Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12:37–59, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1570-0763 print/1744-5043 online
DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2013.766348

The Superintendent’s Leadership Role in

School Improvement: Relationships Between
Authenticity and Best Practices

JAMES J. BIRD, DAVID M. DUNAWAY, DAWSON R. HANCOCK,

and CHUANG WANG
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between

1-2
superintendent leadership and the operational processes of school
2 notes: improvement. School district superintendents ( N = 226) from
six southeastern states were surveyed concerning their leader-
ship authenticity and school improvement practices. Descriptive
statistics, analyzes of variance, Pearson correlation coefficients,
and structure equation modeling were used to analyze the data.
3-4
A significant and positive relationship was found between super-
2 notes: intendent levels of leadership authenticity and their districts’ use
of best practices in the school improvement process. Implications
for practice in academic professional preparation programs, for
practicing administrators, and for governing boards are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Change that brings about improved student performance has become the
battle cry of school reform efforts. The intersection of what needs to be done
and who is going to do it varies from school to school but in every case, the
superintendency is the only job title with the positional authority to orches-
trate the intentional meshing of actors and script toward future improvement.
The school superintendent’s pivotal organizational perch has direct and
proximate access to board members, building principals, and community
residents, as well as direct and proximate influence on vision inception,
resource distribution, and operational procedures. Practicing superintendents

Address correspondence to James J. Bird, Educational Leadership, University of North

Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA. E-mail:
jjbird@uncc.edu

37
 38 James J. Bird et al.

therefore inherit at once both opportunity and responsibility and how they
execute their leadership challenges may go a long way toward determining
their success in their districts.
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between super-
intendent leadership and the operational processes of school improvement.
Specifically, we examined the reports of superintendents concerning their
leadership authenticity and their district’s school improvement practices
across several southeastern states. The significance of the study lies in the
utility of its findings. If we can better understand the antecedents of leader-
ship behavior in complex organizational change efforts, then we can do
a better job of preparing future school executives, supporting practicing
superintendents through professional development programs, and informing
governance boards on their selection and assessment activities.
We address the following research question: Is there a significant rela-
tionship between superintendents’ self-reports of leadership authenticity and
their district’s school improvement practices? We believe that the answer to
this question provides vital insight into the relationship between leadership
behavior and district operational processes. Before reporting our answer to
this question, we provide some background on authentic leadership and best
practices used towards school improvement.

05
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
andon Johnson

Societal recoil from public scandals like the Enron affair, the savings and loan
fiasco, and the near collapse of the banking industry in 2007 calls for more
ethical behavior among executives both in the private and public sectors.
As Northouse (2010) observes, “People feel apprehensive and insecure and
06
they long for bona fide leadership they can trust and for leaders who are
honest and good” (p. 205). Early signs of the evolution of the construct of
andon Johnson authentic leadership can be found in the writings of positive organizational
07
scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) and a special topic treatment
in the Leadership Quarterly journal in June 2005, which includes several
andon Johnson
articles pertinent to this study (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio,
Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Michie
& Gooty, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005). Walumbwa, Wang,
8-9
Wang, Schaubroeck, and Avolio (2010) describe an authentic leader as a
2 notes: leader who:

10-11 exhibits patterns of openness and clarity in his/her behavior toward

2 notes: others by sharing information needed to make decisions, accepting
others’ inputs, and disclosing his/her personal values, motives, and sen-
12 timents in a manner that enables followers to more accurately assess the
competence and morality of the leader’s actions. (p. 1)
andon Johnson
 Authenticity and School Improvement 39

13
Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wersing, and Patterson (2008) see authentic
leadership as:
andon Johnson

a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive
psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater
self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of
14 information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working
with followers, fostering positive self-development. (p. 94)
andon Johnson

Authentic leaders “display a consistency between words and deeds,” have

15
a “capacity to display coherence in role performance,” and have a “comfort
with self,” according to Goffee and Jones (2006). Bird and Wang (2011) give
andon Johnson
a snapshot of an authentic leader:
16-17
2 notes: Characteristics include self-awareness, confidence, resiliency, and opti-
mism. Authentic leaders are future oriented and have a proclivity for
action. They establish long-term, meaningful, and transparent relation-
ships with followers. Authentic leaders have a passion for their purpose
and practice their moral/ethical values consistently. (p. 144)

Theoretical research into authentic leadership began in the business

literature and was interested in exploring the relationship between authen-
tic leadership behavior and positive organizational outcomes (Avolio, 2007;
Blausten, 2009; Champy, 2009; Endrissat, Muller, & Kaudela-Baum, 2007;
Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004; George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007; Goffe
& Jones, 2005, 2007; Jensen & Luthans, 2006; Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth,
2006; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Marshall & Heffes, 2004; Masarech, 2001; May,
Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003; Palmer & Fleig-Palmer, 2006; Price, 2003; Tate,
2008; Toor & Ofori, 2008; Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, & Dansereau,
2008). Empirical research reveals positive follower behavior tied to leader
authenticity (George, 2003). Additional research found positive associations
between authentic leader behavior and follower work engagement and orga-
nizational citizen behavior (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May,
2004; Gardner et al., 2005; George, 2003). Walumbwa et al. (2010) report that
authentic leadership was “significantly related to rated organizational citizen
behavior and employee work engagement” (p. 10). Further, they find these
relationships are “explained by the degree to which employees identified
with their supervisors and the extent to which employees felt psychologically
empowered” (p. 10).
Do these research efforts in the business literature have applicability
to schools? In education, researchers have studied the influence of leader
authenticity between administrators and faculty members. They have also
studied the relationship between leader authenticity and school district oper-
ations. Begley (2001) concludes that “the adoption and application of a
 40 James J. Bird et al.

values perspective” can make “authentic leadership an objective that is more

understandable, compelling and achievable” (p. 364). Begley (2006) also
18
states that principals have to understand themselves, their relations with
others, and their moral responsibilities in decision making. Branson (2007)
andon Johnson
reports that authentic leaders need to first understand themselves and their
values before being able to look outward to form effective relationships
with others (p. 238). Bird, Wang, Watson, and Murray (2009) state that
19
school building principals’ authenticity levels were positively and signifi-
cantly related to their faculties’ levels of trust and engagement. Bird, Wang,
andon Johnson
and Murray (2009) report a positive and significant relationship between
superintendent authenticity levels and the transparency and information
management levels of their budget-building practices. Wang and Bird (2011)
combine several school district studies of principals and their faculties and
find through multilevel analyzes that within-school variance and between-
schools variance of leader authenticity is more strongly associated with
teacher trust than with teacher engagement.
For the purposes of this study, authentic leadership will be defined as
20
measured through the self-reports of superintendents responding to a struc-
tured survey. Walumbwa et al. (2008) have developed a questionnaire that
andon Johnson enables researchers to operationalize the concept of leader authenticity and
conduct research on its existence. Their instrument is a 16-question sur-
21
vey that measures four components of leader authenticity: self-awareness,
relational transparency, balanced processing, and moral integrity. These
andon Johnson
components are very relevant to school administrators in that school execu-
tives need a strong sense of self-awareness, an understanding of their own
strengths, and a sense of self-efficacy that enables them to take command of
complex situations. Education is a very public enterprise (Lortie, 2009) and
developing open, honest, and meaningful relationships with a wide vari-
ety of constituents is a necessity for school executives. Balanced processing
refers to the leadership behaviors of being unbiased, seeking input from
others, and using data-driven strategies in decision making and problem
solving. Finally, the component of moral integrity embodies knowing and
doing that which is right for the good of the organization rather than that
which garners personal gains (George, Sims, & Gergen, 2007). The inclu-
sion by scholars of a moral or ethical component in the conceptualization of
authentic leadership is reviewed by Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, and Dickens
(2011). They present a strong association of authentic leaders being ethical
leaders. Walumbwa and colleagues’ (2008) survey seeks to measure in part
“a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive
psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate” (p. 94).
Linking superintendent leadership behavior with the organizational task
of bringing about positive change requires a conceptual model that aligns
executive action with school improvement practices. The four components
of authentic leadership (self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced
 Authenticity and School Improvement 41

processing, and moral integrity) mirror necessary executive actions called

for by advocates of school improvement practices.

ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AS A BEST PRACTICE

Current organizational improvement practices are traced most typically to the

work of W. Edwards Deming, as he led the revival of the Japanese industry
after World War II (Magnier, 1999), and are built around a conceptual model
of continuous improvement.
Langley, Moen, Nolan, and Nolan (2009) described this organizational
improvement as being built upon five key concepts.

1. The organization needs to know and understand why it needs to improve.

2. The organization proposes a solution-focused process that will result in
improvement.
3. The suggested solution is tested before implementation on a large scale.
4. The improvement process mandates a feedback loop to provide data on
whether or not the improvement is indeed happening.
22
5. Leaders determine when and how to institute the solution on a permanent
and large scale.
andon Johnson

Organizational improvement using standardized methodologies is and

has for a significant time been an accepted practice. According to Juran and
Riley (1999),

Quality improvement is applicable universally. The huge numbers of

projects carried out during the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated that quality
improvement is applicable to service industries as well as manufacturing
industries business processes as well as manufacturing processes sup-
port activities as well as operations, software as well as hardware. During
the 1980s and 1990s, quality improvement was applied to virtually all
industries, including government, education, and health. (pp. 5.8–5.9)

The well-known K–12 school accreditation process from the North Central
Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA
CASI) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on
Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS CASI), now known collectively
as AdvancED, is an example of a congruent conceptual model for education.
The ISO 9000 for industry and the Congress-established Malcolm Baldridge
National Quality Award (MBNQA) for a broad range of organizations
including education are two noneducation-focused processes.
AdvanceED (n.d.) note that: “School Improvement is both strategic and
operational. It is a comprehensive strategic plan, designed to produce results,
 42 James J. Bird et al.

23
8/29/21
andon Johnson

FIGURE 1 AdvancED (n.d.) improvement life cycle (color figure available online).

and executed by a robust set of operational activities and metrics.” This

process is expressed graphically in Figure 1.
A second best practice example of organizational improvement is the
MBNQA passed by the U.S. Congress in 1987, which recognizes excep-
24
tional quality in five categories: manufacturing, service, small business, and,
beginning in 1999, education and health care (Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
andon Johnson
At the heart of the MBNQA are certain core values and concepts
which provide a foundation for integrating key requirements within a
results-oriented framework that creates a basis for action and feedback,
and are embodied in seven criteria that form the basis for organizational
self-assessments, for making awards, and for giving feedback to applicants.

Leadership: How senior executives guide the organization and how the
organization addresses its responsibilities to the public and practices good
citizenship.

Strategic planning: How the organization sets strategic directions and

determines key action plans.

Customer and market focus: How the organization determines require-

ments and expectations of customers and markets.

Information and analysis: How the organization manages, uses, and ana-
25 lyzes data and information to support key organizational processes and
the organization’s performance management system.
andon Johnson
 Authenticity and School Improvement 43

Human resource focus: How the organization enables its workforce to

develop its full potential and how the workforce is aligned with the
organization’s objectives.

Process management: How key production and delivery and support

processes are designed, managed, and improved.

Business results: How the organization performs and improves in its

key business areas: customer satisfaction, financial and marketplace per-
formance, human resources, supplier and partner performance, and
operational performance. The category also examines how the orga-
nization performs relative to competitors. The education criteria are
designed to help schools and school districts use an integrated approach
to organizational performance management with a view to enhancing
overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities and improving learn-
26 ing among students, faculty, and the organization itself. (Stecher & Kirby,
2004, p. 15)
andon Johnson

In 1999, the U.S. Congress expanded the award to include education and
the health sectors, and with the inclusion of education and health the same
seven-part framework was adapted to health care and education. Stecher and
Kirby (2004) note education-specific changes:

Thus, for education, “customer and market focus” translate into “student,
stakeholder, and market focus;” “human resource focus” into “faculty
and staff focus;” and “business results” into “organizational performance
results.” The underlying belief is that using the same framework for
27 all sectors of the economy fosters cross-sector learning and sharing of
information on best practices. (p. 16)
andon Johnson

Accordingly, the seven quality-focused criteria for education became:

(1) leadership, (2) strategic planning, (3) student, stakeholder, and market
28-29
focus, (4) information and analysis, (5) faculty and staff focus, (6) process
2 notes: management, and (7) organizational performance results.
The third major player in the organizational quality and improvement
process, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), is an inter-
national organization devoted to assuring measures of quality regardless of
where the product or service occurs. It assures the purchaser of the prod-
uct or service that specific quality standards have been employed in the
production process. The assurance process is shown in Figure 2.
While there is not a great deal of literature on the ISO process in educa-
tion, de Arrascaeta Farrando (2007) described the kind of problems of quality
in education that the ISO process can address. Education-focused organiza-
tions, he says, often are unsuccessful at providing the learner with quality
44 James J. Bird et al.

FIGURE 2 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Organizational Improvement

Model (ISO, n.d.) (color figure available online).

experiences or meeting learner expectations. “This apparent paradox is pos-

sible because improving individual elements does not guarantee a program’s
success if corresponding synergies are absent. Implementation of a quality
management system (QMS) for the educational organization can create the
required synergies” (p. 14).
Clearly, organizational improvement processes have easily definable
similarities across almost all disciplines. Organizational improvement is com-
prised of six steps common to all organizations and is seen in Figures 1
and 2.
First, organizational improvement begins with an assessment of current
conditions—the status quo. Jim Collins (2001) called this “confronting the
brutal facts” (p. 88). This is the status quo analysis step. Second, ongoing
organizational improvement (which it always is) is driven and maintained
through a coherent, compelling, and explicit vision for a preferred future
based on a frequent review and analysis of the beliefs, values, and behav-
iors that define and sustain an organization’s culture. This is the vision
step. Combined, these first two steps define the gap analysis stage. Third,
a gap always exists (continually develops) between “where we are now”
and “where we need/desire to be” at some defined point in the future.
This gap is bridged by the strategies, tactics, goals, objectives, target dates,
and processes that make up an organization’s mission. Simply, this is the
mission stage. Fourth, organizational improvement requires actual planned
implementation of the plan—who does what, when, how, and when the
first report of progress will be given. Thus, this step is the implementation
stage. Fifth, while an organization’s vision should rarely change dramatically,
 Authenticity and School Improvement 45

missions routinely change in the middle of the improvement process as the

battle plan for improvement meets the enemy of the system-in-place. The
process of frequent monitoring, reporting, assessing, and adjusting is the
life blood on continuous improvement. This is the feedback stage. Finally,
organizational improvement depends on a measurement metric that gives us
specific, timely, and meaningful data comparing the initial goals to actual
accomplishment. This is the assessment stage.
Regardless of profession or improvement model, these six steps are
found in the model. They may not be in exactly the same sequence or given
the same moniker, but they define the set of best practices of organizational
improvement.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING AS A BEST PRACTICE

Is school improvement planning (SIP) a set of practices found in authen-

tic superintendent leadership? Should superintendents be the custodians,
professors, evangelists, and assessors of this best practice within their dis-
tricts? Can a district improve if the practice or elements of the practice are
absent?
Superintendents oversee a multitude of processes and practices within
their school districts. Many of those processes and practices are unique to
their particular districts. However, certain processes and skills are grouped
into and appropriately labeled as best practices. According to McKeon (1998),
“The term best practice is traditionally thought to have come from the
professions of medicine and law, in which the terms good practice and
30
best practice are everyday phrases used to describe solid, reputable, state-
of-the-art work in a field” (p. 493). Likewise, Dubé, Enz, Renaghan, and
andon Johnson
Siguaw (1999) described best practices thusly: “Best practices are exem-
plary or successfully demonstrated ideas or activities that are viewed by
at least some observers as top-notch standards for guiding benchmarking”
(p. 16).
Waters and Marzano (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of the research
connecting school district practices and student achievement. Their research
included 27 studies and 2817 districts, included five statistically significant
correlations (p < .05) to district-level activities, with findings 1, 2, 4, and
5 related directly to school improvement planning as best practice.

1. The goal-setting process

2. Non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction
3. Board alignment with and support of district goals
4. Monitoring the goals for achievement and instruction
31 5. Use of resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction.
(p. 7)
andon Johnson
46 James J. Bird et al.

Finally, the simple abundance of a process practiced over a large

number of organizations must speak to its acceptance as a best practice.
Such is the process of school improvement planning which, in some con-
vention, is found in every state in the United States (Dunaway, Kim, &
Szad, 2012).
The planning process may vary in specifics from state to state or even
between districts where no state statute prescribes it, but within easily
defined limits, the process incorporates certain widely accepted philosophi-
cal and procedural commonalities that support the idea of SIP as an accepted
best practice. We conclude that (1) the set of processes defining organiza-
tional improvement, regardless of the organization, have been standardized
and can be considered as best practices; (2) when these practices are applied
to schools as school improvement planning, they are, indeed, educational
best practices; and (3) the set of skills and processes that make up the
accepted practice of school improvement planning, clearly fall legitimately
within the definition of a best practice, and as such are an essential skills set
for authentic superintendent leadership.

METHOD
Participants
Two hundred thirty-two superintendents in six southeastern states responded
to the surveys online. These states contain 832 school districts, so the respon-
dents represent a response rate of approximately 28%. The range of response
rates across the six states was from a low of 20.22% to a high of 34.78%.
Six participants did not finish the survey. As a result, their information was
not included in the sample. The sample consisted of 226 superintendents, of
whom 76% (n = 171) were male and 24% (n = 54) were female. One person
did not report his/her gender. These superintendents were predominantly
(93%) Caucasian (n = 210), with 6% (n = 14) African American, and 1%
(n = 2) Hispanic or Other. The educational background of the participants
was: 60% (n = 136) doctorate degrees, 24% (n = 54) educational specialist
degrees, 16% (n = 35) master’s degrees, and one person a bachelor’s degree.

Instruments
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
This 16-item questionniare was developed by Walumbwa et al. (2008) and
consists of four subscales: (a) self-awareness (Items 8, 16, 17, and 18), (b)
relational transparency (Items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 19), (c) internalized moral rea-
soning (Items 9, 10, 11, and 12), and (d) balanced processing (Items 13,
14, and 15). The internal reliability for each subscale is as follows: self-
awareness, .92; relational transparency, .87; internalized moral perspective,
 Authenticity and School Improvement 47

.76; and balanced processing, .81. Content validity of the 16 items was
established through discussions of faculty members and a group of doctoral
students, and the construct validity was confirmed with a sample of 224 par-
ticipants in the United States and another sample of 212 participants in the
People’s Republic of China. The comparative fit index ranges was .97 for the
U.S. sample and .95 for the Chinese sample. The root mean square error of
approximation was .05 for the U.S. sample and .06 for the Chinese sample.
Predictive validity of the authentic leadership questionnaire was checked by
correlating each of the four subscales to variables such as ethical leadership,
organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, and satisfac-
tion with supervisor. All reliability and validity information in this paragraph
is from the work of Walumbwa et al. (2008). Participants in this study com-
pleted the self-report version of this questionnaire online. Participants were
asked to rate the frequency of each statement that matches the leadership
style using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not
always).

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE

This is a 13-item questionnaire (Appendix) developed by the authors.
Participants were asked to report the level of democratic school improve-
ment process in their school districts by using a 5-point scale ranging from
0 (for staff’s beliefs and opinions that were not considered) to 4 (beliefs and
opinions that were highly valued). The content validity was established by
asking experts in educational leadership who had dozens of years of expe-
rience serving as superintendents and currently as professors in educational
leadership programs.

Data Analytical Procedures

Descriptive statistics were examined before inferential statistics to make
sure that data are accurate with respect to central tendency and variabil-
ity. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to check if group mean
differences existed between the participants grouped by states. Internal
consistency of the surveys was checked with Cronbach’s alpha, and the
structural validity of the surveys was examined with confirmatory factor anal-
ysis (CFA). Pearson correlation coefficients were reported for the strength of
relationship between each pair of the variables of interest, and structure
equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the theoretical model in
Figure 3. The goodness of the fit of the models was evaluated with vari-
ous fit indices, including theχ 2 statistic, normed fit index (NFI), non-normed
fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI),
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error
48 James J. Bird et al.

Q4 0.99
0.21
0.81 Q5 0.91
0.82
0.88 Q49 Relational Q6 0.93
Transparency 0.59
0.90 Q50 Q7 0.89
0.55
0.94 Q51 0. 93 Q19 0. 81
0.34
0.75 Q55 0.25 0.72 Q9 0.48
0.31
0.90 Q56 0.50 0.37 Q10 0.86
0.32 Internalized
0.91 Q58 0. 55 Moral 0. 3 Q11 0. 91
Perspective
0. 30 School 0. 37
0.99 Q59 0.04 Improvement Authenticity 0.35 Q12 0.88
0.41 Process
0.83 Q60 0.52 0.39 Q13 0.85
0.46 0.40
0.73 Q61 0. 98 Balanced Q14 0. 84
0.42 Processing
0.79 Q62 0.58 Q15 0.66
0.50
0.82 Q63 0. 23 \ 0. 89 Q8 0. 98
0.16
0.75 Q64 0.61 Q16 0.62
Selfawareness
0.95 Q67 0.54 Q17 0.70
0.52
Q18 0.73

FIGURE 3 Theoretical two-level model of the relationships between authenticity and school
improvement processes.

of approximation (RMSEA). Although Hu and Bentler’s (1999) joint criteria

for absolute and incremental models (i.e., NNFI ≥ .96, CFI ≥ .96, and SRMR
≤ .09) have been widely used to judge model fit, they have been criticized
for too restrictive assumptions and rejecting adequately fit models (Marsh,
Hau, & Wen, 2004). In addition, Fan and Sivo (2005) questioned the valid-
ity of the two-index strategy in model fit assessment presented by Hu and
Bentler (1999). Therefore, Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria were not used.
The suggestions provided by LISREL to add paths from observable variables
to latent variables or to add error covariance between observable variables
were used with caution (letting the items covary only if they were measuring
the same latent construct) because of the concern of mechanically fitting the
model (MacCallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992).

RESULTS
Mean Comparisons
Descriptive statistics of construct measures are presented in Table 1. ANOVA
failed to show any statistically significant differences between the partici-
pants from six states with respect to their overall authenticity, F (5, 220) =
1.87, p = .10, partial η2 = .04; to self-awareness, F (5, 220) = 0.92, p =
.47, partial η2 = .02; to relational transparency, F (5, 220) = 0.90, p = .48,
 Authenticity and School Improvement 49

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics of Authenticity and School Improvement Process.

All States State A State B State C State D State E State F
n = 226 n = 50 n = 48 n = 39 n = 18 n = 30 n = 41

Authenticity M 3.42 3.45 3.48 3.39 3.51 3.33 3.37

SD 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.29
Self-awareness M 2.89 2.90 2.95 2.87 3.00 2.75 2.86
SD 0.47 0.44 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.43 0.50
Relational transparency M 3.60 3.60 3.66 3.57 3.64 3.54 3.56
SD 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.37 0.31 0.33
Internalized moral M 3.72 3.78 3.77 3.72 3.83 3.64 3.62
perspective SD 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.32 0.28 0.35 0.37
Balanced processing M 3.42 3.44 3.49 3.37 3.52 3.33 3.38
SD 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.45 0.37 0.39 0.44
School improvement M 2.96 3.03 2.92 3.07 3.24 2.69 2.90
process SD 0.51 0.42 0.53 0.45 0.35 0.55 0.57

partial η2 = .02; to internalized moral perspective, F (5, 220) = 1.89, p = .10,

partial η2 = .04; or to balanced processing, F (5, 220) = 0.95, p = .45, par-
32
tial η2 = .02. However, statistically significant differences were noticed with
respect to school improvement process, F (5, 220) = 3.71, p = .003, partial
andon Johnson η2 = .08. Post-hoc multiple comparisons with Scheffe’s method revealed that
participants from one of the states (State D) had significantly higher mean
reported school improvement process than participants from the rest of the
participants. Another examination of the descriptive statistics in Table 1 also
revealed that the participants from this region reported higher mean scores
on 4 out of 5 constructs of authenticity. This is also the smallest group (n =
18). Therefore, participants from this state were removed from the follow-
ing analyzes so that all participants can be treated as a single group for the
structural equation modeling process.
The internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s alpha and the relation-
ships between each pair of variables are presented in Table 2. The internal
consistencies of the subconstructs of the authenticity survey were not sat-
isfactory, ranging from .43 to .55, but those of the overall authenticity and
school improvement process were satisfactory (.73 and .67, respectively).
The school improvement process was found to have statistically significant
relationships with overall authenticity (r = .26), self-awareness (r = .20),
relational transparency (r = .19), and balanced processing (r = .27), but
33 no statistically significant relationship with internalized moral perspective
(r = .10).
andon Johnson
Before running the CFA, we also checked if significant differences
existed between participants if the school improvement plan is required by
the state and the district. Multivariate analysis of variance with total authen-
ticity and school improvement process as dependent variables did not show
any statistically significant differences, F (4, 404) = 1.10, p = .36, partial
η2 = .01, and the Wilks’ lambda value was .98. As a result, the whole
 50 James J. Bird et al.

TABLE 2 Internal Consistency and Relationships Between Constructs of Interest (n = 208).

Alpha A SA RT IMP BP SIP

Authenticity (A) .73 − .78∗∗ .77∗∗ .64∗∗ .69∗∗ .26∗∗

Self-awareness (SA) .45 − .44∗∗ .28∗∗ .41∗∗ .20∗∗
Relational transparency (RT) .45 − .38∗∗ .42∗∗ .19∗∗
Internalized moral perspective (IMP) .55 − .27∗∗ .10
Balanced processing (BP) .43 − .27∗∗
School improvement process (SIP) .67 −
∗∗
Note. p < .01, two tailed.

TABLE 3 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics of the Measurement and Structural Models.

χ2 df NFI CFI GFI SRMR RMSEA LCI HCI

Authenticity (one level) 185.83 101 .74 .86 .89 .07 .07 .05 .08
Authenticity (two levels) 195.56 100 .72 .84 .89 .08 .07 .06 .09
School improvement process 131.91 62 .73 .79 .91 .07 .07 .05 .09
One-level structural model 715.63 370 .61 .76 .82 .08 .06 .06 .07
Two-level structural model 674.12 366 .59 .75 .82 .08 .06 .06 .07
Note. NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; SRMR =
standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; LCI = lower
bound 90% confidence interval of RMSEA; HCI = higher bound 90% confidence interval of RMSEA.

sample of participants was treated as a single group for the following CFA
analyzes. As shown in Table 3, the one-level measurement model (treat-
ing all items measuring the overall authenticity) was slightly better than the
two-level measurement model with respect to the goodness of fit indices.
Similarly, the one-level structural model (using the one-level measurement
model of authenticity) was also slightly better than the two-level structural
model (using the two-level measurement of authenticity) when examining
the relationship between authenticity and school improvement practices. The
relationships between authenticity and school improvement practices from
both models were very close to each other, .38 for the one-level model and
.37 for the two-level model. The result was consistent using various methods
34
(Pearson correlation and SEM): there was a statistically significant positive
relationship between authenticity and school improvement practices.
andon Johnson

DISCUSSION

The research question dealt with superintendent self-reports on leader

authenticity and school improvement practices. The finding that superin-
tendent self-reported levels of leader authenticity are positively related to
school district use of school improvement practices aligns with other studies
concerned with leadership style and organizational procedures (Bird, et al.
2009). The relational transparency and balanced processing components of
 Authenticity and School Improvement 51

leader authenticity lend themselves well to effectively including others in

unbiased fashion in carrying out school procedures. School improvement
practices involve many actors at several levels throughout the school district.
Adherence to best practices requires that teachers, principals, and parents all
play key roles in school improvement processes. They need to be inspired
and coordinated and their work products need to be communicated and sup-
ported within and throughout the school community. As stated earlier, the
superintendent is the only person with the positional authority to orches-
trate these activities. Therefore, the superintendent’s disposition toward
authenticity will facilitate the execution of school improvement practices.
As measured in this study, superintendents scoring high on authen-
ticity will have strong relational transparency, which matches well with
school improvement practices being routinely discussed with school fac-
ulties (Question 50); results being reported to the district (Question 51);
and, seeking staff and parent involvement (Questions 59, 62, and 63).
Authentic leaders have strong internalized moral perspectives which match
up well with valuing the use of beliefs and values in developing school
improvement plans (Questions 55 and 56). Again, within the parameters of
this study, superintendents who lead authentically are unbiased and have
balanced information processing strategies which align with routinely mon-
itoring the development and implementation of the school improvement
process (Questions 49, 60, and 61). Finally, those superintendents who are
authentically self-aware value their own and their staff’s points of view in
the importance of district mission and vision as expressed in the school
improvement plan (Questions 58 and 67).
This study is limited in that the measurement models for both authen-
ticity and school improvement process were not very satisfactory. The
goodness of fit indices (such as NFI, CFI, and GFI) were well below the
thresholds recommended by Hu and Benter (1999). Although we did not use
these thresholds because they have been criticized for too restrictive assump-
tions and rejecting adequately fit models (Marsh et al., 2004), future studies
should continue to examine the structural validity of these two instruments.
The instrument reliability in this study was much lower than that
reported by Walumbwa et al. (2008). One possible reason is that the pop-
ulations are different. Our population is school superintendents who are
physically separated in six states in the United States. Each superintendent
is a true unit of analysis as there is no concern of independent observation.
This is to say that their responses are independent from each other, making
it more difficult to be alike. They rated the survey from the leader’s perspec-
tive. Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) population is employees in a large high-tech
manufacturer. These employees rated the survey from the employee’s per-
spective. It might be more consistent to rate others than to rate oneself. These
employees were rating the same leader(s), so their responses are more likely
to be consistent.
52 James J. Bird et al.

Another explanation is that Cronbach’s alpha is an average correlation

among the items so a low correlation could be positively interpreted as no
redundancy among the items. While the reliability was poor for the subcon-
structs, it is acceptable for the overall authenticity and school improvement
plan.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

While the concept of leader authenticity grew out of the business sector,
review of the literature has shown that it is also gaining traction in educa-
tional administration and school leadership scholarship. Further research is
necessary. For example, this study did not relate superintendent leadership
to school improvement practices. Rather, this study examined superintendent
self-reports of their leadership authenticity with their self-reports of school
improvement practices. Actual measurement of these factors with objective
third-party observations or valid evidence would have to occur before defini-
tive conclusions can be drawn. The positional dynamics of school district
administration highlights the practical significance of this study. The lead-
ership style of the superintendent can permeate the culture of the school
system with perhaps the most influence affecting the building principals. The
functions of selection, supervision, and evaluation of principals by super-
intendents place the relationship between these two administrative offices
at a key intersection of school district operations. Marzano, Waters, and
McNaulty (2005) have argued the importance of the school principal in
school improvement processes and the influence of the principal’s super-
intendent upon those efforts is worthy of study. For example, building
principals could be surveyed concerning their perceptions of their superin-
tendent’s leadership authenticity. If such data revealed a positive relationship
between leader authenticity and school practices, then we would encourage
academic professional preparation programs to include leader authenticity
in foundational courses dealing with leadership and organizational theory
and practice. It would inform student internship experiences so that stu-
dents would have the opportunity to express their own authenticity under
the guided tutelage of mentors and university supervisors. Further implica-
tions would include practicing administrators including authentic leadership
in professional development programs dealing with team-building activities
for themselves and their staff. Finally, if the link betweenleader authenticity
and school practices could be established, then governing boards would do
well to assess the authenticity of administrative candidates and office holders.
Including such examination in selection processes and executive evalua-
tion procedures would clearly demonstrate the value placed in authentic
leadership patterns.
 Authenticity and School Improvement 53

REFERENCES

AdvancED. (n.d.). School improvement life cycle. Retrieved from http://www.advanc-

ed.org/school-improvement-life-cycle
Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-
building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25–33.
Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to
the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3),
315–338.
Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking
the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower
attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.
Begley, P. (2001). In pursuit of authentic leadership practices. International Journal
of Leadership in Education, 4, 353–365.
Begley, P. (2006). Self-knowledge, capacity, and sensitivity: Prerequisites to authentic
leadership by school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6),
570–589.
Bird, J., & Wang, C. (2011). Authentic leadership and budget-building prac-
tices: Superintendents reveal origins, strategies, and connections. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 15(3), 143–160.
Bird, J., Wang, C., & Murray, L. (2009). Building budgets and trust through
superintendent leadership. Journal of Education Finance, 35(2), 140–156.
Bird, J., Wang, C., Watson, J., & Murray, L. (2009). Relationships among principal
authentic leadership, teacher trust and engagement levels. Journal of School
Leadership, 19(2), 153–171.
Blausten, P. (2009). Can authentic leadership survive the downturn? Business Strategy
Review, 20(1), 84–87.
Branson, C. (2007). Effects of structured self-reflection on the development of
authentic leadership practices among Queensland primary school principals.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 225–246.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholar-
ship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Champy, J. (2009). Authentic leadership. Leader to Leader, 54, 39–44.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others
don’t. New York, NY: Harper Business.
de Arrascaeta Farrando, R. A. (2007). Improved guidelines on implementing ISO
9001 in education sector. ISO INSIDER (November–December), 15–16. Retrieved
from http://www.iso.org/iso/iwa2_ims_07_06.pdf
Dubé, L., Enz, C. A., Renaghan, L. M., & Siguaw, J. (1999). Best practices in the
U.S. lodging industry: Overview, methods, and champions. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 14–27.
Dunaway, D., Kim, D., & Szad, R. (2012) Teacher and principal perceptions of the
purpose and value of the school improvement plan process. The Educational
Forum, 76(2), 158–173.
Endrissat, N., Muller, W., & Kaudela-Baum, S. (2007). En route to an empirically
based understanding of authentic leadership. European Mangement Journal,
25(3), 207–220.
54 James J. Bird et al.

Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural
or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited.
Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343–367.
Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see
the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372.
Gardner, W. Cogliser, C., Davis, K., & Dickens, M. (2011). Authentic leadership:
A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,
1120–1145.
Gardner, W., & Schermerhorn, J., Jr. (2004). Unleashing individual potential:
Performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 270–281.
George, B. (2003) Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting
value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, B., Sims, P., & Gergen, D. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic
leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85, 129–138.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2005). Managing authenticity: The paradox of great
leadership. Harvard Business Review, 83, 87–94.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006) Why should anyone be led by you? What it takes to be
an authentic leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2007). Leading clever people. Harvard Business Review HBR
Spotlight, 26(7), Reprint R0703D.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F., & Nahrgang, J. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic
well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,
16(3), 373–394.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (n.d.). ISO 9000 qual-
ity management—Process Model of the ISO 9000 Family of Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/
quality_management/iso_9000_selection_and_use/process_model_iso__9000_
family.htm
Jensen, S., & Luthans, F. (2006). Relationship between entrepreneurs’ psycholog-
ical capital and their authentic leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18,
254–273.
Juran, J. M., & Riley, J. F. (1999). The quality improvement process. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence
of task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 146–162.
Langley, G. J., Moen, R., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost,
L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing
organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lortie, D. (2009) School principal: Managing in public. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
 Authenticity and School Improvement 55

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003) Authentic leadership development. In K. Cameron,

J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations
of a new discipline (pp. 241–258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications
in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504.
Magnier, M. (1999, October 25). The 50: People who most influenced business this
century. The Los Angeles Times, p. 8.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on
hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dan-
gers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation
Modeling, 11, 320–341.
Marshall, J., & Heffes, E. M. (2004) Authentic leadership qualities described.
Financial Executive, 20(5), 10.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNaulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Aurora, CO: McCREL.
Masarech, M. A. (2001). Authentic leadership: A challenge and a process.
Employment Relations Today, 28(3), 79–84.
May, D., Chan, A., Hodges, T., & Avolio, B. (2003). Developing the moral component
of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247–260.
McKeon, D. (1998). Best practice: Hype or hope? TESOL Quarterly, 32, 493–501.
doi:10.2307/3588119
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader
please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 441–457.
Northouse, P. G. (2010) Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
Palmer, N., & Fleig-Palmer, M. (2006, October). Emergent adult’s authentic lead-
ership development accelerated through self-awareness. Paper presented at the
Gallup Leadership Summit, Washington, DC.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 67–81.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to
authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395–417.
Sparrowe, R. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 419–439.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Oganizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG136.pdf
Tate, B. (2008). A longitudinal study of the relationships among self-monitoring,
authentic leadership, and perceptions of leadership. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 15(1), 16–29.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership for future construction industry: Agenda
for authentic leadership. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6),
620–630.
Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic
leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 89–126.
56 James J. Bird et al.

Walumbwa, F., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. (2010).
Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 901–914.
Wang, C. & Bird, J. (2011). Multi-level modeling of principal authenticity and teach-
ers’ trust and engagement. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(4),
125–147.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. (2006). District leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement—a working paper.
Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/leadershiporganizationdevelopment/
4005RR_Superintendent_leadership.pdf
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Dansereau, F. (2008).
Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level
perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 693–707.

APPENDIX: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS QUESTIONNAIRE

49. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following best represents
how the school improvement plan is routinely monitored at the school
level in your school district?
a. Progress on school improvement goals is measured several times dur-
ing the year and goals are adjusted during the year based on results
of monitoring.
b. Progress on school improvement goals is measured several times
during the year
c. Progress on school improvement goals is seldom measured during the
year.
d. Progress on school improvement goals is not measured during the
year.
50. To the best of your knowledge, how often is progress on school
improvement goals routinely discussed with school faculties?
a. At each staff meeting
b. Quarterly
c. Yearly
d. This is a decision left to the principal.
51. Which of the following best represents how the school improvement
process progress/results in your school district are routinely reported to
the school district?
a. Progress/results are reported to the school district quarterly.
b. Progress/results are reported at the end of each semester.
c. Progress/results are reported at the end of the year.
d. Progress/results are not reported.
55. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following best repre-
sents the use of the school beliefs and values in developing the school
improvement plan in your school district?
 Authenticity and School Improvement 57

a. Before the school improvement plan is developed, the faculty as a

whole revisits and agrees on school beliefs and values.
b. Before the school improvement plan is developed, the School
Improvement Team ONLY revisits and agrees on school beliefs and
values.
c. I do not know if the school level beliefs and values are considered.
d. We do not have a formal set of articulated beliefs and values.
56. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following best repre-
sents YOUR VIEW of the value of the beliefs and values in school
improvement?
a. Beliefs and values of the school staff must be explored, developed,
and agreed upon before any meaningful schoolwide improvement
can take place.
b. Agreement on beliefs and values has little practical influence on the
school improvement process.
c. Time spent on agreeing on beliefs and values could better be spent
on improvement activities.
58. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following represents YOUR
VIEW of the value of the vision and mission?
a. An agreed upon school vision and mission is critical to any meaningful
schoolwide improvement process.
b. The school vision and mission has little practical influence on the
school improvement process.
c. Time spent on the mission and vision could be better spent on
teaching in the classroom.
59. To the best of your knowledge, staff input on the school improvement
plan at the local school is most typically:
a. As a member of a subcommittee supplying information to the school
improvement/building leadership team.
b. As a member of the school improvement/building leadership team.
c. As a staff member who reviews the plan before the final draft.
d. As a staff member who reviews the plan after the final draft.
e. Input is limited to voting on the plan.
60. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following represents the
school improvement plan development in your school district?
a. The school improvement/building team develops the plan with
significant input/participation from the faculty.
b. The school improvement/building leadership team develops the plan
with limited input/participation from the faculty.
c. The principal develops the plan.
d. The principal develops the plan with limited input/participation from
faculty.
e. The principal develops the plan with the school
improvement/building leadership team.
58 James J. Bird et al.

61. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following best represents
the school improvement IMPLEMENTATION process in your district?
a. The school improvement/building leadership team implements the
plan with significant faculty responsibility.
b. The principal delegates implementation of the plan with limited
faculty responsibility.
c. The principal implements the plan with significant faculty responsibil-
ity.
d. The school improvement/building leadership team implements the
plan with limited faculty responsibility.
e. The principal is directly responsible for implementing the plan.
62. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following repre-
sents PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT in the school improvement plan
DEVELOPMENT in your school district?
a. Parents are full participants with school staff in the development pro-
cess of the school improvement plan and do have a vote on plan
approval.
b. Parents are full participants with school staff in the development pro-
cess of the school improvement plan and do not have a vote on plan
approval.
c. Parents have limited involvement in the development process of the
school improvement plan.
d. Parents are not involved in the developmental process of the school
improvement plan.
63. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following repre-
sents PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT in the school improvement plan
IMPLEMENTATION in your school district?
a. Parents are full participants in the implementation of the school
improvement plan.
b. Parents have limited involvement in the implementation of the school
improvement plan.
c. Parents are not involved in the implementation of the school
improvement plan.
64. To the best of your knowledge, when looking at the school improve-
ment process, which of the following most accurately reflects the
experience of most of the people with the process in your school
district?
a. It is a valuable process taken seriously, which has resulted in
significant school improvement.
b. It is a valuable process taken seriously, which has resulted in little
school improvement.
c. It is a process required by the school district and/or the state
department of education.
 Authenticity and School Improvement 59

67. Which of the following most accurately represents YOUR VIEW of the
school improvement process? (State all that apply.)
a. The school improvement process has a significant positive impact on
student learning.
b. The school improvement process has a significant positive impact on
professional performance.
c. The school improvement process is taken seriously at schools by
TEACHERS.
d. The school improvement process is taken seriously at schools by
ADMINISTRATORS.
e. Staff members are typically motivated to achieve school improvement
goals.
f. The school improvement plan typically contains a goal supplied by
the school district.
g. School improvement goals do not motivate most school staff members
to higher levels of performance.
Copyright of Leadership & Policy in Schools is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Annotations

The Superintendent's Leadership Role in School Improvement:

Relationships Between Authenticity and Best Practices
Bird, James J; Dunaway, David M; Hancock, Dawson R; Wang, Chuang

01 Brandon Johnson Page 1

29/8/2021 14:40

02 Brandon Johnson Page 1

29/8/2021 14:40

03 Brandon Johnson Page 1

29/8/2021 14:40

04 Brandon Johnson Page 1

29/8/2021 14:40

05 Brandon Johnson Page 2

29/8/2021 14:41

06 Brandon Johnson Page 2

29/8/2021 14:43

07 Brandon Johnson Page 2

29/8/2021 14:44

08 Brandon Johnson Page 2

29/8/2021 14:44

09 Brandon Johnson Page 2

29/8/2021 14:45
10 Brandon Johnson Page 2
29/8/2021 14:45

11 Brandon Johnson Page 2

29/8/2021 14:45

12 Brandon Johnson Page 2

29/8/2021 14:45

13 Brandon Johnson Page 3

29/8/2021 14:46

14 Brandon Johnson Page 3

29/8/2021 14:46

15 Brandon Johnson Page 3

29/8/2021 14:47

16 Brandon Johnson Page 3

29/8/2021 14:48

17 Brandon Johnson Page 3

29/8/2021 14:48

18 Brandon Johnson Page 4

29/8/2021 14:54

19 Brandon Johnson Page 4

29/8/2021 14:54

20 Brandon Johnson Page 4

29/8/2021 14:55

21 Brandon Johnson Page 4

29/8/2021 14:55
22 Brandon Johnson Page 5
29/8/2021 14:56

23 Brandon Johnson Page 6

29/8/2021 14:57
Continuous Improvement Cycle Graphic

24 Brandon Johnson Page 6

29/8/2021 14:58

25 Brandon Johnson Page 6

29/8/2021 15:02

26 Brandon Johnson Page 7

29/8/2021 15:02

27 Brandon Johnson Page 7

29/8/2021 15:05

28 Brandon Johnson Page 7

29/8/2021 15:12

29 Brandon Johnson Page 7

29/8/2021 15:13

30 Brandon Johnson Page 9

29/8/2021 15:15

31 Brandon Johnson Page 9

29/8/2021 15:18

32 Brandon Johnson Page 13

29/8/2021 15:20
33 Brandon Johnson Page 13
29/8/2021 15:28

34 Brandon Johnson Page 14

29/8/2021 15:30