A number of scholars are exploring the district context in which schools are embedded. These studies suggest the importance of the district office as a support or constraint to the work of schools and offer strategies for building relations between district and site leaders. While this is an important task, what is frequently overlooked is that organizational improvement efforts are often socially constructed. Therefore, an analysis of social networks and trust between district and site leaders may provide additional insights into supports and constraints related to improvement. This case study uses social network and trust data to explore the underlying best practice relations between leaders in a midsize underperforming urban school district. Results suggest weak network ties, low levels of trust, and a predictive relationship between trust and the reciprocal exchange of best practices related to improvement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerP. S., & KwonS. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
2.
AgullardK., & GoughnourD. S. (2006). Central office inquiry: Assessing organization, roles, and actions to support school improvement.San Francisco: WestEd.
3.
AhujaG. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.
4.
AlbrechtT. L., & BachB. W. (1997). Communication in complex organizations: A relational approach.New York: Harcourt Brace.
5.
BalfanzR., & LegtersN. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which high schools produce the nation's dropouts? In OrfieldG. (Ed.), Dropouts in America (pp. 57–84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
6.
BalkundiP., & HarrisonD. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inferences about network structures effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49–68.
7.
BalkundiP., & KilduffM. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 941–961.
8.
BartolK. M., & ZhangX. M. (2007). Networks and leadership development: Building linkages for capacity acquisition and capital accrual. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 388–401.
9.
BorgattiS. P. (2002). Netdraw network visualization.Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
10.
BorgattiS., EverettM., & FreemanL. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis.Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
11.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of social capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
12.
BrykA. S., & SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
13.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., AllensworthE., & LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The structure of competition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
BurtR. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In SuttonR. I., & StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–83). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
16.
CarleyK., & KrackhardtD. (1999). Cognitive inconsistencies and non-symmetric friendship. Social Networks, 18(1), 1–27.
17.
ChrispeelsJ. (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
CoburnC. E., HonigM. I., & SteinM. K. (2007). What is the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In BransfordJ., GomezL., LamD., & VyeN. (Eds.), Research and practice: Towards a reconciliation.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
19.
CoburnC. E., & RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
20.
CoffinG., & LeithwoodK. (2000). District contributions to principals situated learning. In LiethwoodK. (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 19–38). Stamford, CT: Jai Press.
21.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
22.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
CoplandM.A., & KnappM. S. (2006). Connecting leadership with learning: A framework for reflection, planning and action.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
24.
CosnerS. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 248–291.
25.
CostaA, RoeR., & TaillieuT. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 225–244.
26.
CrossR., BorgattiS., & ParkerA. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46.
27.
CrossR., & ParkerA. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
28.
CummingsL., & BromileyP. (1996). Organizational trust inventory. In KramerR., & TylerT. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 302–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
DalyA. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216.
30.
DalyA. J. (2010). Social network theory and educational change.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
31.
DalyA. J., & ChrispeelsJ. (2008). A question of trust: Predictive conditions for adaptive and technical leadership in educational contexts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(1), 30–63.
32.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 111–138.
33.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. (2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high stakes accountability. American Education Research Journal, 48, 39–79.
34.
DalyA. J., MoolenaarN., BolivarJ., & BurkeP. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 20–49.
35.
DatnowA, LanskyS., StringfieldS., & TeddlieC. (2006). Systemic integration for effective reform in racially and linguistically diverse contexts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
DavisS. H. (1998). Superintendent's perspective on the involuntary departure of public school principals: The most frequent reasons why principals lose their jobs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 58–90.
37.
DegenneA, & ForséM. (1999). Introducing social networks.London: Sage.
38.
DeutschM. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265–279.
39.
EdmondsonA. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In KramerR., & CookK. (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
FinniganK. S. (2010). Principal leadership and teacher motivation under high-stakes accountability policies. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(2), 161–189.
41.
FinniganK. S., & DalyA. J. (2010). Learning at a system level: Ties between principals of low-performing schools and central office leaders. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 179–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
42.
FinniganK. S., & GrossB. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594–629.
43.
FinniganK. S., & StewartT. (2009). Leading change under pressure: An examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools. Journal of School Leadership, 19(5), 586–618.
44.
ForsythP. B., & AdamsC. M. (2004). Social capital in education: Taking stock of concept and measure. In HoyW. K., & MiskelC. G. (Eds.), Educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 251–278). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
45.
ForsythP. B., AdamsC. M., & HoyW. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can't improve without it.New York: Teachers College Press.
46.
FreemanL. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
47.
FukuyamaF. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and creation of prosperity.New York: Simon & Schuster.
48.
FullanM. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
49.
FullanM. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
50.
GargiuloM., & BenassiM. (1999). The dark side of social capital. In LeendersR., & GabbayS. (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 298–322). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
51.
GoddardR., Tschannen-MoranM., & HoyW. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–18.
52.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
53.
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.
54.
HalpernD. (2005). Social capital.Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
55.
HannanM. T., & FreemanJ. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.
56.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
HarrisA., & ChrispeelsJ. H. (Eds.). (2006). Improving schools and educational systems: International perspectives.London: Routledge.
59.
HightowerA M., KnappM. S., MarshJ. A., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.). (2002). School districts and instructional renewal.New York: Teachers College Press.
60.
HiteJ., WilliamsE., & BaughS. (2005). Multiple networks of public school administrators: An analysis of network content and structure. International Journal on Leadership in Education, 8(2), 91–122.
61.
HoffD. J. (2009). Schools struggling to meet key goal on accountability number failing to make AYP rises 28 percent. Education Week, 28(16), 14–15.
HonigM. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4) 357–383.
64.
HonigM. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district-central-office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627–664.
65.
HonigM. I., & CoburnC. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608.
66.
HonigM. I., & IkemotoG. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328–363.
67.
HoyW. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public Relations, 23(2), 88–103.
68.
HoyW. K., & SaboD. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
69.
HoyW. K., & Tschannen-MoranM. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools: The omnibus T-Scale. In HoyW. K., & MiskelC. G., Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 181–208). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
70.
HubbardL., MehanH., & SteinM. (2006). Reform as learning.New York: Rout-ledge.
71.
JohnsonP. E., & ChrispeelsJ. H. (2010). Linking the central office and its schools for reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 738–775.
72.
KatzenbachJ. R., & SmithD. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating high performance organizations.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
73.
KenslerL., CaskieG., BarberM., & WhiteG. (in press). The ecology of democratic learning communities: Faculty trust and continuous learning in public middle schools. Journal of School Leadership.
74.
KilduffM., & KrackhardtD. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics and culture.New York: Cambridge University Press.
75.
KilduffM., & TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations.London: Sage.
76.
KogutB., & ZanderU. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.
77.
KrackhardtD. (2001, August). Network conditions of organizational change. Paper presented at the Academy of Management annual meeting, Washington DC.
78.
KrackhardtD., & SternR. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 123–140.
79.
LarsonA. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76–104.
LawlerE. E.III (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
82.
LazegaE., & PattisonP. (2001). Social capital and social mechanisms and collective assets: The example of status auctions among colleagues. In LinN., CookK., & BurtR. (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 185–208). New York: Aldine.
83.
LeanaC. R., & Van BurenH. J.III (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.
84.
LeithwoodK., LouisK. S., AndersonS., & WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
85.
LinN. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
86.
LinN. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action.New York: Cambridge University Press.
87.
LittleR. J., & RubinD. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 292–326.
88.
LouisK., MarksH., & KruseS. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.
89.
MalenB., CroningerR., MunceyD., & JonesD. R. (2002). Reconstituting schools: Testing the theory of action. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.
90.
MarshJ. A. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A review of emerging literature. In HightowerA. M. (Ed.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 25–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
91.
MarshJ. A., KerrK. A., IkemotoG. S., DarilekH., SuttorpM., ZimmerR. W. (2005). The role of the district in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
92.
McGrathC., & KrackhardtD. (2003). Network conditions for organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 324–336.
93.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. W. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning.Palo Alto, CA: Context Center on Secondary School Teaching.
94.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform.Seattle: University of Washington Press.
95.
MehraA., DixonA., BrassD. J., & RobertsonB. (2006). The social networks of leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17, 64–79.
96.
MintropH. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work).New York: Teachers College Press.
97.
MintropH., & SundermanG. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353–361.
98.
MintropH., & TrujilloT. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48), 1–27. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/
99.
MintropH., & TrujilloT. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319–352.
100.
MoolenaarN. M. (2010). Ties with potential: Nature, antecedents, and consequences of social networks in school teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
101.
MoolenaarN., DalyA., & SleegersP. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovation in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 1983–2017.
NahapietJ., & GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantages. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
104.
NelsonR. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377–401.
105.
NewmannF., & WehlageG. (1995). Successful school restructuring.Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
106.
NicolaidouM., & AinscowM. (2005). Understanding failing schools: Perspectives from the inside. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(3), 229–248.
107.
O'DayJ. A. (2004). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In FuhrmanS., & ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 15–46). New York: Teachers College Press.
108.
PenuelW., FishmanB., YamaguchiR., & GallagherL. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
109.
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.
110.
PortesA. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
111.
PutnamR. D. (1993). Making democracy work.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
112.
PutnamR. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.
113.
RaiderH., & KrackhardtD. (2001). Intraorganizational networks. In BaumJ. A. C. (Ed.), Companion to organizations (pp. 58–74). Oxford: Blackwell.
114.
ReagansR., & McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
115.
ReagansR., & ZuckermanE. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.
116.
RorrerA. K., SkrlaL., & ScheurichJ. (2008). A theory of districts: The districts’ role as an institutional actor in improving achievement and advancing equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–358.
117.
RotterJ. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
118.
RousseauD., SitkinS., BurtR., & CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
119.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
120.
SmylieM., WenzelS., & FendtC. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Lessons on leadership for school development. In MurphyJ., & DatnowA. (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 135–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
121.
SpillaneJ. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141–179.
122.
SpillaneJ. P., ReiserB. J., & GomezL. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 47–64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
123.
StollL., & LouisK. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In StollL., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 1–14). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
124.
StuartT. E. (1998). Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 43, 668–698.
125.
SundermanG. L., KimJ. S., & OrfieldG. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
126.
SupovitzJ. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
127.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
128.
TenkasiR., & ChesmoreM. (2003). Social networks and planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 281–300.
129.
TogneriW., & AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools.Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
130.
TsaiW. (2000). Social capital strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 925–939.
131.
TsaiW. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multi-unit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
132.
TsaiW., & GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
133.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–331.
134.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
135.
Tschannen-MoranM., & HoyW. K. (2000). A multidisciplmary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 71, 547–593.
136.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.
137.
WalkerG., KogutB., & ShahW. (1997). Social capital, structural holes, and the formation of an industry network. Organizational Science, 8, 109–125.
138.
WassermanS., & FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.New York: Cambridge University Press.
139.
WeinbaumE. H., ColeR. P., WeissM. J., & SupovitzJ. A. (2008). Going with the flow: Communication and reform in high schools. In SupovitzJ. A., & WeinbaumE. H. (Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 68–102). New York: Teachers College Press.
140.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
141.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
142.
ZandD. (1971). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239.
143.
ZandD. E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and power.New York: Oxford University Press.
