This quantitative survey study was designed to determine whether superintendent accountability behaviors or agreement about accountability behaviors between superintendents and their subordinate central office administrators predicted district student achievement. Hierarchical multiple regression and analyses of covariance were employed, controlling for district socioeconomic status. Superintendents who agreed with subordinate administrators about their accountability behaviors or underestimated these behaviors led districts with significantly higher student achievement in mathematics and reading than did superintendents who overestimated their accountability behaviors. Effect sizes were strong, with the self–other rating agreement category explaining 22% of the variance in mathematics scores and 19% of the variance in reading scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtwaterL. E., & YammarinoF. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?Personnel Psychology, 45, 141–164.
2.
AtwaterL. E., & YammarinoF. J. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and model. Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 121–174.
3.
BurchP., & SpillaneJ. (2004). Leading from the middle: Mid-level district staff and instructional improvement.Chicago: Cross-City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
4.
BurkeW. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In SrivastvaS. (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51–77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
ColemanJ. S., CampbellE. Q., HobsonC. J., McPartlandJ., MoodA. M., WeinfeldF. D. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
7.
CollinsJ. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't.New York: HarperCollins.
8.
CollinsJ. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors. A monograph to accompany Good to Great.Boulder, CO: Collins.
9.
CongerJ. A., & KanungoR. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.
10.
CorcoranT. (2003). The use of research evidence in instructional improvement (Policy Brief No. RB-40). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11.
DennisR., & WinstonB. E. (2003). A factor analysis of Page and Wong's servant leadership instrument. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 24, 455–459.
12.
DePreeM. (1993). Leadership jazz.New York: Dell.
13.
ForteE. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76–88.
14.
GentryW. A., HannumK. M., EkelundB. Z., & de JongA. (2007). A study of the discrepancy between self and observer ratings on managerial derailment characteristics of European managers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 295–325.
15.
GeorgeD., & MalleryP. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
GlassT. E., & FranceschiniL. A. (2007). The state of the American school superintendency: A mid-decade study.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
17.
GoodwinD. K. (2005). Team of rivals: The political genius of Abraham Lincoln.New York: Simon & Schuster.
GreinerL. E. (1973). What managers think of participative leadership: They are in more agreement on how it operates than on how it gets results. Harvard Business Review, 51(2), 111–117.
20.
HartmanE. L. (2004). The relationship between CEOs traits, empowering leader behaviors, and objective and subjective measures of performance. Dissertations Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3152775)
21.
HonigM. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–384.
22.
HonigM. I. (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.
23.
HonigM. I., & CoplandM. A. (2008). Reinventing district central offices to expand student learning.Seattle, WA: Center for Comprehensive School Reform.
24.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000). IASB's lighthouse study: School boards and student achievement. Iowa School Board Compass, 5(2), 1–12.
25.
JacksonR. M. (1991). The superintendent and school improvement: Antecedents, actions, and outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9210063)
26.
KonczakL. J., StellyD. J., & TrustyM. L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 301–313.
27.
KowalskiT. J. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator. Communication Education, 54(2), 101–117.
28.
LubitR. (2007). The long-term organizational impact of destructively narcissistic managers. In VecchioR. (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 177–198). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.
29.
MarcumD., & SmithS. (2007). Egonomics: What makes ego our greatest asset or most expensive liability.New York: Simon & Schuster.
30.
MarzanoR. J., & WatersT. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
31.
MillerC. L. (2010). Accountability policy implementation and the case of smaller school district capacity: Three contrasting cases that examine the flow and use of NCLB accountability data. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 384–420.
32.
MorganG. W. (1990). School district effectiveness and the leadership of the superintendent of schools. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 9033609)
33.
MorrisJ. A., BrotheridgeC. M., & UrbanskiJ. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1351.
34.
MoshaviD., BrownF. W., & DoddN. G. (2003). Leader self-awareness and its relationship to subordinate attitudes and performance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24, 407–418.
35.
MullerR. W. (1989). Instructional leadership superintendents’ competencies related to student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 8920786)
OritzF. I. (1982). Career pattern in education.Boston: Bergin.
38.
PetersenG. J., & BarnettB. G. (2005). The superintendent as instructional leader: Current practice, future conceptualizations, and implications for preparation. In BjorkL. G., & KowalskiT. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 107–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
39.
RosenthalS. A., & PittinskyT. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617–633.
40.
RussellR. F., & StoneA. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157.
41.
ScheinE. H. (1971). The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 401–426.
42.
SheltonT. D. (2010). The effects of school system superintendents, school boards, and their interactions on longitudinal measures of districts’ students mathematics achievement. Dissertations Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3451142)
43.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
44.
SpreierS. W., FontaineM. H., & MalloyR. L. (2006). Leadership run amok: The destructive potential of overachievers. Harvard Business Review, 84, 72–82.
45.
TangneyJ. P. (2000). Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 70–82.
46.
Van VelsorE., TaylorS. Y., & LeslieJ. (1992). Self/rater agreement, self-awareness and leadership effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
47.
VeraD., & Rodriguez-LopezA. (2004). Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 393–408.
48.
WaldmanD. A., JavidanM., & VarellaP. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 355–380.
49.
WhiteK. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461–481.
50.
WicklundR. (1979). The influence of self on human behavior. American Scientist, 67, 187–193.
51.
WoodJ., & VilkinasT. (2004). Characteristics of chief executive officers: Views of their staff. Journal of Management Development, 23, 469–478.
52.
WoodJ., & VilkinasT. (2005). Characteristics associated with success: CEOs perspectives. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26, 186–196.
53.
WoodJ., & VilkinasT. (2007). Characteristics associated with CEO success: Perceptions of CEOs and their staff. Journal of Management Development, 26, 213–227.
