This nationwide survey research study identified and verified twelve dimensions of educational leadership. Over 300 statements of knowledge, skills, and attitudes were derived from a literature review; these were then sorted into twelve categories on the basis of content. Although all twelve dimensions were verified as important by over 1000 peer-nominated educational leaders, communication and staff development were rated as somewhat more important than the other ten dimensions. In a follow-up survey, communication and staff development were again the highest-rated dimensions. Finally, in follow-up telephone interviews, one of the clearest themes that emerged was the value of a strong belief in the value of people. The authors believe that these dimensions could provide a framework for a comprehensive, systematic, and ongoing program of professional development for educational leaders.

In this national survey of 1075 educational leaders, the authors attempted to identify and verify dimensions of educational leadership and to consider staff development implications that could improve the effectiveness of educational leaders. The article is very concise and jargon-free. However, it contains neither a synopsis of the literature review, nor exhibits of the data collection instrument(s), nor any numerical results. In a more positive vein, two follow-up studiesÑa survey and a set of telephone interviews, drawn from the same populationÑverify the initial results and paint a well-balanced picture of the skills and attitudes of effective school leaders.

The problem under investigation was clearly stated in the first paragraph of the article: to determine "the specific dimensions of attitudes, knowledge, and skills that underlie educational leadership" (p. 28). Since the journal addresses staff development, the title redefines these as "dimensions of professional growth". The problem is significant because no researchers had yet identified a set of essential and independent factors that comprised the various dimensions of effective educational leadership, even though there is an overwhelming amount of information in the literature concerning leadership in general, and school leadership in particular. No conceptual or substantive assumptions were stated, nor were any limitations of the study addressed. However, the study was simple enough: identify a large number (300) statements of knowledge, attitudes, and skills that contribute to instructional improvement or professional growth, categorize these by content, create a survey instrument addressing each of these categories, and rank the responses in decreasing order of importance. Since this was simply an exploratory study, no hypotheses were stated, nor were any tested.

The review of related literature is published in a separate bibliographic listing by Pajak, 1989. Hence, we have no way of knowing whether the review was comprehensive, well-organized, or adequate for the problem under investigation. The only citations given at the end of the article besides the Pajak reference were a short article in Educational Leadership by Garmston, and Peter Senge's book, The Fifth Discipline.

A strong point of this study was that the sample was appropriate and carefully chosen. Executive members of one of six professional organizations, including ASCD, AERA, NEA, and AFT, nominated 1629 of their peers whom they considered to be outstanding educational leaders. Considering that the outcomes of national elections are predicted by perhaps a couple of thousand survey participants, this is certainly an adequate sample size. No mention of safeguards against non-response bias was made, since the rate of return (66%) was fairly high--1075 respondents, with a good representation of various positions at both the school and district office levels. The diversity of the sample was reflected by the diversity of the nominating committee members who, judging from their affiliations, comprised academic leaders, educational researchers, and school administrators.

A first questionnaire asked this national sample to provide personal information and then to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that each of the twelve dimensions of practice (the actual variables of the study) was important to their job as it currently exists and as it should be. A four-point Likert scale was used. Figure 1 (p. 29) presents the rankings of the twelve dimensions of educational leadership, in decreasing order of importance:

1. Communication
2. Staff Development
3. Instructional Program
4. Planning and Change
5. Motivating and Organizing
6. Observation and Conferencing
7. Curriculum
8. Problem Solving and Decision Making
9. Service to Teachers
10. Personal Development
11. Community Relations
12. Research and Program Evaluation

Communication and staff development were rated as somewhat more important than the other dimensions. We cannot determine what "somewhat more important" means simply by looking at a list of categorical data, because there was no corresponding chart of the relative percentages in this report.

No inter-rater reliability is given for the sorting and categorizing process by which these variables were culled from the 300 statements in the literature review, so there is no way to establish whether or not these twelve variables are important or not. In addition, there is no way to know if other important variables were not considered without going through the review of relevant literature. This represents a weakness of this study, because coding and categorization is usually the most difficult part of a large survey study, usually requiring several passes by more than one researcher to establish independence, reliability, and validity. For example, the data analysis section of Cherland's (1990) doctoral dissertation describes three full passes through 800 pages of field notes to identify recurrent patterns in her data, after which three independent constructs finally emerged. No such process was described in the present study.

Once the twelve variables were selected and the survey instrument was constructed, measurement was straightforward and reliable because of the use of the four-point Likert scale. The dimensions were ranked according to the percentage of the respondents who "strongly agreed" that each dimension was important. No further data analysis was performed.

In the first survey, participants were asked if they would be willing to respond to a second survey or telephone interview. Those who agreed to participate in the second survey were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement that each knowledge, attitude, or skill represented in 300 specific statements was relevant to the effective enactment of the dimension under which it was listed. The authors do not mention whether or not these 300 statements are the same as the initial 300 statements that were gleaned from the literature review. However, in Figures 2 and 3, they do show several indicators of relevance in both the communication and the staff development dimension under each of the following statements:

1. How much importance do I place on...
2. How much do I know about...
3. How effective am I at...

The second survey was mailed to the 987 participants who had earlier indicated that they would be willing to respond to a second questionnaire. Again, the response rate was high (68%)--a total of 672 responses were received, with all levels of leadership positions well represented. The second survey replicated the first, with communication and staff development again being the highest-rated dimensions.

A series of telephone interviews was then conducted to further verify the twelve dimensions of educational leadership and the attitudes, knowledge, and skills associated with them. One participant from each leadership position was randomly selected and contacted by telephone. However, the authors do not list the categories of educational leadership position from which these interviewees were selected. Since the authors chose not to include the interview instrument, we do not know whether the interviews were open or closed, or whether the same set of questions was used across all interviews. They do list one representative question: "If you were planning a staff development program, what attitudes, knowledge, or skills would you want to include?"

A weakness of the report is the lack of information about the data analysis, including how the interpretations were based on the data. Findings were not reported with respect to anything beyond scanty evidence for each question asked, nor are any tables presented with anything but categorical data. For example, the authors make the following statement:

The telephone interviews not only clearly confirmed the knowledge and skills that had been identified through the literature review and surveys, but they gave us an even stronger appreciation for the contribution that attitudes make to effective educational leadership. One of the clearest themes in the interview data, for example, was the value of a strong belief in the importance of people. (p. 31).

Implications were rightfully treated in a separate section, after the findings from the two surveys and the telephone interviews were reported. The authors state that when staff development activities do occur, they are typically fragmented. Their main implication is that these twelve dimensions can provide a framework for a comprehensive, systematic, and ongoing professional development program for educational leaders. Their first and fourth recommendations are nicely tied to the findings, whereas their second and third recommendations are purely commonsensical:

1. Use these twelve dimensions and their associated attitudes, knowledge, and skills to stimulate discussion about professional growth.
2. Involve educational leaders in planning and selecting their own professional growth experiences.
3. Recognize that there are individual differences among educational leaders depending on their experience and position in the school organization.
4. Pay especially close attention to the attitudinal aspects of professional development.

Finally, the authors temper their conclusions with the practical meaning of their results by suggesting how these concepts could be woven into a staff development program. For example, self-assessment inventories could be used to identify professional growth needs and for planning leadership development activities. These activities would be shaped differently, depending on whether the greatest need for development lay in skills, in knowledge, or in attitudes. The authors suggest that since the findings indicate that attitudes comprise the heart of educational leadership, they believe that reflection on professional practice and collegial dialog should be the basis for leadership development activities. Moreover, since they found that communication and staff development were the most important of the twelve dimensions, these should be the first two areas on which schools should focus their efforts when seeking to improve their capacities for organizational learning.

These conclusions are sound and logical. The emphasis on communication reflects the findings by Carlson (1970), in which he found that district superintendents that do not have good communication links with others will tend to remain isolated from the change process when the district is in the process of adopting new educational innovations, while those who communicate regularly with one another will take the lead in the adoption/diffusion process. In the realm of staff development, RMC Research Corporation has developed a successful professional growth activity based on this report. At RMC, all staff meet for a one hour "brown bag session", fill out a Dimensions of Educational Leadership questionnaire exactly as the 1075 initial respondents to this report's questionnaire did, and then reflect upon each of the twelve dimensions as a group. This same activity has also been used by our staff for professional development workshops with Service Learning administrators in Kansas.

In summary, the work is clearly presented, logical, interesting, and significant. However, since it is basically written as a magazine article rather than a journal article (contrary to the title of the publication in which it was printed), it lacks the rigor of a "good" research report, with its accompanying bibliography, tables, and graphs of collected data. As a result, anyone who wished to replicate this study would have to locate Pajak's (1989) review of relevant literature, collect the 300 statements on which both surveys were based, and reconstruct the data collection instruments themselves. Hence it is my view that the information supplied is insufficient to permit the reader to verify results and draw his/her own conclusions. On the other hand, since the findings and conclusions are not only commonsensical, but have also been applied successfully in several different settings, the study has proven its worth by providing a firm foundation for reflective, professional development activities.

References

Cherland, M.R. (1990). Girls and reading: Children, culture, and literary experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Back to Leadership and Innovation
Back to Research Critiques