Using Leader-Member Exchange Theory to Examine Principal–School Counselor Relationships, School Counselors’ Roles, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions

Abstract

Principals have considerable influence on shaping the role of school counselors with whom they work (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Dollarhide, Smith, & Lemberger, 2007; Ponec & Brock, 2000). Researchers used leader-member exchange theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) to examine the relevance of principal–school counselor relationships to school counselors’ role definition, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. A path analysis model explained 15% of the variance in how school counselors’ roles are defined at the building level, 49% of the variance in school counselors’ job satisfaction, and 20% of the variance in school counselors’ turnover intentions. Implications for school counseling practice and leadership are provided.

Fostering Collaboration between Preservice Educational Leadership and School Counseling Graduate Candidates

“…This finding seems plausible considering prior researcher has found that the principal/SC relationship influences the extent to which SCs are used to their greatest capacity (Clemens et al, 2009). The next most commonly reported barrier to program implementation was time, which also is consistent with previous research (Cervoni & DeLucia-Waack, 2011;Zalaquett, 2005).…”

“…The authors found principals most often envisioned SCs being primarily responsible for administrative tasks such as managing student records, coordinating tests, and monitoring 504 plans (Bickmore & Curry, 2013). This is particularly concerning considering principals are responsible for assigning tasks to school personnel, which can influence how SCs develop their professional identity (Chata & Loesch, 2007;Clemens et al, 2009). …”

The Contribution of School Counselors’ Self‐efficacy to Their Programmatic Service Delivery

“…Factors related to increased school counselor service delivery are examined throughout the literature. Clemens and colleagues () found that the principal–school counselor relationship ( N = 188) and use of counselor advocacy skills contributed to the implementation of services. Furthermore, Shillingford and Lambie () found that school counselors’ ( N = 163) leadership practices (e.g., the activities conducted to secure support of others toward the organizational goal) contributed to their frequency of service delivery; however, counselors’ values (e.g., the guiding principles in one's life) did not contribute to service delivery.…”

“…Factors that impede school counselors’ facilitation of student services are identified, including (a) fear of failing or inadequacy (Dollarhide, Gibson, & Saginak, ); (b) limited counselor acceptance of roles within comprehensive school counseling (Dahir, Burnham, & Stone, ); (c) role conflict and ambiguity (DeMato & Curcio, ); (d) high student‐to‐counselor ratios (ASCA, ; Lapan, Gysbers, Stanley, & Pierce, ); (e) time spent on noncounseling activities (ASCA, ; Burnham & Jackson, ); and (f) limited administrative awareness (Lieberman, ). Factors identified as having a positive relationship with counselors’ programmatic service delivery include job satisfaction (Pyne, ), leadership practices (Shillingford & Lambie, ), school counselor–principal relationship and advocacy skill (Clemens, Milsom, & Cashwell, ), and self‐efficacy and outcome expectancy (Clark, ; Scarborough & Culbreth, ). This study builds on existing research and examines a hypothesized theoretical model depicting the contribution of practicing school counselors’ ( N = 693) self‐efficacy (Bodenhorn & Skaggs, ) to the frequency of their programmatic service delivery (Scarborough, ).…”

Counsellors in Hong Kong Primary Schools: On Becoming Visible Counselling Professionals

“…On the other hand, as described in the previous section, those guidance personnel are employed with a low salary, short-term contracts, blurred job descriptions and diverse job titles. It is not difficult to imagine, regardless of what qualifications guidance personnel possess, that the blurring of roles and responsibilities will result in high stress, low job satisfaction (Bardhoshi, Schweinle, & Duncan, 2014;Wilkerson & Bellini, 2006), and ultimately turnover intentions (Clemens, Milsom, & Cashwell, 2009).…”