managing Conflicts (β = .45), and Leadership of Continuing Professional Development (β = .44) increases of nearly half of one-standard deviation were reported.

For the overall SLSES scale, the results indicated that administrators’ leadership self-efficacy decreased by -.09 of a standard deviation for every unit increase in amount of time spent on school management tasks. Sub-sequently administrators’ leadership self-efficacy decreased across all sub-scales, except in the case of Evaluating Classroom Practices (see Table 1).

Figure 1 denotes the unit increase in time spent on school instructional and managerial tasks indicated by four initial categories including less than 10%, between 10% and 30%, between 30% and 50%, and above 50%. In addi-tion, data were analyzed based on these findings by collapsing the four cat-egories into two categories to include above 50% and below 50% in an effort

608 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

to more accurately quantify the data. Overall, using the two categories to analyze, for school instructional tasks, 7% of school leaders spent more than 50% of their time on school instructional tasks while 93% spent less than 50% of their time on these tasks. For school management tasks, 44% of school leaders spent more than 50% of their time on school management tasks and 56% of school leaders spent less than 50% of these tasks.

Specifically, looking at the four categories for analysis, the instructional responsibility that administrators spent the most time each week perform-ing was teacher evaluations (between 10% and 30%). When comparing principals and assistant principals, both sets of administrators were con-fident in making sound decisions based on professional, ethical, and legal

Table 1. Multiple Regression Results for SLSES and Average Time on School Instructional Leadership Tasks and Managements Tasks

Criterion

Instructional Task Management Task

R2b β p-value b β p-value

Full Scale SLSES .27 .36 .18 −.07 −.09 .73 .10Creating an Appropriate Structure .38 .46 .08 −.11 −.13 .61 .15Managing Learning Organization .21 .28 .30 −.05 −.07 .81 .06Self-Evaluation for Improvement .46 .33 .22 −.10 −.07 .79 .09Positive Climate .48 .45 .09 −.15 −.14 .61 .14Evaluating Classroom Practices −.14 −.13 .64 .19 .18 .52 .02Community and Policy Demands .07 .08 .79 −.03 −.03 .93 .00Monitoring Learning .17 .20 .47 −.08 −.09 .74 .02Professional Development n = 27 .57 .44 .10 −.31 −.23 .39 .11

2

14

10

1

12

10

5

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

More than 50%

Between 30% and 50%

Between 10% and 30%

Less than 10%

Number of Respondents

Tim

e on

Tas

k

Time on School Management vs. Instructional Tasks

School Management Responsibilities Instructional Leadership Responsibilities

Figure 1. Time on School Management vs. Instructional Tasks.

609Leadership Self-Efficacy

principles, and they both were least confident in the area of school self-evaluation. Both principals and assistant principals conducted more man-agement tasks than any other responsibilities; however, they differed in the types of management tasks that consumed much of their time. School prin-cipals spent the most time completing paperwork and making phone calls, and the assistant principals spent the most time on student discipline and conferencing with parents and students. The highest-rated instructional responsibility of the SLSES for school principals was ensuring that learn-ing is at the center of strategic planning and resource management. The areas of least confidence for assistant principals were within the school management tasks of managing the school financial and human resources effectively, managing the workload of self and others, ensuring that school practices reflect community needs, and explaining to staff and parents how school decisions relate to state and national institutions.

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The results of this study could influence the role of the school administra-tor in multiple capacities, such as empowering principals to advocate for a balance in school instructional leadership and management tasks. Princi-pals should advocate for professional development opportunities that pro-vide tools and leadership skills necessary to balance their responsibilities and advocate for additional administrators and support personnel (assis-tant principals and instructional staff) to help distribute the leadership of these tasks and responsibilities.

While the data showed an increase in school administrators’ leadership self-efficacy with an increase in time spent on instructional leadership responsibilities and decreased with a higher length of time on school man-agement tasks, there were some discrepancies with specific factors of the SLSES. Within the Evaluating Classroom Practices subscale, school lead-ers’ self-efficacy decreased when the volume of instructional leadership responsibilities increased. This factor was designed to measure adminis-trators’ self-efficacy concerning their ability to both monitor and evaluate classroom practices and use research-based evidence to impart knowledge about teaching practices (Petridou et al., 2014). Because this subscale has a focus on instructional leadership responsibilities, there appeared to be a contradiction with the average leadership self-efficacy score decrease. The results of the overall SLSES for the UCSS administrators inspired beliefs that administrators valued more time completing instructional leadership

610 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

responsibilities and had confidence in their ability to lead in this area. How-ever, the confidence waned during the completion of the specific instruc-tional leadership responsibility of Evaluating Classroom Practices.

The average score on the SLSES showed that UCSS school administra-tors were confident in their ability to lead schools. Of the eight subscales of the SLSES, the administrators were most confident in the area of Evaluat-ing Classroom Practices and least confident in the area of School Self-Eval-uation for School Improvement. Because the instructional responsibility that administrators spent the most time each week performing was teacher evaluations, it is likely that the administrators rated their confidence level based upon the amount of time spent and experience completing the spe-cific tasks. Previous research of Spillane and Hunt (2010) showed that school administrators spend the majority of their time on school manage-ment tasks, and this study’s results were no different. The average time UCSS administrators spent on instructional responsibilities each week was minimal and the average time UCSS administrators spent on school man-agement tasks was high, specifically noted was that administrators spent the most time on the school management task of conferencing with parents and students regarding discipline and attendance issues.

While the UCSS principals and assistant principals both scored high on the SLSES, their leadership self-efficacy within certain SLSES subscales differed and their average time spent on management tasks varied. Both sets of administrators were confident making sound decisions based on professional, ethical, and legal principles, and they both were least confi-dent in the area of school self-evaluation. The high leadership self-efficacy could be attributed to the frequency of having to meet with students and parents concerning discipline issues and referencing educational policies during these meetings. The low leadership self-efficacy could be attributed to the lack of time to complete the instructional responsibility of school self-evaluation.

Both principals and assistant principals conducted more management tasks than any other responsibilities. However, they differed in the types of management tasks that consumed much of their time. UCSS school princi-pals spent the most time completing paperwork and making phone calls, and the assistant principals spent the most time on student discipline and conferencing with parents and students, which was consistent with Walk-er’s (2009) previous research within this area indicating that assistant prin-cipals were often engaged in more responsibilities concerning discipline, and this study showed that this district’s administrators are experiencing the same role disparity.

The highest-rated instructional responsibility of the SLSES for school principals was ensuring that learning is at the center of strategic planning

611Leadership Self-Efficacy

and resource management and this result could be attributed to the pres-sure on administrators from the state, district, and community to ensure that schools are performing on a high level. The areas of least confidence for UCSS assistant principals were within the school management tasks of managing the school financial and human resources effectively, manag-ing the workload of self and others, ensuring that school practices reflect community needs, and explaining to staff and parents how school deci-sions relate to state and national institutions. These results spoke to the lack of experience of assistant principals in the aforementioned areas due to the highly delegated other management tasks like school discipline and attendance issues. And this lack of experience can be corroborated with the work of Oleszewski et al. (2012) in that assistant principals felt inadequately prepared to lead schools in the absence of the principal or to become school principals due to the disproportionate volume of instruc-tional leadership experiences to school management experiences.

Based on the work of Hilliard and Newsome’s (2013), the findings sup-port reenvisioning the role of the assistant principal to share the instruc-tional leadership and management tasks of assistant principals to positively impact school achievement. School leaders could use the findings of this study to support the enhancement of assistant principals’ administrative skills by providing more opportunities for assistant principals to learn about and use both school instructional leadership and management skills to share administrative leadership responsibilities. These skills need to go beyond the assistant principal as a disciplinarian, as tasks related to discipline and student management can have negative effects on assistant principals’ effectiveness and job satisfaction (Oleszewski et al., 2012). In addition, assistant principals perceived themselves as being inadequately prepared to lead schools in the absence of the principal or to become school principals (Oleszewski et al., 2012) and thus, professional learning to prepare the assistant principal for the principalship is warranted.

Assistant principals’ desire to acquire more instructional leadership responsibilities for school improvement purposes. The findings of this study support the assistant principal as an integral member of an administrative team to influence school effectiveness and academic performance and this could be achieved by preparing and training assistant principals to move into the principalship with confidence (Oleszewski et al., 2012). Thus, the reenvisioning of the assistant principal could be done through principals’ use of shared leadership, by providing specific professional development options based upon leadership needs, and by encouraging the facilitation of tasks such as leadership teams and professional learning communities.

In summary, distributing leadership may be the means by which school leaders balance their increasing duties and work collectively with their

612 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

support staff to be as effective as possible in enhancing student achieve-ment. To reiterate, schools change principals frequently and leave their positions each year due to the complex nature of the job (Miller, 2013) and in Georgia the issues are no different. Principal turnover is an ongoing issue and those invested in educational reform must find ways to retain highly effective school leaders and from the results of this study and others alike, balance of school instructional and managerial responsibilities and duties is key. Sharing the responsibility of leadership is vital in achieving this balance, as we must work collaboratively to ensure the success of all of our students.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

One limitation of this study was the transferability and generalizability of the research findings. Because the findings are based upon the unique school instructional and management tasks and responsibilities specific to UCSS, they could not speak to the responsibilities and leadership self-efficacy of administrators in other school districts. Comparing the tasks of UCSS administrators to other school districts in Georgia would be a way to address this potential limitation, and thus, further research is warranted in this area. Additional limitations to the study included the response rate, but the findings were reflective of a small, rural school district in Georgia, which is the norm in the area, and thus the findings are telling. Another limitation of this study was the impact of the tenure of each participating administrator. Expanding the purpose and focus of the research to include comparisons of leadership self-efficacy of school administrators based upon years of experience would be a means to addressing any potential impact of leadership tenure on this study. Lastly, administering a leader-ship self-efficacy scale to school principals required the school leaders to practice self-reflection of their current leadership skills. The results were heavily dependent on the administrators’ candor while providing a subjec-tive analysis of their leadership self-efficacy and this could compromise the authenticity of the administrators’ responses to the items on the SLSES.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this study could have career-enhancing implications for both principals and assistant principals. The SLSES could prove to be a valid instrument to assist future district leaders with the determination for the role and duties of the school principal, specifically addressing the balance of their roles and responsibilities in the areas of administrative and man-agerial and instructional tasks. Further study of leadership self-efficacy,

613Leadership Self-Efficacy

and school management tasks versus instructional leadership responsibili-ties could impact the responsibilities of assistant principals and lead to a revised job description. Instead of being seen as assistant school manag-ers, vice and assistant principals could get the opportunity to function as instructional leaders as they are mentored for the future role of school principal. This study’s findings could serve as key support for the hiring of additional administrators and support staff to share the volume of school management tasks for the purpose of empowering school principals to enhance their instructional leadership role and distribute leadership in a constructive manner.

PLAN OF ACTION

The results of this study could be used to enhance the leadership skills of UCSS and other administrators and increase their leadership self-efficacy. District and school administrators may be empowered to find a balance between the school instructional leadership and management tasks and responsibilities of principals and assistant principals in UCSS and beyond. Professional learning opportunities attended by all district and school administrators would be a good environment conducive to producing the type of synergy necessary for district leaders and school leaders to compromise on revised role definitions of school principals and assistant principals.

Many districts already have in-house leadership training for grooming assistant principals and the district administrators who serve as instruc-tors of these program could be provided with the data from this study and studies alike to advocate for a balance in instructional leadership respon-sibilities for assistant principals to enhance their leadership experience and leadership self-efficacy. The notion of balance within school leaders’ responsibilities to ensure high levels of self-efficacy with the complex nature of balancing the work that needs to get done to maintain the daily practices of a school with the duties that are so impactful to effective teaching and learning, need to be at the forefront of the intentional work that educators do.

IMPACT

This study could impact student achievement and school improvement while significantly impacting the leadership self-efficacy and balance of leadership tasks of school administrators. The findings of this study added validation to the challenge that the volume of school management tasks overwhelms school administrators and contributes to their lower

614 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

leadership self-efficacy. This could impact future support given to new and current administrators and assistant principals and leads and necessitates a further look at the impact of the mentorship. The enhanced work with school leaders could positively impact the leadership self-efficacy of the administrators, and school leaders who are confident in their ability to lead and achieve could be vital contributing factors to the success of their stu-dents and schools.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The work and findings within this study indicated the need for additional research in the areas of leadership self-efficacy and its impact on school outcomes. The researchers plan to replicate this study on a larger scale and include additional school districts with the region of southeastern Georgia, statewide and nationwide. Future research will be expanded to include school administrators from rural, suburban, and urban school dis-tricts, and data will also be analyzed by administrators’ work setting (ele-mentary, middle, high), as well through the identification of different job roles, such as principal, assistant principal, and instructional leadership staff. Lastly, this continued research will focus on the impact of school leaders’ self-efficacy as it pertains to other factors influencing student achievement, specifically faculty and teacher turnover rates and perfor-mance outcomes.

REFERENCES

Argon, T. (2015). Teacher and administrator views on school principals’ account-ability. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(4), 925–944.

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revis-ited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluat-ing quantitative and qualitative research, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Ediger, M. (2014). The changing role of the school principal. College Student Journal, 48(2), 265–267.

Gilson, T. (2008). Educational leadership: Are we busy yet? American Secondary Education, 36(3), 84–97.

Goolamally, N., & Ahmad, J. (2014). Attributes of school leaders towards achieving sustainable leadership: A factor analysis. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(1), 122–133.

615Leadership Self-Efficacy

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the time and capac-ity to lead l learning. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 97(1), 5–21.

Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leader-ship to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689.

Hilliard, A., & Newsome, S. (2013). Value added: Best practices for the utilization of assistant principals’ skills and knowledge in schools. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 10(2), 153.

Kelleher, J. (2016). You’re ok, I’m ok. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 70–73. doi: 10.1177/0031721716647025.

Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Lambie, G., Hayes, B., Griffith, C., Limberg, D., & Mullen, P. (2014). Innovative High Education, 39(2), 139–153.

Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale: Multicultural validation studies. Journal of Psychology: Interdisci-plinary and Applied, 139, 439–457.

McBrayer, & Pannell (2017). Impact of roles and responsibilities on school leaders’ self-efficacy. Unpublished manuscript.

McCormick, M., Tanguma, J., & López-Forment, A. (2002). Extending self-efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 34–49.

Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Edu-cation Review, 36, 60–72.

Multon, K., Brown, S., & Lent, R. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.  Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38.

Murphy, S., & Johnson, S. (2016). Leadership and leader developmental self-efficacy: Their role in enhancing leader development efforts. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2016(149), 73–84.

Oleszewski, A., Shoho, A., & Barnett, B. (2012). The development of assistant prin-cipals: A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264–286.

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.

Paglis, L., & Green, S. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation f for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215–235.

Petridou, A., Nicolaidou, M., & Williams, J. S. (2014). Development and validation of the school leaders’ self-efficacy scale. Journal of Educational Administra-tion, 52(2), 228–253.

Pounder, D., & Crow, G. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 56–60.

Robbins, P., & Alvy, H. (2004). The new principal’s fieldbook: Strategies for success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

616 JULIANN SERGI MCBRAYER ET AL.

Spillane, J., & Hunt, B. (2010). Days of their lives: A mixed-methods, descriptive analysis of the men and women at work in the principal’s office. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(3), 293–331.

Walker, J. (2009). Reorganizing leaders’ time: Does it create better schools for stu-dents? National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 93(4), 213–226.

Zepeda, S. (2003). The principal as the instructional leader: A handbook for supervisors. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, In.

Juliann Sergi McBrayer, Ed.D., is assistant professor and MEd Program Coor-dinator in Educational Leadership at Georgia Southern University. She has expertise in educational leadership, teacher leadership, and educational pro-gram evaluation. Prior to joining higher education, she served as an educational program coordinator, instructional school leader, certification program director, professional development coordinator, federal programs coordinator, classroom teacher leader, and classroom teacher. Her research interests include the devel-opment, implementation, and assessment of educational leadership and teacher preparation programs to ensure effectiveness and accountability with an emphasis on educational leadership self-efficacy and purposeful and sustainable profes-sional learning.

Torri Jackson, Ed.S., is a student services support specialist for the Liberty County School System in Hinesville, Georgia. In her role she oversees school counseling programs, attendance protocol, and other special programs related to the social/emotional development of students. She has 19 years of experience in education including roles as a high school mathematics teacher and as a school counselor. She is a graduate of Georgia Southern University with a Bachelor of Science in Education (Secondary Mathematics), a Master of Education in Coun-selor Education, and an Education Specialist in Education Leadership. She is cur-rently a graduate student in Georgia Southern University’s Educational Leadership doctoral program.

Summer S. Pannell, Ph.D., is assistant professor and EdS Program Coordina-tor in Educational Leadership at Georgia Southern University. Prior to joining the ranks of higher education, she served nearly two decades in public education. As a principal, Dr. Pannell received national recognition for her school closing achievement gaps. Dr. Pannell has published articles and presented at various international, national, and state conferences. Additionally, she served on collab-orative committees for the development of statewide teacher and principal evalu-ation systems. Her primary research interests include educator preparation and retention, school turnaround, and the effect of poverty in schools.

Carl H. Sorgen, Ph.D., is assistant professor of Educational Leadership at Geor-gia Southern University. He teaches graduate courses in higher education admin-istration and educational leadership. His research focuses on quantitative analysis

617Leadership Self-Efficacy

of student and faculty variables. He has a Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, Master’s from New York University, and Bachelor’s from Ohio University.

Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume, Ph.D., is currently an assistant professor of Research at Georgia Southern University, where he teaches quantitative research methods and statistics. He is interested in researching metacognition under the theory of self-regulated learning. More specifically, he is interested in how learners monitor their comprehension during learning episodes. His program of research includes examining the effects of dispositional characteristics (e.g., various aspects of motivation) and learning strategy training on learners’ calibration (accu-racy and bias), confidence in performance judgments, and performance as well as investigating the latent dimensions of calibration to improve its measurement.

Teri Denlea Melton, Ed.D., is associate professor and Director of Educational Leadership Programs at Georgia Southern University. She serves as co-primary investigator for the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) initia-tive. Prior to joining Georgia Southern University in 2008, she held faculty rank at in Florida and Pennsylvania, and served in leadership positions in both the public and private sectors in NY, VA, and the Dominican Republic. Her research interests focus on doctoral student self-efficacy and program completion factors, international leadership behaviors and characteristics, and quality of work life in higher education.

View publication statsView publication stats