This paper examines the salient theoretical models of principal succession as articulated by Cosgrove and Miskel, Hart, and Ogawa. The authors attempted to explore the issue of first year principal succession with regard to the school context of changes made by the new principal and reactions of the school staff. We found that in this instance the insider choice for principal exhibited outsider characteristics, as the successor was seen as a positive force to support teachers and began initiatives to improve the school. However, our conclusions called for more case studies and qualitative research of principal succession in order to unearth the complexities of the theoretical models juxtaposed against the specific context of schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaltzellD. C., & DentlerR. A. (1983). Selecting American school principals: A sourcebook for educators.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Education.
2.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
CarlsonR. O. (1962). Executive succession and organizational change.Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwestern Administrative Center.
4.
CarlsonR. O. (1972). School superintendents: Careers and performance.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
5.
FauskeJ. R., & OgawaR. T. (1987). “Detachment, fear and expectation: A faculty's response to the impending succession of its principal,”Educational Administrative Quarterly.23: 23–44.
6.
FirestoneW. A. (1990). “Succession and bureaucracy: Gouldner revisited,”Educational Administration Quarterly.26: 45–375.
7.
FirestoneW. A., & BaderB. D. (1992). Redesigning teaching: Professionalism or bureaucracy.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
8.
FordhamS. (1996). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, identity, and success at Capital High.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
GephartR. P. (1978). “Status degradation and organizational succession: An ethnomethodological approach,”Administrative Science Quarterly.23: 553–581.
GordonG. C., & RosenN. (1981). “Critical factors in leadership succession,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.27: 227–254.
12.
HartA. W. (1985). Leadership succession as social validation. The view from inside the principalship. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259465).
13.
HartA. W. (1993). Principal succession: Establishing leadership in schools.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
14.
HitchcockG., & HughesD. (1989). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research.London: Routledge.
15.
HoyW. K., & AhoF. (1973). “Patterns of succession of high school principals and organizational change,”Planning and Changing, 2: 82–88.
16.
JohnsonB. L., & LicataJ. W. (1995). “School principal succession and teacher on successor effectiveness,”Journal of School Leadership, 5: 394–417.
17.
LatherP. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern.New York: Routledge.
18.
MerriamS. B. (1988). Case study research in education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
MiklosE. (1988). “Administrator selection, career patterns, succession and socialization,” In BoyanN. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Educational Administration (pp. 53–76). New York: Longman.
20.
MiskelC. G., & CosgroveD. (1985). “Leader succession in school settings,”Review of Educational Research, 55: 87–105.
21.
OgawaR. T. (1991). “Enchantment, disenchantment, and accommodation: How a faculty made sense of the succession of its principal,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 27: 30–60.
22.
OgawaR. T., & SmithJ. F. (1985). How a faculty made sense of the succession of its principal. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263662).
23.
PfefferJ. (1983). “Organizational demography,” In CummingsL. L., & StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5: 299–357.
24.
RosaldoR. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis.New York: Beacon Press.
25.
RossmanG. B., CorbettH. D., & FirestoneW. A. (1988). Change and effectiveness in schools: A cultural perspective.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
26.
ShapiroJ.P. (1988). “Participatory evaluation: Towards a transformation of assessment for Women's studies programs and projects,”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10: 191–199.
27.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
TaylorS. J., & BogdanR. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
29.
WeissC. H., & CamboneJ. (1994). “Principals, shared decision making, and school reform,”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16: 287–301.
30.
YinR. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
