Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Superintendent Leadership as the Catalyst for Organizational Learning 61
Instructional leaders examine all practices in light of their impact on learning. High levels of
learning for all students become the fundamental purpose of the school. Instructionally
oriented superintendents emphasize the importance of an instructional vision, coordination
and socialization of the individuals and groups responsible for teaching and learning, the
importance of maintaining a high level of visibility, clear communication, and monitoring and
evaluating instructional and curriculum program implementation at the district level
(Bredeson 1995; Coleman & LaRocque, 1990; Herman, 1990; Morgan & Petersen, 2002;
Murphy & Hallinger, 1986; Petersen, 1999, 2002; Petersen, Sayre, & Kelly, 2007; Peterson,
Murphy, & Hallinger, 1987).
Transformational leaders influence teacher practices through district change,
concentrating on individual consideration and intellectual stimulation (Geijsel, Sleegers,
Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2002; Kirby, Paradise, & King, 1992). Although much of this work has
focused on the building level leader, these studies’ findings can also be applied to district
level leaders. Intellectual stimulation requires superintendents to be keenly aware of
classroom issues, the continual pressures for greater change, and the importance of providing
resources necessary to allow organizational members to create solutions. Teacher expertise
and judgment to resolve issues on instruction and programs are sought out and valued by the
superintendent (Kirby et al, 1992; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). A network extending to all
levels of the organization allows for continuous dialogue between the administration and
classroom. These practices increase the level of commitment for change within a district.
Providing feedback on job performance, modeling expectations and giving positive feedback
and support to promote a capacity for change result in a significant impact on teachers’ beliefs
in their ability and capacity to change (Geijsel et al., 2002; Mullin & Keedy, 1998).
Individually, these models address the relationship of a leader with members of the
organization; yet, contemporary work has shown that effective leaders utilize both
transformational and instructional practices (Hallinger, 2007). Building organizational
capacity and instructional purpose create the conditions that support individuals in the
development of personal goals that match the mission of the school. Leaders who utilize
transforming practices establish an ethos of renewal throughout the organization while
practices associated with instructional leadership emphasize mission and climate of the school
(Hallinger, 2007).
Marks and Printy (2003) asserted that instructional leadership is not sufficient for
academic improvement. Instructional leadership provides the focus and direction of daily
activities on curriculum and instruction, while individual and collective capacity is developed.
When transformational leaders realize their instructional role, interacting and collaborating
with teachers to attain organizational goals, they practice an integrated form of leadership.
Marks and Printy (2003) further clarified, “Integrated leadership then, reflects the
transformational influence of the principal and the shared leadership of the principal and
teacher” (p. 377).
The integration of transformational and instructional leadership resolves issues alluded
to by critics that instructional leadership requires one individual (the leader) to carry the
burden of expertise and authority. Integration of these two models allows for shared
instructional leadership among all members of the organization (Lambert, 2002; Marks &
Printy, 2003; Southworth, 2002).
Hallinger (2007), in an effort to understand “learner centered leadership” (p. 2),
identified substantive similarities in transformational and instructional leadership models. In
fact, he realized more similarities than differences. Leaders in both models: