Blazing New Trails - Connexions

60 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADERSHIP
ship and accountability has become a critical aspect of the role. Of course, these expectations
are not without merit or empirical evidence. Literature has shown that superintendents have
influence on the academic achievement of students (Morgan & Petersen, 2002; Murphy &
Hallinger, 1986; Petersen, 1999, 2000; Petersen, Sayre, & Kelly, 2007). Other research has
demonstrated that superintendents are the most important individuals in setting expectations
and patterns of change in such reform efforts (Browne-Ferrigno & Glass, 2005; Cuban, 1989;
Fullan, 1993). These bodies of work also suggested that the effectiveness of an instructional
leader is dependent on his or her ability to develop an organizational environment that
addresses the complex and often conflicting demands of educational reforms and policies
geared toward improving student achievement. The vulnerability of the superintendent’s role
to internal and external forces continuously presents obstacles; yet, his or her leadership is key
to successful implementation of reforms that positively impact student achievement (Fullan,
1993; Kowalski, 2005; Morgan & Petersen, 2002; Petersen, 1999, 2002; Seashore Louis et al.,
2010; Sergiovanni, 1990).The duress of accountability measures has created a turbulent and
uncertain organizational environment. As a result, superintendents are required to rethink and
react in different modalities than traditional managerial and political roles (Björk & Keedy,
2001; Johnson & Fauske, 2000; Kowalski, 2005; Petersen, & Barnett, 2005; Petersen &
Dlugosh, 2009).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Transformational Leadership, Instructional Leadership, and the Superintendent
Leadership in organizations has been examined from multiple perspectives. Numerous
investigations have established that an effective and dynamic leader can be a key and
influential agent of reform as well as contribute to the success of the organization (Bolman &
Deal, 2003; Elmore & Burney, 1998, 1999; Firestone, Mangin, Martinez, & Polovsky, 2005;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Among the most repeated characteristic of effective
leaders is a clear and public vision (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Cawelti & Protheroe, 2001;
Chrispeels, 2002; Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004; Togneri & Anderson, 2003), coupled with
fostering an organizational environment of inspiration and collaboration directed in achieving
that vision (Chrispeels, 2002; Chrispeels & González, 2006; Louis & Miles, 1990; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Work in the area of superintendent leadership has also shown that central
offices that are weak in these factors demonstrated very limited capacity or progress in their
efforts for academic reform (Bryk, Sebring, KerBow, Rollow, & Easton, 1998; McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2003a; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010).
Meeting the demands of external accountability systems and reform initiatives and
creating dramatic change in an institutionalized educational system require a certain blend of
responsibility and leadership styles. While there are many dimensions and theories regarding
leadership, inherent in a leader’s role is a focus on pedagogy and advancement of teacher
development while transforming the environment conducive to learning for all members of
the organization (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Seashore Louis et
al., 2010; Sergiovanni, 1990). Instructional and transformational practices that initiate,
develop, and carry out significant changes in organizations are required to meet the
established expectations of present accountability systems (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 1999).
Two educational leadership models have primarily been promoted in educational
literature over the past twenty-five years: transformational and instructional leadership.