From outside In: Additional Conflict for the Public School Superintendent

Abstract

Experience and a review of the limited research on the superintendency continue to reveal the enormous amount of conflict and tension in a changing and ambiguous position. The significance of superintendents coming from outside of the district is discussed. A majority are “outsiders.” Reasons are given to support the need for “outsider” status research. A proposal is made to direct research toward answers to three questions relating to “outsider” status for superintendents. First, how does “outsider” status influence the effectiveness of a superintendent? Second, how can the negative effects of “outsider” status be significantly reduced? Third, is the impact of “outsider” status different for women and minorities?

I believe that “outsider” status is a significant factor in the success or failure of an “outsider” superintendent. I have tried to establish the tension latent in an ambiguous position undergoing change with limited research to support it. The scale of politics and conflict is enormous. Recently, the superintendency is experiencing high turnover and a shortage of qualified candidates. As the position grows more complicated and the pool of candidates more limited, the need to identify ways to reduce conflict and anxiety in the position becomes more pressing. Clearly, the community and the board directly and indirectly influence the amount of conflict for the superintendent. The perception of many in the community is affected by the “outsider” status of the superintendent. Superintendents must be able to cope with “outsider” status to reduce conflict and to be effective.

Knowing these things, practitioners could benefit from additional research on the dynamics of a “stranger” as superintendent. Certainly, an unknown becoming an essential player in the politics of a given community must introduce nuances not present for an “insider.” Therefore, three observations seem appropriate. First, though mobile practitioners know that “outsider” status is a critical factor, not enough empirical research establishes how it influences superintendent effectiveness. Second, empirical analysis of a set of successful behaviors, activities, and assumptions for “outsider” superintendents could reduce conflict and increase their effectiveness. Third, there is a need to have greater balance demographically in the superintendency. Women and minorities could benefit from knowing if “outsider” status affects them differently.

I have made a case for the existence of bias toward superintendents who are “outsiders.” I have attempted to answer my own questions from experience. My answers, however, are not confirmed by objective research. For years, good teachers knew good pedagogy intuitively. Not until behavioral psychologists identified, labeled, and explained why and how the pedagogy worked did good teachers gain more confidence and teacher training improve. Such is needed for the superintendency I have not said that the existence of “outsider” status is ludicrous. In fact, it is explainable and sometimes understandable. Nevertheless, it can make the job of superintendent more complicated than normal for the “outsider.” The superintendency has its rewards. The current state of the job, however, warrants focused research on factors that significantly influence the effectiveness and survival rates of superintendents. “Outsider” status is clearly one such factor. Research into “outsider” status can improve understanding while lessening the burden of the job for the majority of us who are “outsiders.” The research just needs to be done.