Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 19 December 2014, At: 12:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal ofLeadership in Education:Theory and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20
Entering and leavingschool administrativepositionsJianping Shen , Van E. Cooley & Connie D.Ruhl-SmithPublished online: 10 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: Jianping Shen , Van E. Cooley & Connie D. Ruhl-Smith(1999) Entering and leaving school administrative positions, InternationalJournal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 2:4, 353-367, DOI:10.1080/136031299292922
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136031299292922
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
2:54
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and PracticeISSN 1360-3124 print/ISSN 1464-5092 online Ó 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/JNLS/edl.htmhttp://www.tay lorandfrancis.com/JNLS/edl.htm
Entering and leaving school administrativepositions
JIANPING SHEN, VAN E. COOLEY andCONNIE D. RUHL-SMITH
By analysing survey data collected from 457 students in 29 school administrationprogrammes across the United States, this study examines (a) the relative importance offactors related to deciding to enter and to potentially leave school administration and (b) thecanonical correlation between reasons for entering and leaving administration. It is foundthat the respondents decided to enter administration primarily for self-actualization, esteem,and affiliation purposes. However, ‘hygiene’ factors, such as salary, would play an importantrole in staying in administration. It was also found there were statistically significantcanonical correlations between reasons for entering and leaving administration. Implicationsfor recruiting and retaining school administrators are discussed.
Introduction
School officials in the United States find it increasingly difficult to recruitand retain good quality public school administrators. The inability toattract and maintain exemplary administrators represents a serious crisisfacing school boards and administrators (McCormick, 1987). Parkay andCurrie (1992) estimated that approximately 60% of principals then workingaround reach retirement age by the year 2000. Educational leaders mustbegin to investigate the reasons for the shortage of administrators and todevelop solutions to address this ongoing problem.
Researchers have identified a variety of circumstances that influencethe difficulties of recruiting and retaining school administrators. Bowles(1990) suggested that factors contributing to the scarcity of administratorsincluded limited administrator mobility, inequitable salaries, escalatingresponsibilities, and little or no job security. Jordan (1994) studied thesupply and demand of administrators in Louisiana and discovered that the
Jianping Shen, a recipient of the 1998–1999 National Academy of Education/Spencer PostdoctoralFellowship, is an associate professor of educational leadership in the College of Education, WesternMichigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5193, USA. His recent articles have appeared in suchprofessional journals as American Journal of Education, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,Journal of Education Policy, School Leadership and Management, Journal of Educational Research, andJournal of Experimental Education. Email: [email protected]. Van E. Cooley is an associate professor atWestern Michigan University. He has written articles on technology, leadership, staff development, andthe principalship. Connie Ruhl-Smith is the Director of the Academic Resource Center, IndianaUniversity–South Bend, Indiana. She has written a number of articles on leadership, rural schools, andteacher job satisfaction.
INT. J. LEADER SHIP IN ED UCATION, 1999, VOL . 2, NO . 4, 353± 367
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
2:54
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
number of teachers seeking administrator certification was declining.Additionally, less than half the teachers who were certified as adminis-trators planned to enter administration within the next five years. Thedemands of the position, in conjunction with the prolonged school workday, comparable compensation with teachers, ongoing conflict, andcriticisms from internal and external sources, resulted in a reduction inthe number of candidates seeking administrative positions (Abrell 1984,McCormick 1987, Craven 1989, Pawlas 1989, Whitaker 1995, 1996).
Wooster (1991) reported that increased dissatisfaction among buildingprincipals might result in a potential leadership vacuum in Americanschools. Conflict between building level administrators and school boards,teachers’ unions, parents, and the courts, amidst increased administrativeresponsibilities and dwindling power, perpetuated discontent and frustra-tion among administrators. Howell (1981) characterized the principal asbeing mired in crisis management, surmising that paperwork, disciplineproblems, parent conferences, and other duties conflicted with theadvocated role of the principal as instructional leader. Ginty (1995) citedpressures from politicians and business/industry leaders to deliver morecost-effective and efficient education as the causes of acceleratingfrustration and discontent among administrators.
Wood et al (1985) indicated that the role of building principles wouldbecome increasingly complex as negotiations, faculty and staff assessments,student discipline, technology, funding woes (issues), accountability, andincreased activities from outside groups complicated the position of thebuilding principal. Dlugosh (1994) studied 1010 administrators andconcluded that principals moved between school districts for salaryincreases, to work in larger schools, and for promotion. Other factors thatcontributed to relocation to other districts included district politics, stress,family considerations, and geographic preferences.
Discriminatory practices toward women and minorities also contrib-uted to the shortage. Wendel (1994) suggested that the shortage of qualityadministrators was heightened because women and minorities wereunderrepresented in recruitment for administrative positions. Banks(1995), Shakeshaft (1989), and Yewchuk (1992) also emphasized that thediscrimination of women contributed to the administrator shortages.
As the literature review reveals, the nature of the school administrativepositions and the equity issue are among the factors that cause the pool ofqualified administrator to diminish. The present study supplies additionalinformation about those factors that relate to the decision to enter andpossibly to leave school administration. In other words, the studyapproaches the topic from the standpoint of teachers’ expectancy.Exploration of these factors has policy implications for this ongoingshortage of school administrators.
Research purpose and questions
The purpose of this study was first to identify the relative importance ofthe factors related to people’s decision to enter and to leave school
354 JIANPING SHEN ET AL.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
administration, and then to enquire into the possible relationshipbetween the reasons for entering and leaving administration. The studyfocused on the following three research questions: (1) What factorsmotivate people to seek a school administrative position? (2) Whatcircumstances might induce an administrator to leave the profession? (3)Is there a relationship between factors that motivate people to seek anadministrative position and those factors that would impel administratorsto leave the profession?
In regard to the first two questions, we examined how important, onaverage, the potential factors were that related to people entering andleaving administration. As to the third question, we investigated, byemploying canonical correlation analysis, whether there were consistentpatterns between reasons for entering administration and reasons forleaving administration, an approach which has not been taken in theexisting literature. Therefore, the results of the study not only indicated therelative importance of factors related to decisions of whether to enter and toleave school administration, but also revealed a canonical relationshipbetween how factors in choosing to enter school administration might berelated to those in deciding to leave.
Methods
Sample
Data for the current study were extracted from the existing database of theStudy of Education of Educators (SEE), a large, multi-method study of theeducation of teachers and administrators conducted by John Goodlad andhis colleagues in 1989. The SEE surveyed education faculty members,students in teacher education and school administration programmes,among other data sources. Researchers first selected a representativesample of 29 US colleges and universities based on factors that includedinstitutional type (according to The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching 1987), geographical location (according to theBureau of the Census), religious or non-religious affiliation, and the publicor private sector, and then sampled all those people in school administra-tion programmes in the 29 institutions. For more detailed methodologicalinformation regarding the SEE, please refer to Goodlad (1990) and Sirotnik(1989).
The questionnaire was distributed to 994 students enrolled in schooladministration programmes in the 29 selected colleges and universitiesthroughout the United States. Surveys were completed and returned by457 participants or 46% of the sample. Among the respondents, 79%were seeking the principal certificate and 47% were after certificates forsuperintendency and other central office positions. As we can infer fromthese two percentages, some respondents were studying for multiplecertificates simultaneously; however, most were studying for principal-ship. More than 90% of the respondents were teaching before enteringthe school administration programme; among them 30% taught for more
355EN TERING AND LEAVING SCHOOL ADM INISTRATIVE POSITIONSD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
than 15 years, 26% for 10–15 years, 22% for 5–10 years, and 13% for 0–5years.
A demographic breakdown of the sample by gender, race, age, anddegree attainment revealed a diverse sample comprising 37.6% male and62.4% female, 75.3% white and 24.7% minority. Age distribution of therespondents was as follows: 24 years or younger, 0.7%; 25–29, 4.9%; 30–34,16.9%; 35–39, 31.2%; 40–49, 40.9%; and 50 or older, 5.4%. As to the highestacademic degrees earned, 26.5% held bachelor’s degrees, 67.3% possessedmaster’s degrees, and 6.3% had doctorates including PhD, EdD, JD, andMD.
Instrument
The questionnaire was designed to collect data related to biographic andcareer information, the participants’ perceptions of schooling and educa-tion, and their views of the school administration programme. This studyused data from two sets of items focused on reasons why people decide tobecome an administrator and potential reasons why an administrator mightchoose to leave the profession. Subjects were asked to indicate theimportance of factors in their seeking an administrative position using a7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘1’, not at all important, to ‘7’, extremelyimportant. Factors influencing the decision to become an administratorincluded those given below (in the order that they appeared in thequestionnaire).
(A) To have a personally satisfying job.(B) To have a high paying job.(C) To make a contribution to society.(D) To help children and/or young adults; to be of service to others.(E) To manage the affairs of a school.(F) To provide effective leadership.(G) To have a backup job while pursuing another career.(H) To work in a noble, moral and ethical profession.(I) To pursue an interesting career with interesting colleagues.(J) To have job security and a steady income.(K) I like children and/or youth.(L) I didn’t know what else to do with my college education.(M) I didn’t know there was another career open to me.(N) I was influenced by others (family, friend, etc.).(O) I like to work with adults.(P) To work with teachers in school improvement efforts.(Q) To have an impact on programme quality.
Participants also responded to potential reasons that would motivatethem to leave administration. The 7-point Likert scale ranged from ‘1’,extremely unlikely, to ‘7’, extremely likely. Factors that might result in aperson leaving administration included the following (in the order that theyappeared in the questionnaire).
356 JIANPING SHEN ET AL.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
(A) Inadequate, low salary.(B) No chance for advancement.(C) Opportunity to do something else more rewarding.(D) Poor working conditions (for example, paperwork, long hours,
overcrowding, high workload, not enough time, not enough freedom,no input in decisions, etc.).
(E) Student-related problems (for example, lack of discipline, no motiva-tion, poor attitudes, apathy, etc.).
(F) Administration-related problems (for example, lack of support fromother administrators, school board of directors, etc.).
(G) Faculty-related problems (for example, lack of support from teachers,low morale among teachers, poor interpersonal relationships, etc.).
(H) Parent/community-related problems (for example, lack of support,apathy, poor attitudes, etc.).
(I) Lack of respect (for example, from students, parents, community, orsociety; low status or prestige of teaching; not considered a profes-sional, etc.).
(J) Emotional aspects (for example, boredom, stress, frustration, burnout,lack of fulfilment, etc.).
The foregoing two sets of items were based on an extensive search inthe literature for the factors that influence the decision to enter and to leaveschool administrative positions. Therefore, an analysis of the data led to acomprehensive picture of not only why people choose to enter and to leaveadministration, but also how the reasons for entry and exit might berelated.
Data analysis
Two major steps in data analysis were carried out for the three researchquestions. The initial step was to compare the means of each item in thetwo sets, and determined the importance of each item for in the decision toenter and potentially to leave administration. The second step was toinvestigate the canonical correlation between reasons for entering andpossibly leaving administration. The purpose of the second step was toexamine whether there were consistent patterns that indicated if peoplewho had different reasons for entering administration tended to havedifferent reasons for leaving administration. Data analyses were performedusing SAS for Windows Ò .
Results
Reasons for entering administration
The means of the items related to entering administration are displayed intable 1. There were basically four groups of factors based on the magnitudeof the means. Factors in the first group had the highest means (M): they
357EN TERING AND LEAVING SCHOOL ADM INISTRATIVE POSITIONSD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
included ‘To provide effective leadership’ (M=6.25) and ‘To have animpact on programme quality’ (M=6.22). Reasons that had means greaterthan 6.0 on a 7-point scale appeared to be the most important ones thatrespondents had for becoming an administrator.
The second group of items, featuring means ranging from 5.00 to 5.99,consisted of the following: ‘I like children and/or youth’ (M=5.99), ‘Tohave a personally satisfying job’ (M=5.90), ‘To help children and/or youngadults; to be of service to others’ (M=5.84), ‘To work with teachers inschool improvement efforts’ (M=5.80), ‘To make a contribution to thesociety’ (M=5.55), ‘To manage the affairs of a school’ (M=5.23), and ‘I liketo work with adults’ (M=5.06).
The third group included factors that had means ranging from 4.91 to4.22: ‘To pursue an interesting career with interesting colleagues’(M=4.91), ‘To have a high paying job’ (M=4.79), ‘To work in a noble,moral, and ethical profession’ (M=4.52), and ‘To have job security and asteady income’ (M=4.22).
The final group of factors were considered not important in becomingan administrator; they included ‘I was influenced by others (family, friend,etc.)’ (M=2.77), ‘To have a backup job while pursuing another career’(M=1.68), ‘I didn’t think there was another career open to me’ (M=1.61),and ‘I didn’t know what else to do with my college education’ (M=1.51).
Comparing these findings with Maslow’s (1954) theory of hierarchy ofneeds, the primary reasons for entering administration appeared to be for‘self-actualization’, which includes providing leadership, contributing tosociety, having a personally satisfying job, and loving children and youth.This is consistent with the argument that education is essentially a moralenterprise (for example, Goodlad et al 1990, Shen 1993, Soltis and Strike1988, Strike 1993). ‘Esteem (recognition) needs’, such as helping childrenand/or youth and managing school affairs, were also important reasons forpeople to enter administration. These recognition needs were followed by‘affiliation needs’, such as working in a noble and ethical profession. As faras ‘safety needs’ are concerned, having a high paying job, job security, and a
Table 1. Importance of reasons for deciding to enter school administration.
Reason for deciding to enter school administration Mean
To provide effective leadershipTo have an impact on programme qualityI like children and/or youth; to be of service to othersTo have a personally satisfying jobTo help children and/or young adultsTo work with teachers in school improvement effortsTo make a contribution to societyTo manage the affairs of a schoolI like to work with adultsTo pursue an interesting career with interesting colleaguesTo have a high paying jobTo work in a noble, moral and ethical professionTo have job security and a steady incomeI was in� uenced by others (family, friend, etc.)To have a backup job while pursuing another careerI didn’t know there was another career open to meI didn’t know what else to do with my college education
6.256.225.995.905.845.805.555.235.064.914.794.524.222.771.681.611.51
358 JIANPING SHEN ET AL.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
steady income were moderately important for the respondents. Having abackup job or not knowing of other career opportunities were notimportant reasons for many of the respondents. Therefore, reasons forentering administration seemed to be dominated by self-actualization andesteem needs. Affiliation and safety needs were moderately and marginallyimportant, respectively.
Herzberg (1966, 1987) distinguished ‘hygiene’ factors and motivators.Hygiene factors are not an intrinsic part of a job, but they are related to theconditions under which a job is performed. Motivators are the factors thatinvolve feelings of achievement, professional growth, and recognition thatone can experience in a job. If we summarize our findings using Herzberg’stheory, safety needs (for example, salary) appeared to be hygiene factors forthose entering administration, while self-actualization and esteem needs(for example, providing leadership, contributing to society, having apersonally satisfying job, and loving children and youth) were motivatorsfor entering administration.
Potential reasons for leaving administration
Respondents confirmed a variety of factors that would possibly cause anadministrator to leave administration. Means for potential reasons forleaving administration are displayed in table 2. ‘Opportunity to dosomething else more rewarding’ (M=5.53) was the most likely reason forleaving administration. This was followed by ‘Emotional aspects (e.g.,boredom and stress, etc.)’ (M=4.82), ‘Administration-related problems’(M=4.78), and ‘Poor working conditions’ (M=4.74). In comparison withthe foregoing reasons, the following were considered moderately importantreasons for leaving administration: ‘Faculty-related problems’ (M=4.19),‘No chance for advancement’ (M=4.18), ‘Lack of respect’ (M=4.15),‘Parent/community-related problems’ (M=3.99), ‘Student-related pro-blems’ (M=3.74), and ‘Inadequate, low salary’ (M=3.63).
Three interesting patterns emerged from the analysis of the means ofthe potential reasons for leaving administration. First, the respondentsreported that they would be more likely to leave administration because oftheir emotional status (that is, boredom) and the immediate administrative
Table 2. Importance of potential reasons for deciding to leave school adminis-tration.
Potential reason for leaving school administration Mean
Opportunity to do something else more rewardingEmotional aspects (e.g., boredom, stress, frustration, etc.)Administration-related problemsPoor working conditionsFaculty-related problemsNo chance for advancementLack of respectParent/community-related problemsStudent-related problemsInadequate, low salary
5.534.824.784.744.194.184.153.993.743.63
359EN TERING AND LEAVING SCHOOL ADM INISTRATIVE POSITIONSD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
context (that is, poor working conditions and other administration-relatedproblems) than they would be to leave owing to low salary, student-relatedproblems, and parent/community problems. This was consistent with therespondents’ desires to have a self-fulfilling job helping children and youth.Second, the means of reasons for entering administration range from 1.51to 6.25, while those of potential reasons for leaving administration varyfrom 3.63 to 5.53. In comparison with the reasons for enteringadministration where the theme of self-actualization dominated, therewere many moderately important reasons for possibly leaving administra-tion. Third, the findings related to the possibility of leaving administrationseem to support one of the findings in the analysis of reasons for enteringadministration, that is, safety needs, such as salary, are hygiene factorswhile those intrinsic elements of administrative positions, such asemotional feelings and administration-related problems, are motivators.Respondents in this study rated motivators higher than hygiene factors.
Canonical correlation between reasons for entering and leavingadministration
The results of canonical correlation between reasons for entering andleaving administration are displayed in table 3 and figure 1. A canonicalcorrelation analysis investigates the correlation between two sets ofvariables, and the purpose of canonical correlation analysis is to findreliable dimensions along which the two sets of variables are related. In thepresent study, the analysis examined whether reasons for people enteringadministration were related to possible reasons for people leavingadministration. The canonical correlation depends on correlation amongvariables in each set and on correlation among variables between the twosets. Canonical correlation analysis produces the first pair of canonicalvariates (variates 1 and 2) which maximizes the correlation between the twosets of variables by linearly combining variables in both sets; the succeedingpairs of canonical variates decrease their value of the canonical correlationcoefficients. Theoretically, the maximum pair of canonical variatesrepresents the number of variables in the smaller sets. The 17 items ofreasons for entering administration and the 10 items of reasons for leavingadministration comprise the two distinct data sets. Therefore, there were amaximum of 10 pairs of canonical variates. However, only the first twopairs of canonical variates were statistically significant.
The first canonical correlation is .55 (29% of variance) and the second .37(14% of variance). With all 10 canonical correlations included, approximateF(170, 2978)=1.84, p< 0.001; and with the first canonical correlationremoved, approximate F(144, 2718)=1.31, p< 0.01. Subsequent F testswere not statistically significant. The first two pairs of canonical variatesaccounted for the significant relationships between the two sets of variables.
Using a cut-off correlation coefficient of 0.40, the variables of thereasons for people entering administration which correlated with the firstcanonical variate were ‘To have a high paying job’, ‘To have job securityand a steady income’, ‘I didn’t know there was another career open to me’,
360 JIANPING SHEN ET AL.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
‘To have a backup job while pursuing another career’, and ‘To work withteachers in school improvement efforts’. Among the variables of thepossible reasons for people leaving administration, ‘Inadequate, low salary’,‘No chance for advancement’, and ‘Parent/community-related problems’were correlated with the first canonical variate. The first pair of canonicalvariates indicated that those who entered administration because of highpay (0.66), job security and steady income (0.46), not knowing that therewas another career open (0.45), having a backup job while pursuing anothercareer (0.42), and wanting to work with teachers in school improvementefforts ( Ð 0.48) are more likely to leave administration because of low salary(0.81), no chance for advancement (0.47), and parent/community-relatedproblems (0.43). Those entering administration because of materialbenefits seemed more likely to leave their administrative positions becauseof the lack of those benefits and the challenge of working with teachers inimproving schools.
The second pair of canonical variates suggested that those who chose tobecome an administrator because of the desire to have a personallysatisfying job (0.68), to have an impact on programme quality (0.56), like of
Table 3. Results of canonical correlation between reasons for entering andleaving school administration.
Items Variate 1 Variate 2
Reasons for entering administration(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(K)(L)(M)(N)(O)(P)(Q)
To have a personally satisfying jobTo have a high paying jobTo make a contribution to societyTo help children and/or young adults; to be of service to othersTo manage the affairs of a schoolTo provide effective backupTo have backup job while pursuing another careerTo work in a noble, moral and ethical professionTo pursue an interesting career with interesting colleaguesTo have job security and a steady incomeI like children and/or youthI didn’t know what else to do with my college educationI didn’t know there was another career open to meI was in� uenced by others (family, friend, etc.)I like to work with adultsTo work with teachers in school improvement effortsTo have an impact on programme quality
Per cent of varianceRedundancy
Ð 0.280.66
Ð 0.24Ð 0.09
0.21Ð 0.24
0.420.05
Ð 0.070.46
Ð 0.030.310.45
Ð 0.04Ð 0.16Ð 0.48Ð 0.31
0.100.03
0.680.490.510.460.350.350.190.460.500.350.54
Ð 0.11Ð 0.16
0.060.280.420.560.160.02
Potential reasons for leaving administration(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)
Inadequate, low salaryNo chance for advancementOpportunity to do something else more rewardingPoor working conditionsStudent-related problemsAdministration-related problemsFaculty-related problemsParent/community-related problemsLack of respectEmotional aspect (e.g., boredom, stress, frustration, etc.)
Per cent of varianceRedundancy
Canonical correlation
0.810.470.180.210.700.180.300.430.260.250.210.06
0.55
0.420.380.500.08
Ð 0.510.34
Ð 0.35Ð 0.22
0.070.130.110.02
0.37
361EN TERING AND LEAVING SCHOOL ADM INISTRATIVE POSITIONSD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
children and youth (0.54), to make a contribution to society (0.51), to have ahigh paying job (0.49), to work in a noble profession (0.46), to help childrenand/or young adults (0.46), and to work with teachers to improve schools(0.42) were unlikely to leave because of student-related problems ( Ð 0.51)but might resign and seek a position outside the profession due toinadequate salary (0.42). This result suggested those who enteredadministration for self-actualization reasons were not likely to leavebecause of student-related problems, owing to a desire to improve schoolsand to educate students. However, salary might still be an issue for theseadministrators.
Summary
On examination of the findings of this work, it appears clear that themajority of respondents indicated that they decided to enter administrativepositions for reasons of self-actualization, followed by reasons related toesteem and affiliation. Safety-related reasons are least important. Theseresults are consistent with the seminal findings of Maslow (1954), Herzberg
Figure 1. Canonical correlation path between reasons for entering and forleaving administration.
362 JIANPING SHEN ET AL.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
(1966, 1987), and Lortie (1975).As to the possible reasons for leaving administration, respondents
indicated that they would probably leave to pursue something morerewarding. However, they would be less likely to leave because of student-,teacher- or administration-related problems. They would be least likely toleave because of low salary. While the means of the reasons for enteringadministration ranged from 1.51 to 6.25, the means of the potential reasonsfor leaving administration had a narrower spread of 3.63 to 5.53. Therefore,although self-actualization factors were more important for people indeciding to leave administration than were safety factors, the difference inimportance was relatively small.
The analysis of reasons for entering and leaving administration seemedto suggest that self-actualization, esteem, and affiliation factors weremotivators (those that involve feelings of achievement, professional growth,and recognition) and that the safety factors were hygiene factors (those thatare not part of a job, but are related to the conditions under which a job isperformed). Motivating factors were important for entering the profession.Nonetheless, both motivators and hygiene factors were important forretaining administrators.
As to the relation between reasons for entering and leaving adminis-tration, the study indicated that those who enter administration for materialbenefits would be more likely to leave when those benefits are not availableat an appropriate level. Those indicating involvement in the profession toobtain a personally satisfying job, to improve school programmes, or tomake a contribution to society would seldom leave the profession becauseof student-related problems. However, these same individuals might leavethe profession because of inadequate levels of compensation. Therefore,even for those who enter administration primarily for self-actualization,esteem, and affiliation, one important aspect of safety – salary – is stillimportant for remaining in administration. As has been noted in a study ofrural school principals, dissatisfaction of administrators’ with their presentposition was inversely related to their present salary (Jacobson andWoodworth 1989). Even suburban school administrators with averageannual salaries of much greater magnitude than their rural schoolcounterparts frequently expressed concern regarding the appropriatenessof their yearly compensation (Heller et al. 1988). These concerns are oftennoted specifically in regard to levels of compensation as compared with thetremendous number of hours required to perform the role of an elementaryor secondary school administrator (Portin et al. 1998, Sergiovanni 1995).
Discussion
The findings of this study have implications for the recruiting and retainingof administrators. Regarding recruitment, the focus should be on thoseteachers who currently are viewed as both self-directed and self-actualized.These individuals frequently possess positive attitudes toward theenjoyment of educational work and are often able to tolerate even themost difficult student and colleague interactions (Bell 1995). Early
363EN TERING AND LEAVING SCHOOL ADM INISTRATIVE POSITIONSD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
identification and encouragement of potential candidates, especially thoseteachers who display promise in the areas of administrative performance,reduce the tendency for self-selection or hiring of individuals who appearqualified only on paper (Ihle 1987). Milstein and Krueger (1993) offerfurther support for this process of teacher-centred recruitment andselection:
Experience has demonstrated that administrative encouragement and self-selection are notrandom. Rather they are often mutually supportive and together tend to provide a pool ofcandidates who seek administrative preparation as professional growth, rather than an escapefrom the classroom or a road to increased financial benefits. After five years of systematicoutreach, local districts have come to anticipate [the University of New Mexico’s] interest inquality candidates. Inquiries from teachers, which formally clustered around applicationdeadlines, now occur throughout the year and are often prefaced with ‘My principalsuggested . . .’ (p. 26).
Virtually no member of the education professoriate would now arguethat principalship selection is conducted without the use of specificselection characteristics or criteria (Beyer and Ruhl-Smith 1996, Ihle1987). In the US, organizations such as the National Policy Board and theNational Association of Secondary School Principals have clearly deli-neated knowledge, skill, and ethical foundations for principalshipbehaviour. Likewise, a large number of school districts around the countryhave developed elaborate selection and screening criteria for theseadministrative positions (Baltzell and Dentler 1983, Anderson 1988).Nonetheless, more attention should be paid to recruiting those who enteradministration for self-actualization, esteem, and affiliation reasons becausethese people are highly motivated and are less likely to leave schooladministrative positions.
The focus up to this point has been on the recruitment of effectivecandidates into administration, but retention in the position is also ofparamount importance. The findings of this study point to the importanceof satisfying the hygiene factors and also helping administrators to realizetheir self-actualization and esteem purposes. As was noted earlier in thiswork, salary continues to be an issue for retaining administrators. Eventhough many candidates enter the professional life of a principal fornumerous reasons apart from salary, the notion of expectancy theorycannot be overlooked. Given the tremendous amounts of time, energy, andeffort that must be expended by the truly effective principal, individualsseeking this type of position must receive what they perceive as an equitablereward for the completion of the necessary tasks (Porter and Lawler 1968).As Owens (1987) so powerfully states, ‘Based on his or her performance,the individual expects to receive a fair reward . . .’ (p. 112). Super-intendents and boards of education must begin to examine compensationpackages that reflect the complexity of the roles and responsibilitiesinvolved in building-level administration. To refuse to do so will simplyresult in the continued loss of highly talented professionals to otheroccupations or positions within the school administration arena – aphenomenon that the authors of this work have seen far too often in recentyears.
364 JIANPING SHEN ET AL.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Efforts should also be made to help administrators to realize their self-actualization and esteem needs. As stated in an overview of a projectconducted by Erlandson (1994) ‘You don’t learn to be a principal until youare one. The development of the principal, therefore, should include acontinued focus on the generic skills required by the position, extendingbeyond the preservice days to throughout the principal’s career’ (pp. 14–15). This requires careful monitoring and mentoring, especially in the earlystages of employment. Such monitoring and mentoring will not only be ofcritical importance with respect to professional development but also willbe extremely valuable in reducing to principal isolation (Lytle 1996).
Efforts at developing effective partnerships between school districtsand institutions of higher education must be initiated. These partnershipswill expand opportunities for the sharing of faculty and staff for on-goingprofessional development for educational leaders, an element frequentlymissing from the professional experiences of these individuals. Successfulpartnering also ‘promotes better understanding of the needs and dilemmasthat each partner confronts’ (Milstein and Krueger 1993: 36). People indifferent settings experience different problems (rural, urban, suburban).Partnerships offer the opportunity to share concerns, a process that can beboth informative and therapeutic (Morgan 1986).
Studies generally lead to additional research questions for furtherinvestigation. Enquiries into reasons for entering and leaving administra-tion can be developed along various dimensions. First, participants of thestudy were those in educational administration programmes. Conse-quently, it would be beneficial to investigate how preservice administratorsdiffer from practising administrators. Second, data of the study were cross-sectional. In order to gain a more thorough picture of the dynamics relatedto school administrators entering and leaving the profession, longitudinaldata should be collected to determine if different entry and exit patternsexist based on factors such as age and career stage. Finally, additionalresearch needs to be conducted on factors associated with job satisfactionand its impact on the recruitment and retention of current and futureeducational leaders. Location of districts, demographics, and sociologicalfactors (for example, crime, discipline, and student alcohol and drug abuse)must be explored to determine whether these factors intervene in the jobsatisfaction of administrators. More research is needed on this importanttopic.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the editor and the reviewers for constructivecomments on earlier versions of this article.
References
Abrell, R. (1984) Leading by stepping down (problem of burnout in school administrators). TheClearing House, 57, 351–352.
365EN TERING AND LEAVING SCHOOL ADM INISTRATIVE POSITIONSD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Anderson, M. E. (1988) Hiring capable principals: How school districts recruit, groom, and select the bestcandidates (Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council).
Baltzell, C. D. and Dentler, R. A. (1983) Selecting American School Principals: Executive Summary(Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates).
Banks, C. A. M. (1995) Gender and race as factors in educational leadership and administration. In J.Banks and C. A. M. Banks (editors) Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (New York:Macmillan), pp. 65–80.
Bell, J. (1995) Teachers Talk About Teaching (Bristol, PA: Open University Press).Beyer, B. and Ruhl-Smith, C. (1996) Leadership styles of school administrators. The Journal of
CAPEA, 8, 79–92.Bowles, B. D. (1990). The silent crisis in educational leadership. The Educational Digest, 55, 12–14.Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1987) A Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education (Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching).Craven, L. (1989) The supply and demand trends of public secondary school administrators in South
Carolina from 1978 through 2002. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SouthernRegional Council on Educational Administration, Columbia SC (Eric Document ReproductionService No. ED 313 799).
Dlugosh, L. L (1994) Why Administrators Move: Factors Contributing to the Turnover of SchoolAdministrators in Nebraska (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 505).
Erlandson, D. A. (1994) Building a Career: Fulfilling the Lifetime Professional Needs of Principals(Fairfax, VA: The National Policy Board for Educational Administration).
Ginty, E.F. (1995) Supporting the success of the aspiring and beginning school leader. NASSPBulletin, 79, 34–41.
Goodlad, J. I. (1990) Studying the education of educators: From conception to findings. Phi DeltaKappan, 71, 698–701.
Goodlad, J. I., Soder, S. and Sirotnik, K. A. (editors). (1990) The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Heller, R., Conway, J. and Jacobson, S. (1988) Executive Educator survey. The Executive Educator,10(9), 18–22.
Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man (New York, NY: World Publishing).Herzberg, F. (1987) One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 65(5),
109–120.Howell, B. (1981) Profile of the principalship. Educational Leadership, 38, 333–336.Ihle, R. (1987) Defining the big principal – what schools and teachers want in their leaders. NASSP
Bulletin, 71(500), 94–98.Jacobson, S. L. and Woodworth, B. E. (1989) Preparing rural administrators: What do they need? What
do they want? Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA.
Jordan, D. W. (1994) The Supply and Demand Trends of Public School Principals and Administrators inSouthwestern Louisiana: 1993-1997 (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 525).
Lortie, D. (1975) School Teacher (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Lytle, J. H. (1996) The inquiring manager: Developing new leadership structures to support reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 77(10), 664–670.Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality (New York, NY: Harper & Row).McCormick, K. C. (1987) The vaunted school executive shortage: How serious is it? The Effective
Executive, 9, 18–21.Milstein, M. M. and Krueger, J. (1993) Innovative approaches to clinical internships: The University
of New Mexico experience. In J. Murphy (editor) Preparing Tomorrow’s School Leaders:Alternative Designs (University Park, PA: The University Council for Education Administra-tion), pp. 19–39.
Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organization (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).Owens, R. G. (1987) Organizational Behavior in Education (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).Parkay, F. W. and Currie, G. (1992) Sources of support for beginning principals. In G. W. Parkay and
G. E. Hall (editors) Becoming a Principal: The Challenges of Beginning Leadership (Boston: Allynand Bacon).
366 JIANPING SHEN ET AL.D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Pawlas, G. (1989) Supply and demand trends for elementary school administrators in South Carolinafrom 1977 through 2002. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Southern Regional Councilon Educational Administration, Columbia, SC (Eric Document Reproduction Service No ED320 194).
Porter, L. W. and Lawler, E. E. (1968) Managerial Attitudes and Performance (Homewood, IL: RichardD. Irwin).
Portin, B. S., Shen, J. and Williams, R. (1998) The changing principalship and its impact: Voices fromprincipals. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (602), 1–8.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon).
Shakeshaft, C. (1989) Women in Educational Administration (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).Shen, J. (1993) ‘Teaching as a moral enterprise’ revisited. Review of Education, 15(3–4), 333–339.Sirotnik, K. A. (1989) Studying the Education of Educators, Technical Report No. 2 (Seattle: Center for
Educational Renewal, College of Education, University of Washington).Soltis, J. F. and Strike, K. A. (1988) Ethics of School Administration (New York, NY: Teachers College
Press).Strike, K. A. (1993) Ethics for Professionals in Education: Perspectives for Preparation and Practice (New
York, NY: Teachers College Press).Wendel, F. C. (1994) Supply and Demand of School Administrators in Nebraska (Lincoln, NE: National
Council of School Administrators) (Eric Document reproduction Service No. ED 367 064).Whitaker, K. S. (1995) Principal burnout: Implications for professional development. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9, 287–296.Whitaker, K. S. (1996) Exploring causes of principal burnout. Journal of Educational Administration,
34, 60–71.Wood, L. W., Nicholson, E. W. and Findley, D. G. (1985) Manager and Supervisor (Boston: Allyn &
Bacon).Wooster, M. W. (1991) First principals: The leadership vacuum in American schools. Policy Review,
57, 55–61.Yewchuk, C. (1992) Gender Issues in Education (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371
553).
367EN TERING AND LEAVING SCHOOL ADM INISTRATIVE POSITIONSD
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Gla
sgow
] at
12:
54 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
