The current study builds on earlier leader succession research, focusing on a school where the “insider”—who was believed to be strong before being hired as the formal school leader—drew sharp criticism after assuming the principalship. Interviews with staff members who worked with the insider leader in her role as teacher and principal were analyzed to examine changes in their perceptions of her. Results suggest that the leader did not change; rather, perceptions of her leadership effectiveness changed once she assumed the role of principal. The staff believed that the insider would continue to act like a peer, and when she did not, their perceptions of her effectiveness as a leader were negatively affected.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarlsonR. O. (1962). Executive succession and organizational change: Place-bound and career-bound superintendents of school.Danville, IL: Interstate.
2.
DaltonD. R., & KesnerI. F. (1983). Inside/outside succession and organizational size: The pragmatics of executive replacement. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 736–742.
3.
EaglyA. H., & Johannesen-SchmidtM. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.
4.
EaglyA. H., & KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
5.
FinkD., & BraymanC. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62–89.
6.
FossS. K., & WatersW. (2007). Destination dissertation: A traveler's guide to a done dissertation.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
7.
FullanM. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16–20.
8.
GabarroJ. J. (1987). The dynamics of taking charge.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9.
GandossyR. P., & VermaN. (2006, spring). Passing the torch of leadership. Leader to Leader, pp. 37–44.
10.
GanzH. J., & HoyW. K. (1977). Patterns of succession of elementary principals and organizational changes. Planning and Changing, 8, 185–190.
11.
GlaserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Aldine.
12.
HargreavesA., MooreS., FinkD., BraymanC., & WhiteR. (2003). Succeeding leaders? A study of principal succession and sustainability.Toronto: Ontario Principals’ Council. Retrieved from http://www.principals.ca/documents/Succeeding_Leaders.pdf
13.
HelfatC. E., & BaileyE. E. (2005). External succession and disruptive change: Heirs-apparent, forced turnover and firm performance. Strategic Organization, 3(1), 47–83.
14.
LauterbachB., VuJ., & WeisbergJ. (1999). Internal vs. external successions and their effect on firm performance. Human Relations, 52(12), 1485–1504.
15.
LeithwoodK. A., & MontgomeryD. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309–339.
16.
LeithwoodK. A., & RiehlC. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.Philadelphia: Temple University, Laboratory for Student Success.
17.
LeithwoodK. A., & RiehlC. (2005). What do we already know about successful school leadership? In FirestoneW. A., & RiehlC. (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership.New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
MeyerM. J., & MacmillanR. B. (2011). Principal succession and the micropolitics of educators in schools: Some incidental results from a larger study. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 117. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ923617.pdf
19.
MiskelC., & CosgroveD. (1985). Leader succession in school setting. Review of Educational Research, 55(1), 87–105.
20.
MulfordW., SilinsH., & LeithwoodK. (2004). Educational leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes.New York: Kluwer Academic.
21.
NormoreA. H. (2004). Socializing school administrators to meet leadership challenges that doom all but the most heroic and talented leaders to failure. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 107–125.
22.
PetersA. (2011). (Un)Planned failure: Unsuccessful succession planning in an urban district. Journal of School Leadership, 21(1), 64–86.
23.
PounderD., & CrowG. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 56–60.
24.
QuinnT. (2002). Succession planning: Start today. Principal Leadership, 3(2), 24–28.
25.
RallisS. F., & HighsmithM. C. (1986). The myth of the “great principal”: Questions of school management and instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(4), 300–304.
26.
RhodesC., & BrundrettM. (2005). Leadership succession in schools: A cause for concern. Management in Education.19(5), 15–18.
27.
RhodesC., BrundrettM., & NevillA. (2006). The identification, development, succession and retention of leadership talent in contextually different primary schools: A case study located within the English West Midlands. School Leadership and Management, 26(3), 269–287.
28.
RhodesC., BrundrettM., & NevillA. (2008). Leadership talent identification and development: Perceptions of heads, middle leaders and classroom teachers in 60 contextually different primary and secondary schools in England. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 36(3), 311–335.
29.
Rivera-McCutchenR. L. (2012a). Caring in a small urban high school: A complicated success. Urban Education, 47(3), 653–680.
30.
Rivera-McCutchenR. L. (2012b). Considering context: Exploring a small school's struggle to maintain its educational vision. In TynerA., & HantzopoulosM. (Eds.), Critical small schools in New York City: Beyond privatization in public urban educational reform (pp. 21–39). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
31.
SantoraJ. C., CaroM. E., & SarrosJ. C. (2007). Succession in nonprofit organizations: An insider/outsider perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 72(4), 26–31.
32.
ScribnerS. M. P., CrowG. M., LopezG. R., & MurthadhaK. (2011). “Successful” principals: A contested notion for superintendents and principals. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 390–421.
33.
SpillaneJ. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150.
34.
TarterC. J., BlissJ. R., & HoyW. K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 294–308.
35.
Tschannen-MoranM., & HoyW. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70, 547–593.
36.
VinkenburgC. J., van EngenM. L., EaglyA. H., & Johannesen-SchmidtM. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women's promotion?Leadership Quarterly, 22, 10–21.
37.
WiersemaM. F. (1992). Strategic consequences of executive succession within diversified firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29(1), 73–94.
38.
WiersemaM. F., & BirdA. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal.36(5), 996–1025.
