FROM DURHRM PUBLIC SHOOLS (919)560-3789~

04.15.19'34 16:02 r , £.

Im.a, ,r LeadenbtpJ

by

e O. Bolmar Ind Terrence E. Deal

Presented a the ArtJerlcan Edueational Research As$ociation,April, 1990

''What pee le understand to be the oq~8nization of theirexperience; hey buttress, and perforce, self..fulfillingly. Theydevelop ,~ corpus of cautJonary tales, .games. riddles,experimenu newsy stories, and other scenarios which elegantlyconfirm a !frme relevant view of the working5 of the world ••• incountless w sand unceasinaly social Ufe takes up and freezesiuelf into th . understandings we have of it." (Goffman. P: 561)

, i: I Like everyone etse leaders view their experience throuaJ1 a set of preconditioned

.•• IJN 5 and filtets. They 0 n resist question!n; their view of how an organization works ..•

ot iJht wcrkbetter. \Vh n their frame or reference fits the circumstances they face, theyc$n understand and Shape human experience. When it doe$ not, their frames freeze intoa d totted picture that ps leaden in their misconceptions. They explain failure"p'yb in.' circumstances fa I er than their own inability to read and respond to the situatioa b nd,

I i

! ! Over the years, sch lan have spent considerable time and eneri)' trying to identify

~e ~.ha~~~E~~Clor t:al:Siof,e~::tlve ie~den. Policy-make", and others have spent eveno~ on programs desianed to improve leadership skills. Yet research and trainina hav

o eh produced dlsappoiritl i results. Perhip. we have been Jook.fna in the wrona place, andave Ji~~,11too Unleat enUon to how leadersperceive and define situatioN. A faulty

~ .._ ~..7"0--...::.-:.~:::~::-~::.7;..:~~~.. _" """''''::~~~::.-""""",_._-<,.~ ..•.•.••_., •.••'Uooo..,... _. ':.:;';~:: '.- - ..•... :.;J "', \ ' __ '"

I Thi$ research was rUn ed in pan by a STant from the Office of Educational Researchan~; Improvement ot the U.S. Department of Education to the National Center forEpu~ational Leadership. e are arateful to our colleagues in NCEL. and particularly toTod~ DeMhchell, Alma' H 11,Man Parker, and Joe Tham.

3

, ,

I I .! I .

Imaa~ !f Oraaniz.ation (Bolm and Deal)I ,• 1

:diBsn~1 .rarely leads tO~effe;Qli,' action, and misra& ~lathe situation can undermine even'~---'.,""'-' "';, . ...•.......

a lea.dpl'of exceptional statu~e d skill. In this pa;.r, we report an effon to identify howI .

leade? ee their worldJ. Are ~ere common psneru. in the imaaes or lens~s they employ?

~~~1~_~~:~;:~~ee~I~:il11~td:~:r;;:'~:::::e':;::ti~e~~~~~:et:~~a sin~l r focus? Under what onditions can leaden learn to be more flexible in definini

I . .situatip aecurately?

1 :

i iLead.tA~IP ~males i>r Fnm ••

- I li~e conceptofframes..11$ many sytl.onymsin tbe locialscienceliterature- maps,imager, chemata, frames of r ference, perspectives, orientations. lenses and mlndscapes,

The df~ rent labels share a? sumption that individuals see the world in diff"rent waysbecalJto they are embedded different world views. Because the world of human

expe1'·e~ e is ambifJUoust ~~ .es of reference sh~~. h~w.._lituation$ ~~~_.~~~ned anddete j c what actions are tBk n. .. - - --' -.-. -.--. .'- - ~.- _ --.. -. --." -... . .. ,~ "

! It e world views of lea· en are formed through their heritage, early experiences.

formal t aining, and experience on the job. The mbe of these influences varies frorn personto peJso and se~tor to sector, but learning from e·xperlence often plays a more powerfulrole t~Ji formal education. chool prin<tipals, for e~ample:-;;p~" their most helpfulleami!a~tcame from their 8dmi]' ·l~trative experience. NeXt most helpful was their training as ,.a tea ~ r. Finishing a dlsta t third was their formal training in administration (Deal, /

Dom i Iith and Crawford, 197 (' .-.. . __ ------~/

! I~ out work with expe .enced leaders In both education and other sectors, we see

many f)(~mpleS of Ooffmants s ·ggestion that f:ames of reference are self.fulfilling. Leadersdevelop iaccounts, explanations and ficiions to justify their point or view - even when their

perSp~~iye is not working, 0 ring the 1980s. ROKer Smith, the chief executive of General

4

R • ,

I I i

. Ii I

14age. of Or&anialion .IBolman and Deal)

:~()tOI'Sy ptesided over a . i$mal decade in OM's btJtory, yet had great difficulty shifting his

111pproach to the compan 's problems (Balman and Deal. 1991). The same is true of manyiSC~OOlleaders - they co tinue to employ their existing fIamcworu. even when there was

:atiundant evidence that. methlng new was needed. When they use the wrong lens. leaders!~ot fiiUrc out "what s really aoini on". and it Is very hard to lead well when you

i*undentand who and hat you are trying to lead. When they do not understand why

'j: .; gs aren't worlOng; 1 aden experience confusion. They feel off balance and out of!COUOJ. But the '~~c:' JI1 dset that caused them to misreadthe situation also prevents a/'-I;'~b~g'nitionof theerrdr: .-.-..~-, '.. .. --,t :;F1ur 'Perspectives OD o .aDiutloD atAd Leader~hlp; t, i, I~' Several years aiD, e distilled theories of organi%Jltion&into four traditions. which we

lIe eltd.4'rl!mos (Bolm~n and Deal, 1984). We believed that these four distinct images· , 'ste!cSnot only in te~,oks, but in the ways. that leaden think and act in response to

· "eryday issu •• :and p~oti.Jems.I ! .! I

The fitst of those 'perspectives, tho $~twal Crame, derives its outlook panicuJarlyI .Iff m the disciplineof. .0101)'. The 'frame emphaai%es ,oals and effiCiency. h posits that

r:.. ' 'd~ eetive oTiinJution$ ,efine clear goals, differentiate people intO specific roles. and'. _.. i td~nate diverse activities throuih pollcies, rules, and chain of command. Structural

ll, den value analysis .n' data, keep their eye on the bottom line, set clear directions, holdI

I,, oplc accountable for luJu, and tty t~.lolvc organizational problems with new policies,. d ~les. or thtoulh re tructurinS.· .!

, The human raou .e frame. borrows Its assumptions from the fields of psycholoiY and

oiganizational behav{~r It focuses attention Oft human needs and assumes thatoJganfUtjon$ that meet basic needs will work better than those that do nee. Human· ~r~source leaders value r lationships and feelingst and seek to lead through facilitation and

h'._ ..••• -... __

5

FROM DURH~M PU8lIC SHOOlS (919)560-3789 04.15.1994 16=04 ~. 5

i

. \

Imageslo~Otianlzatlon (Bolni

, ,

, ,l !e_~~"'ft~L'they tend to de . e problemsIn individualor interpenonBllcrms and look

for war Ito adjust the orr. lion to fit ~eople - or to adjust the people to fit theoriaru.z;a~n (for example. tluou trainini and workshops).

, .

~~ ~l frame emph . ize. the individual and ;roup interests that often displace

ori~Jonal loall. BOrrOwinS!' eu frotn politica1lC{enee, the frame ,"umes a eontinuiniI '

compoyd n ahlong different lbc relu for scarce resource ••,Conflict fa seen as a normal by-product_ fC:Ollecllvco_":tlon. . ~oUtical leaders are advocalea and nCIOtiato;;' "';ho~alue-·realism, d pragmatism. They pend much of their time nctworkini. creating coalitions.bul1'din~~ power bast, and nego iatins compromises.

, I

~ ~ symbolic fra~e sytlth sizes concepts and Unaae.l'Y from a number of disciplines- most! n tab)Y the field of ailt ropology, It Ices a chaotic world in which meanini and

~;:::t:::.:eevc::::~~::IO:~ :u~:~~~~at~~L~i~t1~t:Z!~~:~ti;~!i;t::~---~-provid,--lhared- sen$eO(JJj,,!'_.ndhjenli~_S)'lllbOUC leaders instill a sense of

. enthusiJat and commitment thr uSh charisma and drama. ',They pay diligent attention to

::::gi~ti:~:'::~:~~:::::~ -::~:~;~:~:.f:;::-;::~::;t:: :t::c~ngin8ting in

b t experience bas con need UJ that the frames form the foundations for humanthought. d action in both sch 1$and other organi2ations. They are visible in leadership

behavitr. suuesting that leaders~use the four lenses to interpret what's going on, to decidewhat t9 d~and to interpret the r ~ult.s of tht'!iraction. To provide empirical data to supportthose Sf~ osntons, we have be n a research program to Investigate the role th~t framesplay in th. thinking and action r leaders and administrators.

6

i ;j,n~8e.·of Orgilni2ation ( .olman and belli)I I

!;JdYb'l Laden' Fnll;'~I "

..

· We have begun as rles of empirical Investiaations Into how leaders use frames: how~.pythey we, and wtl,ic "ones. Our mothodJ include a combination of qualitative andqu~titative metncds, be Useeach has different advanta&es in studying leaders' world views,6u~litativc methods aro p rtfcu1arly eftccttve in letting at"the lubtleties of how leaders thinkI : . .

4n4 how they frame thc experience. Quantitative methods are panicularly u5cful in~x~mining the relationshf between the frame. of Jeaden and thcir constituents.; I .

9J,1It.1t1ve lDve.tltatlcSD.1: !: ~· I:: Our qualitative w tk focuses on the frames embedded in narratives that leaders~+deabout their exp~ri: nce._ We have u~ed those nan-adves to answer rwo questions: (a),1many frame. do le~d rs use? (b) whIch frames do they use'?I --j• :"j

i xi Table 1 shows da from three different samplel of educational administrators in

tf • (Sfthe number of fr mes that they use. The Ont b a sample of 32 coJleac presidentssle I rt~d by Bensimon <,19"9). BenSfm~n interviewed each president intensively, and eo~d+~.int~l'YiewIt&JIJcripti ~r the use of each of Bolman and De.I', four Crames, The second

~ .1, lan\plc of 15 senior; a minlstra"tOrl in hlahr:r education who participated in the Institutefor- EdUcational Man8ac em, Members of that sroup were hiahly diverse with respect to

: araphyand institution 1 type. Most held polidonJ at the level of Dean, Vice Preliden~r re.ldent. The thJrd"is a sample of lS central office administrators from school districts.' mldwe.terb nate. ....

I " !\ -- \ ;

,.; The rcs~!~.~ aU tree sample. show that leaden rarely use more than two frames,~4alMost no one use. f" ur frames: in every sample the Percentalc of leaden who usedmOre than two frames wi" less than 25%, ana the number who usee! four fram~s was 1~; .; .

or tess.--. -~- ..------~

7

j I1 I

lmag~1r OtllanUation (Bolin and Deal): I

much!F~Qmtt do Llad,n Us~?, ,

, ,~T~ble* 2 reports which ames were employed by the leaders in the "me three

1

lampl,s. ~The reault.l lU"elt th t the sample of presidents was different from the other twoI Isampl.s.; The presidents most equently used the human resource frame, and were least, I '.

likely lQ lute the stnlctural ft' e. They w~re aOO much more likely to \lSO the I)'IIlbolicframe; •• Ialmost half of the pr .idcnts, compared to 11% of the other sample of lUsheredu~~iO~ admfnistratorJ, and 0 1y5% ofthc·.chool administrators. ,

I

QuaDt~ia.~IV.:lnvesd •• UoD. '..• I I

; I

!:0 r quantita rive invest1i!·,ions employ. survey instrument, "Leadership Orientations,"

derive~' om' tho four organI;a ion frames. It contains 32 items with five point responsescales,l. e Instrument is design' d to measure eiiJ1t separate dimensions of leadership, two

for eB~H ame, We liSt the tia t dimensions below:I i

i 1.1' Human Resource ·Dlmnrion.sI, 'I ,

a. Supportive concerned about the feelinss of others; supportive and.responsive

b. Particlpati~ - fosters parttelpauon and involvement: listens and isopen to ~e ideas

a. Analytic - hinks clea~lY.and logically; approaches problems with factsand atteh to detail

b. Organized develops clear goals and pollcfesj hold people accountablefor resut'ts

8

: ! [: I I

I . \

~g~S of Orlanlzatlon (olman and Deal)

! I 3. Pollzlelil Dim~

I. POrjid - penu~ive, hiah level of ability to mobU~o people andreio rees; effectiVe at bUilding.aUlanccl end support

b. A~ro - politi(8j,lcnsltJvc and 11dllfu1;a skillful negotiator in face ofco -.ct and opposition

a. Infp tional-« inspire. OthCrllO loyalty and c:nthU$jasm;.communicatesa In ng sense of vision

b. atic - imaginativc, emphuizes culture and values: is hfahlycharismatic

, .:: The instrument ha two parall~l forms: one for individuals to tate themselves, and~~ther in which their eo·cagucs (sup~riors, peers, JubordlnatCSr ete.) can rate them.

r I\ ~~: i .

.' : We have collected ata from respondents in schools, higher education, government.+1\1 the private sector. :W· have used the data to address a number of sianificant questions~1utleadennip, and in is paper, we prClent evidence on three of those questions:\ i .i

(1) How well do t c frameJ ca~tufe .dmlnlstfatofs' thinkina?(2) How well d~ t e framea predict admfnfitraton' effectiveness?

, (3) How does I~n er relato to leadenhfp orientatiom?: ,filii. Frrllt\u Capfu;.:8 w AdmlnlnnUor.r 7hWc?

: !i I ::; We have eondu. d a number of factor analylel of I'ClponJel to our leadenhip

t~'rutlic:nts, in¢ludina ~ . es of both administrators' self.ratmp, and of ratlnil by others •• tots associ_ted with t e fout frames consistently emerle (rom the data. The factort ctures are lomcwhat 'iffetent for Iclf and coll~aJUc.ratins', but in both cue. all four

!tabes emersc clearly. ;T ibJe 3 shows ~n example of an anllysis using data from about 680

..•.

9

FROM DURHAM PUBLIC SHOOLS (919)560-3789 04.15.1994 16:06 P'. 9

I I

I I '\ I . .

tmaa+ '~fOtaarUu.llon (Bottin. and Deal)

education. UiU'la a c.onventional procedure: (prin~ipal

varirnax rotation of aU factors with an ciaen'Value > 1)1the

senior~ • uatotl in hJ&he

compJJ\ nu analysil, followedI '

anal)'l~ reduced four tacton, ach of whJch represents one of the frame.. We have found

Jimilat ulU in other populat ens. The factOra are wuaIJy very clean. When item. do

bleed ~ OSI frames. it arise.!r m overlap ot the symbolic hma witb the human resource

or po~d J frames. However, t e POlitj~ ..a~d h.~~.~ resource frame. show little overlaps

with e~c: other. and none of c frame. overlaps with the .tru~~~~l..~ame.

i i .Do th~ 'tam~p"dJct Ef!«ti'vI :.•• i I

r

i It preliminalY step In •xplorin, the link between the frames and effectiveness. weI

did ~O; paratc reareufon tn lyse~. We ~ollec:t~d coue~iUe~' fatinp of effectiveness asboth ~'I ana.er and a leader. e dId not define the meamni of the twO terms, because we

wante~ 0 learn about the impUcit meaninas that administrators Sive to the two concepts.

We Je, thefour leadership rra~es as predlctcrvartables In regression analyses. the resuluare sh. in tables 41'5 and 6.. te results are provocative. First, using the four frames we

arc a~le to predict a minimum ot 66% of the variance in perceived managerial effectiveness,

74% ir' eadership effec~.~~n~~~:__gY~~L~~r_~_.int.!~,estinitthe array of independent variables

(..~~~·;i~:;r~~~b~~~~oi·~~~l:a~::': ~~;;::r:~:::::::::i:~;predi tp -ot· ~~~aet1al ertecfiveness, but for all three It is the ..~9.~ __predictor of

_~.,4.....:~ , ----.:.....,!:.:;:.-.~- __ -. .

effect ness as a loader (non-] iillificatlt for two. a siiIlificant negative predfCtOr""1ot the

third)r: or th~,"~~!.~~-:~a.~~. the pattern ls reversed: it is consistently th~..~~!!.:!,~edictor. of e#'l. ivenen.~.,~ manager, ut is the oest predictor of effectiveness a$ a Icaderln-two

.....,,- j . - .•,~"-~-"~~''''-'~ -..~."•.."."-,,,,--.of th~'l,ree templeJ, and se'eo d best in th~thii(r'"

: !

-&C$~analyses also sh w that 'the human. resource and the politicti,! framcs arepositiveiy related to effectivcm ss as both rt1~';;~';;;;;d~icaderin ev~~s;·mpl~~"-·%at Is

: ......-..t~.,,~:-.--•..,or ••.. · .•. - •.•:". ~.'" • "" '"_. --_...... . - .•... ~.... _ ~

more stunning is that, across se tors, the political frame is usuaUy a beuer -pn~~1j~!.2~of both. ~- ...•. - "'''''."..---

, i

~, ' es of Organization (I I.-- '\-" , .-,~--,---.. -'--.

n1 alenal and leadeniUp :ffectiveneS$ than the hUlnan resource frame. "This runs COunter,_--:: .•..•• i;J~~·~';;fr'-""·'~-:-:,,-:-::~~,,·. --,~.5' . "'~ooQ:_~~ • • - ••••• ," •••..•••.•••

t~ t~e widespread feelin, l at politf~ in oraaniDtioni'u'::ifi unpleasant, if unavoidable evn,~~ negative view of pOllti ia eIllbodl~d In one widely-used management-style instrumentt~at~tells manaaen that an effective prdfilc Includel a low score on politics. OUf data show

: I 'tl1c FPpoafte - that peopl who arc more adept in understanding and usinS the political

fr~~e arc perceived by the cOl1eBJU~$, lupenon and subordinates 8.$ better managers andI I' .

le~~ers. Our interna~ion 1 corporate sample (Table 6) suggest that this' is true across

s~ci.~r5 and cultures. , 'i I

~~tr and the Frames '; I,: ii lBecause there ate still too fe~ women in administrative roles. only one of our

s~mr.1C'- the higher educ don administrators - ~ontains enouJh women to ilnaly%e gendera1" variable. About 40% f this sample of abo~t 190 senior and mid-level' admfnf5tratorsW!'.~en\i1le: they came fro public end ,privat,e c'!lIegu and unfverstties all over the \Jnited

S~tr.S.In thia 'ample. ie der shows r~markably -little telationship to any of the variables

~

(sce,Ta.~IC,.7). Sttrcotypt lly, we mi~t expe,et that, WOIn, en would fate themseJvea hilhero ' e human resource me (warm. l5,upponlve, participative) and lower on the polidOlll

: e (powerful, shrewd, ,grclSivc). But the dati Jive tho.e Itereotyp" no luppon."Yo en do not consfsten,tiy rate themselves hfJlu:r or lower on the any of the (rames. In thisI~~ le, there is a aUght'tc dcncy for colJealUcl to rate men sliahtly lower on every frame

I '

e , pt ~truCturc, but the c rrelatfon. ate very amall. Moreover, there were e•• entially no

d ~ rences between meq a d women in how they were rated by eolleagues on effecdvenelS

a :'rthi manaaer and -Ie der, (If a~ytlUn•• men wore rated .liShtly iow~r on bothe tfttveness meuurel, bu none of th~ relationships illtatlattcaUy significant.)

, -

: !This was a sampfe f sU(;(;tI$sful 'men and women, who held positions ranging from

, '

dtpf,ittment chair to coll~B presidtmt., We do not know if the results would generalize \0

ale4s selective population. ' ut they cer$inly raise que$tion$ about many conventional views, I

11

FROM DURHRM PUBLIC SHOOlS (919)560-3789 04.15.1994 16:07 F'. 1 1

I : I ,Imall~1Ilf Orllanlzadon (BolIha and Deal)

of diff~~nces between mm' ~.,_)fomen as administrators.; . ., :I :

Where! ~ Ate: A Summary:I

:~e have shown that c frame. ciLn be meuured Ulin, both qualitative andquanti"" ve ~ethods. The qulli, live Work .Laaesu that mOitadtiliniJtralon in bOth schools

I ~ .

and ~ , er education use 0 'f one or two of the fnnle.. Excepc for presidotlta,

ad mint , ton use the symbotic frame muchlc$I than the other three. Both the quaUtative

~,!-~~_t!~~l!r~.'~I~. lu~e, .. that. the ;8biUty to .•••e mUltIPlc.~.mes Is 1mPorta"nt toeffectir'~css 1Il tentor admlnlst ative positIons. ' -._ : -. -~. "_... . --"'---"""'--" ". .. , ..

; i

:~tctor analysis of our $ rvey hutrurhent shoWi that responses cluster around our::~:~t;~a~;;;~ti~~~.~~:;:~:ne~~:d tr::n:::: :~:r;:::~~:!::n.~:Wfr:~~inllru¥~ flsible to predict. e eetfveness as beth manager and leader. but the pattern isdlffer~rit,for the two variables. leadership ~ffcctivenc" 11 particularly associated with high

=~vt~~:::~::~:~~~£:';::E!::~::~~::::ot:~:!~~~::::::re.ou~ and PO!itical - are bot significant positive predictcrs of success as both leader andmana'IJt. b~th! .P..~~~~!~.~-~~.~_~__~onSis~entlY the more powerful of the two. Acrosssecto.($~·_)rofessicnal programs or admi~istrator1 rarely give much attention to symbolic and

(politi a'l,slcill~ yet our results s ow they arc crucial components for effective leadership.

, f " . ,,., J ...., I . .•.• •

'-'--'" ... " I -i--.-- '''' \. " ...,..-~~'

12

"

....

P~ruin:lon.E. MI, ''The ~aninl C)f '09Qd PresIdential Leadership': a Frame Analysis." 111tI ,

Revkw QI Hlgh,~ awn, 1989.12. 107.123•.

RefereDce.

bdlman, L. O. and D'ea T. E.. ¥od'l'n Approachu to Unt'hm4ndini and MantlgingOrganiiad.ons.' Sa Francisco: Jos.sey .•Bus, 1984~

! :; .'i ' , .

Bo'lrnan, 1...O. and De~lt T. E., Refrl;ming O"anizations: Anistry, Choice' and uadenhip.I

: ~ San Francisco: Jos ey-Bass, expected 'January. 1991.~ ii IP+l T. ~ PombWCh, S. M. and Crawford, A.R., "VIlUans as Victims: Evaluatlns~ ,Princlpall" Phi D Ita Kappan, December 1977.I I, I

~Jffmlln, E~ Frame An lysis. Cambrldae• MAl Harvard University Pre", 1914, 'I

· ,; ;• II :· . II : I

I

•••••iI

IiiII

I

I !I . ,

~ !· .; ~I •

• II iI : !: i

.".Ii

, i

i

l3

FROM DURHRM PUBLIC SHOOlS (919)560-3789 134.15.1994 16:68 P'. 13

I 'I

Imase~ ~f Otaanlzadon (80111I8;1 and Deal)

, ,I ..

One! .1

Table 1:

How MallY Frame. do Leade~ Uat?, J

Colleie IPrellde;taIBlper EduOItioD

(Bcru'lm on. 198 ) AcbnlDlltrato"(N-j2) i (N-75)

41% i 33%

~4o/Q,

55%,

~2% 11%1% 1%

i:

~

Two! I

Thr~ I

kboolAdmlalltntors(N-IS)

40%

SS%

-r01,1; . ;III~. II iIII ;i I'I .

! !! iI I~ i! ii j

IIII. ,1 ~I; II ,i I

I,,, ,, :: .~.

i

i ,,! ,

14

FROM ~URHHM ~U~~l~ ~nUUL~ .,.,. -0--,

: , I, ,+~CSbf Organiaation (B )Jman and Deal), I

I I

I !I

I

Table 2;I ,:

WhichF~m •• do weltn U••?:, i i

~ ~JdlFramed ~ 'Ieee Prellde~ts Blper EdUc:atlOD School

~~cnsimon, 1989)' AdmbllstratDri Admlal.trator.

I I -32) (N-7S) (N-15)[ I

S' ~c~ral 28% 5)% .50%

~ ~mift Resource 63% 559& 40%

r~lide,l 47% i 59% 70%

~y~bOliC 50% 11% 5%Li ;

! ,,

r !:

I! ,i Ii

; ~:.i

: ,I I

e;

! !I II\

II

l I .•..,iI !

I

I,

,! I

:, ,I ,

! it .

II

I j 0" •; , i

:!!

, .

15

10'1. J. \J. J.,.,..... .•.Q. \:IQ, I I ••••• ...J

Leade blp OrieD~tlOD' F.ctor ~.IYHI

(PrinJII~ C(impone~1S ~al~J with Varim~ rOlation of all factOD with eiaenvalue > 1.0.N • 4$1, hilher educatIon tate.) ", ,

Facto~l~~ r«f0~' , ,(Perc~rlt; ofYinance explain~d •• 21%)

; :

Sho ; gh ~$enlitivity and ecn m for others' needaShow h: &h ;.uppon and con~e' for otber.:Is co II enUy h.lptul and r~.~n'ive to ot~ersBuil t throuah open. cQl1 'botativc rcl~tionshipsbitte " ell ~nd ia un\1lually' r eepuve to o~hcrl' InputGives ' nOlla1 tecoanition f~r . ork well doneGene ~ I tdyalty artd enth~i J1l

Factot 1C S.tructural ,(PCtC1rl~ of~ariance expla!n~d - 17%) ,

Stron l' ctt$pha.$ize. taret\ll pI ,nning and c)car timelincs .79Has e ¢~,4inary attdntion ~o~etai1 ' ' .7SDevel find i~plements elea , logical poliCies .7SAppr he. iprdblertu y,hh f~c' and logic .73Uses lea] ;aniJysii and caref I thinking tq solve problems .72Sets s if:i~ measurable g041sand holds people accountable .69Stron ' believes in clear nruc ure and a chain of command .67

I' , '

Thin, ICry clearly and logieall .6S, . i ' ,

Facto ~': PolJrical '(Perc ~~ of' varianc~ explain~d. 17%)

,, .f '\

, ' , i

lmaa~~r Oraanl%ation (BOlin nand Dcal)I I,

Table 3:

.85

.84

.83

.17

.71

.64

.63

Is pol t aU)':\'ery sensitive abd $killful, .78Gcts' P?H frpm People Wit, ,influence aild power .7311a v .~f~ful and s~rewd~ln Botiator ' .74Is un s any Ipetsu~Jve and uential .68Succe e in the face of con llc and oppcslilcn .63Antic pates and deals adroitly 'th organ i..z.ationaI conflict .59

l6

.-

fROM ~URHRM PUBLIC SHOOLS (919)560-3789 04.15~1~34 Ibr~,

Il .i . Ixt~e.IIIOrsaiUution (9 Iman and Dcal)

F~~Lr~:Symbqlic .. .(Pcticent of variance exPJa bed - 13%)

; ! '.

~S~~!celebrations and ,YJ!n~ls to Ihape:vaJuel, build morale .68~. ~yond c:utTont rea~t1 tD create ~ewopponunJties .63~ utUcatc, Juona arid .haJIcnps 4cmo of mtufon . . .63Is &hJ~imea;inadvo anc; cativc .60I~I !irea others to do th~ir $t. .54

! !I !. !

....

• !: I{ !! . [« •~ !

: If : li . :: : :I . i

l !:

, ii . i

17

FROM DURH~M PUBLIC SHOaLS (919)560-3789 04.15.1934 16:09! ' I

I iI ' \

, I

!mailer MC dtplliution (BolUla" and Deal)

, Table 4:

p'. 17

Recrdll ~DAlIa bIt,:' Stbool Admhal.traton, i ,

Ratin.s: bf 24' School AdmitUs ~ators (Iuperintendenu and other central office) by 147collea.,. ••

r ' ,

, I , '

D'JH~'~ variabk: £fftcrlwM.s t as a MaMt"

R"lQu.t~• ~66

~ , I ,

Fra~.l P••.•m~ur "r. tor B,. Probablllty~ ,ulmate ]>arameter •• 0-

Stru t~\jral .30 .. 411 .001Hurll~1resQurce .29 .208 .01

Poll .C,~

.27 ! : .366 .OS ~

Sym~1 ic •02 (J.l85 NS•<

DtPt+'~'vatiabt« .•E/fecnvtntJS as a uadtr

R.sq~t~ ••' ~7S, rI ' iI ' !,

: :iI

Fral ~l i ' t ror Br ProbablJlty~1 P••.•met 're.tlm~~ ••.• meter • 0

Stru~ ral .10 •. 4.52 N.S.Hur ~I h t~.outee .17 J.197 .OSPoli r ._ .36 ~.S91 .001

S,Uj lie : .28 ~.670 .01~,

FROM DURHRM PUBLIC SHOQ~~ ~~l~}~~o-~'~1,.

,.

Table 5:

i .!~~gea of Org~nizaUort( .olman and Deal)i .

~: I; . iI ,: .

. !Recre~. on A.ualfse.~ Riper Ec!Uc:atloD Admlal.trators

. I

(R.t1ngs oC 187 hish~r ~ducatfon adm!nistralOn by 1342 colleagues); ., I

i;>fpendenr variable: Effec. )venur 4f a }..ranDltri

~~.quere •• .67,

! !I

~l11e Pal,

I

ikmeter . TforBr ProbabilitY! ~~tl~ate , Parameter • 0

~f\lctur~U 1., 8.92 .001utrl'n tesource !2C ; 3.34 .001

o1id~ ~3~ 4.94 .001

~~blic -~Ol:, .•0.23 ';N.s. I

eJl(1~r . i01.J 0.33 N.S.

I ' ;co

I !

~~nd~1Il variable: Elf,Cl. .

venes« as Q i..eQd~r

~l~qu.te - .74:, ,

; !! . I ,1 I i

'I'Irn'o ;..~mete•. T for Do: ProbabilityI .,tl~te i P••••me~l'. 0:

ril4.. ~1Cural 2.23 .OS

n ttesdutce ~1~ ; 2.68 .01otit~~al ~3~

II 5.12 .001:

ym~lic ~4J: !.64 . .001•.ender ~o~. I 0.71 N.S.I.. -19

••....

I I; . ~

Ima&e~~ Organization (Bolma and Deal), ' i .

t" •• 1 "t t

I·

:=.-_~,.:'.,> . Ta~le 6:

Reve"lo~lD.IYse.: Co~nte Middle Mlnller.!j ,

(Ratina. ~f 90 corporate man.l~n from As~ Europe, Latin America and the U.S. by 500collea~ •. )

, I

1 • 1 ,

DIP'n4I* "'Qrlabl,: Ejflctiv,ties;' as Q ManDt", '

R••qu~r.l •. 77

I I !I I ,

Fra~. ! Panm~te •• ~ tor Ho: Probabilityi I •• tfmatt 'paramoter • 0

Struc\~*.l .17 1161 N.S .Hum ~I'~Ire.Oufee .30 1;78 .01

,Politi ~:. .40 3~84 .01

Sym~b'(c .12 0;69 N.S.~i !

, I

D~P~n4~t variable: Sfftcrivtnts~ as Q L~ad~r

R.squ~~ \- ~87, !

,I

I I ,

, , I

Param~te. IFram;e : T, tor B,,: ProbllbUity

eltlmat~ Paramtter. 0

Struc l41al ·,28 ·2.31 .05Hum ~~. reSOurce .31 ~.63 .01POlitiP4J .36 ~~38 .05Sym~)j~ .73 ~.17 .001

Il

20

FROM DURH~M PUBLIC SHOOLS (919)5~8-3789 04. 15.1994 16:1~

: ~i '

J~~es of Organization (Bolman and Deal)

! ; ITable 7:

Corrtlat on of Gender Wltb Frames aDd Efl'ectivencu

For stir and CollealU' RaUnK'

(G~~det: 0 - Female. 1 I' Male)

rJ i.: 187 (76 {einaie, 111 Xl~ale)! : i

btlnlS by CQlleacues

S "Utt"Ural -.03.02

ma~Resource -.12.03

.00 -.13$: nbclic I -.1S.04~ nagcnal Et'cectiveness (not ~ked) -.07

; ; !

-.10

21