Leaders’ self-efficacy has recently been identified as a critical component in the success of educational reform. In educational policy and leadership, little attention has been paid to leaders’ self-efficacy beliefs as they go about the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This study seeks to understand leaders’ CCSS self-efficacy by examining the level of CCSS-focused engagement and the degree of leaders’ network connectedness from a social learning perspective. Findings suggest leaders who report higher levels of CCSS-focused engagement tend to be more efficacious about implementing CCSS. Such a relationship is mediated by leaders’ social network position in providing CCSS advice and work effort recognition to their fellow administrators.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
BanduraA. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
4.
BanduraA. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269-290.
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
6.
BatesA. B.LathamN.KimJ. A. (2011). Linking preservice teachers’ mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics teaching efficacy to their mathematical performance. School Science & Mathematics, 111, 325-333.
7.
BorgattiS.FosterP. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991-1013.
8.
BorgattiS. P. (2002). NetDraw network visualization. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
9.
BorgattiS. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27, 55-71.
10.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
11.
BresóE.SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM. (2011). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study. Higher Education, 61, 339-355.
12.
BrooksA. W.GinoF.SchweitzerM. E. (2015). Smart people ask for (my) advice: Seeking advice boosts perceptions of competence. Management Science, 61, 1421-1435.
13.
BrunJ. P.DugasN. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 716-730.
14.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Center on Education Policy. (2014). Common Core State Standards in 2014: Districts’ perceptions, progress, and challenges. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
Center on Education Policy. (2017). District leadership in the new era of assessment. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
CoelliM.GreenD. A. (2012). Leadership effects: School principals and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31, 92-109.
18.
ColdrenA. F.SpillaneJ. P. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice: The role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy, 21, 369-396.
19.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
20.
ConnellJ. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-esteem processes across the life-span. In CicchettiD. (Ed.), The self in transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 61-97). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
21.
CornoL.MandinachE. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88-108.
22.
CrossR.BorgattiS. P.ParkerA. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44, 25-46.
23.
CummingsJ.CrossR. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197-210.
24.
DahlanderL.McFarlandD. A. (2013). Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 69-110.
25.
DalyA.Der-MartirosianC.Ong-DeanC.ParkV.Wishard-GuerraA. (2011). Leading under sanction: Principals’ perceptions of threat rigidity, efficacy, and leadership in underperforming schools. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 10(2), 171-206.
26.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. (Eds.) (2016). Thinking and acting systemically: Improving school districts under pressure. Washington DC: AERA Publishing.
27.
DalyA. J.LiouY.-H.TranN. A.CornelissenF.ParkV. (2014). The rise of neurotics: Social networks, leadership, and efficacy in district reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 233-278.
28.
DayD. V.HarrisonM. M.HalpinS. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
29.
DekkerD.KrackhardtD.SnijdersT. A. (2007). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika, 72, 563-581.
30.
EwingtonJ.MulfordB.KendallD.EdmundsB.KendallL.SilinsH. (2008). Successful school principalship in small schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 545-561.
31.
FedericiR.SkaalvikE. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job satisfaction and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 295-320.
32.
FivesH.BuehlM. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In HarrisK. R.GrahamS.UrdanT. (Eds.), Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471-499). New York, NY: American Psychological Association.
33.
GarvinD. A.MargolisJ. D. (2015). The art of giving and receiving advice. Harvard Business Review, 93, 60-71.
34.
GilbertC. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 741-763.
35.
GolemanD. (2017). Leadership that gets results (Harvard business review classics). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
36.
GranovetterM. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In MarsdenP. V.LinN. (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
37.
GranovetterM. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
38.
GreeneB. A.MillerR. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181-192.
39.
GrosserT. J.Lopez-KidwellV.LabiancaG. (2010). A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, 35, 177-212.
40.
GrutterinkH.Van der VegtG. S.MollemanE.JehnK. A. (2013). Reciprocal expertise affirmation and shared expertise perceptions in work teams: Their implications for coordinated action and team performance. Applied Psychology, 62, 359-381.
41.
GwynneJ. A.CowhyJ. R. (2017). Getting ready for the Common Core State Standards: Experiences of CPS teachers and administrators preparing for the new standards. Chicago, IL: UChicago Consortium on School Research.
42.
HannemanR. A.RiddleM. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside.
43.
HonigM. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 733-774.
44.
IbarraH. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471-501.
45.
KahnW. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
46.
KangM.KimY.BockG. (2010). Identifying different antecedents for closed vs open knowledge transfer. Journal of Information Science, 36, 585-602.
47.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.BolgerN. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
48.
KilduffM.KrackhardtD. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture: Structural analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
KilduffM.TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London, England: SAGE.
50.
KleinK. J.LimB.SaltzJ. L.MayerD. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952-963.
51.
KnowlesM. S.HoltonE. I.SwansonR. A. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Inc.
52.
KrackhardtD. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. In BacharachS. B.AndrewsS. B.KnokeD. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 16, pp. 183-210). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
53.
KrullJ. L.MacKinnonD. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249-277.
LazegaE.MounierL.SnijdersT. A. B.TubaroP. (2012). Norms, status and the dynamics of advice networks: A case study. Social Networks, 34, 323-332.
56.
LazegaE.PattisonP. E. (1999). Multiplexity, generalized exchange and cooperation in organizations: A case study. Social Networks, 21, 67-90.
57.
LeithwoodK.JantziD. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The role of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 496-528.
58.
LewisJ. L.ReamR. K.BocianK. M.CardulloR. A.HammondK. A.FastL. A. (2012). Con Carino: Teacher caring, math self-efficacy, and math achievement among Hispanic English learners. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1-42. Retrieved from https://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16472
59.
LinN. (2009). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (8th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
LiouY.-H. (2016). Tied to the Common Core: Exploring the characteristics of reform advice relationships of educational leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 793-840.
61.
LiouY.-H.LoY.-J.DalyA. J.VodickaD. (2015, November). Taking actions on the Common Core: Organizational expectation, teacher beliefs, and motivation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of University Council for Educational Administration. San Diego, CA.
62.
LiouY.-H.MoolenaarN. M.DalyA. J. (2016). Developing and assessing teacher beliefs about the Common Core. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(4), 377-404.
63.
LongR. J.ShieldsJ. L. (2010). From pay to praise? Non-cash employee recognition in Canadian and Australian firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1145-1172.
64.
LouisK.LeithwoodK.WahlstromK.AndersonS. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
65.
LowikS.van RossumD.KraaijenbrinkJ.GroenA. (2012). Strong ties as sources of new knowledge: How small firms innovate through bridging capabilities. Journal of Small Business Management, 50, 239-256.
66.
LuthansF.StajkovicA. D. (2009). Provide recognition for performance improvement. In LockeE. A. (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behaviour (pp. 239-254). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
67.
MaslowA. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
68.
MayD. R.GilsonR. L.HarterL. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37.
69.
McCullersJ. F.BozemanW. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of No Child Left Behind and Florida school grades. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 53-74.
70.
McLaughlinM.GlaabL.CarrascoI. H. (2014). Implementing common core state standards in California: A report from the field. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
71.
MintzesJ. J.MarcumB.Messerschmidt-YatesC.MarkA. (2013). Enhancing self-efficacy in elementary science teaching with professional learning communities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1201-1218.
72.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Reaching higher: The Common Core State Standards validation committee. Washington, DC.
73.
PaglisL. L.GreenS. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215-235.
74.
PajaresF. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
ParkerS. L.JimmiesonN. L.AmiotC. E. (2009). The stress-buffering effects of control on task satisfaction and perceived goal attainment: An experimental study of the moderating influence of desire for control. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 622-652.
77.
PearlJ. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
78.
PenuelW. R.RielM. R.KrauseA.FrankK. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111, 124-163.
79.
PintrichP. R.De GrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
80.
PolikoffM. S.MarshJ. A.PlankD. N.HallM.HardawayT.LeT. (2014). Californians and public education: Results from the fourth PACE/USC Rossier Poll. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
81.
PontB.NuscheD.MoormanH. (2008). Improving school leadership, Volume 1: Practice and policy. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Paris, France.
82.
ReagansR.McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240-267.
83.
RomzekB. S. (1985). The effects of public service recognition, job security and staff reductions on organizational involvement. Public Administration Review, 45, 282-291.
84.
SaksA. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.
85.
SchmidtA. M.DeShonR. P. (2009). Prior performance and goal progress as moderators of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Human Performance, 22, 191-203.
86.
SchunkD. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174.
87.
SchunkD. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173-208.
88.
SchunkD. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 112-137.
89.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis. London, England: SAGE.
90.
ScottW. R.DavisG. F. (2016). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
91.
SicilianoM. D. (2016). It’s the quality not the quantity of ties that matters: Social networks and self-efficacy beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 227-262.
92.
SicilianoM. D.ThompsonJ. R. (2018). If you are committed, then so am I: The role of social networks and social influence on organizational commitment. Administration & Society, 50(7), 916-946. doi: 10.1177/0095399715617987
93.
SkinnerB. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
94.
SobelM. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In LeinhardtS. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
95.
SpenceD. J.UsherE. L. (2007). Engagement with mathematics courseware in traditional and online remedial learning environments: Relationship to self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 267-288.
96.
SpillaneJ. P.KimC. M. (2012). An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders’ positioning in instructional advice and information networks in elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 119, 73-102.
97.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 586-620.
98.
StipekD. (2012). Context matters: Effects of student characteristics and perceived administrative and parental support on teacher self-efficacy. Elementary School Journal, 112, 590-606.
99.
TimarT.CarterA. (2017). Surprising strengths and substantial needs: Rural district implementation of Common Core State Standards. Stanford: Policy Analysis for California Education.
100.
TimsM.BakkerA. B.DerksD. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy—Performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 490-507.
101.
TsaiW. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 996-1004.
102.
Tschannen-MoranM.GareisC. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 573-585.
103.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698.
104.
VancouverJ. B.GulleksonN. L.MorseB. J.WarrenM. A. (2014). Finding a between-person negative effect of self-efficacy on performance: Not just a within-person effect anymore. Human Performance, 27, 243-261.
105.
VardamanJ. M.AmisJ. M.DysonB. P.WrightP. M.Van de Graaff RandolphR. (2012). Interpreting change as controllable: The role of network centrality and self-efficacy. Human Relations, 65, 835-859.
106.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
107.
WohlstetterP.HoustonD. M.BuckB. (2015). Networks in New York City: Implementing the Common Core. Educational Policy, 29, 85-110.
