Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Superintendent Leadership as the Catalyst for Organizational Learning 67
on the three primary areas of superintendent’s influence—organizational learning,
instructional leadership, and transformational leadership.
Last, the qualitative data were submitted to a domain analysis (Spradley, 1979). The
domain analysis consisted of analyzing the cover terms for a semantic relationship to each of
the focus areas. In the domain analysis, the researchers specifically considered perceptions of
attributes demonstrated by instructionally focused superintendents, functions that
superintendents used to influence organizational learning and the rationale of the
superintendent focusing on organizational learning.
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Superintendent’s Influence on Organizational Learning
Organizational learning is distinct from the traditional educational environment where
learning is typically structured as an individual endeavor. The capacity of an organization to
change, grow and “learn” is a continuous cycle of four conversations among all members:
socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Employing themes that emerged in the superintendent and focus group interviews, the
investigation examined the extent of the superintendent’s influence in creating an organization
that reflected the social processes and principles of organizational learning.
Socialization. The socialization mode usually starts with the building of a team for
interaction and is typically associated with group process and organizational culture (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 1995). Data from District A revealed multiple opportunities for staff to share
experiences and model technical skills through observation, imitation, and practice. Routines
were created to provide informal and formal meetings for discussions to solve problems
associated with students’ lack of achievement. These routines, deliberately built by the
superintendent and school board, supported the team process of collaboration while staff
meetings were refocused on student learning and innovations for student success.
Socialization with a focused vision occurred among and across district level administrators,
school site administrators, and teachers. The district’s administrative team had ongoing
meetings where ideas were shared and expected to be brought back to their individual sites.
As the superintendent explained:
I believe to be successful, it requires collaboration amongst your administrators as
well. They’ve got to be willing to share with and support one another, and so, that is
the culture within which we function.
Not only did the continuous dialogue provide new ideas for intervention, it also
provided the opportunity to establish relationships and build mutual trust among staff. As
teacher C elaborated,
I think that the idea of collaboration is alone you’ll do what you can, but if you link
with other people’s strengths, then what you weren’t able to get for that student is
available from somebody else in your team, whether it’s your grade level or above you
or below you in terms of people on your staff or even in the trainings. Our network
becomes bigger but the common language and the purpose is the same.