Blazing New Trails - Connexions

222 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
directed effort, effective task strategies, and the artful application of various conceptual,
technical, and interpersonal skills” (p. 28).
Crucial to the leadership needed for successfully implementing character education,
Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2005) noted, “Leaders’ perceived self-efficacy beliefs were
related to subordinates’ performance abilities, as well as to success at gaining followers’
commitment to the task” (p. 4). In high-stakes accountability environment for students’
academics and actions, highly-efficacious principals would possess two significant
components of effective leadership: improved performance of subordinates and the
procurement of subordinates’ commitment to the leader’s vision and program.
Social cognitive theory presupposes that a principal’s own sense of efficacy is
determinative to the acquisition of the leadership abilities and skills needed to impact student
successfully student achievement, school climate, school direction, and school reform. Also
underlying social cognitive theory is the impact that a leader’s self-efficacy has on providing
leadership expertise, marshalling resources, unifying school constituents, and maintaining
effort (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2005). Principals’ perceived self-efficacy significantly
impacts the following leadership components: (a) level of aspiration, goal-setting, effort,
adaptability, and persistence (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992); (b) analytical strategies,
direction-setting, and subsequent organizational performance of managers (Bandura & Wood,
1989; Paglis & Green, 2002); and, (c) sustained attentional focus and persistent efforts needed
to succeed at organizational goals (Bandura & Wood, 1989)
A principal’s level of efficacy may strongly influence outcomes of school leadership
efforts. Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) noted, “Although empirical studies of principal’s
sense of efficacy are few, the results are enticing” (p. 574). For example, Bandura (2000)
explained that levels of principal efficacy are inherently determinative for, “When faced with
obstacles, setbacks, and failures, those who doubt their capabilities slacken their efforts, give
up, or settle for mediocre solutions. Those who have a strong belief in their capabilities
redouble their efforts to master the challenge” (p. 120). Referencing Lyons and Murphy
(1994), Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2005) wrote, “Principals with higher self-efficacy are
more likely to use internally-based personal power, such as expert, informational, and referent
power, when carrying out their roles” (p. 5). In terms of pursuing goals, Tschannen-Moran
and Gareis (2004) stressed, “Self-efficacy beliefs are excellent predictors of individual
behavior. Principals with a strong sense of self-efficacy have been found to be persistent in
pursuing their goals, but are also more flexible and more willing to adapt strategies to meeting
contextual conditions” (p. 574). Highly efficacious principals persevere in their efforts to
achieve goals, but not to the point where they persist in unsuccessful strategies (Osterman &
Sullivan, 1996). The different positives associated with high-efficacious principals builds the
case for making applications to the principalship because the efficacy construct has the
potential to influence positively so many areas of the school environment.
In lieu of the burgeoning demands currently burdening principals, Osterman and
Sullivan (1996) suggested the leadership deficiencies associated with low-efficacy principals
included principals’ inability to detect opportunities, make adaptations, or to generate support
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2005). Other low-efficacy characteristics offered by Lyons and
Murphy (1994) included affective factors such as demonstrable anxiety, stress, frustration, as
well as a higher rate of self-deprecating feelings of failure. In terms of personal dynamics of
power, Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2005) reported that, low efficacy principals are more
prone “to rely on external and institutional bases of power, such as coercive, positional, and
reward power” (p. 5). Another leadership malady facing low-efficacy principals is burnout.
Friedman (1997) posited, “Inefficacious beliefs have been related to higher levels of burnout”