New Principals in an Urban Bureaucracy: A Sense of Efficacy

Abstract

As principals assume their roles in an urban bureaucracy, what are some of the personal and organizational factors that support or restrict their efforts to bring about school change? Based on interviews with newly appointed principals, this study concludes that external and internal factors interact to influence leadership behavior. External factors, particularly role models, district expectations, and personal and organizational support, influence principals’ sense of self-efficacy. This internal factor, in turn, appeared to play an important mediating role influencing principals’ interpretation of the organizational context and their problem-solving processes.

Towards a conceptualization of the early career stage of principalship: current research, idiosyncrasies and future directions

“…Apart from the influence of the principal preparation programme (Holligan et al 2006), gender discrimination (Dunshea 1998) and the NP's professional biography (Sleegers et al 2009), much significance has been attributed to the support and guidance NPs receive in their work for their career development and professional socialization. It was found that NPs receive support from a wide variety of sources, including their district, peers, staff, administrative team, professional networks, governors, parents, family, community, role models, friends and even the former principal of the NP when the NP was a teacher , Osterman and Sullivan 1996, Cheung and Walker 2006, Crow 2007, Kelly and Saunders 2010. Clear district expectations and goals, technical help from supervisors or senior team managements, the capacity of the staff to handle change and mentoring are examples of the type of support given to newly appointed principals.…”

“…Notably, insufficient knowledge in technical managerial competencies has been found to result, to a certain extent, in NPs' inability to revise goals or general alternate strategies (Osterman and Sullivan 1996), a greater tendency to make mistakes, a need to spend an inordinate amount of time on every task, confusion about school budgeting (Nelson et al 2008), high levels of stress (Daresh and Male 2000) and a sense of loneliness (Draper and McMichael 2000) and burnout (Stephenson and Bauer 2010). In contrast, however, there is evidence, although limited in scope, of positive role aspects among NPs, even though they operate within a context of high-stakes accountability and systemic uncertainty.…”

“…Similarly, some Australian NPs in rural communities handled many challenges during the day-to-day work by adopting a spatial perspective . Their US counterparts, who participated in Osterman and Sullivan's (1996) study, were willing to modify intermediate goals and strategies to respond to contextual conditions. A common consequence, nevertheless, is an overemphasis on technical issues at the expense of instructional issues, which are conceived as the core concern of the school organization.…”

School principal self-efficacy for instructional leadership: relations with engagement, emotional exhaustion and motivation to quit

“…Despite differences in measures of principal self-efficacy the available research indicates that principal self-efficacy is associated with principal well-being and motivation as well as adaptive leadership functioning. Principal self-efficacy has been shown to be positively associated with engagement (Federici and Skaalvik 2011), job satisfaction (Federici and Skaalvik 2012), persistence in pursuing goals (Osterman and Sullivan 1996), motivation for retaining in the principal position (Dimmock and Hattie 1996), the quality of supervision of teachers (Licklider and Niska 1993), collective teacher efficacy (Hallinger et al 2018), and effort to influence teacher attitudes and behaviors (see Hallinger et al 2018). Principal self-efficacy has also been shown to be negatively related to burnout and motivation to leave the principal position (Federici and Skaalvik 2012).…”

The role of the urban principal in school restructuring

“…Edmonds (1979) contended that the characteristics of an effective school are (1) strong leadership by the principal, especially regarding instructional quality, (2) a pervasive and broadly understood instructional focus; (3) an orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning; (4) teacher behaviors that convey the expectation that all students are expected to obtain at least minimum mastery; and (5) the use of measures of pupil achievement as the basis for program evaluation. Osterman and Sullivan (1994) state that over the last twenty years, efforts to improve the equality of education at the school level have focused on the principal. Leithwood, Begley, and Cousins (1990) believe that highly effective principals demonstrate high levels of commitment to goals for the school.…”