THE IMPACT OF NEW SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

ON SCHOOL CLIMATE

A Doctoral Research Project

Presented to
Assistant Professor of Education Daniel Alemu
Doctoral Research Committee Chair
School of Education
The Sage Colleges

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Education
in Educational Leadership

Mark R. Stratton
August, 2010

 2010 Mark R. Stratton

ii

ABSTRACT
The principalship is complex and often times, underappreciated. The combination of a
boundless

workload,

strict

accountability

demands,

and

revolutionizing

job

responsibilities are at the root of the issue. While these problems are difficult for a
seasoned administrator, they may seem insurmountable for a new principal. Secondary
level principals are under even more pressure as they must attend to graduation and
dropout rates, a larger student body and a more diverse curriculum.

Thus, many

principals experience considerable difficulty during their first year because they are
overwhelmed by a plethora of responsibilities. Consequently, they are often insensitive
to, and/or unaware of, the climate that surrounds them. Such ignorance could prove
detrimental to teacher morale, student achievement, and even the principals career. This
research will heighten the awareness of principals consideration to school climate and
provide practical strategies and suggestions for secondary school principals to apply as
they adjust to, or manipulate, the existing climate of a school. This study examined the
relationship between new secondary school principals and school climate.

The

Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, form XII (LBDQ), the Organizational

Health Inventory for Secondary Schools (OHI-S) and a demographic survey were
administered to the faculties and principals of ten public secondary schools in upstate
New York. The data analysis consisted of: Frequency distributions, descriptive statistics,
Pearson Correlation Coefficients, t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Based on
the results of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: the leadership styles of
new secondary school principals have a positive correlation with school climate, new
secondary school principals share common leadership styles, various leadership styles of

iii

new secondary principals contribute to a positive school climate and new secondary
school principals tend to influence school climate rather than be influenced by it.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although I have always prided myself on my work ethic and self-discipline, these
professional qualities alone would not have allowed me to produce this study. Writing a
doctoral dissertation takes much more than an individuals finest qualities. It takes the
guidance, support, encouragement, friendship, and love of others. The Sage program
delivered on their promise of an intense, but collaborative approach to achieving a
doctorate in education.
I would like to extend my appreciation to my superintendent, Mr. Thomas
McGowan and the Glens Falls City School District Board of Education for making this
opportunity possible. Their flexibility and support throughout this process is testimony
of their commitment to professional growth. I am eager and committed to use my
education to help the Glens Falls City School District achieve continued success.
I am grateful to Dr. Jim Butterworth and Dr. Ann Myers for selecting me as a
member of cohort II of the Sage Educational Leadership doctoral program. It was their
vote of confidence that afforded me this opportunity over many other qualified
candidates. It was also their vision to craft a unique doctoral program that will assist
many more aspiring school leaders.
I will miss each and every member of cohort two. The combination of elementary
and secondary school principals, public and private school administrators,
superintendents, instructional leaders, and technology directors has provided me with an
eclectic education over the past two years and a strong professional network. More
importantly, I have gained 13 friends. Over the course of two years we shared several

laughs and a few hardships. These personal experiences are the foundation of the cohort
philosophy.
I will miss the monthly meetings at Friendlys with my coach, Dr. Peter
McManus. Dr. McManus would not allow me to lose sight of what, or who, was most
important to me. He was not only instrumental in helping me overcome the difficulties of
the program, but my professional and personal ones as well. Thanks to Dr. McManus, I
was able to effectively balance my professional, personal and educational endeavors.
I am most grateful to Dr. Ray OConnell for his devoted assistance with my data
analysis. He is one of the rare individuals who not only has a profound understanding of
statistics, but can teach it too. Dr. OConnell sacrificed more of his time and attention to
my success in this program than any other individual. I could not have completed this
study without his assistance and encouragement. I will miss our frequent meetings at
Uncommon Grounds and our battles for the window seat.
Although they never lecture and seldom offer advice unless asked, my brother and
sister have had a tremendous influence on my personal and professional growth. I admire
their personal integrity and devotion to family. They are wonderful siblings, parents, and
people who I will continue to model and admire for the rest of my life.
Words cannot express how grateful I am to my parents. They provided me with a
wonderful childhood in which my character was established. My fathers work ethic,
integrity and dignity and my mothers dependability, nurturing and morals are the
foundation of my existence. It was also their sacrifices that allowed me to experience
higher education. I know that obtaining my doctorate has made them proud, but it is I

vi

who am proud to be their child. I hope and pray that they will overcome a recent
personal crisis and live long and healthy lives. I love you both.
Finally, I dedicate this study to my wife, Lauren. This study would not have been
possible without her unconditional encouragement and support. She never doubted that I
could achieve a doctorate in education even when I did. She also tolerated my at-times
irritable temperament due to the added stress of the program and assumed the majority of
the household responsibilities over the past two years. Although my attention to her
during the course of this program was insufficient, I pledge to be the devoted husband
that she deserves. I love you more than life itself and I anxiously await the birth of our
first child, Quinn Juliet Stratton.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......vi
LIST OF TABLES ..xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...1
Purpose Statement ...........5
Research Questions .6
Definition of Terms .6
Significance of the Study ....7
Organization of the Study ...8
Limitations ..8
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
Climate versus Culture ..12
School Climate ..13
Elementary and Middle School Principals and School Climate ...15
All Principals and School Climate 17
New Principals and School Climate .19
High School Principals and School Climate .24
New High School Principals and School Climate 26
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.28
Purpose Statement .28
Research Questions ...28

viii

Population and Sample .29

Instrumentation .30
Demographic Questionnaires.31
Leadership Behavioral Descriptive Questionnaire (LBDQ) .31
Organizational Health Inventory for Secondary Schools (OHI-S)....34
Pilot ...37
Data Collection Procedures ...38
Data Analysis Techniques .38
Ethical Consideration 40
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ...41
Demographics of Sample...41
Relationships between the Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Leadership
Styles and School Climate.48
Teachers Perceptions of Common Leadership Styles among New
Secondary School Principals .....62
The Influence of Teacher Demographics on their Perceptions of the Leadership
Styles of New Principals........64
The Influence of Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Impact on
School Climate and Leadership Styles..69
The Influence of Teacher Demographics on School Climate Dimensions...73
The Influence of Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Impact on
School Climate Dimensions..73
Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Leadership Styles that Contribute to

ix

either a Positive or Negative School Climate77

Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Tendency to Change or Conform
to the Existing School Climate......83
Conclusion 85
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION..... 88
Summary of Findings 90
Results of the Demographic Questions..90
Research Question 1..90
Research Question 2..91
Research Question 3..92
Research Question 4..92
Data that was not Statistically Significant.94
Other Findings...94
Conclusions...95
Recommendations..98
Recommendations for Practice..98
Recommendations for Future Research...101
REFERENCES ...103
APPENDIX A: Letter to Superintendents Requesting Permission to Participate...111
APPENDIX B: Letter to Principals and Teachers with Survey Administration
Instructions...113
APPENDIX C: Teacher Demographic Questionnaire.114
APPENDIX D: Principal Demographic Questionnaire...116

APPENDIX E: The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire: Form XII...118

APPENDIX F: The Organizational Health Inventory for Secondary Schools ...124
APPENDIX G: ANOVA for How Long Teachers Expected their Principal to Change the
Climate of their School and the LBDQ125
APPENDIX H: ANOVA for Principals Effect on School Climate and LBDQ
Subscales..126
APPENDIX I: Donation to the American Red Cross..127

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Salkinds General Interpretations of Correlation Coefficients..40

Table 2: Frequency Distribution for Teachers Age Range.....43
Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Teachers Gender...........43
Table 4: Frequency Distribution for Teachers Ethnicity....44
Table 5: Frequency Distribution for Teachers Highest Level of Education Completed45
Table 6: Frequency Distribution for Teachers Years at Current School46
Table 7: Frequency Distribution for Teachers Experience46
Table 8: Frequency Distribution for Number of Principals for which Teachers Worked..47
Table 9: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Representation and OHI ..49
Table 10: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Demand Reconciliation and OHI ..50
Table 11: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Tolerance of Uncertainty and OHI 51
Table 12: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Persuasion and OHI ...52
Table 13: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Initiation of Structure and OHI .53
Table 14: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Tolerance of Freedom and OHI .54
Table 15: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Role Assumption and OHI 55
Table 16: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Consideration and OHI .56
Table 17: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Production Emphasis and OHI ..57
Table 18: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Predictive Accuracy and OHI 58
Table 19: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Integration and OHI ...59
Table 20: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Superior Orientation and OHI .......60
Table 21: Correlational Strength of each LBDQ Subscale with the OHI ...61
Table 22: Mean Values of LBDQ Subscales...63

xii

Table 23: ANOVA for Years at Current School and LBDQ...65

Table 24: Scheffe Post Hoc for Years at Current School and LBDQ..67
Table 25: ANOVA for Years Teaching Experience and LBDQ..68
Table 26: Scheffe Post Hoc for Years Teaching Experience and LBDQ....69
Table 27: Scheffe Post Hoc for Time to take Principal to Change the School Climate
and LBDQ...........71
Table 28: t-test for Expectation of Principal to Change or Conform to the School
Climate and LBDQ.72
Table 29: ANOVA for Time the Teachers expected it to take their Principal to Change the
School Climate and the OHI...74
Table 30: Scheffe Post Hoc for Time the Teachers expected it to take their Principal to
Change the School Climate and OHI..75
Table 31: t-test for Expectation of Principal to Change or Conform to the School

Climate and OHI............76

Table 32: Frequency Distribution for Principals Effect on School Climate......78
Table 33: Scheffe Post Hoc Test for Principals Effect on School Climate and

Most Statistically Significant LBDQ Subscales .....80

Table 34: ANOVA for Principals Effect on School Climate and OHI...............81
Table 35: Scheffe Post Hoc for Principals Effect on School Climate and OHI82
Table 36: Frequency Distribution for Expectations of Principal to Change or

Conform to School Climate..84

Table 37: Frequency Distribution for Time to take Principal to Change School Climate.....85

Table 38: Summary of Data Analysis....86

xiii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
There is no shortage of literature related to leadership. Reeves (2002) maintains
that in excess of twenty-six thousand books have been written on this topic. The majority
of these authors have acknowledged the complexity of leadership: the route to the top is
more arduous and trickier than it has ever been, and the top itself is more slippery and
more treacherous than Everest ever was (Bennis, 2003, p. 18). The public perception of
leaders is also disingenuous: our attitudes toward leaders are cynical. We tend to lavish
disproportionate attention and praise on them for a time, to treat them like royalty, only to
turn on them at some point and treat them like devils (Bennis, 2003, p. xvi). The recent
demise of some of Americas major corporations such as AIG, Enron, Fannie Mae, and
others has not helped this negative perception. Thus, a leader should not be oversensitive
to the disapproval of her constituents: The successful educational leader must accept
some unpopularity as she challenges time-honored tradition, insists on data to support
prejudices, and make difficult decisions (Reeves, 2002, p. 8).
These challenges and high expectations place considerable pressure on leaders.
Bennis (2003) goes as far as stating that our quality of life depends on our quality of
leaders.

It is imperative that individuals are cognizant of these stressors before

accepting a leadership position. Future leaders must understand and accept that being at
the top involves adversity and self-determination: The first step in becoming a leader,
then, is to recognize the context for what it is-a breaker, not a maker; a trap, not a
launching pad; an end, not a beginning-and declare your independence (Bennis, 2003, p.
19).

Thus, a negative stigma has been bestowed upon leaders. Heifetz (1994) further

emphasized this notion by stating that the ancient linguistic root of the word to lead
means to go forth, die (p. 15).
A similar portrayal of leadership is also reflected in education. Sorenson (2005)
states that anyone who accepts a campus administrative position is stepping into one of
the most critical and demanding roles in education today (p. 61). Hall (2009) maintains
that principals are often overwhelmed by the challenges that confront them. School
leaders are faced with a dynamic job description that is constantly changing. The role of
a 21st century principal has become increasingly complex as the position now requires a
thorough understanding of technology, special education, state and federal mandates, and
instructional methodologies (Whitaker, 2003).

One would expect that such a

multifaceted position would incur considerable power and authority. However, Fullan
(2000) argues that this is not the case and states that the job of the principal or any
educational leader has become increasingly complex and constrained. Principals find
themselves locked in with less and less room to maneuver (p. 156).
All principals, despite their experience or level, are faced with a myriad of
responsibilities.

Hertting (2008) maintains that diversity, reform, initiatives,

accountability demands, scarce resources, and other changes have put more demands on
the principal than ever (p. 36). A schools success or failure is often attributed to the
principal. While the principal may receive notoriety for leading a high achieving school,
they are also held accountable for a failing one (Spillane, 2009). Moreover, the job
description of a principal continues to expand: The principals role has thus grown to
include that of entrepreneur, community organizer, and negotiator in addition to that of
instructional and moral leader (White-Smith & White, 2009, p. 262).

While the aforementioned demands are challenging for the most seasoned
administrator, the pressure for first year principals is even greater: New principals today
face nearly overwhelming responsibilities that would challenge the most competent
leaders in any field (Sorenson, 2005, p. 61). Sorenson contends that novice principals
are expected to be legal and instructional experts, visionaries, and inspirational leaders
while maintaining the daily operations of the building.

Hall (2009) declares that

inexperienced principals are at a major disadvantage because there is no way of preparing

for the countless issues that they will encounter. Some scholars have described the first
years of the principalship as survival (Parkay, Currie & Rhodes, 1992, p. 43). Harvey
(1991) points out that this transition can be problematic for the school as well as the
principal.

Due to the aforementioned demands and the negative perception of the

principalship, it is no surprise that there is a shortage of qualified candidates (Sorenson,

2005). Also significant, training and professional development programs to assist new
principals are scarce (Harvey, 1991).
The demands at the secondary level add yet another dimension to the
principalship. Secondary school principals typically have to manage more students, a
larger budget, and a more diverse curriculum.

They also have more evening

responsibilities than their counterparts. The combination of board of education and

Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings, plays and concerts, student recognition
events, dances, college and financial aid nights, and a variety of athletic events occupy a
considerable amount of time. Another distinction between primary and secondary level
leadership is accountability for student academic performance.

The success of a

secondary principal is often attributed to high graduation and low dropout rates, the

percentage of students attending college, and high achieving scores on state and federal
assessment exams. Thus, the demands of a secondary principal exceed those of an
elementary one.
Though few would argue that a new secondary principal is often overwhelmed
with a variety of tasks, their attention to school climate could possibly be the most
important. Parkay et al. (1992) maintain that the principals capacity, decisions, and
actions in dealing with both human and material resources will result in determining
whether the climate in the school is positive or negative, good or bad. Langston et al.
(1998) agree that while the details to be addressed by the new principal are
overwhelming enough, developing an understanding of how to deal with them requires
the ability to interpret each in the context of one underlying reality school culture (p.
2).

Thus, the challenge of new principals is meeting a plethora of demands while

maintaining a positive school climate. Hall (2009) maintains that the most important
undertaking of a new principal is working collaboratively with their staff.
New principals often begin their position with little or no information about the
existing climate in the school. Harvey (1991) insists that novice principals enter the
building as aliens, unaware of their surroundings. Subsequently, this puts them in a
precarious situation - conform to the existing climate of the school or forge ahead with
their own initiatives. Being unaware and/or insensitive to the social dynamics within the
school could be detrimental to a new principal. Thus, the rationale for this study is to
seek a better understanding of the influence that new secondary school principals have on
school climate. Harvey states that a grounded theory of the way in which the new
principal enters a fully operational school and attempts to exercise influence during the

first year of appointment remains to be developed (1991, p. 7). It is the intent of the
student researcher to provide practical information to new secondary school principals
that will help them assimilate to the existing climate in their building, while moving
forward with their own initiatives.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship between
new secondary school principals leadership practices and school climate. The study
examined whether new secondary school principals share similar leadership styles and if
particular leadership styles promote a positive or negative school climate. Finally, the
study investigated whether the new secondary school principals tend to influence the
school climate or whether the existing school climate causes the principals to adapt.
The term new denotes that the principals surveyed for this study were serving in
their first year as principal at the current building. Although several of them were serving
in their first year of a principalship, some had experience at a different school. The
research was conducted in schools with new secondary or high school principals serving
grades six or seven through twelve or grades nine through twelve. With the exception of
the literature review, this study used the terminology, secondary school principal to
refer to all the principal participants. The review of literature was compartmentalized by
high, middle and elementary schools because of the findings. The following research
questions guided this study and were composed with the intent of validating them
through research.

Research Questions
1. Is there a relationship between leadership styles and school climate as perceived
by the teachers and the new secondary school principal?
2. Do certain leadership styles of new secondary school principals produce a
positive or negative school climate?
3. Are there any commonalities in leadership styles among new secondary school
principals?
4. Are new secondary school principals more inclined to influence school climate or
are they more influenced by the school climate?

Definitions of Terms
The following terms are used throughout this study and should be interpreted as
follows:
BOCES: Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) in New York State.
School districts statewide depend on BOCES to meet their educational and
financial goals. The BOCES model provides accountability, municipal sharing,
efficiency and equity (boces.org)
High School: A public high school in New York State, excluding New York City with a
grade configuration of 9-12
Leader: the architect of sustained improvement of individual and organizational
performance (Reeves, 2002, p. 4).
Leadership a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2010, p. 3).

Leadership Style The characteristics and/or behaviors of a leader based on the subscales
of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII
New Principal: Designates that the principals surveyed for this study were serving in
their first year as principal at the current building.

Although many of the

principals who participated in the study were serving in their first year as a
principal, others had prior experience as a principal in a different building.
School Climate: refers to the quality and character of school life. It is based on patterns
of school life experiences and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal
relationships, teaching, learning and leadership practices, and organizational
structures (Mazzei, 2009, p. 2).
School Culture: The underground stream of norms, values, beliefs, traditions, and rituals
that has built up over time as people work together, solve problems, and confront
challenges (Peterson and Deal, 1998, p. 28).
Secondary School: A public high school in New York State, excluding New York City
with a grade configuration of 6-12 or 7-12.

Significance of the Study

This study focused on the relationship between new secondary school principals
and school climate, specifically the influence that these principals have on the existing
social system in their school. The research is intended to help new principals better adapt
to the climate of a building. Many principals experience considerable difficulty during
their first year because they are overwhelmed with a plethora of responsibilities required
of the position. Consequently, they are often insensitive to, and/or unaware of, the

climate that surrounds them. Such ignorance could prove detrimental to teacher morale,
student achievement, and even a principals career. This research will heighten the
awareness of principals consideration of school climate and provide practical strategies
and suggestions for principals to apply as they adjust to, or manipulate, the existing
climate of a school.

Organization of the Study

The study consists of five chapters: an introduction, review of literature,
methodology, data collection and analysis, and a conclusion. Chapter one includes an
introduction, the research questions, definitions of terms, limitations of the study, and the
purpose of the study. Chapter two contains a review of literature with a variety of literary
sources that directly relate to the study. The third chapter discloses the studys design,
population, sampling procedures and instrumentation.

Chapter four presents data

analysis, and the fifth chapter includes a summary of the findings, conclusions and
recommendations for future research and practice.

Limitations of the Study

The surveys were administered via Survey Monkey for convenience purposes.
This enabled the student researcher to collect the responses electronically and convert
them to Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). It also eliminated
the need for the student researcher to travel to the participating schools for the survey
administration. However, it is probable that the response rate would have improved if the
questionnaires were administered at a faculty meeting as suggested by the author of the

Organizational Health Inventory, Dr. Wayne K. Hoye. Allocating a predetermined block

of time for the survey administration and having the student researcher present to
personalize the experience, would have likely increased the rate of participation.
A few respondents indicated that they could not adequately complete the surveys
because their principal was too new. The LBDQ states that it is used to describe a
given leader who they know well enough to describe accurately (LBDQ Manual, p. 11).
The student researcher was unable to find an instrument that measured the leadership
styles of new principals. Also problematic, was that some teachers and principals did not
complete all of the surveys and/or failed to answer all of the questions.
Although ten principals participated in this study, only four principals completed
all three of the surveys in their entirety. As a result, the principals perception of their
impact on school climate could not be validated by data analysis. Therefore, this study
exclusively investigated the teachers perceptions of their principals impact on school
climate.
The study was designed to determine the impact that principal leadership has on
school climate, rather than assessing the health index of various schools. Therefore, the
data collection method did not ascertain what responses came from which school. The
LBDQ indicates that six or seven responses will provide an accurate depiction of a
leader. It is assumed that the minimal amount of responses was received from each
school based on the total number of completed responses.
Some participants maintained that the surveys were too long, thus the response
rate was adversely affected. The study included three questionnaires consisting of a
combined total of 154 questions.

The first questionnaire accessible to the teacher

respondents was the LBDQ which contained 100 questions. The second survey, the OHIS, was composed of 44 questions.

The third and final survey was the teachers

demographic questionnaire which consisted of 10 questions. Consequently, the response

rate decreased as the participants progressed from one survey to the next. The study
would have benefitted if the demographic questionnaire was the first survey accessible to
the teachers and the LBDQ and OHI questionnaires had less questions.
The demographic question that asks teacher participants how many principals
they had worked under during their careers may have been more informative if there were
more choices. For example, teachers could select that they had worked for 1, 2, 3,
4, or 5 or more principals during their careers. Due to the fact that 61% of the
teachers selected 5 or more, the student researcher is interested in the outcome if the
question included more choices with a higher amount of principals.

10

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
There is a plethora of literature that examines the relationship of principal
leadership to school climate. Throughout this endeavor, the student researcher examined
books, dissertations, theses, scholarly journals, newspaper articles and presentations.
Much of this research spans across all levels of the principalship or focuses on the middle
and/or elementary levels.

In contrast, little has been written regarding the specific

influence of secondary school principals on school climate. Moreover, even less has
been documented about first year secondary school principals and their influence on
school climate.
The ensuing review of literature will illustrate research in ascending order of
relevancy and significance to the topic. Therefore, as the review of literature progresses,
the research becomes more refined and relevant to this study. The data is organized by
the following subgroups and in the following order: Elementary and Middle School
Principals and School Climate, All Principals and School Climate (the level of the
school/principal is not known), New Principals and School Climate, High School
Principals and School Climate, and finally, New High School Principals and School
Climate.

It was also necessary to examine school climate and school culture

independently as well as explore the relationship between them as they relate to principal
leadership style.

11

Climate versus Culture

As the researcher began the literature review, he did not initially distinguish
between climate and culture.

Schoen and Teddlie (2008) maintain that this is not

uncommon and these terms are often used interchangeably.

Scholars have debated

whether climate is a subcomponent of culture or the contrary. Schoen and Teddlie (2008)
contend that culture is the larger entity of which climate is derived. No matter the
nomenclature, Gonder et al. (1994) argue that culture represents a schools history, while
climate refers to the current social conditions within the building.

Williamson and

Blackburn (2009) further discern that a schools culture is manifested through its deeprooted customs and traditions. Further complicating the issue is that researchers have
hypothesized that a schools culture can significantly impact its climate. Peterson and
Deal (1998) maintain that an organizations history and tradition affects every aspect of
school life. Other scholars have also supported this notion: School climate refers to the
quality and character of school life. It is based on patterns of school life experiences and
reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching, learning and
leadership practices, and organizational structures (Mazzei, 2009, p. 2).
The intent of this study was to examine the impact that new secondary school
principals have on the current conditions in their building school climate. However,
literary articles related to both school climate and school culture were examined because
many of the scholars used these terms interchangeably.

12

School Climate
Vail (2006) wrote a review for the American School Board Journal that examined
a principal who took over a building with poor morale. The leader improved the spirit of
his faculty through empowerment and encouragement.

Vail asserts that such

constructivism is critical to student success: in any building where the adults are happy
and productive, the children are bound to be happy and productive, too (2006, p. 5).
Although the building principal has the greatest influence on his or her staff, Vail
contends that district officials can also contribute to a content working environment. She
provides the following strategies for educational leaders to help create a positive school
climate: support new teachers, confront and manage negativity, empower and praise
teachers, delegate, be consistent with discipline, encourage professional development,
listen to your staffs needs, keep a tidy building, and be empathetic.
Freiberg (1998) composed a journal for Educational Leadership that illustrated the
complexity and multifaceted composition of school climate. He asserts that there must be
synergy among all aspects of the school in order to create a healthy climate. He also
pointed out that many school administrators overlook their schools climate until it
becomes a problem: Much like the air we breathe, school climate is ignored until it
becomes foul (Freiberg, 1998, p. 22). Thus, school leaders should be proactive in their
efforts to sustain a positive school climate.

Freiberg advises administrators to get

feedback from the entire school community. He emphasizes the value of including
students in this process: The feedback process also allows students to be citizens rather
than tourists in their school as they realize that they have an opportunity to participate in
shaping the education process (1998, p. 24).

13

Freiberg argues that the intricate

composition of school climate is yet another reason to accept input from a variety of
constituents:
The elements that make up school climate are complex, ranging from the quality
of interactions in the teachers lounge to the noise levels in hallways and
cafeterias, from the physical structure of the building to the physical comfort
levels (involving such factors as heating, cooling, and lighting) of the individuals
and how safe they feel. Even the size of the school and the opportunities for
students and teachers to interact in small groups both formally and informally add
to or detract from the health of the learning environment. The support staff
cafeteria workers, bus drivers, custodians, and office staff add to the multiple
dimensions of climate (Freiberg, 1998, p. 22).
Freiberg also suggests that the behaviors in a school cafeteria strongly reflect a
schools climate.

He adds that a principal can manipulate a schools climate by

transforming the cafeteria. Freiberg states: The climate of a school can be set by what
happens in the common areas, the playground, the hallways and the infamous cafeteria
(1998, p. 25).
Donaldson et al (2009) emphasized the need for principals to balance between
productivity and relationships. Donaldson and team state that the bold action needed to
improve the schools performance often puts staff relationships at risk (p. 8). Thus, a
principals interpersonal skills are paramount. Unfortunately, the development of such
attributes is often left out of the education and professional development of
administrators (Donaldson et al., 2009). Donaldson and company (2009) support a
humanistic approach to school leadership one in which the principals focus is on

14

people and developing relationships. They emphasize the following about principals:
Their success at mobilizing faculty and staff to do their best work depends on their
abilities to grow and maintain honest, supportive relationships with and within that group
of important adults (Donaldson et al., 2009, p. 14).
Donaldson et al are not the only scholars to stress the value of positive
relationships in the workplace. Principal Ted Sizer of Huntington Beach High School
asserts: Personalization is the single most important factor that keeps kids in school
(Shore, 1995, p. 76). Shore (1995) provides an account of the California schools attempt
to improve their buildings climate. While Donaldson et al encourage school leaders to
establish a strong rapport with their staff, Shores message encourages teachers and
administrators to build relationships with students.

She states: A personalized

education, according to Sizer, is one where students are known by adult professionals in
the school (2009, p. 76). Shore (1995) attributes the adopt-a-kid program, weekly
meetings to discuss student concerns, celebrating student successes, an anti-violence
campaign, and block scheduling to a healthy climate at Huntington Beach High School.
Shore (1995) also cites lower suspension and expulsion rates, improved academic
achievement, fewer students in need of remediation and improved student behavior as
evidence of success at Huntington Beach High School.

Elementary and Middle School Principals and School Climate

Kelley, Thornton, and Daugherty (2005) examined 31 elementary schools to
determine if there was a relationship between various leadership styles and school
climate.

They also investigated whether or not a relationship existed between the

15

teachers perceptions of leadership style and the principals own perception of his
leadership style. Kelley and team argue that the key to effective principal leadership is
knowing the intricacies of your staff: principals must deal with the various levels of
skills and abilities of their faculty and a continuity of divergent situations within todays
complex school environment (2005, p. 17). They contend that principals who have a
profound understanding of their faculty, are better equipped to accommodate them, thus
positively impacting school climate.

The study concludes that there is a strong

relationship between teachers perceptions of a principals leadership and school climate.

Williamson (2007) also investigated the relationship between principal leadership
style and school climate in 19 urban Title I elementary schools from the perspectives of
the teachers and principals. Additionally, the study sought to determine if certain teacher
demographics, such as age, overall experience, and years in the current building affected
their perspective of the principals level of leadership effectiveness. Williamson also
pointed out the value of connecting with your staff: a positive relationship and open
communication between the principal and teacher is essential to a healthy and open
school climate (p. 92).

The study revealed that there are significant relationships

between each of the aforementioned factors.

Sadlier (2005) examined a successful principals conversations with staff
members of a K-8 building to determine if such interaction had an impact on school
climate and the overall success of the school. The author concluded that three variables
have a domino effect on each other. That is, positive conversations between a principal
and staff member will improve teacher morale, thereby cultivating a positive learning
environment for students. Like Kelley et al and Williamson, Sadlier (2005) places great

16

emphasis on the value of a positive principal/teacher relationship.

He states that:

Scholars aver that the way a principal conducts the interpersonal business of a school
determines a schools climate/culture and that principal-staff relationships are
representative of all other relationships in a school (p. 159).
Shaw (2009) conducted a study at the elementary and middle school levels to
determine if certain leadership behaviors contributed to a positive school climate and if a
relation existed between these two factors as perceived by the teachers. Shaw stresses the
value of a principal having a clear understanding of the personal dynamics that exist in
the building. He asserts: Understanding school culture will give principals a framework
to understand complex relationships as well as to understand difficult problems that may
occur in their schools (Shaw, 2009, p. 5). Overall, the study indicated that a weak
relationship exists between the style of the principal and school climate, but middle
school climate was affected more than elementary climate by their principals leadership
practices.

All Principals and School Climate

This section illustrates two studies relative to all levels of the principalship. The
first study by Bulach, Boothe, and Pickett (2006), did not identify whether the principals
being examined were at the elementary, intermediate or high school level. It is assumed
that all levels of the principalship were represented because 375 teachers who were in the
same graduate program were asked to assess their principals. Similarly, Hardin (1995)
acknowledged that his study investigated principals at each school level.

17

Bulach, Boothe, and Pickett (2006) created an instrument that measured

supervisory behaviors to determine its influence on school climate. They asked 375
teachers to identify the most common mistakes made by their principals. The study
revealed that most of the principals mistakes were made in the areas of personal
relationships and communications. Bulach et al also identified 49 leadership behaviors of
which they argue have a strong influence on school climate. They assert that these
behaviors create certain leadership styles that positively or negatively affects the
supervisory climate and learning environment in the educational setting (p. 3). The
researchers conclude that their instrument can be used as an evaluative tool for central
office to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of a principal.
In addition to examining the relationship between principal leadership style and
school climate, Hardin (1995) included personality type into his study. He attempted to
investigate whether or not the relationship among all three components could be
influenced by the geographical setting of the school (urban or rural). The study was
conducted in one urban and two rural school districts. Thirty four principals and 166
teachers responded to the survey. The results of the study indicated that there was no
statistical evidence to link personality type to leadership style and that the geographical
setting of a school had no effect on the principal personality type, leadership styles, or
climate of the school. Although the study revealed little statistical significance, Hardin
emphasized the value of healthy, respectful dialog between principal and staff:
communication has emerged as a vital component of principal effectiveness (p. 39).

18

New Principals and School Climate

Gomez and Van Zant (2006) compare the principalship to hosting a dinner party.
They offer several tips for new principals such as: welcome students each day, listen to
and interact with your staff, network with other professionals, celebrate your successes,
be humble, and have a good sense of humor. Gomez and Van Zant assure that following
this advice will assist new principals in the development of trusting relationships with
their staff thereby creating a positive school climate. They also emphasize the value of
new principals establishing priorities: as a new principal you must identify what
ingredients it will take for you to be successful with your staff (Gomez and Van Zant,
2006, p. 25). Gomez and team conclude by advising new principals to consider the wants
and needs of the existing school climate when developing their vision.
Harvey (1991) acknowledges the difficulties of a new principal: The way in
which the new principal establishes a presence in a fully operational school and attempts
to provide leadership during the first year of appointment is a problematic process (p.
32). Like Gomez, he also provides strategies for new principals to utilize to become
better acclimated with his staff and school. Harvey asserts that it is imperative for new
principals to respect and understand the existing culture of a school.

He states:

Sensitivity to the issues involved in negotiating culture makes succession to the

principalship a less traumatic event for school participants (p. 34).
A study conducted by Hertting (2008) emphasized the importance of supervisory
support for new principals.

The study surveyed 131 first year principals and their

supervisors to measure each groups perception of the level of support that the new
principals were receiving.

Hertting deduced that school officials had a false

19

understanding of the level of support that they were providing. It is therefore necessary
to remedy this disconnect to reduce principal succession: If we want to retain principals
and attract new ones, we need a higher level of congruence in how supervisors and
principals view support (p. 37). The study offers a variety of suggestions for the
supervisors of new principals such as: offering more feedback, providing a mentor,
spending more time with them, and helping new principals learn about the schools
culture. Such support, Hertting concludes, is especially critical in todays competitive
market: at a time when demands are increasing and districts are facing smaller pools of
candidates, it (help) is critical (p. 37).
Coutts et al. (1997) examined the impact of three new principals on their
respective schools climate. The researchers claim that staff and students are reenergized
at the beginning of the school year and therefore more impressionable to the changes
brought on by a new principal. An elementary, middle, and high school principal were
each administered a survey at the beginning of the school year, received treatment with
the intent of improving school climate, and were surveyed again in January of the same
year. Although Coutts et al hypothesized that all three principals would have a positive
influence on school climate, the results of the surveys were inconclusive.
Mason (2005) also emphasized how influential a new principal can be and
contends that teachers and students will model the behavior of a principal. The study
examined two new principals who had opposite effects on their schools climate. One
principals leadership style was said to produce a healthy school climate, while the other
principals leadership style caused a negative school climate.

The purpose of the

quantitative study was to determine if there was variation in the teachers opinions of the

20

leadership behaviors that were exhibited by the two new principals.

Seventy-three

faculty and staff members from a middle school in Georgia completed a survey that
evaluated their principal. The study concluded that there was considerable variation
among the teachers perceptions regarding leadership styles.
A project report to the California State University Department of Educational
Administration, Psychology, and Counseling (2001) by Charles A. Cuellar focused on the
personal connections between principals and teachers of an urban K-8 building and the
impact such relations have on school climate. Cuellar (2001) maintained that principals
have the ability to generate a positive school climate by establishing personal connections
with teachers. He states: Principals who show understanding and take an individual
interest in teachers and who are proactive do produce positive results for teachers (p.
35). Thus, a positive climate is a successful climate. Like Mason (2005), Cuellar
recognizes that a principals behavior can influence his faculty: The leadership style of a
principal either encourages or discourages the staff (p. 3). The study concluded that a
strong relationship exists between principal leadership style and school climate.
Osterman and company (1993) conducted a longitudinal study that received 158
responses from newly appointed principals in New York City. It was determined that
many of the new principals believed that their authority was suppressed by central office,
thus limiting their capacity and desire to be creative.

The study suggested that

superintendents should openly express their expectations for new principals and allow
them the means to become effective leaders. Also significant, Osterman acknowledges
that the dynamics of a school is just as influential on a new principal as the principal is on
the school.

21

The impact that a principal has on his or her staff is once again illustrated by
Pepper and Thomas (2001): the leadership style of the principal greatly affects, either
positively or negatively, the learning and working environments for students and
teachers (p. 155). Pepper was a first year principal of a K-5 school with approximately
400 students. She argued that a positive school climate is the foundation of a principals
success. The autoethnographical study focuses on her change from an authoritarian to a
transformational leader.

She describes this process: I had to move slowly in

demonstrating to the teachers that I honestly wanted them to take on decision-making

roles within the schools, and that their ideas and decisions for change would be honored.
I had to build trust (p. 161). Based on the negative outcomes of her once authoritative
approach and the productive results from her newly acquired transformational leadership
style, she concluded that the later is more beneficial to a positive school climate.
Eshbachs quantitative study (2008) examined first year elementary principals and
determined that there was a strong relationship between transformational leadership and
an open climate, while transactional leaders tended to produce a closed school climate
(Eshbach, 2008). Eshbach used Hoy, Tarter & Kottcamps definition of a closed climate:
the internal characteristics of a school typified by the presence of a principal whose
leadership is controlling, rigid, unsympathetic and unresponsive and by the presence of
teachers who display apathy, frustration, suspicion of authority and lack of respect
towards authority (Eshbach, 2008, p. 6). Conversely, an open climate is one where the
internal characteristics of a school typified by the presence of a principal whose
leadership is strong, supportive, flexible and concerned and by the presence of teachers
who display high levels of collegiality professional competence, and commitment to the

22

teaching-learning task (Hoy, Tarter & Kottcamp from Eshbach, 2008, p. 6). Unlike
Ostermans sample (1993), the elementary principals surveyed by Eshbach perceived
their leadership style as transformational and therefore more effective.
Another study focusing on the impact of new elementary principals on school
climate was done by Langston et al. (1998). The qualitative study focused on the
successful practices of two elementary principals as well as the difficulties of one
unsuccessful elementary principal. The study revealed that the successful principals
embraced the schools culture, developed a strong professional network, maintained a
structured school environment, identified themselves as the primary authority figure, and
considered themselves successful.

Conversely, the principal who was identified as

unsuccessful did not work in a school with a positive climate, did not feel she was
supported, did not see herself as a strong leader, and referenced her personal successes
rather than the schools (Langston et al, 1998).

The study recommends that new

principals should carry out the aforementioned methodologies of the successful

principals.
Tooms (2003), a newly appointed middle school principal, suggests the possibility
of a playbook for new principals that would be available before they begin their job.
However, she quickly renounces the idea because of the impracticality of such a manual
for the complex and unpredictable position of a school principal. She states: Each
scenario a building administrator faces is different because each player, each school, each
district has its own personality and approach to a challenge (p. 2). She asserts that most
beneficial way to learn is by doing.

Tooms also identifies two types of behaviors

exhibited by principals: frontstage and backstage. She describes frontstage behavior as a

23

principals rehearsed responsibilities like conducting a meeting or making a speech, while

backstage behavior represents a principals informal, personal interactions with his or her
staff. Tooms asserts that both behavioral styles influence school climate, therefore it is
imperative that principals are cognizant of their conduct. She concludes by cautioning
principals about taking advice from superiors. Tooms argues that a principal should
know his or her building much better than a central office administrator, thus principals
are much better equipped to make important decisions about their school.

High School Principals and School Climate

Drake (1997) surveyed an entire suburban high school staff to determine their
perceptions of the administrations leadership and how it impacted school culture.
Unique of all the other studies, Drake deduced that the faculty was more responsible for
the state of the school climate than the principal. The staff was described as mature,
experienced, professional and capable of leading. Drake maintains that the ideal leader
for this type of staff is a promoter while the current principal was labeled a
controller. A promoter is a leader who delegates, while a controller likes to run things
and have the job done in their own way (Drake, 1997, p. 132).

The study also revealed

that the staff had more confidence in the assistant principals than the principal because
they were easier to approach about sensitive issues.
Letcher (2006) focused on the relationship between principals and school climate
in five small rural junior-senior high schools. Specifically, the study examined teachers
perceptions of the principals leadership, teachers perception of school climate, and how
the two related. Letcher maintains that the smaller the school, the more influenced they

24

are by the principal: In small schools, the environment can be altered more easily,
allowing for one person to have a tremendous effect on the impact of the climate (p. 3).
Although the research suggests that transformational leadership style can cause a positive
school culture, Letcher asserts that most principals possess a myriad of leadership
characteristics, all of which influence school climate.
Barr (2006) attempted to ascertain whether certain leadership styles of high
school principals tended to promote a positive school climate. Barr also examined five
high schools for his research. The results of the study indicated that positive leadership
behaviors tend to improve staff morale, thereby producing a healthy school climate. Barr
believes that principals are aware of their influence: Leaders recognize that their
behavior influences the climate of the school, therefore producing positive or negative
results of the organization and their ability to perform their job in a productive manner to
enhance school improvement efforts (2006, p. 96). Also significant, was that Barr
recommends future research on this topic with less experienced principals.
Another study that examined the relationship of high school principals and school
climate focused specifically on the principals personality. Vickers (2004) hypothesized
that a principals appropriate use of humor would foster a positive school culture.
Similar to the majority of the aforementioned authors, Vickers stressed the importance of
a personal connection or bond between the principal and staff. He suggests how humor
can enhance such personal relations: When used appropriately, humor can build
relationships, enhance communication, and diffuse a tense situation (Vickers, 2004, p. 1)
Teacher and principal questionnaires were given throughout 11 high schools. The results
indicated that humor did have a positive influence on school climate.

25

New High School Principals and School Climate

Morford (2002) interviewed ten new high school principals regarding their
decisions to either embrace or reject various social/cultural norms in their respective
schools. Five males and five females in their first or second year as principal were
interviewed for the study. All the principals were employed in small rural schools with
only a single administrator in the building. The study identified several variables that
may have impacted their decisions including, but not limited to: politics of the
community, an absence of an orientation program, ambiguous expectations from their
supervisors, high principal turnover rates, and their personal relationships with
colleagues. Only one principal remained in his or her current position. Morford contends
that new principals need help: school improvement must become a shared responsibility
of the entire educational community, not just the responsibility of the building principal
(p. 13).

Most significant, new principals need to be prepared: Prospective new

principals must also take initiative and learn as much as possible about the school and the
community before accepting a position (Morford, 2002, p. 14).
Parkay, Currie, and Rhodes (1992) examined twelve new high school principals
over the course of three years as they adapted to their schools climate. Parkay and
company called the process professional socialization and referred to their research as the
Beginning Principal Study (BPS). They explain their intent: to document and describe
the experiences, challenges, and keys to success common to the first-year principal
(Parkay et al. 1992, p. 49). Parkay et al constructed a professional socialization hierarchy
(PSH) to help identify and describe the various levels of professional socialization. They
concluded that the more professional socialization a leader exhibits the better:

26

To begin with, principals who have achieved a higher level of professional

socialization take the long view; they are energized by their job and by their
visions for their schools. They empower others, and they network with faculty
and staff.

Moreover, such principals communicate respect for the vision of

others, even while encouraging others to subscribe to theirs (Parkay et al. 1992, p.
70).
Also significant, was that Parkay and team declared that those principals at the top
of the professional socialization hierarchy are less likely to be influenced by external
pressures. They assert: they seem to be guided by an internal, rather than external, locus
of control (Parkay et al. 1992, p. 71). Parkay, Currie, and Rhodes conclude that the best
way to help new principals is by networking with other principals through workshops,
trainings, and socialization. They also recommend staff facilitated teams for instituting
change rather than self-directed initiatives.
The literature review begins by distinguishing between school climate and school
culture. The student researcher agrees with Gonder et al. (1994) in that school culture
represents the longstanding customs and traditions of a school, while school climate
refers to the current social dynamics of the building. The focus of this study was on the
impact that new principals have on school climate. A great deal of the literature in this
section emphasized the value of strong relationships between the principal and staff in
producing a healthy school climate. Only a fraction of the abovementioned resources
related to the impact of new secondary school principals on school climate.

27

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship between
new secondary school principals leadership practices and school climate, and to
determine if particular leadership styles of new principals promote a positive or negative
school climate in select secondary schools in upstate New York.

The study also

investigated whether new secondary school principals share similar leadership styles.
Finally, the study attempted to determine whether the new high school principals tend to
influence the school climate or if the existing school climate causes the principals to
adapt.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study and were composed with the
intent of validating them through data analysis.
1. Is there a relationship between leadership styles and school climate as perceived
by the teachers and the new secondary school principal?
2. Do certain leadership styles of new secondary school principals produce a
positive or negative school climate?
3. Are there any commonalities in leadership styles among new secondary school
principals?
4. Are new secondary school principals more inclined to influence school climate or
are they more influenced by the school climate?

28

Population and Sample

The student researcher utilized a convenience sampling for this study.

The

research was conducted in ten secondary schools in upstate New York. The districts
agreeing to participate in this study had new secondary school principals serving grades
six through twelve, seven through twelve or grades nine through twelve. The sample
included ten new secondary school principals and their teaching staff who chose to
participate. Although all ten of the principals responded to the surveys, they did not
complete each survey in its entirety, thereby prohibiting data analysis for the principal
sample. There were 249 total teacher responses.

The student populations in these

schools ranged from 314 to 3462, while the faculties stretched from 24 to 208. The free
and reduced lunch rate varied from 6% in the most affluent community to 56% in a
poverty-stricken area (New York State Testing). The schools consist of rural, suburban,
and urban districts.
Participants were recruited by emailing the superintendents of 12 of the 37
BOCES in upstate New York. A complete list of these superintendents was found on the
New York State BOCES website. Many of the superintendents or designees provided the
names of the new secondary school principals within their regions, the school districts
that they were employed, and in some cases, their contact information. There were a total
of 24 new secondary school principals reported within the 12 BOCES.

Each local

superintendent was then sent a letter requesting permission to administer the surveys to
the new secondary school principals and his or her teaching staff (Appendix A). Once
the participating schools had been identified, the local superintendents were asked to
appoint a designee who would forward a letter via email to the principals and the

29

secondary school teaching staff (Appendix B).

The principals were not asked to

complete this task because the surveys assessed their leadership practices. The letter
provided an introduction of the student researcher, explained the purpose of the study,
identified the questionnaires and how they would be administered, reassured participants
of confidentiality, thanked them for participating, provided contact information for the
student researcher, and included a single link to access all three surveys. The content of
the letter that the teachers and principals received was identical, except for a distinct link
to their respective surveys. This was due to the unique questions on the demographic
surveys.

Instrumentation
Each new secondary school principal was asked to complete the Leadership
Behavior Description Questionnaire - Self, form XII (LBDQ), the Organizational Health
Inventory for Secondary Schools (OHI-S) and a demographic survey specific to new
principals.

All teacher participants completed the Leadership Behavior Description

Questionnaire - Leader, form XII (LBDQ), the Organizational Health Inventory for
Secondary Schools (OHI-S), and a demographic survey specific to teachers with new
principals. All the questions had limited choices and were therefore considered closed.
Vogt asserts that such a method is ideal for this type of research: In surveys and
interviews, researchers most often offer subjects a limited number of predetermined
responses to questions (closed format) rather than allow them to choose their own words
for answering questions (2005, p. 46).

30

Demographic Questionnaires
The teachers demographic questionnaire consists of ten questions (Appendix C).
The first seven questions seek general information about the teacher respondents, while
the remaining three questions assess the teachers perceptions of their principals effect
on school climate. The principals demographic questionnaire contains 11 questions
(Appendix D). The intent of the first eight questions on this survey was to gain more
information about the principal participants, while the remaining three questions asked
for the new principals perception of their influence on school climate. Some of the
demographic questions were modeled after Dr. Brian C. Shaws survey used in his
dissertation entitled; Impact of Leadership Styles on School Climate (2009).

Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire

The LBDQ was obtained from the Fisher School of Business website, Ohio State
University. The site maintains that Dr. Carroll Shartle first developed the instrument in
1957, although permission to use the forms is not necessary. The LBDQ (Form XII)
consists of 100 questions and uses a Likert scale (Appendix E). Participants are asked to
decide if their leader: always, often, occasionally, seldom, or never acts as described by
the item (Stodgill, 1963, p. 2). For example, always receives a value of 5, often a 4,
occasionally a 3, seldom a 2, and never is converted to a 1. Items 6, 12, 16, 26, 36,
42, 46, 53, 56, 57, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 71, 87, 91, 92, 97 are scored in reverse order
(Stodgill, 1963).

In this study, the LBDQ-Leader was used to obtain the teachers

perception of their principal. Stodgill (1963) states that the LBDQ: can be used to
describe the behavior of the leader, or leaders, in any type of group or organization,

31

provided the followers have had an opportunity to observe the leader in action as a leader
of their group (p. 1). The LBDQ-Self is a modified version of the questionnaire that was
administered to each principal participant. Stodgill states: With proper changes in
instructions, the questionnaire can be used by a leader to describe his own behavior
(1963, p. 11). The questions that comprise the LBDQ-Self are written for the supervisor
rather than the employee.
Form XII of the LBDQ has been revised four times and the twelve subscales that
are used to compartmentalize the multiple behaviors of leadership have also evolved
(Stodgill, 1963). One of the earliest versions of the form employed just two dimensions:
Consideration and Initiation of Structure.

Realizing the complexity and multiple

dimensions of leadership, Form XII added the following subscales: Representation,

Demand Reconciliation, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Persuasiveness, Tolerance and
Freedom, Role Assumption, Production Emphasis, Predictive Accuracy, Integration, and
Superior orientation.

Each of the twelve subscales consists of five or ten items

(questions) that are grouped together because they are similar in nature. Scoring of the
LBDQ can be done by obtaining a sum of the scores from each item grouping (See
Below).
LBDQ Form XII RECORD SHEET
Total
Representation 1__ 11__ 21__ 31__ 41__ ( )
Reconciliation 51__ 61__ 71__ 81__ 91__ ( )
Tolerance of Uncertainty 2__ 12__ 22__ 32__ 42__ 52__ 62__ 72__ 82__ 92__ ( )
Persuasion 3__ 13__ 23__ 33__ 43__ 53__ 63__ 73__ 83__ 93__ ( )

32

Structure 4__ 14__ 24__ 34__ 44__ 54__ 64__ 74__ 84__ 94__ ( )
Tolerance of Freedom 5__ 15__ 25__ 35__ 45__ 55__ 65__ 75__ 85__ 95__ ( )
Role Assumption 6__ 16__ 26__ 36__ 46__ 56__ 66__ 76__ 86__ 96__ ( )
Consideration 7__ 17__ 27__ 37__ 47__ 57__ 67__ 77__ 87__ 97__ ( )
Production Emphasis 8__ 18__ 28__ 38__ 48__ 58__ 68__ 78__ 88__ 98__ ( )
Predictive Accuracy 9__ 29__ 49__ 59__ 89__ ( )
Integration 19__ 39__ 69__ 79__ 99__ ( )
Superior Orientation 10__ 20__ 30__ 40__ 50__ 60__ 70__ 80__ 90__ 100__
(Stodgill, 1963, p. 7)
It is necessary to understand the meanings of the subscales to interpret the results
of the instrument. Stodgill (1963) provides the following definitions on page three of the
LBDQ scoring manual:
Representation speaks and acts as the representative of the group
Demand Reconciliation reconciles conflicting demands and reduces
disorder to system
Tolerance of Uncertainty is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without
anxiety or upset
Persuasiveness uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions
Initiation of Structure clearly defines own role, and lets followers know what is
Expected
Tolerance and Freedom allows followers scope for initiative, decision and action
Role Assumption actively exercises the leadership role rather that surrendering
leadership to others
Consideration regards the comfort, well being, status, and contributions of followers
Production Emphasis applies pressure for productive output

33

Predictive Accuracy exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcome accurately

Integration maintains a closely knit organization; resolves intermember conflicts
Superior Orientation maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with
them; is striving for higher status

Stodgill (1963) indicates that the LBDQ was designed specifically for research
and it is not intended to be an evaluative tool. Halpin (as cited in Stodgill, 1963)
maintains that at least four respondents for each leader is ideal and ten or more
respondents do not increase the reliability of the index scores.

The Organizational Health Inventory for Secondary Schools

The student researcher received permission from Dr. Wayne K. Hoy to use the
OHIS and the Organizational Climate Descriptive Questionnaire Revised for
Secondary Schools. On the recommendation of Dr. Hoy, the researcher decided to use
the OHI for this study. He asserts: I personally think you can get a more comprehensive
view of school climate with the OHI (W.K. Hoy, personal communication, November
23, 2009). The purpose of the OHI-S is to provide the researcher with a comprehensive
understanding of the participants school climate. Hoy describes a healthy climate as one
in which the school board, administration and teachers work collaboratively toward
success (Hoy and Tarter, 1992).
The Organizational Health Inventory for Secondary Schools (Appendix F)
consists of 44 questions and also uses a Likert scale to assess the educators level of
engagement in each item (Hoy and Tarter, 1992). The directions from the questionnaire
instruct participants to indicate the extent to which each statement characterizes your

34

school (The Organizational Health, 2010) and provides the following choices: rarely
occurs, sometimes occurs, often occurs, and very frequently occurs. These responses
were converted to a numerical value for scoring purposes. Rarely occurs was gioven a
value of 1, sometimes occurs a 2, often occurs a 3, and very frequently occurs was
assigned a value of 4. Questions 8, 15, 20, 22, 29, 30, 34, 36, and 39 were scored in
reverse order. The 44 school items are then compartmentalized into one of seven school
climate dimensions based on the similarity of content (see below). The sum of these
questions constitutes the total dimension score.
Institutional Integrity (II) = 1+8+15+22+29+36+39
Initiating Structure (IS) = 4+11+18+25+32
Consideration (C) = 3+10+17+24+31
Principal Influence (PI) = 2+9+16+23+30
Resource Support (RS) = 5+12+19+26+33
Morale (M) = = 6+13+20+27+34+37+40+42+44
Academic Emphasis (AE) = 7+14+21+28+35+38+41+43
(The Organizational Health, 2010)
Hoy provides the following definitions for these dimensions on his website:
Institutional Integrity: describes a school that has integrity in its educational program.
The school is not vulnerable to narrow, vested interests of community groups;
indeed, teachers are protected from unreasonable community and parental
demands.

The school is able to cope successfully with destructive outside

forces.
Initiating Structure: is task and achievement-oriented behavior. The principal makes

35

his or her attitudes and expectations clear to the faculty and maintains definite
standards of performance.
Consideration: is principal behavior that is friendly, supportive, and collegial. The
principal looks out for the welfare of faculty members and is open to their
suggestions.
Principal Influence: is the principals ability to affect the actions of superiors. The
influential principal is persuasive, works effectively with the superintendent,
simultaneously demonstrates independence in thought and action.
Resource Support: refers to a school where adequate classroom supplies and
instructional materials are available and extra materials are easily obtained.
Morale: is the sense of trust, confidence, enthusiasm, and friendliness among teachers.
Teachers feel good about each other and, at the same time, feel a sense of
accomplishment from their jobs.
Academic Emphasis: refers to the schools press for achievement. High but achievable
goals are set for students; the learning environment is orderly and serious;
teachers believe students can achieve; and students work hard and respect those
who do well academically.
(The Organizational Health, 2010)
The final step outlined by the manual is to calculate the average school score.
This was not done because the study did not intend to assess the health of each individual
schools climate. This sum of the averages is referred to as the health index. Hoy
maintains that these scores reflect the general well-being of a schools climate and that

36

schools with an overall health index of more than 600 have healthy climates (Hoy and
Tarter, 1992, p. 77).
Although Hoy recommends that the OHI-S be administered during a faculty
meeting, the participants were given several weeks to complete the questionnaires via
computer.

Hoy emphasizes the importance of establishing a non-threatening

environment for participants taking the OHI-S to ensure the integrity of their answers
(The Organizational Health, 2010).

Utilizing Survey Monkey should enhance the

comfort level of the participants by allowing them to complete the surveys at a

convenient time and in a preferred environment, such as their office or home. The
student researcher manipulated Survey Monkey to enable multiple responses from a
single computer. This assisted teachers who relied on a computer lab, departmental, or
office computer for the survey administration.

Pilot
Several teachers and principals who did not participate in the study piloted the
questionnaires for the student researcher. Their feedback included the following:

Some of the questions were worded awkwardly and thus confusing

Some of the questions were redundant

There were spelling and grammatical errors

Some questions had two rows for respondents to answer

The questionnaires were too long

The student researcher did not change the wording or delete redundant questions on
the LBDQ or OHI because these questionnaires were purposely designed by their authors

37

to provide a comprehensive measurement of leadership and school climate. Therefore,

altering these instruments could skew the integrity of the questionnaires. Spelling errors
and structural flaws were corrected as a result of the pilot.

Data Collection Procedures

Each questionnaire was uploaded to an online survey program entitled Survey
Monkey (surveymonkey.com). The information from the existing questionnaires (LBDQ
and OHI-S) was electronically transferred to Survey Monkey, while each question for the
demographic surveys was typed independently. The LBDQ uses a five-point scale for
respondents answers: Always, Often, Occasionally, Seldom and Never. The
OHI-S uses a four-point rating scale: Rarely Occurs, Sometimes Occurs, Often
Occurs, and Very Frequently Occurs. The researcher used the rating scale option
on Survey Monkey for both questionnaires and assigned all choices a weight of 1.
Multiple choice type questions were used for the demographic surveys. The researcher
programmed Survey Monkey to allow multiple responses from each computer to
accommodate teachers who will use a computer lab or other common area to complete
their surveys. Participants were given several weeks to complete the surveys.

Data Analysis Techniques

The data from Survey Monkey was initially converted to Excel and then to the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows, version 17.0. The data
were then formatted for identification and labeling purposes. The LBDQ and OHI

38

manuals were used for the scoring and summation of data.

The aforementioned

procedures prepared the data for analysis.

Descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, correlational analyses, t-tests and
analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were used as data analysis methods.

Descriptive

statistics allow the researcher to organize and describe quantitative data (Vogt, 2005).
Frequency distributions were run for several of the demographic questions. A frequency
distribution illustrates the number of times each score occurs in a group of scores
(Vogt, 2005, p. 125).

A correlational research design was used to determine if a

relationship existed between the teachers perceptions of the leadership practices of new
principals and the various dimensions of school climate.

Vogt (2005) defines

correlational research as: A design in which the variables are not manipulated. Rather,
the researcher uses measures of association to study their relations (p. 64).

An

independent t-test determines if there was a difference on the average scores of one (or
more) variables between the two groups that were independent of another (Salkind,
2010, p. 219). A t-test was performed for the two demographic questions that offered
only two choices. ANOVAs were used to determine the difference in mean values of the
remaining questions on the demographic survey and the LBDQ and OHI. An analysis of
variance is defined as a test for the difference between two or more means. A simple
analysis of variance has only one independent variable. One-way analysis of variance
looks for differences between the means of more than two groups (Salkind, 2010, p.
377).

39

The following table illustrates the general interpretations of correlation

coefficients according to Salkind (2007, p. 129). These interpretations were used as a
standard for this studys analysis of correlations.
Table 1
Salkinds General Interpretations of Correlation Coefficientss
Size of the Correlation

Coefficient General Interpretation

.8 to 1.0

Very strong relationship

.6 to .8

Strong relationship

.4 to .6

Moderate relationship

.2 to .4

Weak relationship

.0 to .2

Weak or no relationship

Ethical Consideration
Every effort was made to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of the
respondents and the specific schools. The study adhered to all of the provisions and
mandates of the Sage Institutional Review Board.

Participation was voluntary and

respondents had the choice of opting out of the surveys at any time. The data are stored
on a password protected computer only accessible to the student researcher. The research
was labeled no-risk based on the levels of review of the IRB. The student researcher
offered to donate $1.00 for each completed survey to the Haiti Relief Fund via Red Cross
to encourage participation.

40

CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
The following research questions guided this study and served as the foundation
for the data analyses: Is there a relationship between leadership styles and school climate
as perceived by teachers and new secondary school principals? Do certain leadership
styles of new secondary school principals produce a positive or negative school climate?
Are there any commonalities in leadership styles among new secondary school
principals?

Are new secondary school principals more inclined to influence school

climate or are they more influenced by the school climate?

This section illustrates the data necessary to answer each research question as well
as the data analysis methods for other significant findings. Frequency distributions,
descriptive statistics, Pearson Correlation Coefficients, analysis of variances (ANOVA),
and t-tests were used for statistical measurement. The first part of this section provides a
general overview of the teacher participants demographic information. The next section
shows the relationship of each LBDQ subscale to the OHI. The leadership styles that
new secondary school principals have in common are then explored.

Next, the

relationship of the leadership subscales and school climate dimensions to the teachers
demographic questionnaire is examined. Finally, whether the new principals changed or
conformed to the existing school climate is investigated.

Demographic Profile of the Teacher Participants

The ensuing section provides a summary of teacher demographic information
through frequency distributions. Salkind (2010) maintains that: a frequency distribution

41

is a method of tallying, and representing, how often certain scores occur (p. 83). The
teachers demographic questionnaire consists of ten questions.

The first three seek the

age range, gender and ethnicity of the respondents. The next four questions ask for
professional information, while the last three questions assess the teachers perceptions of
their principals effect on school climate. The primary objective of this section was to
gain more information about the teacher participants. The final three questions were not
presented in this section because they sought the opinion of the participants.
This section revealed distinct findings related to teacher demographics.

For

example, the greatest percentage of the teacher participants were white, female, and
between the ages of 46 and 59.

The results of this questionnaire also illustrated

significant information related to the teachers education and careers. For instance, 94%
of the participants had received their Masters degree or beyond, while more than half the
respondents had 15 or less years of teaching experience and worked in their current
building for 10 years or less. Finally, over 60% of the teachers indicated that they had
worked for five or more principals during their careers.
Table 2 displays the frequency distribution for the age range of the studys teacher
participants. It indicates that there were more teacher respondents between the ages of 51
and 59 (Forty-Two) than any other age range. The age range with the least amount of
teacher participants was 21 to 25 (three). The table also indicates the percentage of
teacher responses in each age range.

42

Table 2
Frequency Distribution for Teachers Age Range
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

21-25

1.2

1.9

1.9

26-30

20

8.2

12.4

14.3

31-35

16

6.5

9.9

24.2

36-40

22

9.0

13.7

37.9

41-45

21

8.6

13.0

50.9

46-50

27

11.0

16.8

67.7

51-59

42

17.1

26.1

93.8

60 and over

10

4.1

6.2

100.0

161

65.7

100.0

84

34.3

245

100.0

Total
Missing
Total

The teachers were also asked to identify their gender in the demographic survey.
Table 3 illustrates the teachers frequency distribution for gender. The data reveal that
111 of the respondents were female (69%) and 49 were male (31%). A total of 160
teachers responded to this question.
Table 3
Frequency Distribution for Teachers Gender
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Missing
Total

Female

111

45.3

69.4

69.4

Male

49

20.0

30.6

100.0

Total

160

65.3

100.0

85

34.7

245

100.0

Table 4 indicates that the teacher participants of this study were predominantly
white (91%), while four Black (3%), two Hispanic (1%) and one Asian teacher also

43

responded. Seven teachers (4%) selected other for their race. One hundred and fiftynine teachers answered this question.

Table 4 also illustrates the percentage and

cumulative percent of teacher respondents by ethnicity.

Table 4
Frequency Distribution for Teachers Ethnicity
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Missing
Total

Asian

.4

.6

.6

Black

1.6

2.5

3.1

Hispanic

.8

1.3

4.4

Other

2.9

4.4

8.8

White

145

59.2

91.2

100.0

Total

159

64.9

100.0

86

35.1

245

100.0

Table 5 shows the highest level of education completed by the teacher

respondents. More than half (55%) of the teachers who participated in this study had
obtained a masters degree and fifty seven (36%) of the 159 participants had received 30
or more credit hours beyond their masters degree. There were only ten respondents (6%)
who were teaching with a bachelors degree, while four (3%) obtained a specialist degree
and one achieved a doctorate (< 1%).

44

Table 5
Frequency Distribution for Teachers Highest Level of Education Completed
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Bachelors

10

4.1

6.3

6.3

Masters

87

35.5

54.7

61.6

Masters +30

57

23.3

35.8

97.5

Specialist

1.6

2.5

100.0

Doctorate

.4

.6

6.9

159

64.9

100.0

86

35.1

245

100.0

Total
Missing
Total

Table 6 is a frequency distribution for the number of years that the teachers were
employed at their current school.

This demographic category reflects considerable

variability. A cumulative total of 160 teachers responded to this question. Forty-six

teachers (29%) have been in their current position between 0 and 5 years, forty teachers
(25%) indicated that they had been at the school between 6 and 10 years, twenty teachers
(13%) have been employed between 11 and 15 years, twenty-three teachers (14%) fell in
the 16 to 20-year category, while 31 teachers (19%) responded that they had been
employed for more than 20 years at their current school.

45

Table 6
Frequency Distribution for Teachers Years at Current School
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

0-5

46

18.8

28.8

28.8

6-10

40

16.3

25.0

41.3

11-15

20

8.2

12.5

55.6

16-20

23

9.4

14.4

80.6

More than 20

31

12.7

19.4

100.0

160

65.3

100.0

85

34.7

245

100.0

Total
Missing
Total

Table 7 illustrates the years experience of the teacher respondents.

A total of

158 teachers answered this question. Thirteen teachers (8%) indicated that they had
between 0 and 3 years teaching experience, thirty-eight respondents (24%) had taught
between 4 and 9 years, thirty-three teachers (21%) had been employed between 10 and 15
years, twenty-nine respondents (18%) fell in the range of 16 and 20 years and forty-five
teachers (29%) had more than 20 years of service.
Table 7
Frequency Distribution for Teachers Experience
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

0-3

13

5.3

8.2

8.2

4-9

38

15.5

24.1

29.1

10-15

33

13.5

20.9

47.5

16-20

29

11.8

18.4

71.5

More than 20

45

18.4

28.5

100.0

158

64.5

100.0

87

35.5

245

100.0

Total
Missing
Total

46

Table 8 is a frequency distribution that reflects the number of principals under

which each teacher respondent had worked. None of the teachers indicated that they had
worked for one principal. Eighteen teachers (11%) maintained that they worked for two
principals, twenty-two (14%) had worked for three principals, twenty-four teachers
(15%) responded that they had worked under the direction of four principals and 98
teachers (61%) reported working for five or more principals throughout their career. A
cumulative total of 162 teachers answered this question.
Table 8
Frequency Distribution for Number of Principals under for which Teachers Worked
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

18

7.3

11.1

11.1

22

9.0

13.6

24.7

24

9.8

14.8

39.5

5 or more

98

40.0

60.5

100.0

162

66.1

100.0

83

33.9

245

100.0

Total
Missing
Total

A considerable amount of demographic data was collected for this study. Each
teacher participant was asked their age, gender, ethnicity, highest level of education
obtained, number of years at their current school, years of teaching experience and
number of principals for whom they have worked. Some of the demographic categories
revealed considerable variability, while the others did not. Age range, number of years at
current school and number of years teaching experience displayed a more balanced
response rate.

Conversely, gender, ethnicity, education level and the number of

principals under which teachers worked all reflected a dominant response. For example,
47

69% of the teacher participants were female, 91% were white and 94% had received their
masters degree or beyond. Most significant, was that 61% of the teachers maintained
that they had worked for five or more principals throughout their careers, while 53% had
15 or less years of teaching experience. This data suggest a high turnover rate for
secondary school principals.

Relationships between the Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Leadership

Styles and School Climate

The data analysis for the first research question is presented in this section.
Research Question 1 inquired if a relationship existed between leadership style and
school climate as perceived by the teachers and principals.

The perception of the

principal participants could not be measured because their response rate was insufficient.
The teachers perceptions of the impact of their principals leadership styles on school
climate are illustrated below.
This section proved that there is a relationship between the leadership styles of
new secondary school principals and school climate.

The following nine LBDQ

subscales had a total correlational strength of 18 or higher and therefore represented the
strongest correlations: Demand Reconciliation, Predictive Accuracy, Tolerance of
Freedom, Consideration, Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, Integration, Tolerance of
Uncertainty, and Role Assumption. Conversely, Representation, Superior Orientation
and Production Emphasis had the weakest relationships with school climate and reported
total correlational strengths of 12 or below.

48

The twelve LBDQ subscales represented a variety of leadership styles. The

student researcher modified the definitions for each subscale to align with principal
leadership. Pearson Correlation Coefficients were utilized to determine the relationship
between each LBDQ subscale and the OHI. Thus, the objective for the first research
question was to ascertain what leadership subscales had the strongest relationship to
school climate as perceived by the teachers
The first subscale of the LBDQ is Representation. There are five questions in this
item: 1, 11, 21, 31, and 41. Stodgill (1963) provides the following definition: speaks
and acts as the representative of the group (p. 3). Therefore, this item measures how the
principal represents his or her faculty and staff. Table 9 illustrates the relationship
between the LBDQ subscale Representation and the seven dimensions of the OHI as
perceived by the teacher participants in this study.
Table 9
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Representation and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.035

.547**

.386**

.177

.154

.235

.212

** p .01,
* p .05
Representation is most closely associated with the OHI dimensions, Initiating
Structure and Consideration. According to Salkinds interpretation, Representation has a
moderate positive relationship to Initiating Structure (r = .547, p = .000). Although
Representation has a weak relationship to Consideration, it is statistically significant (r =
.386, p = .001). Morale (r = .235, p = .076) and Academic Emphasis(r = .212, p = .086)
also have a weak association with this LBDQ subscale. The OHI dimensions of Principal

49

Influence (r = .177, p = .113), Resource Support (r = .154, p = .215) and Institutional

Integrity (r = .035, p = .838) all have a weak or no relationship with Representation.
Demand Reconciliation is the second LBDQ subscale listed in the LBDQ scoring
manual. It is composed of questions 51, 61, 71, 81, and 91. The definition provided by
the manual is reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system (Stodgill,
1963, p. 3). Thus, for the purpose of this study, demand reconciliation refers to the
principals ability to resolve internal conflict within his or her building. Table 10 shows
the relationship between Demand Reconciliation and school climate from the teachers
perspective.
Table 10
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Demand Reconciliation and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.456**

.596**

.666**

.541**

.485**

.459**

.356**

** p .01
* p .05

Demand Reconciliation has a moderate to strong positive correlation with six of

the seven dimensions of school climate.

This subscale is strongly correlated with

Consideration (r = .666, p = .000). Initiating Structure (r = .596, p = .000), Principal

Influence (r = .541, p = .000), Resource Support (r = .485, p = .00), Morale (r = .459, p =
.00), and Institutional Integrity (r = .456, p = .005) all have a moderate association to
Demand Reconciliation, while Academic Emphasis (r = .356, p = .002) has a weak
correlation. Overall, Demand Reconciliation has a strong correlation with school climate.

50

Tolerance of Uncertainty consists of ten questions: 2, 12, 22, 32, 42, 52, 62, 72,
82, and 92. This LBDQ subscale means that a leader is able to tolerate uncertainty and
postponement without anxiety or upset (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3). Tolerance of Uncertainty
measures how well a principal reacts to doubt and delay. Table 10 reveals the correlation
between Tolerance of Uncertainty and the school climate dimensions of the OHI based
on the teachers responses.
Table 11
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Tolerance of Uncertainty and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.352*

.540**

.755**

.547**

.437**

.213

.215

** p .01
* p .05

There is a strong positive correlation between Tolerance of Uncertainty and

Consideration (r = .755, p = .000). Principal Influence (r = .547, p = .000), Initiating
Structure (r = .540, p = .000) and Resource Support (r = .437, p = .000) are moderately
related to this LBDQ subscale. Institutional Integrity (r = .352, p = .041), Academic
Emphasis (r = .215, p = .075) and Morale (r = .213, p = .108) all reflect a weak
relationship with Tolerance of Uncertainty.
The fourth LBDQ subscale that was correlated with the OHI dimensions was
Persuasion. The LBDQ manual uses the following definition of Persuasiveness: uses
persuasion and argument effective; exhibits strong convictions (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3). The
subscale is composed of ten questions: 3, 13, 23, 33, 43, 53, 63, 73, 83, and 93. This
component of the leadership scale assesses a principals ability to speak with conviction.

51

The relationship between Persuasion and the seven dimensions of the OHI is illustrated in
the ensuing table.
Table 12
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Persuasion and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.545**

.507**

.644**

.557**

.361**

.486**

.271*

** p .01
* p .05

All seven OHI school climate dimensions have a positive correlation with the
LBDQ subscale of Persuasion. Consideration (r = .644, p = .000) is the only OHI school
climate dimension that reflects a strong relationship with this LBDQ subscale. Principal
Influence (r = .557, p = .000), Institutional Integrity (r = .545, p = .000), Initiating
Structure (r = .507, p = .000) and Morale (r = .486, p = .000) are all moderately
correlated to Persuasion. Resource Support (r = .361, p = .002) and Academic Emphasis
(r = .271, p = .022) reflect a weak relationship with Persuasion.
Initiation of Structure consists of ten items: 4, 14, 24, 34, 44, 54, 64, 74, 84, and
94. The LBDQ subscale means that the leader clearly defines own role, and lets
followers know what is expected (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3). Thus, the teachers provided
their perspective on how well the principal defined his responsibilities as well as those of
his faculty. The teachers perception of the relationships between Initiation of Structure
and the seven dimensions of school climate is illustrated in Table 13.

52

Table 13
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Initiation of Structure and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.351*

.654**

.619**

.478**

.282*

.483**

.323**

** p .01
* p .05

Initiation of Structure is related to all seven dimensions of the OHI. The Initiating
Structure dimension of the OHI and Initiation of Structure subscale from the LBDQ offer
a similar definition. Accordingly, there is a strong association between the two variables
(r = .654, p = .000).

Initiation of Structure also shows a strong correlation with

Consideration (r = .619, p = .000). Morale (r = .483, p = .000) and Principal Influence (r

= .478, p = .000) convey a moderate relationship with the LBDQ subscale. The OHI
dimensions of Institutional Integrity (r = .351, p = .039), Academic Emphasis (r = .323, p
= .006) and Resource Support (r = .282, p = .022) each display a weak correlation with
Initiating Structure.
Tolerance of Freedom means that the leader allows followers scope for initiative,
decision and action (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3). This definition has been modified for the
purpose of this study to represent the willingness of the principal to accept input and
decision-making from his faculty. There are also ten items that make up this subscale: 5,
15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, and 95. Table 14 displays the association of Tolerance of
Freedom to the seven dimensions of school climate.

53

Table 14
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Tolerance of Freedom and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.624*

.452**

.773**

.481**

.522*

.268*

.328*

** p .01
* p .05

Tolerance of Freedom reveals an overall strong correlation with the OHI.

According to Salkinds Correlation Coefficient Scale, Consideration (r = .773, p = .000)
and Institutional Integrity (r = .624, p = .000) indicate a strong relationship with
Tolerance of Freedom. This LBDQ subscale is also moderately related with Resource
Support (r = .522, p = .000), Principal Influence (r = .481, p = .000) and Initiating
Structure (r = .452, p = .000), while Academic Emphasis (r = .328, p = .005)

and

Morale (r = .268, p = .035) each suggest a weak association with Tolerance of Freedom.
Stodgill (1963) defines the LBDQ subscale, Role Assumption, as actively
exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others (p. 3).
Therefore, the teachers measured the level of authority assumed by their principal.
Table 15 illustrates the relationship of Role Assumption to the seven dimensions of the
OHI. Role Assumption consists of the following ten questions: 6, 16, 26, 36, 46, 56, 66,
76, 86, and 96.

54

Table 15
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Role Assumption and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.280

.621**

.401**

.536**

.263*

.376**

.258*

** p .01
* p .05

Role Assumption displays a strong correlation with Initiating Structure (r = .621,

p = .000). Principal Influence (r = .536, p = .000) and Consideration (r = .401, p = .000)
are moderately associated to Role Assumption, while the remaining four dimensions
show weaker relationships. Morale (r = .376, p = .003), Institutional Integrity (r = .280, p
= .098), Resource Support (r = .263, p = .029) and Academic Emphasis (r = .258, p =
.031) all indicate weak correlations, although Institutional Integrity is not statistically
significant.
Another LBDQ subscale is Consideration. It consists of ten questions 7, 17, 27,
37, 47, 57, 67, 77, 87, and 97. Consideration means that the leader regards the comfort,
well being, status, and contributions of followers (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3).

Table 16

conveys the teachers perceptions of their new principals level of consideration as it

relates to the seven dimensions of the OHI.

55

Table 16
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Consideration and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.572**

.509**

.842**

.515**

.537*

.389**

.307*

** p .01
* p .05
The only tandem that displayed a very strong

relationship according to

Salkinds general interpretation of correlation coefficients was the LBDQ subscale,

Consideration and the OHI dimension, Consideration (r = .842, p = .000). Four of the
school climate dimensions suggested a moderate association with Consideration:
Institutional Integrity (r = .572, p = .000), Resource Support (r = .537, p = .000),
Principal Influence (r = .515, p = .000) and Initiating Structure (r = .509, p = .000).
Morale (r = .389, p = .002) and Academic Emphasis (r = .307, p = .009) both showed a
weak relationship with Consideration.

Overall, Consideration showed a strong

correlation with the OHI.

Production Emphasis means that the leader applies pressure for productive
output (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3). Hence, the teachers perception of the demands placed on
them by their new principal was measured by this subscale. The LBDQ subscale has ten
items: 8, 18, 28, 38, 48, 58, 68, 78, 88 and 98. Table 17 illustrates the relationship of
Production Emphasis to the OHI school climate dimensions.

56

Table 17
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Production Emphasis and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.112

.327**

.043

.195

-.015

.488**

.027

** p .01
* p .05
The only two OHI dimensions that are statistically significant and have a positive
correlation with Production Emphasis are Morale and Initiating Structure. Production
Emphasis has a moderate relationship to Morale (r = .488, p = .000) and a weak
correlation to Initiating Structure (r = .327, p = .001). The five remaining dimensions of
the OHI indicate a weak or no association with Production Emphasis. They range from
an r value of .195 (Principal Influence) to -.015 (Resource Support).

Production

Emphasis has an overall weak relationship with the school climate dimensions.
Stodgill (1963) defines Predictive Accuracy as exhibiting foresight and ability to
predict outcome accurately (p. 3). The LBDQ subscale has five items: 9, 29, 69, 79 and
99. The teacher respondents evaluated the ability of their new principal to accurately
forecast results.

Table 18 shows the relationship between Predictive Accuracy and

school climate from the perception of the teacher participants.

57

Table 18
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Predictive Accuracy and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.405*

.495**

.705**

.551**

.499*

.517**

.295*

** p .01
* p .05

All seven OHI dimensions show a correlation to Predictive Accuracy. There is a

strong correlation between Predictive Accuracy and Consideration (r = .705, p = .000).
Principal Influence (r = .551, p = .000), Morale (r = .517, p = .000), Resource Support (r
= .499, p = .000), Initiating Structure (r = .495, p = .000), and Institutional Integrity (r =
.405, p = .016) all indicate a moderate relationship with Predictive Accuracy, while
Academic Emphasis shows a weak association (r = .295, p = .014). Overall, Predictive
Accuracy has a strong correlation with school climate.
Integration is the eleventh subscale listed in the LBDQ scoring manual. This
leadership subscale consists of items 19, 39, 69, 79 and 99. Integration means that the
leader maintains a closely knit organization, resolves inter-member conflicts (Stodgill,
1963, p. 3). The teachers perception of their principals capability of sustaining a
unified working environment was measured.

Table 19 illustrates the correlations

between Integration and the school climate dimensions.

58

Table 19
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Integration and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.437**

.487**

.589**

.480**

.367*

.507**

.407**

** p .01
* p .05
Integration has a moderate relationship with six of the seven OHI dimensions:
Consideration (r = .589, p = .000), Morale (r = .507, p = .000), Initiating Structure (r =
.487, p = .000), Principal Influence (r = .480, p = .000), Institutional Integrity (r = .437, p
= .006) and Academic Emphasis (r = .407, p = .000). Only resource support has a weak
association with Integration.
The final LBDQ subscale is Superior Orientation.

Stodgill (1963) defines

Superior Orientation as maintaining cordial relations with superior; has influence with
them; is striving for higher status (p. 3). There are ten items in this subscale: 10, 20, 30,
40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100. For the purpose of this study, Superior Orientation is
twofold: the principal establishes friendly relations with, and is respected by, district
administration and he or she has aspirations for career advancement. Table 20 illustrates
the relationship between Superior Orientation and the seven dimensions of school
climate.

59

Table 20
Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Superior Orientation and OHI
II

IS

PI

RS

AE

.267

.160

.085

.292**

.041

.344*

.265*

** p .01
* p .05
Superior Orientation has an overall weak association with the OHI dimensions.
Only Morale (r = .344, p = .012), Principal Influence (r = .292, p = .009) and Academic
Emphasis (r = .265, p = .036) are statistically significant. The other dimensions of the
OHI convey weak to no relationship with the Superior Orientation subscale of the LBDQ
and are not statistically significant.
Table 21 illustrates a summary of the correlational strength for each LBDQ
subscale and the OHI according to Salkinds Correlation Coefficient scale. The table
conveys how many times each LBDQ subscale had a very strong, strong,
moderately strong, weak, or weak to no relationship with the OHI. The following
conversion scale was used to obtain a total correlational strength for each LBDQ
subscale: very strong = 5 points, strong = 4 points, moderately strong = 3 points,
weak = 2 points and weak to no = 1 point.

60

Table 21
Correlational Strength of each LBDQ Subscale with the OHI
LBDQ Subscale

Very

Strong

Moderately

Strong
Point Conversion

Weak

Strong

Weak or

Total

No

5 Pts

4 Pts

3 Pts

2 Pts

1 Pt

Reconciliation

21

Predictive

21

Tolerance of Free

21

Consideration

21

Persuasion

20

Structure

20

Integration

20

Tolerance of Uncert

19

Role Assumption

18

Representation

12

Superior Orientation

11

Production

10

Overall, the LBDQ subscales of Demand Reconciliation, Predictive Accuracy,

Tolerance of Freedom and Consideration had the strongest relationships with the OHI
dimensions (all with totals of 21 points). Therefore, these leadership styles are also the
most likely to influence school climate. Persuasion, Structure, Integration, Tolerance of
Uncertainty, and Role Assumption represent a moderate level of correlational strength
with totals ranging from 18 to 20 points. Finally, Representation, Superior Orientation,

61

and Production have the weakest overall relationship with school climate with ranges of
10 to 12 points.

Teachers Perceptions of Common Leadership Styles among New Secondary School

Principals

The third research question inquired about the leadership styles that new
secondary school principals have in common. Table 22 displays the most common
LBDQ subscales of new secondary school principals in descending order. Thus, the
higher the leadership subscale appears on the table, the higher the teachers rated their
new principal on that leadership criterion. The percentage for each subscale was obtained
by dividing the mean value into the maximum score. This was necessary because eight
subscales had ten questions on the LBDQ with a maximum score of 50 (Structure, Role
Assumption, Superior Orientation, Tolerance of Uncertainty, Persuasion, Consideration,
Tolerance of Freedom and Production), while the remaining four subscales had five
questions and a maximum score of 25 (Representation, Demand Reconciliation,
Integration and Predictive Accuracy). Therefore, it was necessary to convert the mean
scores into percentages in order to compare all 12 subscales in the same table.

62

Table 22
Mean Values of LBDQ Subscales
N
Structure
Representation
Role Assumption
Demand Reconciliation
Superior Orientation
Tolerance of Uncertainty
Persuasion
Consideration
Tolerance of Freedom
Integration
Predictive Accuracy
Production
Valid N (listwise)

166
188
164
171
146
156
168
170
168
170
167
165
111

Minimum

Maximum

Mean
Value

Std.
Deviation

17
6
17
5
22
13
14
14
11
5
6
16

50
25
50
25
50
50
50
50
47
25
25
48

39.78
19.65
39.18
19.09
36.55
36.28
36.25
36.01
35.96
17.58
17.55
34.84

5.717
3.207
6.151
3.794
4.646
6.432
7.001
7.452
7.358
3.779
3.198
5.550

Percentages
.795
.786
.783
.763
.731
.725
.725
.720
.719
.703
.702
.696

Table 22 reflects minimal variability as there is only a ten percent difference

between Structure and Production. Also significant, the teachers perceived all of the
LBDQ subscales to be present in new secondary school principals between 70 to 80
percent of the time. Therefore, all twelve of the LBDQ subscales are prevalent among
new secondary school principals. Nevertheless, Structure (.795), Representation (.786),
and Role Assumption (.783) reflect the most common LBDQ subscales, while Integration
(.703), Predictive Accuracy (.702) and Production (.696) represent the least common
leadership styles among new secondary school principals as perceived by their faculties.

63

The Influence of Teacher Demographics on their Perceptions of the Leadership

Styles of New Principals

The following section examines the relationships between various teacher

demographic factors and the LBDQ. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine if there was statistical significance in the mean values of the participants
responses to the LBDQ. All twelve LBDQ subscales were entered in the dependent list
for each ANOVA.

Only the subscales that reflected statistical significance were

illustrated in this section.

The results of this section indicate that teachers with the least amount of time
employed in their current building rated their principal the highest on various leadership
styles, while the teachers who worked in the building for the greatest amount of time
rated their principal the lowest on the same LBDQ subscales. The data also illustrate that
teachers with less experience rated their principal higher on two leadership subscales,
while the participants with more teaching experience rated their principal lower on the
same criteria.
An analysis of variance revealed that the teachers responses to the LBDQ were
not influenced by the following demographic factors: age range, highest level of
education completed, and the number of principals under which they have worked. A
post hoc test could not be performed on ethnicity because at least one ethnic group had
fewer than two responses. An independent t-test was used to determine if the participants
were inclined to answer a certain way based on their gender. The results of the t-test
revealed that gender was not a factor in the way the respondents perceived the leadership
subscales.

64

Table 23 illustrates an ANOVA for the demographic question that asked the
teachers the number of years that they were employed at their current school and the
LBDQ. The data reveal that Representation (f = 2.98, p = .021), Initiation of Structure (f
= 2.78, p = .029), Production Emphasis (f = 3.21, p = .015) and Predictive Accuracy (f =
2.60, p = .039) are all statistically significant. Thus, the teachers longevity at their
current school is a factor in how they perceive the aforementioned leadership subscales.
Table 23
ANOVA for Years at Current School and LBDQ
Sum of

Df

Squares
Representation

Structure

Production

Predictive

Between Groups

Mean

28.195

Within Groups

1267.450

134

9.459

Total

1380.230

138

337.684

84.421

Within Groups

4100.059

135

30.371

Total

4437.743

139

371.885

92.971

Within Groups

3938.767

136

28.962

Total

4310.652

140

102.763

25.691

Within Groups

1346.230

136

9.899

Total

1448.993

140

Between Groups

Between Groups

Sig.

Square

112.780

Between Groups

F
2.981

.021

2.780

.029

3.210

.015

2.595

.039

Table 24 illustrates the post hoc results for the number of years that the teachers
worked at their current school and the LBDQ subscales that were statistically significant.
The data reveal that the teachers who worked in the school for the least amount of time
(0-5 years) and the teachers with the most seniority in their current school (more than 20
years) had the greatest variation in their answers to the questions on the LBDQ that
related to the following subscales: Representation (p = .04), Initiation of Structure
(p=.06), Production Emphasis (p = .02), and Predictive Accuracy (p = .04). Specifically,
65

the teachers with 0-5 years at their current school rated their principal the highest on the
aforementioned leadership subscales, while the teachers who have been at their current
school for more than 20 years rated their principal the lowest.

66

Table 24
Scheffe Post Hoc for Years at Current School and LBDQ
Dependent Variable

(I) Years at

(J) Years at Current

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Current School

School

Value

Deviation

Difference

Error

Sig.

(I-J)
Representation

0-5 years

6-10 years

19.84

2.864

.481

.729

.979

11-15 years

20.22

3.388

.103

.873

1.000

16-20 years

19.33

3.136

.992

More than 20 years

2.432

.758

.040

.758

.040

0-5 years

20.33

2.546

-2.432

years

6-10 years

19.84

2.864

-1.951

.796

.205

11-15 years

20.22

3.388

-2.329

.929

.186

16-20 years

19.33

3.136

-1.440

.888

.622

6-10 years

40.53

5.680

1.064

1.293

.954

11-15 years

40.94

4.582

.651

1.553

.996

16-20 years

38.71

5.188

2.881

1.473

.434

More than 20 years

37.48

7.013

4.114

1.359

.063

More than 20

0-5 years

41.60

4.753

-4.114

1.359

.063

years

6-10 years

40.53

5.680

-3.050

1.440

.349

11-15 years

40.94

4.582

-3.463

1.677

.376

16-20 years

38.71

5.188

-1.233

1.603

.964

6-10 years

35.88

5.896

.881

1.269

.975

11-15 years

34.89

4.012

1.861

1.494

.817

16-20 years

34.33

5.161

2.423

1.444

.591

6.204

4.506

1.319

.024

-4.506

1.319

.024

0-5 years

Emphasis

More than 20 years

Predictive

3.695

.838

More than 20

Initiation of Structure 0-5 years

Production

17.89

.829
*

32.25

More than 20

0-5 years

36.76

4.999

years

6-10 years

35.88

5.896

-3.625

1.393

.155

11-15 years

34.89

4.012

-2.645

1.600

.605

16-20 years

34.33

5.161

-2.083

1.554

.773

6-10 years

17.69

3.306

.873

.742

.846

11-15 years

18.00

2.351

.561

.890

.982

16-20 years

17.76

3.434

.799

.844

.925

3.777

2.423

.763

.044

-2.423

.763

.044

0-5 years

Accuracy

More than 20 years

16.14

More than 20

0-5 years

18.56

2.637

years

6-10 years

17.69

3.306

-1.550

.807

.453

11-15 years

18.00

2.351

-1.862

.944

.425

16-20 years

17.76

3.434

-1.624

.902

.520

67

Years experience is also a factor in how the teachers perceived the LBDQ
subscales of Role Assumption and Production Emphasis.

Table 25 illustrates the

significance of Role Assumption (f = 2.59, p = .040) and Production Emphasis (f = 3.60,

p = .008) when compared to the demographic question regarding teaching experience.
Table 25
ANOVA for Years Teaching Experience and LBDQ
Sum of

Df

Mean

Squares
Role

Between Groups

Assumption

Sig.

Square

381.874

95.469

Within Groups

4911.227

133

36.927

Total

5293.101

137

405.553

101.388
28.177

Production

Between Groups

Emphasis

Within Groups

3747.549

133

Total

4153.101

137

2.585

.040

3.598

.008

Table 26 shows the post hoc results for teaching experience and the statistically
significant LBDQ subscales. The teachers who had 4 to 9 years of experience and the
teachers with 16 to 20 years experience had the greatest variation in their responses to the
questions that related to Role Assumption, although this relationship was not statistically
significant (p = .160). Therefore, the teachers who indicated that they had between 4 and
9 years of experience rated their principal the highest on Role Assumption (m = 41.61),
while the teachers with 16 to 20 years of experience rated the principal the lowest on this
leadership subscale (m = 37.52).

The same group of teachers with 4 to 9 years of

experience rated their new principal the highest on Production Emphasis (m = 37.20),
while the teachers with more than 20 years of experience rated their new principal the
lowest on this leadership subscale (m = 32.85).

Therefore, the teachers with 4 to 9

years of experience showed maximum disparity with the participants who had more than

68

20 years of teaching experience in their responses to the Production Emphasis questions

on the LBDQ (p = .016).
Table 26
Scheffe Post Hoc for Years Teaching Experience and LBDQ
Dependent Variable

Role Assumption

(I) Years of

(J) Years of

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Teaching

Teaching

Values

Deviation

Difference

Error

Experience

Experience

4-9 years

0-3 years

40.67

7.762

.944

2.265

.996

10-15 years

39.15

4.312

2.463

1.547

.639

16-20 years

37.52

6.953

4.091

1.582

.160

More than 20 years

37.78

6.097

3.831

1.388

.113

0-3 years

40.67

7.762

-3.147

2.362

.777

4-9 years

41.61

6.091

-4.091

1.582

.160

10-15 years

39.15

4.312

-1.628

1.687

.919

More than 20 years

37.78

6.097

-.260

1.542

1.00

0-3 years

36.60

4.195

.600

1.903

.999

10-15 years

35.89

5.323

1.311

1.360

.920

16-20 years

34.64

5.314

2.560

1.390

.497

1.222

.016

16-20 years

Production Emphasis

4-9 years

More than 20
years

Sig.

(I-J)

More than 20 years

32.85

5.769

4.346

0-3 years

36.60

4.195

-3.746

1.872

.409

1.222

.016

4-9 years

37.20

4.981

-4.346

10-15 years

35.89

5.323

-3.035

1.316

.262

16-20 years

34.64

5.314

-1.786

1.347

.780

The Influence of Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Impact on School Climate

and Leadership Styles

The following section examines the relationships between the teachers

perceptions of school climate and the LBDQ.

Independent t-tests and analysis of

variance (ANOVA) were used to determine if there was statistical significance in the
mean values of the participants responses to the LBDQ. All twelve LBDQ subscales

69

were entered in the dependent list for each ANOVA and the test variables for the t-test.
Only the subscales that reflected statistical significance were illustrated in this section.
This section illustrates that the teachers who believed their principal would take
the least amount of time to change the climate of their school rated the principal the
highest on three LBDQ subscales. The teacher participants who indicated that their
principal would take the most time to change school climate rated their principal the
lowest on the same leadership styles.

This section also reveals that the teachers that

maintained their principal had changed the climate of their school, rated the principal
higher on two LBDQ subscales, while the teachers who believed their principal had
conformed to the existing climate, rated the principal lower on the same leadership styles.
An ANOVA was performed to examine the teachers perceptions of how long
they expected their new principal to make a difference in the climate of their school and
the LBDQ subscales. Nine of the twelve LBDQ subscales were statistically significant.
Consideration, Tolerance of Uncertainty and Superior Orientation were the only LBDQ
subscales that showed no statistical significance. The full table can be seen in the
(Appendix G).
Table 27 illustrates the Post Hoc test for the demographic question of how long
the teachers expected it to take their new principals to change the climate of the school
and the three most statistically significant LBDQ subscales. The teachers who believed
that their principal would take less than two years to change the climate of their school
had the greatest variation in mean scores to the teachers who believed their principal
would take more than 6 years. The trend of this table reflects that the less time the
teachers felt it would take their principal to change the climate of their school, the higher

70

they rated their principal on the LBDQ subscales. Specifically, the teachers who believed
that it would take their principals less than two years to make a difference in the climate
of their school, rated their new principals the highest on Demand Reconciliation,
Persuasion and Production. Conversely, the teachers who believed that it would take
their principal more than six to affect the climate of the school, rated the principals the
lowest on the three leadership subscales.
Table 27
Scheffe Post Hoc for Time to take Principal to Change the School Climate and LBDQ
Dependent

(I) Time for

(J) Time for

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Variable

Principal to

Principal to

Value

Deviation

Difference

Error

Make Difference

Make Difference

Less than 2 years

2-3 years

18.35

3.553

1.416

.708

.266

4-6 years

17.00

2.828

2.768

1.437

.299

3.055

8.434

2.153

.002

-8.434

2.153

.002

-7.018

2.206

.020

Reconciliation

More than 6 yrs

More than 6 yrs

Persuasion

Less than 2 years

Less than 2 years

Production

Less than 2 years

11.33
19.77

3.774

18.35

3.553

4-6 years

17.00

2.828

-5.667

2.535

.177

2-3 years

35.87

6.187

1.369

1.250

.754

4-6 years

32.33

5.645

4.904

2.748

.368

8.327

16.570

3.829

.001

-16.570

3.829

.001

-15.202

3.917

.002

Less than 2 years

20.67
37.24

6.661

2-3 years

35.87

6.187

4-6 years

32.33

5.645

-11.667

4.619

.100

2-3 years

34.81

4.345

.877

1.019

.864

4-6 years

30.43

7.743

5.259

2.063

.095

13.188

3.764

.008

-13.188

3.764

.008

-12.311

3.825

.018

-7.929

4.224

.322

More than 6 yrs

More than 6 yrs

(I-J)

2-3 years

More than 6 yrs

More than 6 yrs

Sig.

Less than 2 years

22.50
35.69

.707
5.420

2-3 years

34.81

4.345

4-6 years

30.43

7.743

Table 28 is a t-test for the demographic question of which statement best

describes your new principal and the LBDQ. The question asks participants to select

71

either: My principal has changed the climate of the school or My principal has
conformed to the existing climate of this school. The results indicate that the teachers
who affirmed that their principal changed the climate of the school rated their principal
higher on the Representation (m = 20.12) and Predictive Accuracy (m = 18.17) subscales
of the LBDQ.

Conversely, those teachers who indicated that their principal had

conformed to the existing climate of the school rated their principals lower on the
aforementioned leadership subscales (m = 17.73 and m = 15.48 respectively). Thus, the
difference between the mean values is statistically significant for Representation (p =
.002) and Predictive Accuracy (p = .003).
Table 28
t-test for Expectation of Principal to Change or Conform to School Climate and LBDQ
Representation
Change
Conform

Mean Value
20.12
17.73

Predictive Accuracy
Mean Value
Change
18.17
Conform
15.48

Std. Deviation
2.646
3.494

Std. Deviation
2.817
4.022

T
3.283

T
3.184

Sig.
.002

Sig.
.003

The preceding section illustrates the relationships between the questions on the
demographic survey and the LBDQ. In general, the teachers with less experience and
less time at their current school rated their principal higher on various leadership
subscales than the teachers with more experience. Also significant, was that the teachers
who believed that it would take the least amount of time for their principal to change the
climate of the school, held their principals leadership capacity in higher regard. Finally,

72

the teachers who indicated that their principal changed the climate of the school, rated the
principal higher on two leadership subscales.

The Influence of Teacher Demographics on School Climate Dimensions

A relationship did not exist between the various demographic factors and school
climate as perceived by the teacher participants. An ANOVA performed on the OHI
revealed no statistical significance for the following demographic criteria: ethnicity, age
range, highest level of education, years at current school, years teaching experience and
the number of principals under which they worked.

The results of an independent

samples t-test also revealed that gender was not a factor in the way the respondents
perceived school climate.

The Influence of Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Impact on School Climate

Dimensions
The following section examines the relationships between the teachers
perceptions of school climate and the OHI. Independent t-tests and analysis of variance
(ANOVA) were used to determine if there was statistical significance in the mean values
of the participants responses. All seven of the OHI climate dimensions were entered in
the Dependent List for each ANOVA and the test variables for the t-test. Only the
dimensions that reflected statistical significance were illustrated in this section.
The data from this section convey that the teachers who believed it would take
less time for their principal to change the climate in their school rated their principal
higher on the school climate dimension of Morale than the teachers who believed it

73

would take their principal longer to change school climate. The results also illustrate that
the teacher participants who declared that their principal had changed the climate of their
school rated their principal higher on the OHI dimension of Morale, but lower on
Production Emphasis. The teachers who believed that their principal conformed to the
existing school climate rated these dimensions the opposite.
Table 29 is an ANOVA that illustrates the relationship between the demographic
question pertaining to the amount of time that teachers expected it would take their
principal to affect the climate of their school and the OHI dimensions that were
statistically significant. Although the ANOVA revealed that Principal Influence was
significant (p = .000), a Post hoc test could not be performed because at least one group
had fewer than two cases. Therefore, the only OHI dimension that was statistically
significant with a Post hoc test was Morale (p = .000).
Table 29
ANOVA for Time the Teachers expected it to take their Principal to Change the School
Climate and OHI
Sum of

df

Mean

Squares
Morale Score

Between

Sig.

Square

384.575

128.192

Within Groups

1105.364

62

17.828

Total

1489.939

65

80.685

26.895

Within Groups

239.591

83

2.887

Total

320.276

86

7.190

.000

9.317

.000

Groups

Principal Influence

Between

Score

Groups

Table 30 illustrates the post hoc results for the preceding ANOVA. The data
show that the teachers who believed their principal would take less than two years to

74

affect their schools climate had the greatest variation in their perception of morale (p =
.010) with those who indicated it would take 4-6 years.

Thus, the teachers who

maintained that their principal would take less than two years to change the climate of
their school rated the OHI dimension of Morale the highest, while the teachers who
believed it would take 4-6 years to change the school climate, rated this dimension the
lowest.
Table 30
Scheffe Post Hoc for Time the Teachers expected it to take their Principal to Change the
School Climate and OHI
Dependent

(I) Time for

(J) Time for

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Variable

Principal to

Principal to Make

Value

Deviation

Difference

Error

Make

Difference

Sig.

(I-J)

Difference
Morale Score

Less than 2
years
2-3 years

4-6 years

2-3 years

26.33

3.162

3.202

1.185

.073

2.521

.010

4-6 years

20.67

10.504

8.868

More than 6 years

22.00

5.657

7.535

3.054

.119

Less than 2 years

29.53

4.032

-3.202

1.185

.073

4-6 years

20.67

10.504

5.667

2.633

.212

More than 6 years

22.00

5.657

4.333

3.147

.597

2.521

.010

Less than 2 years

29.53

4.032

-8.868

2-3 years

26.33

3.162

-5.667

2.633

.212

More than 6 years

22.00

5.657

-1.333

3.854

.989

More than 6

Less than 2 years

29.53

4.032

-7.535

3.054

.119

years

2-3 years

26.33

3.162

-4.333

3.147

.597

4-6 years

20.67

10.504

1.333

3.854

.989

Table 31 illustrates a t-test for the demographic question that asks the teachers to
indicate whether their principal has changed the climate of the school or conformed to the
existing one and the OHI. The data show that the teachers who indicated that their
principal changed the climate of the school rated Morale higher (m = 29.02), but the OHI
dimension of Academic Emphasis lower. Concurrently, the teacher participants who
75

believed that their principal had conformed to the existing school climate, rated Morale
lower (m = 25.00) and Academic Emphasis higher (m = 24.15).

Table 31
t-test for Expectation of Principal to Change or Conform to the School Climate and OHI
Morale

Change
Conform

Mean Value
29.02
25.00

Std. Deviation
3.449
6.947

T
2.227

Sig.
.000

Std. Deviation
2.947
4.580

T
-.116

Sig.
.033

Academic Emphasis

Change
Conform

Mean Value
24.00
24.15

The intent of this section was to present the relationships between the questions
on the demographic survey and the OHI. The OHI dimension of Morale showed a
relationship with the time that teachers believed it would take their principal to make a
difference as well as the expectations teachers had for their principal to change the
climate of the school. Specifically, the teachers who indicated that it would take their
principal less than two years to change the climate of their school, rated Morale the
highest. Similarly, the teacher participants who indicated that their principal would
change, rather than conform to their schools climate, also rated Morale higher.
However, the same teacher population rated the OHI dimension of Academic Emphasis
lower.

76

Teachers Perceptions of the Principals Leadership Styles that Contribute to either

a Positive or Negative School Climate

The second research question inquired if certain leadership styles of new

secondary school principals produce a positive or negative school climate. Question
number eight on the demographic survey asked participants to assess the impact that their
principal has had on school climate. The teacher respondents had to decide if their new
principal had a positive effect on school climate, negative effect, or if it was too early to
tell. Table 31 is a frequency distribution that illustrates the results of this question.
Based on the ensuing data analysis, most of the teacher participants believed that
their new principal had improved the climate in their school. The results also confirmed
that the teachers who perceived their principals effect on school climate as positive,
rated them higher on three LBDQ subscales. Conversely, the teachers who believed that
their principal had adversely influenced their school climate, rated them lower on these
leadership styles.

The same analysis methods were conducted with the OHI and

produced similar results.

The teachers who believed their principal had a positive

influence on school climate rated four OHI dimensions higher than the teachers who
perceived their principals impact on school climate as negative.

77

Table 32
Frequency Distribution for Principals Effect on School Climate
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Too Early to tell

48

19.6

30.0

30.0

Positive Impact

96

39.2

60.0

90.0

Negative Impact

16

6.5

10.0

100.0

160

65.3

100.0

85

34.7

245

100.0

Total
Missing

System

Total

Table 32 reveals that 96 out of 160 (60%) of the respondents maintained that their
new principal has had a positive effect on school climate.

Forty-eight teachers

maintained that it is too early to tell if their principal has influenced the school climate
and 16 teachers reported that their new principal had adversely affected the climate of
their school.
While the data illustrate that the majority of the teacher participants indicated that
their new principal improved the existing climate of their school, it does not reveal the
leadership styles that contributed to the improved climate. Therefore, an ANOVA for the
demographic question that pertains to the impact that new principals have had on school
climate and the LBDQ was performed. It indicated that all twelve of the leadership
subscales were statistically significant. The full table can be seen in the appendices
(Appendix H). Table 33 illustrates a Scheffe Post hoc test for the three most statistically
significant LBDQ subscales.

The results indicate that too early to tell, positive

impact, and negative impact are all statistically significant at the .000 level for
Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom and Consideration. The greatest mean
difference for each of the three LBDQ subscales exists between the teachers who

78

responded that their principal has had a positive effect on school climate versus those
who thought their principal has had a negative impact on the climate of the school.
Therefore, the teachers who rated their new principal the highest on the questions related
to these three leadership subscales, perceived their principal as having a positive impact
on school climate. Accordingly, the teachers who rated their principal the lowest on
Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom and Consideration, believed their
principal had a negative effect on the climate of the school.

In sum, Tolerance of

Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom, and Consideration are the three most probable
leadership subscales that produce a positive school climate.

79

Table 33
Scheffe Post Hoc Test for Principals Effect on School Climate and Most Statistically
Significant LBDQ Subscales
Dependent

(I) Which

(J) Which

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Variable

Statement is

Statement is Most

Value

Deviation

Difference

Error

Most Accurate

Accurate

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact

Tolerance of
Uncertainty

(I-J)

Negative Impact
Positive Impact

Too Early to tell

Negative Impact

Negative Impact

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact

Tolerance of

Too Early to tell

Freedom

Positive Impact
Negative Impact

Positive Impact

Too Early to tell

Negative Impact

Negative Impact

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact

Consideration

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact
Negative Impact

Positive Impact

Too Early to tell

Negative Impact

Negative Impact

Sig.

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact

39.27
27.23
34.44
27.23
34.44
39.27
39.06
26.00
34.18
26.00
34.18
39.06
39.39
24.60
33.98
24.60
33.98
39.39

4.850

-4.833*

1.012

.000

7.704

7.208

1.680

.000

4.833

1.012

.000

12.041

1.577

.000

-7.208

1.680

.000

-12.041

1.577

.000

-4.878

1.094

.000

8.182

1.757

.000

4.878

1.094

.000

13.060

1.647

.000

-8.182

1.757

.000

-13.060

1.647

.000

-5.414

1.042

.000

9.377

1.684

.000

5.414

1.042

.000

14.791

1.575

.000

-9.377

1.684

.000

-14.791

1.575

.000

5.201
7.704
5.201
4.850
4.569
6.698
7.586
6.698
7.586
4.569
5.533
5.343
5.916
5.343
5.916
5.533

An ANOVA for The Principals Effect on School Climate and the OHI
dimensions that are statistically significant is illustrated in Table 34. Initiating Structure
(p = .000), Consideration (p = .000), Principal Influence (.019), and Resource Support (p
= .000) are statistically significant when compared to the abovementioned demographic
factor.

80

Table 34
ANOVA for Principals Effect on School Climate and OHI
Sum of Squares

df

Mean

Sig.

Square
Initiating Structure

Consideration

Principal Influence

Resource Support

Between Groups

95.106

47.553

Within Groups

385.608

109

3.538

Total

480.714

111

Between Groups

244.326

122.163

Within Groups

225.133

71

3.171

Total

469.459

73

28.889

14.445

Within Groups

291.387

84

3.469

Total

320.276

86

Between Groups

183.137

91.568

Within Groups

685.530

72

9.521

Total

868.667

74

Between Groups

13.442

.000

38.527

.000

4.164

.019

9.617

.000

The post hoc results for the Principals Effect on School Climate and the OHI is
illustrated in Table 35. The data reveal that the way in which teacher participants
responded to this demographic question, was a factor in how they perceived the following
OHI dimensions: Initiating Structure, Consideration, Principal Influence and Resource
Support. Again, the teachers who indicated that their principal had a positive impact on
school climate versus those who answered that their principal had a negative effect,
showed the greatest variation in their perception of the aforementioned climate
dimensions.

Specifically, the teachers who believed their principal had a positive

influence on school climate rated their principal higher on Initiating Structure,

Consideration, Principal Influence and Resource Support. The teacher participants who
rated these dimensions the lowest, believed that their principal had adversely impacted
the climate of their school.

81

Table 35
Scheffe Post Hoc for Principals Effect on School Climate and OHI
Dependent

(I) Which

(J) Which

Mean

Std.

Mean

Std.

Variable

Statement is Most

Statement is

Value

Deviation

Difference

Error

Accurate

Most Accurate

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact

17.71

1.860

-1.390*

.403

.004

Negative Impact

14.63

2.615

1.698

.746

.080

1.720

1.390

.403

.004

.700

.000

Initiating
Structure

Positive Impact
Negative Impact
Consideration

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact

Too Early to tell

Principal

Too Early to tell

Influence
Positive Impact
Negative Impact
Resource

Too Early to tell

Support
Positive Impact

16.32
14.63

2.615

3.087

Too Early to tell

16.32

1.720

-1.698

.746

.080

.700

.000

Positive Impact

17.71

1.860

Positive Impact

17.17

1.846

-.887

.530

.254

-3.087

1.346

.000

Negative Impact

6.00

1.414

Too Early to tell

16.29

1.490

.887

.530

.254

1.414

11.172

1.281

.000

-10.286

1.346

.000

-11.172

1.281

.000

Too Early to tell

6.00
16.29

1.490

10.286

Positive Impact

17.17

1.846

Positive Impact

16.14

1.663

-.706

.460

.314

Negative Impact

14.14

2.116

1.292

.804

.280

Too Early to tell

15.43

.466

.706

.460

.314

.746

.032

Negative Impact

14.14

2.116

1.997

Too Early to tell

15.43

.466

-1.292

.804

.280

.746

.032

Positive Impact

16.14

1.663

Positive Impact

15.62

2.547

-1.270

.816

.304

-1.997

1.543

.008

Negative Impact

9.40

5.128

Too Early to tell

14.35

3.717

1.270

.816

.304

5.128

6.220

1.447

.000

-4.950

1.543

.008

-6.220

1.447

.000

Negative Impact
Negative Impact

(I-J)

Negative Impact

Negative Impact
Negative Impact

Sig.

Too Early to tell

Positive Impact

9.40
14.35
15.62

3.717
2.547

4.950

The preceding section illustrates that the majority of the teacher participants
perceived their new principal as having a positive impact on the climate of their schools.
Accordingly, the same teacher population rated several of the LBDQ subscales and OHI
dimensions higher than the teachers who believed their principal adversely affected their
schools climate.

The three most prevalent leadership subscales that reflect this

82

relationship are Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom and Consideration.

Therefore, the teachers perceive these leadership styles as contributing most to a positive
school climate. The teachers who rated the OHI dimensions of Initiating Structure,
Consideration, Principal Influence and Resource Support the highest also believed that
their principal had a positive impact on the climate of their school. Those who believed
that their principal had adversely affected the schools climate rated these OHI
dimensions the lowest. Thus, the teachers perceived Initiating Structure, Consideration,
Principal Influence and Resource Support as the OHI dimensions that contribute most to
a positive school climate.

Teacher Perceptions of the Principals Tendency to Change or Conform to the

Existing School Climate

The final research question asked teachers if their new secondary school
principals were more inclined to influence, or be influenced by, their school climate. The
results of the final section not only reveal that most of the teacher participants believed
that their principal had changed the climate in their school, but that the change would
happen relatively quickly.
Table 36 illustrates a frequency distribution for question number ten on the
demographic survey. Eighty-three percent of the teachers responded that their new
principal has changed the climate of their school, while 17% indicated that their principal
had conformed to the existing school climate.

Therefore, according to the teacher

participants, new secondary school principals are more inclined to influence the existing
climate of a school than be influenced by it.

83

Table 36
Frequency Distribution for Expectations of Principal to Change or Conform to School
Climate
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

My new principal has

130

53.1

82.8

82.8

27

11.0

17.2

100.0

157

64.1

100.0

88

35.9

245

100.0

changed the climate of the

school
My new principal has
conformed to the existing
climate of this school
Total
Missing

System

Total

While the research validates that the vast majority of the teacher participants
believed their new secondary school principals changed the climate in their school rather
than conformed to it, the time for a new principal to affect the school culture is also
significant. Table 37 reveals that the majority of the teacher participants (68%) believed
that it would take less than two years for their new principal to change the climate of the
school. Twenty-six percent believed it would take their principal 2-3 years to impact
school climate, while 4% indicated it would take 4-6 years. Only 2% of the teacher
respondents believed that it would take their principal more than six years to influence
school climate.

84

Table 37
Frequency Distribution for Time the Teachers expected it to take Principal to Change the
School Climate
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Less than 2 years

108

44.1

67.9

67.9

2-3 years

41

16.7

25.8

93.7

4-6 years

2.9

4.4

98.1

More than 6 years

1.2

1.9

100.0

159

64.9

100.0

86

35.1

245

100.0

Total
Missing

System

Total

The data in the final section of chapter four reveals the profound influence that
new principals can have on a school climate.

Not only did most of the teacher

participants agree that their principal had changed the climate of the school, but they
concurred it would happen relatively quickly.

Conclusion
The ensuing table provides a summary of chapter four as it illustrates the data
analysis done for each demographic question. In addition to the information provided in
Table 38, the following data analysis methods were used to address each research
question in its entirety: a frequency distribution was performed for each demographic
question, a Pearson Correlation Coefficient was produced for each LBDQ subscale and
the OHI, and the mean values were listed for each LBDQ subscale.

85

Table 38
Summary of Data Analysis
Question on
Demographic Survey
Age Range

Data Analysis
ANOVA

Statistically Significant?
LBDQ
OHI
NO
NO

Gender

t-test

NO

NO

Ethnicity

ANOVA

NO

NO

Education

ANOVA

NO

NO

Years at Current School

ANOVA

YES

NO

Teaching Experience

ANOVA

YES

NO

# Principals

ANOVA

NO

NO

Effect on School Climate

ANOVA

YES

YES

Time to make Difference

ANOVA

YES

YES

Change or Conform

t-test

YES

YES

Table 38 illustrates that an ANOVA performed for age range, ethnicity, education
and the number of principals under which the teachers worked revealed no statistical
significance when compared to the LBDQ and the OHI, while an ANOVA for years at
current school and teaching experience was statistically significant with only the LBDQ.
Only the ANOVAs related to the principals effect on school climate and the time that
teachers expected it would take their principal to make a difference were statistically
significant with both the LBDQ and OHI. Although a t-test for Gender yielded no
statistical significance with the LBDQ or the OHI, the t-test for the demographic question

86

that asked the teacher participants if their principal changed or conformed to the existing
school climate did reflect statistical significance with both the LBDQ and OHI.

87

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
There is no debate that the principalship is evolving into a multifaceted and
complex position. Principals at the secondary level have an even greater challenge as
they typically have a larger student body, a more diversified curriculum, more expansive
budget and have to contend with graduation and drop out rates. While such demands are
challenging for experienced administrators, new principals must learn the dynamics of a
building while confronting these plethora of responsibilities. The purpose of this study
was to examine the impact that new secondary school principals have on school climate.
The following research questions guided this study:

1. Is there a relationship between leadership styles and school climate as perceived

by the teachers and the new secondary school principal?
2. Do certain leadership styles of new secondary school principals produce a
positive or negative school climate?
3. Are there any commonalities in leadership styles among new secondary school
principals?
4. Are new secondary school principals more inclined to influence school climate or
are they more influenced by the school climate?

A primary objective of this study was to provide research that would help new
principals better understand and adjust to the existing climate of their school. As a new
high school principal, the student researcher experienced considerable resistance and
opposition while attempting to implement change before learning the intricacies of the

88

school climate. This research will provide practical suggestions for new principals to
help them avoid making the same mistakes as those made by the student researcher.
The importance of a strong relationship between the principal and staff
consistently reappeared throughout the review of literature. Nearly all of the information
emphasized that a personalized approach to leadership is conducive to a healthy school
climate. The literature review also distinguished between school climate and culture.
Gonder et al. (1994) surmised that climate refers to the current conditions in the school,
while culture represents a schools traditions and customs. Thus, the focus of this study
was to examine the influence that the new principals had on the current conditions in
their school - its climate. Although there is considerable literature related to principal
leadership and school climate, very little has been written about the impact of new
secondary school principal leadership style and school climate.
The population for this study consisted of the faculty and principals of ten public
schools in upstate New York with varying demographic information. The Leadership
Behavior Description Questionnaire was used to measure the teachers and principals
perception of the principals leadership capacity. The Organizational Health Inventory
for Secondary Schools was also given to each teacher and principal participant to
determine how they perceived their schools climate.

Finally, a brief survey was

administered to each participant seeking demographic information and their opinions

regarding leadership and school climate. Although the questionnaires were administered
to both the principals and teachers, too few principals completed each questionnaire in its
entirety to enable data analysis to be performed for the principal sample.

89

Summary of Findings
Results of Demographic Questions
The questions from the demographic survey yielded significant findings.
Although the largest percentage of teachers identified themselves in the highest age
range, over half of the participants had between 0 and 15 years experience. Accordingly,
over half the teacher participants indicated that they had been employed at their current
school for ten years or less. Nevertheless, over 60% of the teachers maintained that they
had worked for five or more principals throughout their careers. These data suggest a
high attrition rate for new secondary school principals and further validates the need for,
and significance of, this study.

Research Question 1
The first research question asked: Is there a relationship between leadership style
and school climate as perceived by the teachers and the new secondary school principals?
The principal data for this question could not be validated due to an insufficient response
rate, thus the study did not ascertain what the principals perceptions of the relationship
between leadership style and school climate was. However, the teachers responses
indicated that the following nine leadership subscales had the strongest relationships with
school climate: Demand Reconciliation, Predictive Accuracy, Tolerance of Freedom,
Consideration, Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, Integration, Tolerance of
Uncertainty, and Role Assumption.

The remaining three leadership styles

(Representation, Superior Orientation and Production) revealed weak relationships with

90

school climate. In sum, all twelve of the LBDQ subscales are related to, and have
varying influence on, school climate.

Research Question 2
Research Question 2 inquired: Do certain leadership styles of new secondary
school principals produce a positive or negative school climate? The majority of the
teacher participants indicated that their new principal had a positive effect on school
climate, while only a small percentage believed their principal had adversely impacted
the climate of their school. Although all the principals were serving in the first year as
principal in their respective buildings, their starting date could have varied and/or their
contact with various faculty members could be limited. This may explain why nearly one
third of the teachers maintained that it was too early to tell what impact their principal
had on school climate.
The teachers who maintained their principal had a positive impact on school
climate rated the leadership styles of Tolerance of Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom
and Consideration the highest, while those who responded that their new principal had a
negative influence on school climate, rated them the lowest. Therefore, the teachers
perceived these leadership subscales as contributing to a positive school climate when
actively practiced by new secondary school principals, but having a negative effect on
school climate when not present.
This research also identified the specific school climate dimensions that are most
conducive to a positive school climate. The teachers who rated Initiating Structure,
Consideration, Principal Influence and Resource Support the highest perceived their

91

principal as having a positive impact on school climate, while the teachers who rated
these OHI dimensions the lowest, believed that their principal adversely affected the
climate of their school. In sum, these OHI dimensions were perceived by the teacher
participants as contributing most to a positive school climate when practiced by their new
principals, but contributing to an unfavorable school climate when absent.

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked: Are there any commonalities in leadership styles
among new secondary school principals? The teachers indicated that all twelve of the
LBDQ subscales were present in new secondary school principals between 70 and 80
percent of the time. Although the order of each LBDQ subscale was determined, it was
not necessary to distinguish among them due to minimal variability. Therefore, the
results of this study indicate that all twelve of the LBDQ subscales are common among
new secondary school principals.

Research Question 4
The final research question asked: Are new secondary school principals more
inclined to influence school climate or are they more influenced by school climate? Over
80% of the teacher participants maintained that their principal changed the climate of
their school.

Therefore, it is the teachers perception that new secondary school

principals are more inclined to influence school climate.

The teachers who believed their principal had changed the climate of their school
rated the LBDQ subscales of Representation and Predictive Accuracy the highest, while

92

the teachers who indicated that their principal had conformed to the existing school
climate rated these leadership styles the lowest. Thus, the teachers perceived their new
principals aptitude of representing his constituents and predicting outcomes as the main
contributors to changing school climate.
The same teacher population who indicated that their principal had changed the
climate in their school rated the OHI dimension of Morale the highest and Academic
Emphasis the lowest. The minority of teacher participants who perceived their new
principal as conforming to the existing school climate rated these school dimensions
inversely.

This data infer that a high morale contributes to change, while pressure for

achievement may impede efforts to improve school climate.

Also relative to Research Question 4 was the time that teachers expected their
new principal to change their school climate. Over two thirds of the teacher participants
indicated that their new principal would take less than two years to change their schools
climate. Conversely, only three teacher participants maintained that their principal would
take more than six years to change the climate in their school.
The teachers who rated Demand Reconciliation, Persuasion and Production
Emphasis the highest believed their principal would take the least amount of time to
change the climate of their school. Therefore, the teachers perceive these leadership
styles as contributing most to expeditious change.

Consideration, Tolerance of

Uncertainty and Superior Orientation were not statistically significant, which may imply
that these leadership styles are counterproductive to rapid change.
The teachers who believed their principal would take the least amount of time to
change the climate of the school rated the OHI Dimension of Morale the highest.

93

Therefore, not only is a high morale conducive to change, it may expedite the change
process.

Data that was not Statistically Significant

There were various factors from the demographic survey that were not
statistically significant with the LBDQ or the OHI. For example, the teachers responses
to the LBDQ were not influenced by gender, ethnicity, age range, highest level of
education, or the number of principals under which they worked. The same criteria failed
to influence the way the teacher participants answered the OHI, in addition to the
teachers years experience and years they were employed at their current school.

Other Findings
The study revealed significant findings that did not directly relate to the research
questions. For example, the teacher participants who responded that they had been
employed at their school for the least amount of time rated their new principal the highest
on Representation, Initiation of Structure, Production Emphasis and Predictive Accuracy.
However, the inverse relationship occurred with the teachers who had been employed at
their current school for twenty or more years as they rated these leadership styles the
lowest.
Similarly, years of teaching experience also influenced the way in which teachers
perceived Role Assumption and Production Emphasis. Teachers with less experience
rated their principal higher on these leadership styles, while those with more experience
rated them lower.

94

Conclusions
The results of this study determined that a positive relationship exists between the
leadership styles of new secondary school principals and school climate. It was also
determined that various leadership styles of new secondary principals and select school
climate dimensions can contribute to a positive school climate when practiced, while the
same factors can result in a negative school climate when absent. Finally, the data
proved that new secondary school principals share several leadership styles and they tend
to influence school climate rather than conform to the existing one.
Several scholars have studied the influence of principal leadership on school
climate and concluded that a significant relationship exists. Kelley (2005) asserted that
school climate is directly linked to teachers perceptions of a principals effectiveness
(p. 21). Williamson (2007) stated that an analysis of data in this study supported the
hypothesis of a significant relationship between the principals leadership style and
school climate (p. 90). Finally, Barr (2006) maintained that the state of the school
climate is directly related to leadership. While there are several studies relative to
principal leadership and school climate, few have examined the effects of new principals
at the secondary level.

New principals should be cognizant that their leadership

behaviors have a profound influence on school climate.

A primary objective of this study was to help new secondary school principals
better adapt to the climate of their school, therefore the student researcher focused on the
leadership subscales and climate dimensions that contributed most to a positive school
climate. It is imperative that new principals understand the impact that Tolerance of
Uncertainty, Tolerance of Freedom and Consideration can have on school climate.

95

Tolerance of Uncertainty means that the principal is able to tolerate uncertainty and
postponement without anxiety or upset (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3). Therefore, new principals
will benefit from remaining calm when they are unclear about a situation or faced with
delays. A principal who employs Tolerance of Freedom allows followers scope for
initiative, decision and action (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3).

According to the teacher

participants, it is essential that new secondary school principals allow their teachers the
autonomy to think and act on their own. Consideration means that the principal regards
the comfort, well being, status, and contributions of followers (Stodgill, 1963, p. 3). It is
paramount that new principals be sensitive to the general welfare of their teachers and
acknowledge their service. New principals who actively apply these leadership styles to
their daily practice are likely to produce a positive school climate, while the school
leaders who neglect such practice, could adversely affect the climate of their school. It is
therefore recommended that new principals consistently employ these leadership styles.
Notably, the OHI dimensions that contributed most to a positive school climate
relate directly to principal leadership. For example: Initiation of Structure means that
the Principal makes his or her attitudes and expectations clear; Consideration is
principal behavior that is friendly, supportive, and collegial; Principal Influence is the
principals ability to affect the actions of superiors; and Resource Support refers to a
school where adequate classroom supplies and instructional materials are available (The
Organizational Health, 2009). Only Resource Support lacks the term principal as part
of its definition, yet it is customary that supplies and materials are allocated by the
building leader. In sum, it is recommended that new secondary school principals have
clear expectations and exhibit a personable demeanor upon their inception. However, it

96

will take time for a new building leader to earn the respect of district-level administrators
and providing adequate resources may be beyond their influence due to budgetary
constraints. Nevertheless, it is recommended that new secondary school principals begin
their positions by actively applying the leadership styles of Resource Support (whenever
possible), Initiation of Structure and Consideration, while working toward Principal
Influence.
Williamson (2007) also deduced that Initiation of Structure and Consideration
were valuable school climate dimensions. He argued that the absence of these two
leadership practices can have an unfavorable impact on school climate: the study found
that teachers who perceived their principal to be low in consideration and low in initiating
structure also perceived their school climate to be closed (2007, p. 95). Thus, it is likely
that the application of these leadership subscales will foster a healthy school climate.
This study illustrated that all twelve of the LBDQ subscales were common among
new secondary school principals as perceived by the teacher participants. It is therefore
recommended that new principals balance the application of several leadership styles to
cultivate a healthy school climate. Mason (2005) also pointed out that the intricacies of
the principalship require several behaviors. Although an order for each LBDQ subscale
was established based on its prevalence as perceived by the teachers, it was not necessary
to distinguish among them due to minimal variability.

Therefore, it is not the

recommendation of this study that one leadership style is practiced more frequently than
another.
Similar to the results of this study, Shaw (2009) concluded that teachers perceived
Predictive Accuracy as the least common leadership style among elementary and middle

97

school principals. Unlike this study, Shaw did not examine new principals or high school
principals.

Therefore, one may conclude that school level and whether or not the

principal was new to the building, are not factors in how teachers perceived their
principals capacity to accurately predict outcomes.
This study clearly suggests that new principals have a greater influence on their
school climate than the contrary. Although new principals are eager to infuse their
knowledge and ideas on their building, it is recommended that they do so slowly and
systematically. It is imperative that new principals learn the intricacies of the existing
school climate and culture before making extensive change. Although the results of this
study indicate that a majority of the teacher participants believed that their principal had
positively changed the climate of their school, a shrewd school leader will also allow the
existing school climate and culture to influence him.
While this study proved that new secondary school principals have a significant
influence on school climate, Osterman (1993) maintained that a school is also likely to
influence the principal. Osterman further asserted that principals are pressed to conform
to the expectations of their constituents.

Recommendations
Recommendations for Practice
The review of literature revealed that information related to new secondary school
principals and school climate is rare. Also lacking, are the education, services, training
and professional development opportunities that provide new school leaders with the

98

foundation to succeed (Harvey, 1991). This section identifies several recommendations

for practice that were derived from the findings of this research.
Similar to Barrs recommendation (2006), colleges and universities need to
develop more comprehensive preparatory programs for aspiring school leaders.
Although school administration has become a standard part of the higher education
curricula, a syllabus that includes instruction on how new principals can better adapt to
the existing climate of their school has yet to be developed. Osterman (1993) noted that
only a few of the teachers who participated in her study indicated that higher education
provided adequate support.

It is therefore recommended that institutions of higher

education integrate the findings from this study to better assist aspiring school principals
to adapt to their surroundings. Specifically, educational administration programs could
include instruction on the application of the administrative behaviors outlined in this
study that foster a healthy school climate.
Many districts offer orientation and mentoring services for teachers, while the
administration is neglected. School districts should use the results of this study to create
and/or develop orientation and mentoring programs for new principals. For example, an
orientation activity for new principals could consist of an experienced administrator
presenting to novice building leaders. Specifically, the presenters could use this study to
outline the mistakes of the student researchers inception as a new principal and share the
results of this study that illustrate the specific principal behaviors that were conducive to
a healthy school climate. This orientation activity should also encourage new principals
to practice a variety of leadership behaviors.

99

Mentors for new principals should also use this study to initiate dialog regarding
the importance of school leaders establishing a positive school climate. Mentors could
use their own experience as well as the findings from this study to help new principals
adjust to their buildings.
It is the recommendation of this student researcher that the organizations and
individuals who craft and present professional development activities use the contents of
this study to assist new principals. Furthermore, workshops and conferences should
incorporate other resources, instruction and activities that will help new principals better
adapt to their schools climate.

Shaw (2009) also recommended professional

development opportunities that focused on improving school climate.

Professional

development activities should use the findings from this study as well as other related
literature to educate aspiring principals on how to manage school climate.
This study should also be used to educate school boards and superintendents on
the impact of new secondary school principals leadership styles on school climate.
Those who oversee principals should be cognizant of the implications of an unhealthy
relationship between the principal and his or her staff. Reading this study will educate
district administrators and school boards on principal leadership style and school climate,
thus enabling them to offer meaningful support and guidance when necessary.
Finally, it is recommended that new principals use this study to initiate dialog
with their faculty and staff regarding the influence of leadership on school climate.
Principals should encourage their teachers to speak candidly about the leadership styles
that they believe contribute most to a positive school climate. New principals should be
open to such feedback and work to incorporate these suggestions. Shaw (2009) also

100

encourages dialog between principals and their faculties regarding leadership. Although
the LBDQ is not recommended for assessment purposes, new principals could use the
instrument to determine how the teachers perceive their leadership aptitude.

Recommendations for Future Research

There are several areas related to principal leadership and school climate that can
be further developed. Ideas for future research were cultivated as this study progressed.
This section includes recommendations that could enhance this study as well as
recommendations for unique studies related to new secondary principal leadership and
school climate.
The LBDQ, OHI and demographic survey consisted of a combined 154 questions
and were administered successively via a computer terminal. Consequently, this reduced
the response rate of the participants. It is therefore recommended that a similar study is
conducted with the following modifications: administer the LBDQ and OHI on different
days, administer all three instruments during a faculty meeting in which the student
researcher is present (also recommended by Hoye), create a condensed version of the
LBDQ and/or OHI, and/or design original instrumentation that assesses new principals
and school climate.
Although this study proved that a positive correlation exists between leadership
styles of new secondary principals and school climate as perceived by teachers, it did not
determine the perception of the principals regarding the same relationship because an
insufficient sample size was obtained. Therefore, it would be valuable to conduct a

101

similar study with a larger population of new secondary school principals to allow
comparative analysis between the teacher and principal participants.
Also relative to the sample, this study was delimited to New York State.
Conducting a similar study with teacher and principal participants representative of each
state would enable the researcher to determine if the findings are characteristic of the
nation or exclusive of each state.
The data for this study was aggregated as the student researcher was interested in
the overall impact that new secondary school principals had on school climate. It would
be valuable to conduct a similar study in which the data was compartmentalized by
school. This would illustrate the varying influence that principals have on school climate
among schools.
Future researchers could also conduct a variety of correlational studies related to
this topic. Similar to Barrs recommendation (2006), research that examines the differing
influences that new secondary school principals have on school climate versus
experienced or successful principals would be significant. A study that compares and
contrasts the impact that new secondary principals leadership styles have on school
climate to new elementary and middle school principals would also be worthwhile.
Finally, a study that investigates the impact of mentoring, professional development, or
any other preparatory programs on new principals would be valuable research.

102

References
Barr, B. A. (2006). A study of the impact of leadership on secondary school climate
(Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minnesota, MN). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (Publication No. AAT 3216035)
Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader: The leadership classic updated and expanded.
New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1989)
Boards of cooperative educational services (BOCES) of new york state. (2010). Retrieved
from http://www.boces.org/wps/portal/BOCESofNYS
Bulach, C., Boothe, D., & Pickett, W. (2006, August 21). Analyzing the leadership
behavior of school principals. In Connexions [Scholarly contribution]. Retrieved
October 15, 2009, from National Council of Professors of Educational
Administration website: http://cnx.org////
Coutts, D., & and Others. (1997, February 14). Measuring the degree of success in
improving school climate in schools with new principals. Lecture presented at the
American Association of School Administrators, Orlando, FL.
Cuellar, C. A. (2001). The effects of principal leadership style change and teachers
(Unpublished masters thesis). California State University, Los Angeles, CA.
Donaldson, G., Marnik, G., Mackenzie, S., & Ackerman, R. (2009, October). What
makes or breaks a principal. Educational Leadership, 8-14.
Drake, L. A. (1997). Perceptions of school leadership and its effects on climate in a
suburban school (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (Publication No. AAT
9803765)

103

Eshbach, E. C. (2008). The symbiotic relationship between new principals and the
climate of the schools in which they lead (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Freiberg, J. H. (1998, September). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways.
Educational Leadership, 56(1), 22-26. Available from ERIC database. (Accession
No. EJ570148)
Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership for the twenty-first century: Breaking the bonds of
dependency. In The jossey-bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 156-163).
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Gomez, F., & Van Zant, S. (2006, January/). The new principal: Now youre cooking.
Leadership, 35(3), 24-25, 38. Available from ERIC Database. (Accession No.
EJ743235)
Gonder, P. O., & Hymes, D. (1994). Improving school climate & culture. American
Association of School Administrators, (27), 1-122. Available from ERIC
Database. (Accession No. ED371485)
Hall, P. (2009, March/). An open letter to a new principal. Principal, 88(4), 8-13.
Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org.library.sage.edu:2048/////A_p08.pdf
Hardin, D. T. (1995, Fall). Principal leadership style, personality type, and school
climate. Research in the Schools, 2(2), 39-45. Available from ERIC Database.
(Accession No. EJ571159)
Harvey, M. J. (1991, September). Strategy for the new principal: Negotiating the culture
of the school. Resources in Education, 1-38. Available from ERIC Database.
(Accession No. ED359670)

104

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press .
Hertting, M. (2008, June). Are we supporting new principals? American School Board
Journal, 36-37.
Hoy, W. K. (n.d.). The organizational health inventory for secondary schools. In Wayne
K. Hoy, Fawcett Chair and Professor in educational administration [Personal
website]. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from School of Educational Policy and
Leadership, The Ohio State University website:
http://www.waynekhoy.com/s.html
Hoy, W. K. (2010, January 17). OHI-S [Electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from
Glens Falls School District Email Exchange: http://mail.gfsd.org///
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1992, November). Measuring the health of the school
climate: A conceptual Framework. NASSP Bulletin, 76(547), 74-79.
Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005, Fall). Relationships between
measures of leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17-25. Available
from ERIC Database. (Accession No. EJ725153)
Kottkamp, R. B. (2009, December 4). OCDQ Permission [Electronic mailing list
message]. Retrieved from Glens Falls School District Email Exchange:
http://mail.gfsd.org///
Langston, R., McClain, G., Stewart, B., & Walseth, J. (1998). An exploration of
strategies which elementary principals new to their schools use to learn about
their school culture. Unpublished raw data, University of Northern Colorado,
Greeley, Colorado. Retrieved from ERIC database. (Accession No. ED 421 769)

105

Learning Point Associates. (2009, April). Developing a positive school climate. The
Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, 1-6. Available from
ERIC Database. (Accession No. ED507577)
Letcher, M. D. (2006). A study of the relationship between leadership and school climate
in rural secondary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database. (Publication No. AAT 3215782)
Mason, T. Y. (2005). The initial impact of a new middle school principal on school
climate (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis,
MN.
Mazzei, P. (2007, October 21). New leaders, different challenges: Southridge's new
principal wants to improve academics and discipline, and he plans on doing it by
infusing the school with his fun-loving spirit. Knight Ridder Tribune Business
News. Available from ProQuest Newstand. (Document ID: 1369232881).
Morford, L. M. (2002, April 1). Learning the ropes or being hung: Organizational
socialization influences on new rural high school principals. Lecture presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
New york state school and district report cards for school year 2008-2009. (2009). New
york state testing and accountability reporting tool. Retrieved May 15, 2010,
from https://www.nystart.gov//.do?year=2009
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication, Inc.

106

Osterman, K. F., & and Others. (1993, April). New principals: Problems, priorities, and
preparation. Resources in Education, April 1993, 1-30.
Parkay, F. W., Currie, G. D., & Rhodes, J. W. (1992, February). Professioanl
socialization: A longitudinal study of first-time high school principals.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 43-75.
Pepper, K., & Thomas, L. H. (2001). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role
on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5(2), 155-166. Available
from ERIC Database. (Accession No. EJ664891)
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998, September). How leaders influence the culture of
schools. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 28-30. Available from ERIC Database
(Accession No. EJ570149)
Reeves, D. B. (2002). The daily disciplines of leadership: How to improve student
achievement, staff motivation, and personal organization. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1953)
Sadlier, H. D. J. (2005). A successful principals conversations: Perceived impacts on
relationships and school climate (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Maine,
Orono, ME). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
(Publication No. AAT 3203351)
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Excel 2007
Edition (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Schoen, L. T., & Teddlie, C. (2008, June). A new model of school culture: A response to
a call for conceptual clarity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2),
129-153.

107

Shaw, B. C. (2009). Impact of leadership styles on school climate (Doctoral dissertation,

capella University, Minneapolis, MN). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses database. (Publication No. AAT 3344915)
Shore, R. (1995, February). How one high school improved school climate. Educational
Leadership, 52(5), 76-78. Available from ERIC Database. (Accession No.
EJ497544)
Sorenson, R. (2005, April). Helping new principals succeeed: What school boards can do
to support building administration. American School Board Journal, 61-63.
Spillane, J. P. (2009, November). managing to lead: Reframing school leadership and
management. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 70-73.
Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Fisher college of business [Manual for Leadership Behavior
Description Questionnaire - Form XII]. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from The Ohio
State University website: http://fisher.osu.edu////%20LBDQ%20MANUAL.pdf
The Staff of the Personnel Research Board. (n.d.). Leader behavior description
questionnaire (LBDQ). In Fisher college of business: The ohio state university.
Retrieved May 30, 2010, from Fisher School of Business, The Ohio State
University website: https://fisher.osu.edu////
Tooms, A. (2003, March). The rookies playbook: Insights and dirt for new principals.
Phi Delta Kappa, 84(7), 4. Available from ERIC Database. (Accession No.
EJ662712)
Vail, K. (2005, December). Create great school climate [Review of the journal Create
great school climate]. American School Board Journal, 71(4), 4-11. Available
from ERIC Database. (Accession No. EJ741199)

108

Vickers, P. C. (2004). The use of humor as a leadership tool by florida public high school
principals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (Publication No. AAT
3144895)
Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for
the social sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter
most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
White-Smith, K. A., & White, M. A. (2009, May). High school reform implementation:
Principals perceptions on their leadership role. Urban Education, 44(3), 259-279.
doi:10.1177/
Williamson, J. S. (2007). Defining the relationship between principals leadership style
and school climate as perceived by title I elementary teachers (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database. (Publication No. AAT 3295581)
Williamson, R., & Blackburn, B. R. (2009, October). A school culture audit. Principal
Leadership, 60-62.

109

Appendix A
Letter Requesting Permission to Administer Survey

Dear Superintendent:
My name is Mark R. Stratton and I am a doctoral candidate in educational leadership at
Sage Graduate School in Albany, New York. I am conducting research in the area of
principal leadership and school climate. The title of my study is The Impact of New High
School Principals Leadership Practices on School Climate.
The purpose of my quantitative study is to examine the relationship between new high
school principals (new to the building) and school climate, and to determine if a
particular leadership style of these principals promotes a specific type of school climate
in select high schools in upstate New York. The research will be conducted in schools
with new high school principals serving ninth through twelfth or seventh through twelfth
grades. The study will investigate the relationship between teachers perceptions of the
principal leadership and school climate. The research will also explore the relationship
between new high school principals views of their own leadership and school climate.
The study will compare the results of the principals Leadership Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ) and the Organizational Health Inventory for Secondary Schools
(OHI-S) with the teachers results. Finally, the research will attempt to determine
whether the new high school principals tend to influence the school climate or if the
existing school climate causes the principals to adapt.
I am contacting you today because your high school has a new principal. I would like to
invite your principal and his/her faculty to complete three questionnaires. The surveys
will be conducted during February via an online instrument called Survey Monkey
(http://www.surveymonkey.com) and will take approximately twenty minutes to complete.
All responses are confidential and will not be shared with anyone in any way that
identifies them as an individual. Only aggregate data will be presented in the final report.
Upon request, I will provide a copy of my completed dissertation to your district.
Sharing your teachers and principals perceptions of new high school principal
leadership as it pertains to school climate will be a most valuable contribution to the field
of education that could serve as a model for future efforts in improving school climate
and helping new high school principals.
If you have any questions regarding the nature or scope of this study as well as your
participation, please feel free to contact me at 518.944.0846 cell, 518.832.4445 work, or
mstratton@gfsd.org. Thank you very much for your participation.

Sincerely,
110

Mark R. Stratton

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please sign and return via fax to:

Mark R. Stratton
Principal
Glens Falls High School

Fax: 518-792-1442
Date ____ / ____ / 2010

By signing below I agree to allow my High School Principal and his/her teaching staff to
participate in this study.
Print Name:

________________________________________

Signature:

________________________________________

Participating School District:

________________________________________

111

Appendix B
Letter to Principal and Staff
Dear Educator,
Thank you for participating in my study. My name is Mark Stratton and I
am a doctoral candidate in the educational leadership program at Sage Graduate School
in Albany, New York. I am conducting research in the area of principal leadership and
school climate. The title of my study is The Impact of New High School Principals
Leadership Practices on School Climate.
The purpose of my study is to examine the relationship between new high school
principals (new to the building) and school climate. Sharing your perceptions of new
high school principal leadership as it pertains to school climate will be a most valuable
contribution to the field of education. I hope that my study serves as a model for future
efforts in improving school climate and helping new high school principals.
I am asking you to complete three electronic questionnaires; The Leadership
Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), the Organizational Health Inventory for
Secondary Schools (OHI-S), and a brief demographic survey. Although there are three
questionnaires with several questions, completing all the surveys should take
approximately 20 minutes.
Your responses are completely confidential and will not be shared with anyone in
any way that identifies you as an individual. Only aggregate data will be presented in the
final report. You may also opt out of the study at any time. All the questionnaires have
been uploaded to Survey Monkey and can be accessed via a single link (below). I have
set up the survey to allow multiple responses for each computer. Although the program
allows respondents to go back to previous pages in the survey and update existing
responses, you may not do so after you exit the program. You have until March 5,
2010 to complete the surveys.
Simply left click the link below and follow the directions on Survey Monkey.
Please make sure you answer all the questions, complete all three surveys, and click
done when you have finished. If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to
contact me. As an added incentive to complete my survey, I pledge to donate $1.00 for
every returned survey to the Haiti Relief Fund. Once again, thank you for
participating in my study.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Stratton
518-832-4445 Work
518-944-0846 Cell

112

Appendix C
Teacher Demographic Questionnaire
Select the most appropriate choice.
1. Age Range
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-59
60 and over
2. Gender
Male
Female
3. Ethnicity
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
4. Highest level of education completed
Highest level of education completed Bachelors
Masters
Masters +30
Specialist
Doctorate

113

5. Number of years at current school

0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
More than 20
6. Number of years teaching experience?
0-3
4-9
10-15
16-20
More than 20
7. Number of principals under which you have worked
1
2
3
4
5 or more
8. Which statement is most accurate?
My new principal has had a positive impact on school climate
My new principal has had a negative impact on school climate
It is too early to tell if my new principal has had an effect on school climate
9. From the time your new principal was hired, how long do you expect it to take him/her to
affect the climate of your school?
Less than 2 years
2-3 years
4-6 years
More than 6 years
10. Which statement best describes your new principal
My new principal has changed the climate of this school
My new principal has conformed to the existing climate of this school

114

Appendix D
Principal Demographic Questionnaire
Please left click the most appropriate response. You must select only one answer.
1. Age Range
Age Range 21-25
36-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-59
60 and over
2. Gender
Gender Male
Female
3. Ethnicity
Ethnicity Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
4. Highest Level of Education
Highest Level of Education Bachelors
Masters
Administrative Certification
Doctorate
5. Number of years in education
Number of years in education 0-5
6-10
11-15

115

16-20
More than 20
6. Number of years as an administrator
Number of years as an administrator 0-3
4-9
10-15
16-20
More than 20
7. Were you employed in this district before becoming Principal?
Were you employed in this district before becoming Principal? Yes
No
8. Number of years as a principal in another school or district
Number of years as a principal in another school or district None
1-3
4-9
10-15
16 or more
9. Which statement is most accurate?
Which statement is most accurate? I have had a positive impact on school climate
I have had a negative impact on school climate
It is too early to tell if I have had an effect on school climate
10. From the time you were hired, how long do you expect it to take to affect the climate of
your school?
From the time you were hired, how long do you expect it to take to affect the climate of your
school? 0-1 year (It has already happened )
2-3 years
4-6 years
More than 6 years
11. Which statement is most accurate?
Which statement is most accurate? I have changed the climate of this school
I have conformed to the existing climate of this school

116

Appendix E
The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire: Form XII

117

118

119

120

121

122

Appendix F

123

Appendix G
ANOVA for Time to take Principal to Change the School Climate and LBDQ
Sum of Squares
Representation

Reconciliation

TolUncertainty

Persuasion

Structure

TolFreedom

RoleAssumpt

Consider

Production

Predictive

Integration

SuperiorO

Between Groups

df

Mean Square

80.437

26.812

Within Groups

1318.173

137

9.622

Total

1398.610

140

276.703

92.234

Within Groups

1916.756

142

13.498

Total

2193.459

145

142.590

47.530

Within Groups

5557.001

133

41.782

Total

5699.591

136

919.771

306.590

Within Groups

5973.888

140

42.671

Total

6893.660

143

411.361

137.120

Within Groups

4195.292

137

30.623

Total

4606.652

140

462.251

154.084

Within Groups

6940.756

141

49.225

Total

7403.007

144

557.437

185.812

Within Groups

4932.457

138

35.742

Total

5489.894

141

375.403

125.134

Within Groups

7322.516

144

50.851

Total

7697.919

147

505.457

168.486

Within Groups

3830.515

138

27.757

Total

4335.972

141

136.286

45.429

Within Groups

1356.932

138

9.833

Total

1493.218

141

214.110

71.370

Within Groups

1917.370

142

13.503

Total

2131.479

145

337.948

112.649

Within Groups

2306.981

122

18.910

Total

2644.929

125

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

124

Sig.

2.787

.043

6.833

.000

1.138

.336

7.185

.000

4.478

.005

3.130

.028

5.199

.002

2.461

.065

6.070

.001

4.620

.004

5.286

.002

5.957

.001

Appendix H
ANOVA for Principals Effect on School Climate and LBDQ Subscales
Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Squares
Representation

Reconciliation

TolUncertainty

Persuasion

Structure

TolFreedom

RoleAssumpt

Consider

Production

Predictive

Integration

SuperiorO

Between Groups

150.707

75.353

Within Groups

1220.085

136

8.971

Total

1370.791

138

681.218

340.609

Within Groups

1461.421

141

10.365

Total

2142.639

143

Between Groups

1910.503

955.252

Within Groups

3676.430

132

27.852

Total

5586.933

134

Between Groups

2161.576

1080.788

Within Groups

4573.220

139

32.901

Total

6734.796

141

Between Groups

1143.647

571.824

Within Groups

3277.633

136

24.100

Total

4421.281

138

Between Groups

2426.654

1213.327

Within Groups

4835.248

140

34.537

Total

7261.902

142

Between Groups

1212.758

606.379

Within Groups

4120.814

137

30.079

Total

5333.571

139

Between Groups

3121.320

1560.660

Within Groups

4537.290

143

31.729

Total

7658.610

145

442.851

221.425

Within Groups

3830.942

137

27.963

Total

4273.793

139

391.674

195.837

Within Groups

1043.726

137

7.618

Total

1435.400

139

607.171

303.586

Within Groups

1495.384

141

10.606

Total

2102.556

143

280.053

140.027

Within Groups

2275.197

121

18.803

Total

2555.250

123

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

Between Groups

125

8.399

.000

32.862

.000

34.298

.000

32.850

.000

23.727

.000

35.131

.000

20.160

.000

49.187

.000

7.918

.001

25.706

.000

28.625

.000

7.447

.001

Appendix I
Donation to The American Red Cross
Dear Mark,
In the aftermath of the catastrophic earthquakes in Haiti, the American Red Cross stands with our
Red Cross and Red Crescent partners around the globe to transform your donation into relief and
recovery. Our combined efforts represent the largest single-country relief operation in Red Cross
history. Thank you for being a part of this monumental response effort.
Together, we have:

Delivered critical relief supplies like blankets, hygiene kits, and mosquito nets to 1.3
million people
Provided safe, clean drinking water daily in a program that, at its peak, served 300,000
people
Supported an immunization and hygiene promotion campaign that will ensure the health
of 250,000 children
Placed more than 600 Red Cross and Red Crescent relief workers on the ground in Haiti

The American Red Cross stands ready to provide further assistance and will remain in Haiti until
the job is done. We are grateful to have your support that brings hope and comfort to those
affected by these devastating earthquakes. As the response evolves, please visit
http://www.redcross.org/haiti/ or call 1-800-797-8022 to learn more about your gift at work.
Once again, thank you for your compassionate support of the American Red Cross.
P.S. Visit us at http://www.redcross.org for safety tips year-round, up-to-date news on disaster
relief, and to see how your donation is changing lives everyday.
*************************************************
Your Red Cross gift today could be matched dollar for dollar or more! Check with your company
or visit this online directory of matching gift companies and find out if your company will match
your contribution to the American Red Cross. If you have questions about your company's
matching program, please contact your human resource representative.
Please print the following for your records:
This letter serves as the tax receipt for your gift. Under the United States Internal Revenue Code,
The American Red Cross is eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. Please see
Internal Revenue Service Publications 526 and 1771 for official Federal government information
on charitable contributions. Our tax identification number is 53-0196605. For reference
purposes, you did not receive anything of value from the Red Cross in return for this donation. If
you have any questions about your donation, please call 1-800-797-8022, option 2, or visit our
website at www.redcross.org/en/contactusdonor.

126

Sincerely,
American Red Cross
Please print the following for your records:
Transaction Summary
Transaction Date:
Amount:

9/23/10
$259.00

Payment Information
Payment type:
Credit Card Number:
Gift Amount:
Tax-deductible Amount:
This organization's tax ID is:
Tracking Code:

Credit Card
$259.00
$259.00
53-0196605
1555-7631-1-3778917-4103893

127