annotated bibliography: the effects of school management ......the influence of the arkansas...

Running head: SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 1

Annotated Bibliography: The Effects of School Management and Instructional Leadership Tasks

on School Leaders’ Self-Efficacy

Torri Jackson

EDLD 9631: Research Seminar I

Fall 2017

SCHOOL LEADER SELF-EFFICACY 2

Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An

empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of

Educational Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33-47. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/1368593704/fulltext/D

8D6A5F6E45849ECPQ/5?accountid=11225

This article detailed a study on the school management role of school principals and the

comparison to business managers. The author explained how the pressures of government

policies and mandates influence school administrators’ increased focus on student achievement

based upon performance standards. The enhanced focus on improving student achievement and

school performance while balancing school management responsibilities inspired the need for a

different type of leadership. The assumption was that the transformational leadership style of

corporate managers produces positive outcomes; therefore, it was possible this form of

leadership could help administrators achieve desired results in schools.

The research was conducted in New York with 45 elementary, middle and high school

principals. An instrument was administered to the administrators to determine if the principals’

leadership styles were more characteristic of transformational, transactional or passive avoidance

styles of leadership. The researcher found that transformational leadership was the most evident

leadership style of the school administrators. The school principals’ behaviors were similar to

those of business managers displaying characteristics of “idealized attributes and idealized

behaviors, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration” (Onorato, 2013, pp. 41-42).

The author concluded that the expectations of current school administrators can be compared to

the best practices of corporate business managers due to the focus on overall performance and


student achievement. Implications for future research included comparisons between school

administrators’ managerial tasks in public and private schools.

The focus on the managerial responsibilities of school principals within this study

provided evidence on the effects of the tasks on leadership style. This study brought the concept

of leadership styles to the forefront of the current study on school leaders’ self-efficacy and

school management and instructional leadership tasks. The information within the article

influences the need for additional research into the specific leadership styles of school leaders

while performing both school management and instructional leadership tasks. The article

discussed the need for school leaders to acquire more business management skills to better

handle the school management tasks of the role. This information inspired the need for additional

research into the amount of and quality of school management preparation provided to school

leaders prior to becoming school principals.


Airola, D. T., Bengston, E., Davis, D. A., & Peer, D. K. (2014). Principals’ sense of efficacy:

The influence of the Arkansas leadership academy. Journal of Educational

Administration, 52(6), 754-774. doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0089.

This article detailed a mixed methods study focused on leadership efficacy of school

principals of low performing schools upon completion of an administrator professional

development program. The participants of the study consisted of 27 Arkansas school principals

who completed a content-specific program, the Arkansas Leadership Academy’s School Support

Program (SSP). Arkansas administrators are evaluated based upon their students’ achievement

scores, and the researchers of this study considered the influence of this high-stakes

accountability on principals’ ability to lead effectively. With an emphasis on building leadership

capacity, the SSP focused on school leaders’ self-efficacy while completing specific leadership

tasks. The program was designed to include school leadership content within “five performance

areas: creating and living the mission, vision and beliefs, leading and managing change,

developing deep knowledge of teaching and learning, building and maintaining collaborative

relationships, and building and sustaining accountability systems” (Airola, Bengston, Davis, &

Peer, 2014, p. 757). Throughout the program and at its conclusion, school principals received

mentorship from an assigned educational leader called capacity-building leaders (CBs). The

researchers believed that school principals’ leadership self-efficacy was negatively impacted by a

lack of external support and studied the outcomes related to participation in SSP to determine if

the program was effective in increasing the leadership self-efficacy of principals in low-

performing schools in Arkansas.

The researchers measured the levels of leadership self-efficacy of the principals using the

Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES) consisting of three subscales: management efficacy,


instructional leadership efficacy, and moral leadership efficacy. Quantitative data were

disaggregated into cohorts based upon SSP participation years. Upon finding an increase in self-

efficacy of participating principals, a qualitative investigation was conducted to determine the

components of the SSP that influenced the growth. The researchers concluded that program

tenure was indicative of a higher leadership self-efficacy of the school principals, and the

external support provided through the mentorship of the CBs proved to be the most dominant

factor affecting the principals’ efficacy.

This research could be vital to the study of school management tasks and instructional

leadership tasks on school leaders’ self-efficacy. This study emphasized the need for capacity-

building mentorship for school principals by analyzing the influence of support through a

professional development program designed for school leaders. The researchers highlighted the

use of the PSES to measure three levels of school principals’ self-efficacy and possibly provided

another tool to be used for the current research study. While the article focused mainly on the

instructional leadership aspect of administrator duties, it uncovered a need for more research

including the school management component and the potential impact of programs like SSP on

leadership self-efficacy while completing these tasks.


Petridou, A., Nicolaidou, M., & Williams, J. S. (2014). Development and validation of

the school leaders’ self-efficacy scale. Journal of Educational Administration,

52(2), 228-253. doi: 10.1108/JEA-04-2012-0037.

This article intended to create and validate a new leadership self-efficacy scale

specifically designed for school leaders. The authors found very little empirical research and

validation studies on school principal self-efficacy scales, and what research they did find

involved studies of leadership self-efficacy scales that did not fully measure principals’ self-

efficacy while completing job responsibilities. When studying the Teacher and Principals Self-

Efficacy Scale, the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey, and the Principals Sense of Efficacy Scale,

the authors determined that neither scale measured the entire range of school leaders’ everyday

tasks. When studying the more widely used School Administrator Efficacy Scale, the authors

discovered that this instrument was based upon specific local school system standards for school

leaders and was related to the standards of a state certification and professional development

program. To ensure the use of a reliable and valid scale measuring the leadership self-efficacy of

all school leaders based upon daily work tasks, the authors designed the School Leaders’ Self-

Efficacy Scale (SLSES).

To create items for the SLSES, the authors used content from international educational

leadership sources that focused on school leaders’ daily tasks, professional competencies and

standards, leadership skills, professional development, and behaviors. The items were then vetted

by at least three internationally-renowned educational leadership experts prior to completing a

pilot study. Upon completion of the factor analysis and validation process, the 32-question

SLSES instrument was found to be a reliable and valid instrument which measured school


leaders’ self-efficacy based upon its eight-factor model. The factors proven to adequately cover

the effectiveness of school leadership and school leaders’ self-efficacy are “creating an

appropriate structure, leading and managing the learning organization, school self-evaluation for

school improvement, developing a positive climate-managing conflicts, evaluating classroom

practices, adhering to community and policy demands, monitoring learning, and leadership of

continuing professional development” (Petridou, Nicolaidou, & Williams, 2014, pp. 236-238).

This article provided vital evidence to promote the administration of the SLSES for

future research on the leadership self-efficacy of school leaders. The authors detailed the need

for a new and valid instrument due to the deficiencies and lack of validity of previously designed

school leader self-efficacy tools. The entire process of developing the SLSES was described to

ensure the inclusion of actual school leaders’ tasks, daily behaviors, and professional

development needs regardless of grade level or demographics. The development of the SLSES

and studies to prove its validity and reliability solidified the recommendation for its use as the

sole school leadership self-efficacy instrument to be administered to the school leaders in the

upcoming research study of school leaders.


McCullers, J. F. & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of no child left

behind and Florida school grades. National Association of Secondary School Principals

Bulletin, 94(1), 53-74. doi: 10.1177/0192636510371976.

This article provided an exploratory study on how school leaders’ perceptions of their

leadership capabilities could drive future school leadership actions with respect to accountability.

The study described in this article was conducted in Florida during the tenure of the federal

education law, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and the state’s accountability system, Florida A+

Accountability Plan. While NCLB measured achievement levels to determine if schools met

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and set a proficiency level of 100% by the year 2014, Florida’s

accountability system measured gains on state achievement tests to determine schools’ ratings.

Since implementing the two accountability systems simultaneously, it was not uncommon to

have Florida schools with grades of A or B on the state’s accountability plan fail to make AYP

under the federal accountability plan. The researchers sought to determine if the requirements of

both accountability plans affected the leadership self-efficacy of Florida school leaders.

The theoretical framework for this study was grounded in the reciprocal causality aspect

of social cognitive theory. The researchers discussed how seemingly unattainable goals were

proven to increase stress and lower morale in teachers and how the same could occur in school

leaders as they, too, are directly accountability for student achievement and school improvement.

Thus, leadership self-efficacy could be negatively impacted which could cause a “related

decrease in actual performance” (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010, p. 57). The participants in this

study consisted of 300 school principals from three of the largest, public school districts in

Florida. The web-based, 18-item Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSES) was administered to


the school leaders once using the jargon of the federal and state accountability systems to ensure

the inclusion of both plans to be studied and reduce bias. The majority of the principals were

elementary school leaders and none of the principals had less than 10 years of experience as a

school leader.

The researchers found that approximately 21% of the school leaders believed that the

proficiency goal of NCLB was attainable while approximately 84% believed that the Florida A+

Accountability Plan’s goal was attainable. The majority of the principals had a high self-efficacy

rating under the state’s accountability system goals and a low self-efficacy rating under the

demands of NCLB. These results led the researchers to imply that the school leaders’ perceptions

were consistent with the tenets of social cognitive theory. The researchers also implied that

further research into the effects of leadership self-efficacy of school leaders should include

principals from a broader range of experience from beginning to veteran leaders. The use of a

leadership self-efficacy instrument that included more personal and environmental factors related

to the role of the school leader was also suggested.

This study informs future studies on leadership self-efficacy of school leaders by

providing insight into the relationship of accountability to leadership self-efficacy. Although the

NCLB Act is no longer used as a federal accountability plan, the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA) is on the path to completion and will have a direct impact on the behaviors and

leadership of school principals in the coming days. Future research into the effects of school

leaders’ self-efficacy on student achievement due to federal and state accountability standards is

needed. More specifically, additional research on the leadership self-efficacy of school leaders

across grade levels, from all types of school districts, and with varied amounts of leadership

experience is necessary to inform school leadership practices.


Versland, T. M. (2013). Principal efficacy: Implications for rural ‘grow your own’ leadership

programs. The Rural Educator, 35(1), 13-22. Retrieved from

http://libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/1495967443?accountid=11225

The qualitative study detailed in this article is the by-product of a larger mixed-methods

study conducted by the researcher a few years ago. Versland was studying the impact of the

components of school leader preparation programs on leaders’ self-efficacy when data from three

principals signaled a need for further research. The previous study involved the collection and

analyzing of quantitative data on the self-efficacy of 292 principals in Montana. Out of the

sample of 292 participants, 22 principals rated their self-efficacy and leader preparation

programs highly. Out of the 22 principals, 10 were selected for the interview process to collect

qualitative data for the study. Of this last sample of principals, four had completed a “grow your

own” leader preparation program; however, three out of the four disclosed a significant loss of

self-efficacy during their initial experience as an intern and school leader. This data and

unexpected result influenced the study described in this article which intended to determine the

circumstances that possibly impact self-efficacy of rural school leaders from “grow your own”

programs and how rural districts can provide the necessary tools to help rural school leaders be

successful in their schools.

The researcher conducted follow-up interviews with the three leaders of rural schools in

Montana. The two female principals in the study led rural schools (one elementary and one K –

8) of between 150 and 230 students, and the male principal in the study led a rural high school of

605 students. All three participants had over 10 years of teaching experience, and the female


principals had six and nine years of experience as principals while the male principal had over 20

years of experience. The participants were asked 10 questions designed to examine the

experiences that led to a loss of self-efficacy for the principals. The open-ended questions

focused on how “grow your own” programs in the districts impacted their beliefs about their role

and asked participants to describe “working conditions in schools, relationships between and

among school personnel, prior leadership experiences and leader competence” (Versland, 2013,

p. 17). Upon completion of the one hour interview segments, the data were transcribed and

returned to the three participants for their review to ensure accuracy and credibility. The data

were analyzed using open coding and categorized according to recurring themes.

The researcher found that the lack of previous leadership experience, the leader selection

process, and the relationships with others significantly impacted the three school leaders’ loss of

self-efficacy. Each of the school leaders had only taught in one grade level or at one school and

had no previous leadership experience. They had no experience in any other school district, and

Versland (2013) summarized, “…each had a very narrow frame of reference regarding education

and education leadership as a whole” (p. 18). Each of the principals were appointed to their

positions by district administration. They did not apply to the “grow your own” leadership

preparation program and had not completed leadership coursework prior to their selection. Their

promotions to the role of school leader negatively impacted some of their relationships with

teachers. Former teachers and friends viewed the new school leaders as disconnected from

teachers’ concerns, and the new school leaders were the lone administrators at their schools and

had no other school leader colleague to provide mentoring. All of these factors led to the belief

that they were inadequate and self-efficacy declined. Implications from this study included

developing a competitive selection process for “grow your own” leader preparation programs


and providing mentoring for school leaders throughout the program and during the initial years

of the school leadership.

This article provided insight into “grow your own” leader preparation programs and their

impact on school leaders’ self-efficacy. It also detailed role concerns specific to rural school

leaders such as minimal district level positions of support (i.e. academic specialists, federal

programs director, etc.), challenges caused by geographic isolation, and limited financial and

human resources. The outcomes of this study indicate a need for further study into the specific

tasks of rural administrators and the impact on leadership self-efficacy. Because previous

research has shown the impact of school leader self-efficacy on collective efficacy, the

information in this article could also influence more research on the impact of rural school

leaders’ self-efficacy on student achievement and school improvement.


Muse, M. D. & Abrams, L. M. (2011). An investigation of school leadership priorities. Delta

Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(4), 49-58. Retrieved from



The researchers of the study described in this article completed a qualitative study

specifically designed to examine elementary school principals’ perception of job tasks and

leadership practices. Due to the school community’s demand for school principals to provide

optimum student achievement results for their schools annually, the accountability of school

principals for schools’ success has increased. While school leaders are held accountable for

student achievement and school improvement, they are also accountable to all responsibilities of

the principalship. This includes fulfilling “the role of instructional leader while relying on

managerial skills” to complete vital tasks (Muse & Abrams, 2011, p. 49). The researchers of this

study were particularly interested in the instructional leadership and managerial tasks of

elementary school leaders because they typically have less administrative resources such as

assistant principals and academic specialists like their middle and high school principal

colleagues.

The authors’ research examined how the Interstate School Leaders Consortium (ISLLC)

standards impacted the ways elementary school leaders perceived their instructional leadership

and managerial tasks. These standards were used because they “have become a national model of

leadership standards and serve as a common language of leadership expectations” (Muse &

Abram, 2011, p. 50). The six function areas of the standards used to describe effective leadership

include: “setting a shared vision of learning; developing a school culture and instructional


program that supports student learning and staff professional growth; ensuring effective

organizational management, which includes resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning

environment; collaborating with members of the faculty and community, responding to the

diverse interests and needs of the community, and securing community resources; acting in an

ethical manner with integrity and fairness; and understanding, influencing, and responding to the

political, social, legal, and cultural contexts” (Muse & Abram, 2011, p. 50). The participants in

this study were 25 school principals from Virginia school districts of elementary schools ranging

from small schools of 207 students to large schools of more than 1,000 students. There were 20

female principals and five male principals interviewed for the study, and their years of

experience in education ranged from three to 22 years. The researchers conducted the interviews

for approximately 45 minutes each in the principal’s office, and the participants also maintained

a one-day log that detailed each of their activities for the day. In addition to the interview process

and data collection, the researchers utilized a protocol based upon the ISLLC standards

specifically focusing on role responsibilities, leadership, and the demands of the job.

The researchers found that the elementary school leaders desired to be more of an

instructional leader; however, 60% of the principals shared that their frustrations are mounting

due to them spending more time as a school manager than an instructional leader. They also

learned that 48% of the principals interviewed emphasized how much accountability influenced

their decision-making and how they prioritized job tasks. Shared leadership was found to be the

most utilized leadership theory to meet the demands of instructional leadership tasks and

managerial tasks efficiently. Out of the 25 participants, only four believed their leadership

strength was instructional leadership. These findings indicated the need for more study into the

ways the task imbalance of the role affects leadership self-efficacy, thus, impacting student


achievement. Additional implications indicated a need for professional development for school

leaders to assist with balancing instructional leadership tasks and managerial tasks and a need for

more administrative support in the form of assistant principals, academic coaches, and other

school leader assistance.


Oleszewski, A., Shoho, A. & Barnett, B. (2012). The development of assistant principals:

A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264-286.

doi: 10.1108/09578231211223301.

This article provided insight into the role of the assistant principal and the preparation of

assistant principals to become school principals by detailing a comprehensive review of assistant

principals. The authors characterized the role of the assistant principal as a very unique role that

often is defined on the job based upon the duties and responsibilities assigned by the principal.

While formal training has been provided for the school leadership role, it is often the informal

training that is lacking upon a new school leader’s start as an assistant principal. Oleszewski,

Shoho, and Barnett (2012) proposed that most assistant principals began the role with the

expectation that they would be more of an instructional leader on the path to becoming a

principal in the future. Once actually working within the role of assistant principal, some were

assigned mostly school management tasks such as student discipline and attendance. Because of

the discrepancies between what was learned in leader preparation programs and responsibilities

given on the job, many current assistant principals believed they were unprepared for the role.

This led the authors to further examine three reoccurring themes from the literature on assistant

principals: leader preparation, roles and responsibilities, and career typologies.

The need for specialized formal training, on-the-job training, and professional

development for assistant principals was evident throughout the literature on the role. It was

found that most leader preparation programs designed content around instructional leadership,

and most assistant principals rarely used this skillset on the job. Assistant principals shared how

principals and other assistant principal colleagues provided on-the-job training; however, most


did not prepare the new leaders for the socialization aspect of the role, specifically, transitioning

from the mindset of teacher to administrator. Also, the literature uncovered a deficiency in

professional development programs designed for assistant principals. Roles and responsibilities

of assistant principals varied; however, most were assigned tasks such as conferencing with

students and parents on discipline and attendance issues and developing the master schedule.

Because of being responsible for a limited number of tasks that actually consumed the largest

portion of their time, assistant principals often felt unprepared to act as a substitute principal in

the absence of their school principal. Therefore, the researchers found that many assistant

principals believed that the actual duties of the role did not prepare them to become principals.

Thus, assistant principals were classified into two categories: the career assistant principals who

either never desired to become principals or were never promoted to the principalship and the

assistant principals who eventually segued into the role of the principal.

The information provided in this article led to the inclusion of the role of the assistant

principal in the self-efficacy study on school leaders. Because assistant principals are responsible

for some of the same tasks as school principals, their self-efficacy must be impacted by the

volume of instructional leadership and school management tasks associated with their role. The

authors shared that the top job responsibility for assistant principals across the United States is

discipline while the most sought-after job responsibility is instructional leadership. This

discrepancy between job tasks and desires is very similar to the task imbalance experienced by

school principals; therefore, more study into the impact of school leaders’ school management

and instructional leadership tasks is needed.


Walker, J. (2009). Reorganizing leaders’ time: Does it create better schools for students?

National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 93(4), 213-226.

doi: 10.1177/0192636510361639.

The mixed-methods research study detailed in this article compares the effects of the

implementation of the School Administration Manager (SAM) project in Kentucky schools and

Iowa schools and the effects on school leaders’ time to complete instructional leadership tasks.

The SAM project began in Kentucky schools as a “change strategy” funded by a grant to

reconfigure the organization of the responsibilities of the school principal by providing

administrative assistance to help with the managerial tasks. The rationale behind the project was

to give the principal the opportunity to be more of an instructional leader while delegating the

school management tasks to a SAM, thus, resulting in “stronger organizations with improved

classroom instruction, greater student engagement, and improved student achievement” (Walker,

2009, p. 215). Because of the results of the Kentucky SAM project, Iowa implemented the

program and incorporated 30 principal-SAM teams in schools at the elementary and secondary

levels. The purpose of this research study is to determine if the SAM project actually increased

school principals’ instructional time with students and teachers and if the perceptions of the

students and teachers concerning their principals’ role changed.

Data were collected via time tracking logs kept by the school principals and SAMs and

via observations conducted by shadowing the teams for five days. The participants were 19

principal-SAM teams in Iowa. Teachers, parents, and students of the participating schools were

also administered surveys and shared their perceptions about the administrators’ time and roles

via interviews. The data analysis showed that school principals increased their instructional time


by 15% with some principals increasing their instructional time by as much as 40%. Only two of

the principals still spent more time on school management tasks than the previous year. The

instructional leadership tasks completed the most due to the reorganization of school principals’

instructional time were observations (formal and informal) and working with students

individually or in small groups. About 58% of the school principals increased their time in the

classrooms observing and over 50% increased their time working with students on content

directly associated with teaching and learning. Prior to the implementation of the SAM project,

the 19 participating principals spent 68% of their time complete school management tasks. After

the implementation of the SAM project, the principals spent 53% of their time completing

managerial tasks. While the teachers perceived the school principal as more of an instructional

leader throughout the SAM project, a small number of students and parents (22% and 19%,

respectively) saw the school principal as an instructional leader. The researcher saw this as more

of a cultural issue than a valid indication of a discrepancy with the principals’ use of instructional

time.

Implications provided by the author centered around the expansion of the role of the

school principal and the emergence of a new school leader with the inclusion of the SAM. This

research provided additional proof that the school principal cannot do the instructional leadership

tasks and school management tasks alone and administrative assistance is vital to the success of

the school and student achievement. Delegating the school management tasks alone is not the

advised end result of the SAM project because the additional administrative support mirrors the

role of the assistant principal. The author encouraged true distributive leadership to ensure that

the SAM, or assistant principal, received adequate experience in both school management tasks

and instructional leadership.


The article provided insight into the impact of administrative assistance on school

principals’ use of time on instructional leadership tasks. While the delegation of school

management tasks did allow school principals to spend more time on instructional leadership

responsibilities, some school management tasks could not completely disappear. Also, the

emergence of an assistant principal as a SAM showcased how the role of the assistant principal

was originally designed for school management task completion. The task imbalance involved

assistant principals spending most of their time on school management tasks and almost no time

on instructional leadership tasks. Therefore, assistant principals within the SAM project were not

being utilized as instructional leaders; thus, indicating a lack of preparation for a future role as

school principal. This indicated the need for further research into the role of assistant principals

and their leadership self-efficacy based upon their assigned duties.


Fisher, Y. (2014). The timeline of self-efficacy: Changes during the professional life cycle of

school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(1), 58-83. doi: 10.1108/

JEA-09-2012-0103.

Because there was limited research on school leaders’ self-efficacy and their years of

work experience, this quantitative study’s purpose was to examine the relationship between the

two variables while also providing further study into the reliability of the ten-year-old Principal

Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES). The author proposed to study Israeli principals and their self-

efficacy utilizing the PSES due to a lack of research on the influence of self-efficacy on the work

of school leaders in Israel. The author recognized that the demands on school leaders had

increased over the years, and principals are now more responsible for the teaching and learning

in their schools while completing school management tasks. The concern was that leadership

self-efficacy could possibly change over the course of time due to the constant expansion of the

role of the school leader. This study was designed to study the effects of the years of work

experience on leaders’ self-efficacy of school leaders in Israel.

The participants in this study were 123 public school principals ranging in age from 29 to

over 55 years. Thirty percent of the principals had between two and five years of experience

while 18.7% of the sample were first year principals. Eighty-three of the principals were females,

and 40 were males. All grade levels were represented as 78.2% led elementary schools and

21.8% led secondary (middle and high combined) schools. The principals were administered the

electronic questionnaire on the professional self-efficacy of school principals, the PSES. The

instrument was separated into sections containing items pertaining to school management tasks,

working with stakeholders, managing the school organization, teaching and learning and


professional knowledge, and additional personal leadership capabilities. The last section of the

instrument was designed to collect data from the principals’ backgrounds such as age, education,

gender, years of experience, and grade level of school.

The researcher found that the reliability analysis of the PSES was high; therefore, the

instrument still measured what it was designed to measure. The results showed that work

experience had a definite impact on leadership self-efficacy. First year principals reported higher

levels of self-efficacy than principals with two or more years of experience. This was a

contradiction to the tenets of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory which suggested that self-efficacy

enhances as leadership skills and experiences are acquired. If that were the case in this study,

there should have been a more linear relationship between the variables with lower levels of self-

efficacy during the initial years of school principals and increased levels as the years of

experience mounted. However, in this study the self-efficacy levels actually decreased over time.

Implications for this study included continuing the use of the PSES to measure the self-efficacy

of school principals and providing mentors for the new school leaders as well as the veteran

school leaders to improve leadership self-efficacy throughout the career of school principals.

This study introduced an additional factor within the research of school management

tasks, instructional leadership tasks, and self-efficacy—the impact of tenure. Prior to this study

not much research was done to study the effects of school leaders’ years of experience on

leadership self-efficacy. However, the outcome of this study provides an argument for more

research on these variables to determine possible causes for the decline in leadership self-

efficacy over time. The study also provided some evidence to ensure the reliability of the PSES

should researchers decide to utilize it to study school principals’ leadership self-efficacy;

however, there needs to be further research into the reliability and validity of the PSES when


measuring the leadership self-efficacy of all school leaders (i.e. assistant principals), not just

principals.


Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to

lead learning. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,

97(1), 5-21. doi: 10.1177/0192636512469288.

The authors of this article researched the reasons for the expansion of the role of the

school principal and the barriers to being effective instructional leaders. Like many other

researchers studying school leaders and their managerial and instructional leadership tasks,

increasing accountability for school success and student achievement has proven to be the reason

for the emphasis on the instructional leadership of school principals. The authors shared that

instructional leadership was not used to propose sanctions on schools and school leaders in

previous eras; however, with the stringent expectations of state and federal education mandates,

school principals are being evaluated more on their instructional leadership capabilities than their

ability to effectively manage the school. Many legislators and other school stakeholders failed to

consider the mounting tasks of the school principal that are not related to instructional leadership

that become barriers to leading the teaching and learning in schools. The authors of this article

sought to expose the barriers and provide insight into the desired and actual tasks of school

principals.

Hallinger and Murphy (2012) researched three barriers to school leaders providing

instructional leadership: “expertise to lead learning, time to lead, and the normative environment

of the principalship” (pp. 8 – 11). While it is clear that instructional leadership is a main focus

within leader preparation programs, the acquired instructional leadership skillset does not

encompass all aspects of curriculum and instruction. School principals need additional support

surrounding them with content knowledge that reaches all domains within the school. The


authors implied that shared leadership is vital to the school principal’s ability to lead the teaching

and learning. This article also pinpointed the desire of principals to exercise instructional

leadership daily; however, they are often interrupted with the day-to-day, impromptu

management tasks associated with their roles. One example provided was the school principal

who planned to observe teaching for most of the day but had to conference with parents and

solve problems related to school management throughout the day instead. The authors

emphasized the direct contradiction between what school principals desired to do and what time

and managerial tasks allowed them to do. The normative environment of the role exposed some

resistance from both district officials and teachers when school principals attempt to practice

instructional leadership skills more. The role of the school principal has traditionally been seen

as that of a school manager; therefore, some teachers still see it as intrusive and outside of the

principals’ role when they enact their instructional leadership skillset. The researchers found that

district administrators were sometimes more concerned with the proficient management of the

school for aesthetic purposes than the instructional leadership.

The information found in the article provided additional insight into the rationale behind

mounting pressures on school leaders to practice more instructional leadership and the challenges

they must overcome to be the instructional leaders they desire to be. This was a clear indication

that more research into the effects of the barriers to leading teaching and learning on leadership

self-efficacy is needed. Scholarly study in this area could empower school leaders to advocate

for a reduction of school management tasks, additional professional learning to help balance

instructional leadership and school management tasks, and advocate for assistant principals or

other administrative support to lessen or remove the barriers to practicing instructional

leadership.


References

Airola, D. T., Bengston, E., Davis, D. A., & Peer, D. K. (2014). Principals’ sense of efficacy:

The influence of the Arkansas leadership academy. Journal of Educational

Administration, 52(6), 754-774. doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0089.

Fisher, Y. (2014). The timeline of self-efficacy: Changes during the professional life cycle of

school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(1), 58-83. doi: 10.1108/

JEA-09-2012-0103.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2012). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to

lead learning. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,

97(1), 5-21. doi: 10.1177/0192636512469288.

McCullers, J. F. & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of no child left

behind and Florida school grades. National Association of Secondary School Principals

Bulletin, 94(1), 53-74. doi: 10.1177/0192636510371976.

Muse, M. D. & Abrams, L. M. (2011). An investigation of school leadership priorities. Delta

Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(4), 49-58. Retrieved from



Oleszewski, A., Shoho, A. & Barnett, B. (2012). The development of assistant principals:

A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264-286.

doi: 10.1108/09578231211223301.

Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An

empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of

Educational Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33-47. Retrieved from


http://search.proquest.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/docview/1368593704/fulltext/D

8D6A5F6E45849ECPQ/5?accountid=11225

Petridou, A., Nicolaidou, M., & Williams, J. S. (2014). Development and validation of

the school leaders’ self-efficacy scale. Journal of Educational Administration,

52(2), 228-253. doi: 10.1108/JEA-04-2012-0037.

Versland, T. M. (2013). Principal efficacy: Implications for rural ‘grow your own’ leadership

programs. The Rural Educator, 35(1), 13-22. Retrieved from



Walker, J. (2009). Reorganizing leaders’ time: Does it create better schools for students?

National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 93(4), 213-226.

doi: 10.1177/0192636510361639.

annotated bibliography: the effects of school management ......the influence of the arkansas...

Documents