Few studies have compared the perceptions of principals and superintendents regarding the reasons why principals lose their jobs. Perceptual congruence on factors that contribute to principal termination is necessary to ensure accurate, appropriate, and constructive feedback about ineffective leadership behaviors. This study compared the perceptions of 124 California public school principals with those of 99 California public school district superintendents on 22 reasons why principals lose their jobs and on 9 organizational outcomes related to ineffective leadership. Principal and superintendent perceptions varied significantly regarding the primary reasons for termination. Superintendents most often attributed principal failure to internal personal insufficiencies such as poor interpersonal relationships and decision making. In contrast, principals most often attributed failure to external factors such as political interference and conflicts with the superintendent and board of education. An analysis of organizational outcomes found that most superintendents cited a high number of parent complaints as evidence of an at-risk principal, whereas most principals cited poor staff morale.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshkanasyN. M. (1991). Supervisors’ responses to subordinates performance: Effect of personal-control orientation and situational control. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(4).
2.
Bar-TalD., and FriezeI. H. (1976). Attributions of Success and Failure for Actors and Observers. Journal of Research in Personality, 10(3).
3.
BerlinB. M., KavanaughJ. A., and JensenK. (1988). The principal as curriculum leader: Expectations vs. performance. NASSP Bulletin, 72(509).
4.
BridgesE. M., and GrovesB. (1986). The incompetent teacher.Philadelphia: Falmer.
5.
ChemersM. (1993). An integrative theory of leadership. In ChemersM., and AymanR. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 294–295). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6.
CobleL. D., and BrubakerD. L. (1997). Staying on track: An educational leader's guide to preventing derailment and ensuring personal and organizational success.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
7.
CohnK. C. (1987). A case study of the removal of a woman principal. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association on Research on Women in Education, Portland, OR.
8.
CohnK. C. (1989). Factors associated with the involuntary reassignment of three women principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association on Research on Women and Education, San Diego (November).
9.
DavisS. H. (1987). A study of the due process protections provided to demoted principals by California public school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
10.
DavisS. H. (1998). Superintendent's perspectives on the involuntary departure of public school principals: The most frequent reasons why principals lose their jobs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1).
11.
DealT. E., and PetersonK. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
DillmanD. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method.New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
DobbinsG. H., and RussellJ. M. (1986). The biasing effects of subordinate like-ableness on leaders’ responses to poor performance: A laboratory and a field study. Personnel Psychology, 39(4).
14.
FedorD. B., BuckleyM. R., and EderR. W. (1990). Measuring subordinate perceptions of supervisor feedback intentions: Some unsettling results. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(1).
15.
FielderF. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness.New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
FriezeI. H. (1976). Causal attributions and information seeking to explain success and failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 10(3).
17.
GageN. L., and BerlinerD. C. (1984). Educational psychology.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
18.
GanzachY. (1995). Negativity (and positivity) in performance evaluation: Three field studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4).
19.
GraceL., BuserR., and StuckD. (1987). What works and what doesn't: Characteristics of outstanding administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 71(502).
20.
GreenbergJ., and BaronR. A. (1997). Behavior in organizations: Understanding and managing the human side of work (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
GroteD. (1995). Discipline without punishment.New York: Amacom.
22.
GortonR. A., and SnowdenP. (1993). School leadership and administration: Important concepts, case studies, and simulations.Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.
23.
HallingerP., and HeckR. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32.
24.
HamiltonL. C. (1996). Data analysis for social scientists.Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
25.
HansonE. M. (1996). Educational administration and organizational behavior.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
26.
HarrisM. M., and SchaubroeckJ. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1).
27.
HenemanR. L., GreenbergerD. B., and AnonyuoC. (1989). Attributions and exchanges: The effects of interpersonal factors on the diagnosis of employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2).
28.
HoganE. A. (1987). Effects of prior expectations on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 30.
29.
HoganR., CurphyG. J., and HoganJ. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6).
30.
HouseR. J., and MitchellT. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business (Autumn).
31.
HoyW. K., and MiskelC. G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice.New York: Random House.
32.
IlgenD. R., MitchellT. R., and FredericksonJ. W. (1981). Poor performers: Supervisors’ and subordinates responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27.
33.
ImbermanW. (1993). How to spot unsuccessful executives. Society for the Advancement of Education, July, 64–65.
34.
JasparsJ., HewstonM., and FinchamF. D. (1983). Attribution theory and research: The state of the art. In JasparsJ., FinchamF. D., and HewstonM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: Conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 3–36). New York: Academic Press.
35.
KolbJ. A. (1995). Leader behaviors affecting team performance: Similarities and differences between leader/member assessments. The Journal of Business Communication, 32(3).
36.
LashwayL. (1998). Instruments for Evaluation. The School Administrator, 55(9).
37.
LeeJ., and JablinF. M. (1995). Maintenance communication in superior-subordinate work relationships. Human Communications Research, 22(2).
38.
LeithwoodK. A., BegleyP. T., and CousinsB. J. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of principals’ practice: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4).
39.
LordR. G., DeVaderC. L., ChristyL., and AlligerG. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relationship between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3).
40.
Martin-LucchesiJ. (1990). Superintendents and unsuccessful principals: A study in Washington State. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Spokane.
41.
McCallM. W., and LombardoM. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
42.
McCarthyJ. J. (1978). Why managers fail.New York: McGraw-Hill.
43.
MonsonT. C. (1983). Implications of the traits v. situations controversy for differences in the attributions of actors and observers. In JasparsJ., FinchamF. D., and HewstonM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: Conceptual, developmental and social dimensions.New York: Academic Press.
44.
MurphyJ., HallingerP., and PetersonK. D. (1985). Supervising and evaluating principals: Lessons from effective districts. Educational Leadership, 43(2).
45.
MyersM. D. (1992). Effective schools and the superintendency: Perceptions and practice. Contemporary Education, 63(2).
46.
NaylorJ. C., PrichardR. D., and IlgenD. R., (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations.New York: Academic Press.
47.
OwensR. G. (1998). Organizational behavior in education (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
48.
PetersT., and AustinN. (1985). A passion for excellence.New York: Random House.
49.
PowellR. (1990). Superintendents: The key influence agents. OSSC Report, 30(3).
50.
RaischD. C., and RogusJ. F. (1995). Helping the troubled principal. The School Administrator, 52(5).
51.
RiordanC. A., JamesM. K., and RunziM. J. (1989). Explaining failure at work: An accounter's dilemma. The Journal of General Psychology, 116(2).
52.
ScheinE. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs.Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
53.
SchraderB. W., and SteinerD. D. (1996). Common comparison standards: An approach to improving agreement between self and supervisory performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6).
54.
SchultzK. S. (1994). Attributions for success and failure of men and women in leadership positions. Psychological Reports, 75(3).
55.
SergiovanniT. J. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
56.
SheiveL. T., and SchoenheitM. B. (Eds.) (1987). Leadership: Examining the Elusive.ASCD Yearbook (p. 30).
57.
SiasP. M., and JablinF. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication Research, 22(1).
58.
SiegallM. (1992). The effect of rater expectations on the evaluation of a hypothetical subordinate. The Journal of Psychology, 126(5).
59.
TannenbaumR., and SchmidtW. H. (1986). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 64.
60.
TurbanD. B., and JonesA. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2).
61.
UbbenG. C., and HughesL. W. (1997). The principal (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
62.
WayneS. J., and LindenR. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1).
63.
WeinerB. (1982). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. In KrohneH. W., and LuxL. (Eds.), Achievement, stress, and anxiety.Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Company.
64.
WellerL. D.Jr., ButteryT. J., and BlandW. R. (1994). Teacher evaluation of principals: As viewed by teachers, principals, and superintendents. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(2).
