NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 28, NUMBER 3.2011-2012 FACULTY VALIDATION OF THE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES INVENTORY WITH SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Adam G. Pugh Pontotoc School District Jennifer G. Fillingim Austin Peay State University J.M. Blackbourn Dennis Bunch University of Mississippi Conn Thomas West Texas A&M University ABSTRACT Effective leadership for 21" Century schools depends, to a great extent, on the principal's ability to inspire, enable, and motivate faculty, while concurrently modeling professional behaviors and challenging the status quo. The purpose of this article examines the effectiveness and obtains a measure of concurrent validity for the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Postner, 1997) with respect to Secondary School Principals. The subjects consisted of 11 Secondary School Principals (Middle, Junior High, and High School) and 386 teachers who comprise their respective faculties. A comparison of principal self-ratings on the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and the ratings by faculty members of perceived principal leadership behaviors in each school was conducted. The results of the study yielded composite and factor coefficients which were significant at the.001 level.
Adam Pugh, Jennifer Fillubgun, J, M, Blackboum, Dennis Bunch, & Conn Thomas 5 Research has demonstrated that one of the ongoing, critical elements of effective schools is high quality leadership (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980; AASA, 1983; Goodlad, 1983, 1984; English, 1992; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001; Marzano, 2003; Zimmerman, 2006; Printy & Marks, 2006). Indeed, the role of the school leader is often the determining factor in the success of the school (Cheng, 1994) and this factor will remain prominent through the 21st century into the ftiture. Lashway (1995; 1996; 1997), Blackboum, Papasan, Vinson, & Blackboum (2000), Hamby & Keeney (1991), and Bamberg & Andrews (1991) have all identified sets of observable leadership styles, practices, and behaviors which are related to educational effectiveness. Further, faculty perceptions of leadership behaviors hold the prime position in a principal's effectiveness across the critical dimensions of leadership. Given these features of effective leadership, the ability to obtain valid measures of the leadership practices which exist among school administrators is of prime importance. In addition, the school administrator must be aware of differences between his perception of the leadership behaviors he exemplifies and the perceptions of those who are led. The ability to "see oneself as others see us" will provide school leaders with critical information to improve their effectiveness. Instrument The instrument used in this study was the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). The authors refer to the instrument as a 360-degree leadership assessment system (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) has two forms (LPI-Observer and LPI- Self) each with 30 items that differ only in the manner in which each question is phrased. For the LPI-Self, the questions are formulated in first person and directed toward the leader, with respect to their behaviors and with the LPI- Observer, the questions related to the leader's behavior, but are directed to the employee. The instrument identifies and measures S essential leadership practices including: 1) Challenging the Process; 2) Inspiring a Shared Vision; 3) Enabling Others to Act; 4) Modeling the Way; & 5) Encouraging the Heart. The LPI employs a 10-point Likert Scale across 30 separate items as the means for measuring respondent perceptions across the five dimensions.
6 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL While previous studies have demonstrated high levels of validity and reliability (Posner & Kouzes, 1988), these studies have focused on business management. The validity of the LPI in educational settings has yet to be established and is still under investigation. Subjects and Setting Methodology The subjects in this study consisted of 11 secondary school principals in Northeast Mississippi and 386 faculty members in those schools led by the principals. The school districts in the study were a combination of rural and urban schools and ranged in size from 287 students to 1964 students. There were 121 males and 265 females included in the faculty population and 7 males and 4 females in the principal group. All faculty respondents were certificated personnel and possessed a minimum of an undergraduate degree. Of those who had earned graduate degrees, 173 had a Masters degree, 10 had Specialist degrees, and 3 had a doctoral degree. AU the principals had a minimum of a Masters degree.. Ethnic and racial data revealed that the principal group consisted of 23% African- American respondents and 77% European-American respondents. The faculty group was made up of 7% Afncan-American and 92% European-American. Less than 1% of both samples consisted of members of other ethnic or racial groups. The study included principals who had served at their schools for either multiple years or were in their fírst year of service. All those faculty respondents in liie study were included regardless of their years of service. Procedures The LPI was administered to both faculty and principal respondents in the Spring of 2009. Faculty respondents completed the LPI-Observer online via Survey Monkey. The principals were each provided with a hard copy of the LPI-Self to complete. Principal responses on the LPI-Self items were compared with the responses of their school's participating teachers on the corresponding items on the LPI-Observer.
Adam Pugh, Jennifer Fillubgun, J. M. Blackboum, Dennis Bunch, & Conn Thomas 7 Data Analysis A global or total score was obtained for each principal in the study. Subscale scores were obtained for each of the 5 component areas of the LPI. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated by comparing the principal's scores with those of the teachers in each specific school across the all dimensions. Results The correlation coefficients for the analysis of data are presented in Table 1. The obtained factor correlation coefficients ranged from.83 to.96 with the Total Score or Composite coefficient reaching.88. All correlation coefficients were significant at the.001 level. Table 1 Factor Pearson r Challenging the Process.87* Inspired a Shared Vision.89* Enabling Others to Act.96* Modeling the Way.83* Encouraging the Heart.90* Composite.88* * significant at the.001 level Summary The validity coefficients obtained in the analysis of data indicated a high positive correlation between principal behaviors and faculty perceptions of those behaviors across all dimensions. Each of the 5 Leadership Practices measured by the LPI and the LPI composite score fell within this range. The results support the psychometric soundness of utilizing the Leadership Practices Inventory in educational settings. Essentially, the principal's conception of his leadership behaviors was consistent with what the faculty perceived and confirmed that the instmment can provide support as to whether a principal was "walking the walk" and not just "talking the talk". This is a critical aspect of the success of any organization as Kouzes &
8 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL Posner (2007) state clearly that eifective leadership essentially revolves around actions and relationships. The coefficients for the concurrent validity of the LPI in this study were consistent with those validity coefñcients obtained in earlier studies with business leaders in that all were highly significant. However, the actual obtained values of the coefficients in this study were somewhat higher than those obtained previously. This finding was unusual in that measurement instruments concerned with aspects of the Affective Domain tend to have lower validity coefficients (e.g. in the moderately positive range) when compared to instruments concerned with aspects of the Cognitive Domain. Indeed, the validity coefficients obtained in this study were comparable to validity coefficients associated with standardized individual achievement or intelligence tests. Several possible explanations could be offered to explain this phenomenon. First, the majority of those schools included in the sample were rural. In rural districts, due to lower turnover of personnel, family "roots" in the community, and the tendency for individuals to "know everybody's business" and every one's family history, it was likely that the faculty respondent's knowledge of principal dispositions extended well beyond the bounds of the school and into every aspect of community life. This factor could provide the faculty respondents with intimate knowledge of the depth and breadth of their principal's behaviors and enhance accuracy of response and higher correspondence with their principal's perceptions. Second, even though some of the schools were quite large and contained within urban districts, they were still "community schools". That is, they reflected a specific town, community, or neighborhood within the parameters of the urban district. Many of the teachers who worked at these schools also lived in that community (as did all of the principals surveyed). Basically these schools were "small town" in terms of their organizational culture. As with the rural schools in the sample, additional time and degree of familiarity with the principal may have created a more accurate perception of the personal leadership dispositions. Third, though the sample in the study was extensive, it was drawn from a limited geographic area (Northeast Mississippi). A sample with a
Adam Pugh. Jennifer Fillubgun. J. M. Blackboum. Dennis Bunch. & Conn Thomas 9 wider geographic distribution, either across the nation or simply within the state, might yield a different set of values. A final aspect of this study is of note..the inclusion of both principals and teachers who were in their initial years of working in their individual schools has significant implications as to the sensitivity of the LPI. The high positive correlations that were obtained in this study indicates that the instrument in an extremely valid measure regardless of the degree of familiarity that exists between faculty and their principal. Certainly a minimal level of experience/interaction is necessary for a valid evaluation, but an extensive professional history between a faculty member and their principal does not appear to be a limitation of the instrument. In summary, the LPI appears to be a valid measure of leadership practices. It can be applied to a wide variety of organizational settings. As the actual nature of leadership and the perceptions of those one leads are among the most critical factors in school effectiveness, the LPI could have a significant, positive impact on a district's improvement efforts during this millennium. The LPI can provide professionals in our 21st Century schools with strong feedback concerning critical features of leadership in both current and aspiring principals
NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL REFERENCES American Association of School Administrators (1983). The role of the principal in effective schools: Problems and solutions. Arlington, VA: Author. Bamberg, J., & Andrews, R. (1991). School goals, principals, and achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2, 175-191. Blackboum, J.M., Papasan, B., Vinson, T.P., & Blackboum, R.L. (2000). Leadership for the millennium: Lessons from Deming, Glasser, and Graves. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision-Electronic, 4{\1'E), 57-63. Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1980). The effective principal: Perspectives on school leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cheng, Y.C. (1994). Principal's leadership as a critical factor for school performance: Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Performance, 5(3), 299-317. English F.W. (1992). Educational administration: The human science. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Goodlad, J. (1983). A study of schooling: Some implications for school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(i), 552-558. Hamby, D., & Keeney, J. (1991). Graves technology applied to education. Ann Arbor, MI: Dissertation Abstracts. Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1997). Leadership Practices Inventory (T^ ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4* ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lashway, L. (1997). Leadership strategies. Research Roundup, 73(2), 27-31. Lashway, L. (1996). The strategies of a leader. ERIC Digest, 105. Lashway, L. (1995). Can instructional leaders be facilitative leaders? ERIC Digest. 98. Marzano, M. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Posner, B.Z., & Kouzes, J.M. (1988). Development and validation of the Leadership Styles Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(2), 483-496.
Adam Pugh, Jennifer Fillubgun, J. M. Blackboum. Dennis Bunch, & Conn Thomas 11 Printy, S.M., & Marks, H.M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 125-132. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributive perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what to do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249.
Copyright of National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal is the property of National Forum Journals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.