xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004963
The relationship of principal resiliency to job satisfaction and work commitment :
h [electronic resource] /
b an exploratory study of k-12 public school principals in florida
by Jason Pepe.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 183 pages.
(Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate characteristics associated with resilient school leaders. Principals juggle multiple responsibilities and work under increasingly stressful conditions. Despite recent role changes, added job responsibilities, and increased accountability, some principals remain remarkably resilient while working in a tumultuous environment. Using Henderson and Milstein's (2003) definition, principal resiliency was described as "the capacity to spring back, rebound, successfully adapt in the face of adversity, and develop social, academic, and vocational competence despite exposure to severe stress or simply to the stress that is inherent in today's world" (p. 7). This empirical study tested the theory that principals with higher levels of job satisfaction and work commitment would also likely have higher levels of resilience. This study also investigated whether years of experience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment shared a significant relationship with principal resilience. This study used a questionnaire to measure participants' levels of resiliency, job satisfaction, and work commitment. The survey consisted of three research-based, established psychometric tools: 1) the abbreviated Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10) (Connor & Davidson, 2003); 2) Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951); and 3) Three-Component Model (TCM) of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). An analysis of 627 surveys completed by public school principals from the state of Florida revealed that years of experience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment shared no significant relationship with principal resilience. However, results from this empirical study indicated that there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principals as well as a significant relationship between affective work commitment and resiliency.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Bruner, Darlene Y.
x Educational leadership Educational Administration
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
The Relationship of Principal Resiliency to Job Satisfaction and Work Commitm ent: An Exploratory Study of K-12 Public School Principals in Florida by Jason Pepe Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Darlene Y. Bruner, Ed.D. Bobbie J. Greenlee, Ed.D. Zorka Karanxha, Ed.D. Jennifer Morley, Ph.D. Date of Approval: February 22, 2011 Keywords: resilient, authentic leadership, management, administration, publi c schools, accountability, protective factors, CD-RISC, No Child Left Behind (NCLB ) Copyright 2011, Jason Pepe
Dedication In 1988, my mother, Donna S. Pepe, was diagnosed with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. For the next 18 years, my mom battled this insidious disease t hat slowly stripped away most aspects of her life. At first, these changes se emed minor; a stumble while walking, numbness, or unusual fatigue. But over time, her symptoms became much more debilitating. These losses were relentless and quite devas tating. Eventually, multiple sclerosis transformed a once vibrant, active, and dedicate d sixth grade teacher into a bedridden woman trapped in a powerless body. Finally, in 2006, multiple sclerosis took my momÂ’s life. I miss my mom. Without knowing it at the time, I learned a tremendous amount about resiliency and strength from her. In fact, she embodied many of the protect ive factors described in this dissertation. My mom made a choice to fight rather t han feel sorry for herself and she spent years searching for the elusive path to we llness. The life lessons I learned during this journey will stay with me forever. I dedicate this dissertation to my mom; a beautiful lady who taught me to be better not bitter. I love you.
Acknowledgements I am incredibly grateful for the wonderful people I encountered during my dissertation journey. The idea for this dissertation stemmed from a series of c onversations with my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Sylvia Rockwell. SylviaÂ’s guiding hand gent ly steered me to a place where I could organize my thoughts and ideas as I rea d about the protective factors that form the resiliency construct. Thank you for believin g in me and always modeling those protective factors. As a member of the Cohort, I benefited from our combined experiences and grew both professionally and personally. Special thanks go to Missy Lennard, Craig Colli ns, Jenifer Neale, Angela Butler, and Julie Hasson for your love and friendship, ongoing support, and countless contributions. Thank you for always providing strength and direction. I learned a great deal from each one of you as we shaped this pursuit into our own meaning ful experience. One of the protective factors I write about involves the central role that relat ionships play in overcoming hardships. To this end, I am eternally indebted to my family and fr iends for their love and patience. To my boys, Jackson and Nathan Â– I enjoyed describing thi s process to you and answering your many questions about earning a doctorate. Remembe r, youÂ’re never too old to go back to school. Both of you provide me with immense inspiration and I love you very, very much. Special thanks to Dr. Jeffrey Broome, Dr. Edmund OÂ’Connor, Dr. Joyce Haines, and Stephen Hirsch for their friendship, advice, and
encouragement. I also extend my gratitude to Ted Dwyer for his expertise and t horoughness. Your invaluable input enhanced my study. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee. Thank you for your scholarly advice, time, and ongoing support throughout this experience. I truly appreciate Dr. Zorka KaranxhaÂ’s thoughtful comments and valuable feedback which ultimately strength ened my research. Many thanks to Dr. Jennifer Morley whose unique insight and reassuring c ounsel broadened my perspective. Your check-ins, constructive criticisms, and ongoing di scussions kept me on the right path. I am also indebted to Dr. Bobbie Greenlee for guiding me throughout this process. I appreciate the time you devoted to advance my research a nd support this endeavor. Finally, I am eternally grateful to my wonderful Chair, Dr. Darlene Brune r. I admire your service to USF, our Cohort, and to me. From day one, you championed this pursuit with purpose and finesse. Your artistic direction along with your good-hearted proddi ng allowed me to succeed and realize this achievement. Thank you for always being my teacher, my advocate, my mentor, my cheerleader, and my advisor. I apprecia te you more than you know.
i Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi Abstract ............................................................................................................................. vii Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................1 Conceptual Underpinnings.......................................................................................2 Authentic leadershipÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…. ...........5 Protective factors Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…......Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ..... 5 Purpose of the Study Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…...Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ........................6 Research QuestionsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ..7 Null Hypotheses Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….. ........8 Significance of the Study .........................................................................................8 Methodology ..........................................................................................................10 Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Controls ...................................................11 Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................................12 Organization of the Dissertation ............................................................................14 Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................16 Theoretical Perspective ..........................................................................................16 Historical Relevance ..............................................................................................19 Resiliency acquisition ................................................................................22 Protective Factors...................................................................................................23 Relationships ..............................................................................................24 Self-efficacy and self-esteem .....................................................................31 Professional development and problem solving ........................................39 Professional development ..............................................................39 Problem solving .............................................................................45 Autonomy ..................................................................................................48 Meaning .....................................................................................................56 Positive affect.............................................................................................60 Hope and optimism ....................................................................................71 Conclusion .............................................................................................................75 Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................79 Overview ................................................................................................................79
ii Research Design.....................................................................................................80 Sampling ................................................................................................................83 Missing Data ..........................................................................................................85 InstrumentationÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….. 85 Resiliency: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) ....................85 Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) ............................................88 Three-Component Model (TCM) of Commitment ....................................92 Data Collection ......................................................................................................94 VariablesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…...Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…. ............94 QuestionnaireÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…...Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… ..................94 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................96 Null hypotheses ..........................................................................................96 Statistical analyses .....................................................................................96 Summary ................................................................................................................98 Chapter Four: Results ......................................................................................................100 Overview ..............................................................................................................100 Review of Methodology ......................................................................................101 Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................102 Descriptive analysis .................................................................................102 Psychometric tool analysis .......................................................................104 Results of Research Questions .............................................................................106 Regression analysis ..................................................................................107 Step 1 ...........................................................................................107 Step 2 ...........................................................................................108 Multiple regression analysis ....................................................................109 Step 3 ...........................................................................................109 Summary of the Findings .....................................................................................111 Chapter Five: Summary and Discussion ..........................................................................112 Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................112 Discussion of the Research Questions .................................................................113 Job satisfaction and principal resiliency ..................................................113 Affective work commitment and principal resiliency .............................116 Authentic leadership ....................................................................116 Demographic variables and principal resiliency ......................................118 Principal Protective Factors .................................................................................120 Autonomy ................................................................................................120 Problem solving .......................................................................................121 Self-esteem and self-efficacy ...................................................................123 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................124 Implications for Practice ......................................................................................126 Implications for Future Research .........................................................................129 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................131 References ........................................................................................................................134
iii AppendicesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…...Â…Â…154 Appendix A Â– Demographic Questionnaire .......................................................155 Appendix B Â– Email to Principal ........................................................................159 Appendix C Â– Informed Consent Letter...............................................................160 Appendix D Â– Survey Emailed and Electronically Bounced Back (Rejected) ....161 Appendix E Â– Tables A1 Â– A7 ...........................................................................162
iv List of Tables Table 1: Null Hypotheses Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…. 8 Table 2: Content of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…... 87 Table 3: Five-Item JSIÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 91 Table 4: Six-Item JSI Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…. 91 Table 5: Sample items for work commitment scalesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….. 93 Table 6: Survey SummaryÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…... 95 Table 7: Null HypothesesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…... 96 Table 8: Summary of Analyses Methods used to Test Null HypothesesÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…... 97 Table 9: Summary of Descriptive Statistics and CronbachÂ’s alpha for CD-RI SC 10, JSI and TCM Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…... 106 Table 10: Linear Regression with Demographic Variables and CD-RISC 10 Â…Â…Â…. 107 Table 11: Linear Regression with JSI and CD-RISC 10 Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….. 108 Table 12: Linear Regression with TCM and CD-RISC 10 Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…... 109 Table 13: Multiple regression of JSI and TCM predictors of CD-RISC 10 Â…Â…Â….. 110 Table 14: Summary of Null Hypotheses ResultsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â… 110 Table A1 Â– CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Gender ............................................162 Table A2 Â– CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Region ............................................163 Table A3 Â– CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Location .........................................164 Table A4 Â– CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Poverty Rate ...................................165
v Table A5 Â– CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by School Level ..................................167 Table A6 Â– CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Income............................................168 Table A7 Â– CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Enrollment......................................170
vi List of Figures Figure 1: Resiliency Bouncing Ball Protective FactorsÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â….Â…Â…Â…Â… 15 Figure 2: Autonomy vs. Independence Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…. 78 Figure 3: Overview of the Research DesignÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…...... 99
vii Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate characteristics associated wi th resilient school leaders. Principals juggle multiple responsibilities and wo rk under increasingly stressful conditions. Despite recent role changes, added job re sponsibilities, and increased accountability, some principals remain remarkably resilient while working in a tumultuous environment. Using Henderson and MilsteinÂ’s (2003) definition, principal resiliency was described as Â“the capacity to spring back, rebound, s uccessfully adapt in the face of adversity, and develop social, academic, and vocational compete nce despite exposure to severe stress or simply to the stress that is inherent in toda yÂ’s worldÂ” (p. 7). This empirical study tested the theory that principals with higher leve ls of job satisfaction and work commitment would also likely have higher levels of res ilience. This study also investigated whether years of experience, school location, school pove rty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment shared a significa nt relationship with principal resilience. This study used a questionnaire to measure participantsÂ’ levels of resiliency job satisfaction, and work commitment. The survey consisted of three research-ba sed, established psychometric tools: 1) the abbreviated Connor-Davidson Resilience Sca le (CD-RISC 10) (Connor & Davidson, 2003); 2) Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Inde x (JSI) (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951); and 3) Three-Component Model (TCM) of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
viii An analysis of 627 surveys completed by public school principals from the state of Florida revealed that years of experience, school location, school poverty ra te, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment shared no significant relationshi p with principal resilience. However, results from this empirical study indica ted that there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for princi pals as well as a significant relationship between affective work commitment and resilie ncy.
1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Statement of the Problem Principals work in extremely tumultuous environments (Friedman, 2002; Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Whitaker, 1996, 2003). From instructional leader to facility manager to community leader, the scope of a principalÂ’s duties seem limitless. Routine or typical never describes a principalÂ’s day, since no two days ever look the same. Undoubtedly, the principalÂ’s pace may seem frantic at times as he or she moves about the c ampus meeting the demands of students, teachers, parents and superiors. The fallacy of a n administrator sitting behind a desk, sipping coffee, and waiting for the next dis ciplinary referral is a fanciful caricature at best. In reality, principals work under an increasing amount of stress that takes its toll both physically and emotionally (Jazzar & Algozzine, 2006). In addition to the daily obstacles encountered by principals, state and national reform efforts contribute to this formidable work environment. In the spring of 2010, President Obama unveiled his plan to amend the NCLB law to improve student education. The new plan emphasized rewarding performance while providing more lo cal control. President ObamaÂ’s proposal also acknowledged measuring other variables s uch as school climate and working conditions with surveys (Klein & McNeil, 2010). Although short on details, the PresidentÂ’s plan required states to develop their own
2 definition of teacher effectiveness and establish procedures to correlate st udent achievement with the performance of teachers and principals. As efforts to reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act continue one axiom remains: teachers and educational leaders are accountable for student achievement. Annual standardized testing along with a myriad of other assessments brings a de luge of data for educators and legislators to dissect, analyze, and chart. These data reports become the basis for local, state, and federal authorities to reward the perf ormance of educators. Similarly, studentsÂ’ test results are used to sanction those schools w here performance stagnates. As a result, school boards pay closer attention to ac hievement gaps as well as the performance of schools with urban, impoverished, and marginal ized populations. It also means that principals face even more scrutiny as they se arch for ways to increase student achievement. Given this turbulent environment, a principalÂ’s capacity for resiliency become s critical. How can principals mitigate these stressors so as not to fold under this mounting pressure? Why can some principals navigate these twists and turns more succes sfully than others? Why do some principals seem to bounce back from adversity more rapidly than their peers? Many answers to these questions stem from the growing body of literature related to resiliency. Using the lessons learned from positive psychology and focusing on peopleÂ’s strengths, this dissertation investigated various protective factors that act as pathways toward resilience. Conceptual Underpinnings Henderson and Milstein (2003) defined resiliency as Â“the capacity to spring back, rebound, successfully adapt in the face of adversity, and develop social, academi c, and
3 vocational competence despite exposure to severe stress or simply to the stres s that is inherent in todayÂ’s worldÂ” (p. 7). Resiliency theory is affiliated with the pos itive psychology movement. According to Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihal yi (2000): Psychology should be able to help document what kinds of families result in children who flourish, what work settings support the greatest satisfaction among workers, what policies result in the strongest civic engagement, and how people's lives can be most worth living. (p. 5) A strong belief in recognizing the good life resulted in a new field called pos itive psychology. Positive psychology recognizes individual traits such as subjective wellbeing, optimism, happiness, and self-determination. This field of psychology also promotes positive experiences and attempts to expand communities and organizations around these positive qualities. Positive psychology stands as the antithesis of the deficit theory. Commonly used in schools and sometimes referred to as deficit thinking, this model posits Â“the stude nt who fails in school does so because of internal deficits or deficiencies. Such defi cits manifest, it is alleged, in limited intellectual abilities, linguistic shortcomings, lack of motivation to learn, and immoral behaviorÂ” (Valencia, 1997, p. 2). Subscribers to this model believe that marginalized populations such as low income or minority groups perform poorly, compared to their white middle-class counterparts, due to their own shortcomings. In other words, proponents of deficit thinking view poor, disabled, or other Â“at-riskÂ” groups, responsible for their own failures while ignoring cultur al, political, economic and social constructs.
4 Descriptions of the deficit theory changed over time. For example, a review of the literature pertaining to desegregation in 1975 summarized the cultural defici t model in the following manner: The cultural deficit literature is concerned with explaining why it seems t hat lowincome minority groups have not acquired American middle-class attitudes, values, and behaviors. The problem, according to that literature, arises from the lack of contact low-income minority group children have with the American middle-class, especially within the schools during the children's formative y ears. It is assumed that this contact will alleviate the problem. (Kirk & Goon, 1975, p. 600) However, thirty-two years later, researchers described the deficit mo del in a less favorable manner. The deficit model is based on the normative development of students whose homes and communities have prepared them for schooling long before they enter school. Children who come to school without that preparation, and without the continuing home support of family members who can reinforce the goals of schooling, face expectations that they have not had the opportunity to fulfill. All too quickly the students become candidates for suspected Â“disability.Â” (Harry & Klingner, 2007, p. 18) Both descriptions of the deficit model address normative behavior, school goals and the dominant culture. Critics of the deficit model argue that cultural differ ences are devalued as underserved students are forced to adapt to hegemonic ideologies. Val encia (1997) went a step further and depicted deficit thinking as a model Â“rooted in ignorance
5 classism, racism, sexism, pseudoscience and methodologically flawed rese archÂ” (p. xiii). Clearly, the constructs associated with resiliency stem from a wellnes s approach like positive psychology rather than a pathological or Â“pharmacological modelÂ” (Com mission on Children at Risk, 2003) like deficit theory. Authentic leadership. Focusing on what worked rather than agonizing over what went wrong aligns with an authentic leadership style (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Scholars defined authentic leadership as: a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster gre ater selfawareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of informati on, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development. (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) Once again, this emphasis on positive psychological capacities encompassed severa l constructs associated with resiliency. The theoretical perspective on authe ntic leadership advanced by Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) provided the philosophical framework to build a developmental model of principal resiliency. In othe r words, principals described as resilient may also be characterized as exhi biting an authentic leadership style. Protective factors. In consideration of the characteristics mentioned above, this study selected seven protective factors that fall on the resiliency trait-state continuum (Luthans Vogelgesang,
6 & Lester, 2006): 1) relationships; 2) self-efficacy and self-esteem; 3) pr oblem-solving and professional development; 4) autonomy; 5) meaning; 6) positive affect; and 7) hope and optimism. Using physics, the metaphor of a bouncing ball provides a conceptual visualization of resiliency theory. Physics explains why a bouncing ball temporarily loses its shape when it hits a hard surface. When you drop a ball, gravity pulls it toward the floor. The ball gains energy of motion, known as kinetic energy When the ball hits the floor and stops, that energy has to go somewhere. The energy goes into deforming the ball--from its original round shape to a squashed shape. When the ball deforms, its molecules are stretched apart in some places and squeezed together in others. (Doherty, 1991) Due to its resilient nature, a rubber ball loses its shape only momentarily, and qui ckly springs back to its original round shape. Similar to a bouncing ball, when a resilient person encounters adversity, he or she employs protective factors to overcome the hardship. Figure 1 illustrates these seven characteristics of resiliency Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate characteristics associated wi th resilient school leaders. This empirical study tested the theory that princi pals with higher levels of job satisfaction and work commitment will have higher levels of resi lience. This study also investigated whether years of experience, school location, school pover ty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment were related to principal resilience.
7 Another objective of this dissertation was to advance a developmental and multidisciplinary model of resiliency within the context of educational leader ship. Namely, how is resiliency defined and operationalized when considering the role of a school principal? Thus, this dissertation studied the feelings and thoughts that pri ncipals experience, and how they relate to the ways they perform in their jobs. This empiri cal study analyzed the relationship between job satisfaction, work commitment, and a principalÂ’s resiliency. Another goal of this dissertation was to enhance the generalizability and utili ty of the resiliency construct. So far, a majority of the resiliency resear ch focused on children or corporate management. The few studies linked to schools mostly investigated eithe r student or teacher resiliency. Hence, the findings from this study contribute t o the literature and expand notions of resiliency through its application to school leadershi p. Fourth, this study analyzed the resiliency levels of principals across the st ate of Florida. The survey collected data such as school level, size, student demographics, poverty ra te, job experience, and more. These data offered a deeper contextual understanding of resiliency by comparing and contrasting principals in different school setti ngs. Examining the resiliency levels of principals also provided greater insight into self-righting mechanisms that promote the most effective leadership. Every one in the school (students, teachers, parents, and community members) benefit when an ef fective principal remains committed to his duties and satisfied with his profession. Research Questions This study attempted to examine the following relationships: Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principa ls?
8 Is there a relationship between work commitment and resiliency for principa ls? Are there significant differences in resiliency levels among principals in various school settings? By isolating independent variables such as school level, size, principal demographics, and student demographics, this study investigates the relationship of these variables with principalsÂ’ resiliency levels. Null hypotheses. Table 1 summarizes the null hypotheses tested in this study: Table 1 Null Hypotheses H 0 Null Hypothesis H 0 1a No relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principals H 0 2a No relationship between work commitment and resiliency for principals H 0 3a No relationship between work commitment (affective, continuance, and normative), job satisfaction and resiliency for principals H 0 4a No relationship between years of experience and resiliency for principals H 0 5a No relationship between school location and resiliency for principals H 0 6a No relationship between school poverty rate and resiliency for principals H 0 7a No relationship between school level and resiliency for principals H 0 8a No relationship between salary and resiliency for principals H 0 9a No relationship between student enrollment and resiliency for principals Note. H 0 = Null hypothesis Significance of the Study Post NCLB, accountability and expected job tasks for principals grow exponentially, yet, at the same time, increased standardization and 'McDonal dization' of school systems (Broome, 2008) diminish professional autonomy and input into educational policy creation. Given these conflicting ideas, it seems logical t hat job stress for principals would also greatly increase. Although the resiliency litera ture would
9 indicate that resiliency for principals could assist in navigating more diffi cult work environments, the literature thus far does not address resiliency and school leaders hip. Bruner and Greenlee (2000) describe culture as a prominent characteristic of a quality organization. Principals can influence school culture and expectations f or all instructional staff, students, and even communities (August& Waltman, 2004; Brune r & Greenlee, 2000; Hanchey & Brown, 1989; Hughes, 1995; Sparks, 2007; Patrick, 1995; Taylor & Tashakkori, 1994; Weiss, 1999; Youngs, 2007). Theoretically, an effective principal who remains committed to their duties and is satisfied with their profe ssion can impact outcomes for all parties connected to the school. While no scholarship links work commitment and job satisfaction to a principalÂ’s resiliency, doing so may provide be tter insight into both choosing effective public school leaders, and providing professional growth opportunities to assist principals during these challenging times. District leaders stand to benefit once they determine what principals do wel l, identify their strengths, and develop their skills to help them overcome adversity This involves a positive approach to unraveling different facets of human behavior. Indeed, this positive outlook is quite different from the traditional methodology, especiall y in fields such as education and psychology in which the practitioner attempts to diagnos e a problem, a disorder, or a disability. This shift toward a positive orientation continues to gain momentum in the fields of psychology, organizational management, and education (Boyle & Woods, 1996; Coutu, 2002; Gu & Day, 2007; Henderson & Milstein, 2003; Howard & Johnson, 2004; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008; Patterson, Collins, & Abbott, 2004; Rockwell, 2006; Seligman, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Youssef, & Luthans, 2007). Considered a
10 highly valued and developable commodity, the ability to bounce back after facing adversity distinguishes the survivors from the defeatists. Resilient student s, resilient teachers, and resilient school leaders serve as the building blocks for resilie nt school organizations. Methodology This nonexperimental exploratory study utilized a questionnaire to measure a purposive sampling of principalsÂ’ self-reported levels of resiliency, job sat isfaction, and work commitment. The questionnaire also included items to collect demographic information about the participant and the school where the participant worked. Principal s completed the online survey anonymously on a website that utilized secure socket la yer technology (SSL) encryption to secure data. The survey consisted of three research-based, established psychometric tool s: 1) the abbreviated Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10) (Connor & Davidson, 2003); 2) Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) (Brayfield & Rot he, 1951); and 3) Three-Component Model (TCM) of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Previous reliability and validity testing confirmed the consistency, dependability and relevance of these instruments. A combination of descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistics were us ed to analyze the principals' scores on the CD-RISC, TCM, and JSI. Linear regressi on was utilized to determine the relationship between the dependent variable (resilie ncy) and the multiple independent predictor variables (various demographic variables). Overa ll, these analyses provided a means to make inferences about the relationships between t hese multiple variables.
11 Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Controls The results on this research include certain delimitations, limitations, and assumptions. Certain inquiries fall outside the scope of this research. Although the survey collects demographic information about the participants, such as gender, ethni city, and age, the study will not employ correlational analysis to examine the rela tionship between these variables and job satisfaction or work commitment. Furthermore, this research will not attempt to identify relationships between work commitment a nd job satisfaction among principals. The exploration of these relationships is beyond the s cope of this research. Alternatively, this study includes limitations that place constraints on the generalizability and utility of the findings. First, the sample for this s tudy included only public school principals from the state of Florida. Participation in the study was strictly voluntary. This non-randomized sample limits the generalization to a national or international population of public and private school principals. Similarly, generalizations about corporate management must also be excluded since all of this research originates in a public school setting. Secondly, limitations to the collection of data through anonymous online surveys included the inability to verify the job description of the individual who completed the survey. To increase the likelihood that principals are the only respondents to the survey, a state level database of principal's names and email addresses was obta ined from the Florida Department of Education. This database was assumed the most accurate a nd reliable source of names and email addresses.
12 Thirdly, without knowing what influences a personÂ’s behavior, self-reported data may be skewed. The answers provided by the participants in this survey were assum ed to be genuine and accurate. However, this study never addressed the characterist ics or traits of the person who elected to respond to a survey. For example, did principals with primarily positive responses participate at a higher or lower rate than those with more negative thoughts and feelings? Although these questions fell outside the parameter s of this study, their impact imposed limitations on the study. With this in mind, the surve y used existing instruments with established reliability and validity measu res. This restrictive methodology did not allow personal insight or suggestions within its design. Finally, this study surveyed roughly 2,900 K-12 public school principals in Florida. Hence, the sample size required to be representative of this population was 338 (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). A smaller sample size places limitations on the utility and generalizability of the results. Definition of Key Terms Authentic Leadership: Â“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 pro cessing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with follow ers, fostering positive self-developmentÂ” (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Job Satisfaction: Â“. . a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of oneÂ’s job or job experiencesÂ” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304) and measured using six items from the Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) (Bray field & Rothe, 1951).
13 Positive psychology: a field of psychology that recognizes individual positive traits, promotes positive experiences and attempts to expand communities and organizations around these positive qualities. Protective Factors: Â“Protective Factors modify (ameliorate, buffer) a personÂ’s reaction to a situation that in ordinary circumstances leads to maladaptive out comesÂ” (Werner & Smith, 1992, p. 5). Resiliency: Â“the capacity to spring back, rebound, successfully adapt in the face of adversity, and develop social, academic, and vocational competence despite expos ure to severe stress or simply to the stress that is inherent in todayÂ’s worldÂ” (He nderson & Milstein, 2003, p. 7). Trait-State Continuum : the continuous extent to which resiliency is described as dispositional and trait-like versus state-like and open to development (Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006). Work Commitment: Â“a psychological link between the employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily lea ve the organizationÂ” (Allen & Meyer, 1996, p. 252). Meyer and Allen (1991) described this multidimensional construct as an employeeÂ’s mindset or feelings about his rel ationship with an organization and further subdivided this psychological state into three distinc t categories: a desire (affective commitment), a need (continuance commi tment), and an obligation (normative commitment).
14 Organization of the Dissertation This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduced the study, presented the statement of the problem, outlined the conceptual underpinnings and explained the historical relevance of resiliency theory. Chapter One also sum marized the methodology, listed the limitations of the study and the definitions of key terms. Cha pter Two presents a literature review of the protective factors a person (or or ganization) uses to mitigate risk factors in the environment. Chapter Two covers seven sections: 1) relationships; 2) self-efficacy and self-esteem; 3) problem-solving and p rofessional development; 4) autonomy; 5) meaning; 6) positive affect; and 7) hope and optimism. Chapter Three presents the design, measures, and methodology of the study. Chapter Four presents a statistical analysis of the data collected during the stud y. Chapter 5 provides the summary of the findings, conclusions, implications, suggested practica l applications, limitations, and future research recommendations.
Figure 1. Resiliency Bouncing Ball Protective Factors involves these seven components of resiliency Bouncing Ball Protective Factors Bouncing back from adversity components of resiliency along a traitstate continuum. 15 Bouncing back from adversity state continuum.
16 Chapter 2: Literature Review In general, the purpose of this research is to study the feelings and thoughts that principals experience, and how they relate to the ways they perform in their jobs. Specifically, this study examines: Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principa ls? Is there a relationship between work commitment and resiliency for princi pals? Are there significant differences in resiliency levels among principals in various school settings? Theoretical Perspective In this study, positivism informs the methodology used in my study and objectivism is the epistemology foundation of my research. Crotty (2003) describe d the philosophical stance that lies behind a methodology as the theoretical perspecti ve. As a set of assumptions, the theoretical perspective Â“provides a context for the proces s and grounds its logic and criteriaÂ” (Crotty, 2003, p. 7). The theoretical perspective for this study draws from the emerging resil iency framework as well as the theories embedded in positive psychology and authentic leadership. Major responsibilities of a principal include identifying, hiring and retaining the most effective classroom teachers. Although the qualities of a grea t teacher are too many to list (and often debated in the research) one component of an effective teac her is
17 resiliency or Â“the capacity to bounce back from adversity, adapt to pressure s and problems encountered, and develop the competencies Â– social, academic, and vocational Â– necessary to do well in lifeÂ” (Henderson & Milstein, 1996, p. 11). Resiliency is an important trait since teachers continuously face setbacks and multiple challe nges as they meet studentsÂ’ individual needs, conference with parents, and meet the demands of administrators and the public at large during an era of heightened accountabilit y. Principals, in turn, face similar setbacks in terms of the emotional and physica l drain the position places on a person. Therefore, both principal and teacher must remain resili ent during these most challenging times. In a growing body of research, resilience literature analyzes the var ious protective factors of people who possess this ability to get up, brush themselves off, and bounce back from a difficult situation. Researchers still debate the notion of whethe r an adaptive construct is more trait-like (fixed) or state-like (malleable). Pa rt of the answer involves the concept of a trait Â– state continuum, in which some constructs behave more fixe d than others. This continuum also allows researchers to view resiliency as developa ble (Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006). In fact, in an attempt to operatio nalize resiliency, researchers measured certain pathways to resiliency wit h the hopes of increasing employee performance (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Henderson & Mil stein (1996), stated, Â“The process of resiliency development is, in fact, the process of li fe, given that all people must overcome stress and trauma and disruption in the process of livingÂ” (p. 4). For the purpose of my study, I acknowledge the trait Â– state continuum when describing the various protective factors that relate to resiliency.
18 Other theoretical frameworks related to resiliency already exist in the literature. For example Henderson and Milstein (2003) proposed a Resiliency Wheel. The Resiliency Wheel divides this concept into six themes: 1) increase bonding; 2) set c lear and consistent boundaries; 3) teach life skills; 4) provide caring and support; 5) set and communicate high expectations; 6) provide opportunities for meaningful participation. The first half of the wheel (or themes one, two, and three) involve three strategie s for mitigating risk factors a person encounters during life. The second half of the wheel (or themes four, five and six) involve the steps necessary for fostering resilienc y. A large portion of this review is devoted to the teaching profession. Since most educational leaders began their careers in the classroom, many lessons rega rding resiliency directly or indirectly involve these experiences. Although cl early implied, researchers acknowledge the lack of resiliency research afforded to edu cational institutions and in particular school leadership (Giles, 2008; Gu & Day, 2007). Like wise, the previous resiliency studies focused on the benefits that certain protective factors had on children. Youssef and Luthans (2005) drew a connection between resiliency asset s in the child psychotherapy context and positive psychology and resiliency traits i n the leadership context. Henderson and Milstein (2003) argued, Â“the process of resili ency building is similar for children and for adultsÂ” (p. 5). This connection becomes the starting point of this literature review.
19 Historical Relevance The story of resilience theory began with children. While some researcher s relied on a reductionist, pathological, problem-oriented, or a deficit approach when describing failure, others decided to follow a wellness model that focused on the protective fa ctors that ultimately contributed to success. This began the first wave of resili ency inquiry: research focused on health promotion and wellbeing and shifted emphasis away from pathology and problem-orientation way of thinking (Richardson, 2002). By the 1970s, research focused on the individual differences in childrenÂ’s responses to tribulati on. Considered a pioneer in resilience research, Norman Garmezy studied children of par ents who suffered from schizophrenia. His novel investigation resulted in groundbreaking research during the 1970s. Garmezy wanted to know why some children coped successfully despite their exposure to the same psychopathological risks (par ents with schizophrenia) as other children who coped poorly. Eventually, Garmezy and other investigators, including Michael Rutter and Emmy Werner, began studying childr en who succeeded in the face of adversity. Rutter (1985) dismissed genetics as a universal explanation for individual differences since environmental factors also influence a person's respons e to stress. This prompted the search for protective factors. During this time, researchers u sed the term invulnerable to describe "children so constitutionally tough that they could not give w ay under the pressures of stress and adversity" (Rutter, 1985, p. 599). Eventually, the term resilient replaced the absolute notion of invulnerable. Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith developed a longitudinal study of the children living on one of the Hawaiian islands, named Kauai. A cohort of 505 people born in
20 1955 was followed from birth to adulthood. Many individuals in this cohort faced daunting challenges such as perinatal stress, chronic poverty, troubled home life and exposure to parental alcoholism or mental illness. Despite these hazardous environmental conditions, the researchers noticed that some of the children seeme d stress resistant to various biological and psychosocial risk factors. Scholars consider the Kauai Longitudinal Study a landmark investigation into the long-term effects of childho od adversity as well as the protective factors that led to successful adaptat ion in adulthood (Werner & Smith, 1992). Research began on a similar concept, hardiness, in 1975 when Salvatore Maddi launched a twelve-year longitudinal study to analyze the stress levels of ma nagers working at Illinois Bell Telephone (IBT). Maddi (2002) and other researchers dis covered that certain managers possessed attitudes that served as protective force s against stressrelated illnesses. Eventually, these stress buffers were labeled as commitment, control, and challenge. Maddi (2002) referred to these attitudes as the 3Cs of hardiness. Protective factors can be positive or negative and Â“refer to influences that modify, ameliorate, or alter a person's response to some environmental hazard that pr edisposes to a maladaptive outcome" (Rutter, 1985, p. 600). Although, Rutter (1985) was careful when generalizing the influence protective factors have on resilience, he off ered several characteristics. For example, Rutter (1985) suggested that quality emotional s upport, as in a secure relationship with another individual, positive self-concept, positive self-esteem, belief in one's own self-efficacy, a repertoire of social problem s olving strategies, and humor fostered resiliency during challenging times.
21 Garmezy (1991) also suggested that certain characteristics operated a s protective factors in an adverse environment. He grouped these characteristics into three broad categories called variables. The first variable involved an individualÂ’s tempe rament and addressed activity levels, cognitive skills, and social skills. The second vari able involved family support, cohesion, and support from family members as substitutes for absent parents. Finally, Garmezy (1991) cited external support such as a teacher, com munity member, or institution (school, church, or agency) as the third variable used to modify stressful situations. During this first wave of resiliency research, researchers continued to foc us on phenomenological descriptions of protective factors and resilient qualities of individuals. For example, Benson (1997) identified 40 developmental assets (external and internal ). External assets included feeling a sense of empowerment (valuing). Intern al assets included positive values, positive identify (self-esteem, sense of purpose). Coutu (2002) cited three qualities she deemed as essential to reach true resil iency: 1) realistic optimism; 2) the search for meaning; and 3) ritualized ingenuity. W hen a resilient individual encounters adversity, the person remains optimistic with out pretending everything will just work out. Maintaining a sense of realism is just as important as maintaining a sense of optimism. Facing reality from a positive sta ndpoint allows a person to search for solutions whenever a difficult situation arises. Clos ely related, CoutuÂ’s (2002) second resilient quality is making meaning out of misfortune. This quality is the opposite of seeing yourself as a victim. According to Coutu (2002) meaning making is "the way resilient people build bridges from present-day h ardships to a fuller, better constructed future. Those bridges make the present manageable, for l ack
22 of a better word, removing the sense that the present is overwhelming" (p. 50). Typically, a resilient person relies on his or her core value system to find mea ning. Thus, Coutu (2002) underscored the importance of an individual or organizationÂ’s strong value system because they Â“offer ways to interpret and shape eventsÂ” (p. 52). Final ly, resilient people (and organizations) invent creative ways to solve problems. They imagine possibilities and get the job done. Coutu (2002) used the word "bricolage" coined by French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss to describe improvisation and ingenuity when solving a problem without access to common tools. Creativity alone, however, does not fully describe the third quality of resilience. In fact, creativity rests on the shoulders of rules and routines, which anchor ideas and provide a common direction and purpose. When used in harmony, these three qualities promote resilience during the most challenging times. Resiliency acquisition. How are resilient characteristics acquired? The second wave of resilienc y theory attempted to answer this question. Richardson (2002) created a model to describe the resiliency process. When a person is in biopsychospiritual homeostasis, he or she has adapted to lifeÂ’s events or situations. Biopsychospiritual homeostasis is alte red or disrupted by life changes, stressors, challenges, adversity and other forms of disruption. Once this occurs, a resilient individual draws upon previous experiences and utilize s strategies to cope with the current hardship. After the disruption, the reintegrat ive process begins. Â“A person can reintegrate resiliently, attempt to return to biopsychospiritual homeostasis, reintegrate with loss, or dysfunctionally rei ntegrateÂ”
23 (Richardson, 2002, p. 312). Successful or unsuccessful adaptation to lifeÂ’s disruptions determines a personÂ’s resiliency or his/her ability to cope with stress. The third wave of resiliency theory involved physics, biology, psychology, theology, and mysticism. This interdisciplinary approach allowed the merging of ideas from multiple academic fields. Richardson (2002) referred to resiliency as Â“ a force within everyone that drives them to seek self-actualization, altruism, wisdo m, and harmony with spiritual source and strengthÂ” (p. 313). The third wave sought to understand the source of energy for this force. Various hypotheses included ideas fr om quantum physics, Eastern medicine, spiritualization, psychology, and philosophy. Richardson (2002) suggested the use of meditation, Tai Chi, prayer, yoga, Aikido and other therapies to strengthen an individualÂ’s resilience. This multidisciplinar y view marks the current stage of resilience research. Protective Factors. Recognizing the state Â– trait continuum mentioned earlier, the protective fa ctors a person (or organization) uses to mitigate risk factors in the environment fall i nto seven broad categories: 1) relationships; 2) self-efficacy and self-esteem; 3) problem-solving and professional development; 4) autonomy; 5) meaning; 6) positive affect; and 7) hope and optimism. In order to conceptualize resiliency, the ensuing sections seek answers to the following questions: What is the operational definition of resiliency? What protective factors or constructs are associated with resiliency?
24 How does the research colligate these adaptive constructs with leadership resiliency? Relationships. Â“Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.Â” ~ Mother Teresa (Kleiser, 2005, p.42) A common theme throughout the resiliency literature emphasizes the central role that relationships play in overcoming adversity (Rutter, 1985; Boyle & Woods, 1996; Coutu, 2002; Wayman, 2002; Howard & Johnson, 2004; Patterson, Collins, & Abbott, 2004; Rockwell, 2006). Resilient individuals possess a keen awareness of their socia l surroundings and adeptly bond to others for support. Generally speaking, researchers subdivide this protective factor into three broad sections: social skill development, mentoring, and emotional support. This section of the literature review summarize s the information regarding this protective factor and examines how the research c olligates relationship building with leadership resiliency. Neuropsychologists study the relationship between the brain and human behavior. These scientists revealed that close, positive, and meaningful connections to other s affect human behavior from a very young age. In other words, peopleÂ’s brains are hardwire d to connect to other people (Commission on Children at Risk, 2003). Scientists interested in emotional development, regulation, attachment theory, and brain function recognized the connection between relationships and resilience. Schore (2001) described resili ence factors for coping with psychobiological stressors and the importance of buil ding relationships with others.
25 The orbital cortex matures in the middle of the second year, a time when the average child has a productive vocabulary of less than 70 words. The core of the self is thus nonverbal and unconscious, and it lies in patterns of affect regulation. This structural development allows for an internal sense of security and resilie nce that comes from the intuitive knowledge that one can regulate the flows and shifts of oneÂ’s bodily-based emotional states either by oneÂ’s own coping capacities or within a relationship with caring others. (Schore, 2001, p. 42) Hence, the ability to form relationships with others serves as a protective f actor from as early as infancy. Social competence and the capacity to form attachments t o others remain important throughout adulthood. It is no surprise, then, that the literature reveal s that resilient leaders know how to connect with coworkers and use their social skil ls to advance through turbulent times. Authentic leaders spend a great deal of time building relationships with others. In fact, one of the tenants of authentic leadership is transparency, the ability to ma intain openness and self-disclosure. Â“Authentic leaders act according to their values build relationships that enable followers to offer diverse viewpoints and build social netw orks with followersÂ” (Hughes, 2005, p. 86). Leaders who place a premium on relationships identify with their followers on a personal level, recognize and nurture talent, buil d strong social networks, and foster trust with stakeholders (Hughes, 2005). This rel ational transparency displayed among authentic leaders supports the resiliency of the l eader as well as the entire organization. Successful principals spend a great amount of time building relationships throughout the school. The effective principal places a premium on the bonds and
26 partnerships fostered with students, parents, faculty, staff, superiors, business pa rtners, and community members. Furthermore, a principalÂ’s leadership style impacts school culture and climate (August& Waltman, 2004; Hanchey & Brown, 1989; Hughes, 1995; Sparks, 2007; Patrick, 1995; Taylor & Tashakkori, 1994; Weiss, 1999; Youngs, 2007). In other words, a principalÂ’s influence is far-reaching and global in nature. Thr ough their actions, effective principals use trust building, support, communication, praise, sha red leadership and other human relation skills to build relationships and a healthy culture within the school (Blase & Kirby, 2000; Sparks, 2007). Staff development, collaboration and participatory leadership foster greater teacher loyalty and effe ctively influence teachers at high performing schools (Blase & Kirby, 2000; Sparks, 2007). Relations hip building acts as a protective factor and promotes resiliency. Hughes (1995) studied this phenomenon by analyzing three pairs of schools with similar demographics but with different student achievement results. Data collection included site visits to seven schools and 50 interviews with administrators, teachers and parents. Hughes (1995) also surveyed 632 parents, 670 students, 82 teachers, and seven administrators. Differences in staff morale, staff commitment and job s atisfaction were observed between high poverty and low poverty schools. Â“The greatest difference i n staff morale between the two schools appeared to relate to the working relationship betw een the faculty and the administrationÂ” (Hughes, 1995, p. 34). The study concluded that effective schools shared the following characteristics: low teacher turnove r, high faculty morale, high job satisfaction, strong teacher accountability, strong student pr ide, an effective student services program, an instructional leader, and principal support. According to this research, a principal yields a great deal of influence on th e inner-
27 workings of the school. Hughes (1995) study suggested that a positive relationship between the principal and teachers improved morale and fostered increases in other areas such as job satisfaction. Thus, a principalÂ’s style and ability to foster rel ationships sets the tone for the schoolÂ’s culture and acts as a protective factor to bolster individual and organizational resiliency. Later empirical research concurred with Hughes (1995) findings. Albrecht et a l (2009) surveyed 776 teachers and related faculty to determine risk factors associat ed with teacher burnout and resiliency factors related to teacher retention. Focused on the working conditions of Emotional Behavioral Disorders (EBD) teachers, researc hers asked participants to rate the climate of the school, administrative support, collegia l support, and access to professional development, consultants, and technology. Albrecht et al (2009) cited administrative support and accessing that support daily as Â“signific ant factorsÂ” in a teacherÂ’s retention and job satisfaction (p. 1017). Teachers valued f requent administrative consultation and distinguished this type of communication apart from sparse contact. The latter included only communicating with an administrator dur ing a crisis or at someoneÂ’s request. The use of a nonrandomized design may have contribute d to a sampling bias and therefore limited the generalization of the results. However, Albrecht et al (2009) replicated HughesÂ’ (1995) results, which used a randomized sa mple. Since relationships matter, researchers study how resilient individuals r ely on mentors as a protective factor. For example, a study involving 95 college-bound student s who struggled academically revealed that these students pursued a relationship w ith a counselor for support and academic assistance. Social support from supervisors and peers increased for the same sample of participants (Clauss-Ehlers & Wi browski, 2007).
28 Overall, Clauss-Ehlers and WibrowskiÂ’s (2007) study purported significant effe cts on resiliency using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CDRISC). However, t he use of a nonrandomized design and the omission of a control group limited the utility of this research. Nonetheless, the results align with a substantial body of litera ture maintaining the correlation between resiliency and positive relationships. One such study surveyed 44 young adults who were in foster care as children (Hass & Graydon (2009). The researchers characterized the participants of the study as resilient and hoped to learn what protective factors promoted their wellbeing. Eight yfour percent declared other people Â“who provided various forms of social supportÂ” important to their success (p. 459). These other people included family members, counselors, and mentors. In return, most of the participants expressed a proclivity to volunteer and mentor others. The relatively small and nonrandomized sample size limited the interpretation of these results. Furthermore, Hass and Graydon (2009) acknowledged the limitations of self-reported data as well as their narrow de finition of success. Nevertheless, mentoring plays a crucial role in supporting resili ency. In most cases, principals rely on mentoring to help them in their current position (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003), and they serve as mentors to others; especially those who just started their career. In a study similar to Howard and JohnsonÂ’s (2004) research, Patterson, Collins, and Abbott (2004) analyzed interview transcripts of te achers and teacher leaders. Their analysis reported that participants used mentor ing strategies to build their personal resilience (Patterson, Collins, & Abbott, 2004). Instead of leavin g struggling teachers behind, resilient leaders felt responsible for mentori ng those in need and provided professional and emotional support to their coworkers.
29 In addition to mentoring, resilient individuals seek emotional support from individuals and the community at large. For example, an individualÂ’s perception of support from the community affects overall psychological well-being (Rohal l & Martin, 2008). Scientists refer to the behavior patterns of groups, whether from an organiz ation, a community, or an entire society, as social structure. According to Rohall and M artin (2008), scientists Â“apply this understanding of social structure to the study of re silience by examining the various ways in which social structure may affect relati onships between life events or conditions and a broad spectrum of behavior and associated life outcomes Â” (p. 302). Social structure influences relationships with family and friends. Thes e social conditions also influence the way a person perceives and manages stressful situa tions (Rohall & Martin, 2008). Resilient individuals use social resources, such as re lationships with loved ones, friends, and community members, as a buffer against stressful or traumatic events. For instance, the results of a survey involving more than 17,500 respondents, demonstrated lower depression rates among individuals who expressed a stronger se nse of community. Rohall and Martin (2008) concluded that Â“positive perceptions of social structural and community conditions may help to reduce the risk of depressionÂ” (p. 314). Since respondents were limited to married, active duty service members, the uni versality of these results comes into question. Furthermore, the researchers used only sev en questions based on the CES-D to measure the respondentsÂ’ depression levels. Even with these limitations in mind, the results of Rohall and MartinÂ’s (2008) empirical st udy draws attention to social structural conditions and their impact on resilience. Their findi ngs also
30 parallel other studies related to family and community resilience (Benzie s & Mychasiuk, 2009). In fact, a qualitative study reported similar results. Howard and Johnson (2004) interviewed ten resilient teachers who worked in highly challenged neighborhoods These challenges included poverty, violence, drugs, and family instability. F aced with these immense stressors, Howard and Johnson (2004) reported that every teacher in the ir study relied on support networks inside and outside the school as a safeguard against burnout. Most importantly, the researchers identified Â“strong caring leadershipÂ” as central to the resilient teachersÂ’ support network (p. 412). Even though the small sam ple size limits the generalization of these conclusions, the rich details from t he interview transcripts offered insight into how these adaptive behaviors acted as a buffer ag ainst stressors. Howard and JohnsonÂ’s (2004) findings also paralleled other conclusions found in the literature (Rutter, 1985; Waymen, 2002; Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006). Cl early, the ability to foster relationships and build support networks serve as a protective f actor. In order to foster a worthwhile relationship, a resilient person instinctivel y knows how to bond with another person. Authentic leaders adeptly utilize their social skills to promote relationships and transparency within the organization. A review of the literature underscored the importance of relationships, connectedness, and mentor ing within the school setting. Principals who harbor these strategies stand a bett er chance at overcoming adversity.
31 Self-efficacy and self-esteem. Â“Psychological freedom, a firm sense of self-esteem, is the most powerf ul weapon against the long night of physical slavery.Â” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr. (King, 1968, p. 44) This section addresses the significant role self-esteem and self-effi cacy play in the resiliency literature. Both self-related constructs share a strong relationship with autonomy and offer greater insight into the resiliency theoretical fram ework. How do scholars define self-esteem and self-efficacy? How do these construct s relate to human agency, autonomy and resiliency? This section of the literature review seeks answers to these questions and discusses implications regarding educational leadership and resiliency theory. Conventional wisdom used a Â“more is betterÂ” approach when describing the attributes of self-esteem. Recent research, however, took exception to this not ion, suggesting that too much self-esteem led to egotistical illusions, aggress ive behavior, and even low performance (Deci & Ryan, 1995). In fact, scholars redefined self-e steem by differentiating between contingent self-esteem and true self-este em (Deci & Ryan, 1995). Deci and Ryan (1995) defined contingent self-esteem as Â“feelings about oneself that result from Â– indeed are dependent on Â– matching some standard of excellence or living up to some interpersonal or intrapsychic expectationsÂ” (p. 32). A principal who feels successful and worthy only when raising test scores exemplifie s contingent selfesteem. This type of self-esteem involves social comparison because the ba sis for selfworth is an external measuring stick outwardly imposed by society. An element of narcissism exists within contingent self-esteem since these people f ocus on their own
32 goals and measure success by comparing themselves to others (Deci & Ryan, 1995) Therefore, Deci and Ryan (1995) link negative mental processes such as self-decept ion and rationalization to contingent self-esteem. On the other hand, true self-esteem measures a personÂ’s own self worth, which in turn, correlates to positive psychological outcomes such as higher self-regard, a more secure sense of self, and greater internalized behavior. For example, a principa l with true self-esteem acts autonomously within the school system to build a team of philosophically aligned professionals. Even as a principal strives towards his or her aspirations, the principalÂ’s own self-worth is not tied to accomplishing these goa ls or even worse, living to someone elseÂ’s standards. Instead, this principal works ag entically and remains true to himself while leading the school. Deci and Ryan (1995) associated true self-esteem with the three fundamental psychological needs outlined in the Self-Determination Theory: autonomy, competenc e, and relatedness. Individuals experience true self-esteem whenever th ey satisfy these three psychological needs. Hence, a clear distinction exists between cont ingent selfesteem and true self-esteem. The point, then, is that people develop more of a true self and have truer self-esteem when they are supported and loved as they behave agentically from thei r own perspective, whereas they develop more of a false self and have more contingent self-esteem when they are pressured to meet othersÂ’ standards a nd are loved only for matching those standards. In turn, true self-esteem is the basis f or further agentic activity, whereas contingent self-esteem is the basis f or being
33 controlled by the demands placed on people by the social world (or by internalized versions of those demands). (Deci & Ryan, 1995, p. 34) A construct closely related to self-esteem, self-efficacy, describe s the belief in oneÂ’s ability to successfully complete a task in order to produce the intended outcome (Bandura, 1977). Although used interchangeably in much of the literature, self-effi cacy differs from self-esteem. Where self-esteem measures the degree t o which an individual likes himself; self-efficacy measures personal competence or judgment s about oneÂ’s ability to complete a task. This lack of distinction between these constructs wi thin much of the literature slightly muddles this area of the resiliency resear ch. However, most scholars include one or both constructs when describing protective factors associa ted with resilient individuals (Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1982; Rutter, 1985; Bandura, 1990; Benson, 1997; Bobek, 2002; Wayman, 2002; Richardson, 2002; Howard & Johnson, 2004; Gu & Day, 2007). In 1977, Albert Bandara described self-efficacyÂ’s affect on an individualÂ’s ability to cope when faced with adversity. Not only can perceived self-efficacy have directive influence on choice of activities and settings, but, through expectations of eventual success, it can aff ect coping efforts once they are initiated. Efficacy expectations determi ne how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. (Bandura, 1977, p. 194) Although Bandura (1977) never specifically refers to resiliency in his arti cle, scholars who study resiliency depict self-efficacy as an antecedent construct w ithin the resiliency
34 theoretical framework (Rutter, 1985; Bandura, 1990; Benson, 1997; Bobek, 2002; Richardson, 2002; Howard & Johnson, 2004; Gu & Day, 2007). During a time when forty percent of teachers in America appear dishearte ned and disappointed with their careers, notions of self-esteem and self-efficacy bec ome especially poignant (Yarrow, 2009). These frustrated teachers reported a lac k of support from administration, multiple disciplinary issues, and testing as the major r easons for their discontent (Yarrow, 2009). Do high levels of self-efficacy support teacher s who face adversity? For example, does teachersÂ’ self-belief in their own a bility to manage stressful events in classrooms increase their resiliency? Part of the answer resides in research studies completed outside the education field. Researchers wondered what allows some people to overcome distressing conditions while others suffer lingering negative reactions to the same disas trous events. Recent research indicated the beneficial function of individuals' affirmativ e beliefs in controlling certain events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Ba ndura, 2004). PeopleÂ’s beliefs in their coping efficacy influence vigilance toward potentia l threats and how they are perceived and cognitively processed. People who believe they can exercise control over threats do not conjure up calamities and distress themselves. But those who believe that potential threats are unmanageable view many aspects of their environment as fraught with dange r. They dwell on their coping deficiencies, magnify the severity of possible thre ats, and worry about perils that rarely if ever happen. (Benight & Bandura, 2004, p. 1132)
35 Research revealed this type of self-enhancing cognition acts as a protect ive function against various types of trauma including posttraumatic recovery, militar y trauma, aftermaths of natural disasters, terminal illness, terrorism, sexual a ssault, and spousal bereavement (Benight & Bandura, 2004). Hence, perceived self-efficacy a cts as a protective factor and plays a significant role in overcoming hardship and trauma. Research revealed similar results within the education profession. Building on Bandura's (1977) theory of self-efficacy, educational researchers studi ed the relationship between teacher efficacy and student achievement. For instance, studies r evealed that teachers with high levels of self-efficacy devoted more instructional tim e, provided more support to struggling learners, and offered more academic praise (Bandura, 1993). Teacher perceived self-efficacy also influenced their educational a pproach. Those teachers with higher perceived self-efficacy discovered ways to build stude nts' intrinsic motivation and agency. In contrast, teachers with low perceived self-effica cy tended to rely on extrinsic incentives and negative consequences to motivate their stude nts (Bandura, 1993). Described as a dynamic process, Â“the development of teachersÂ’ sel fefficacy consistently interacts with the growth of their resilient quali tiesÂ” (Gu & Day, 2007, p. 1312). In addition to the positive outcomes mentioned above, a review of the literature linked teacher and student perceived self-efficacy to resiliency. The pres ence of this powerful construct relates to students persisting during challenging or frus trating learning episodes (McTigue, Washburn, & Liew, 2009), better job satisfaction among teachers (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003), lower levels of deviant b ehavior among vulnerable African American urban youth living in poverty (Nebitt, 2009), and
36 higher levels of resiliency among teachers who encountered setbacks or diffi cult circumstances (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Is there a link between perceived self-efficacy and principal leaders hip effectiveness? General consensus among scholars acknowledges a strong corre lation between teacher effectiveness and student achievement (Nye, Konstantopoulous, & Hedges, 2004). Researchers also acknowledge the importance of principal lea dership. Hence, as the instructional leader of the school, a successful principal rec ognizes effective teaching strategies using frequent classroom visits, timely constructive feedback, worthwhile professional development, and support networks to promote collaboration. In fact, the deeper the principal's pedagogical knowledge, the be tter he or she builds the school's instructional capacity. In addition to these direct strat egies, researchers studied the indirect methods principals employed to promote stude nt achievement and overall school success. This research included the influence of school climate, leadership style, and teacher efficacy. Despite the extensive amount of research examining student and teacher effic acy (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Pinquart, Juang, & Silbereisen, 2003; Pajares, 2005), few studies evaluated the impact of principalsÂ’ perceived self -efficacy and its influence on schools, teachers, and student achievement. This gap in the literatur e is rather surprising given the recent attention paid to data driven decision making collaboration, and a renewed interest in leadership styles (Nir, 2006). Inter estingly, a literature search revealed no studies associated with principal leadershi p, self-efficacy, and resiliency.
37 The small number of studies that investigated the relationship between princi pal leadership and efficacy used a broader construct of efficacy. In addition to a single teacher's perception of his or her own self-efficacy, researchers studied a phe nomenon known as collective school efficacy. Â“Perceived school efficacy is the belie f of individual school staff members in their schoolÂ’s capacity as a context for ef ficacisous task performanceÂ” (Imants & DeBrabander, 1996, p. 181). Various investigations referred to this construct as collective efficacy, school efficacy, and gene ral efficacy. In an early study, Hipp (1996) investigated the relationship between principal leadership and teacher efficacy. This study attempted to answer three quest ions. 1) Are certain principal leadership behaviors related to teacher efficacy? 2) D o principals influence general and personal teacher efficacy? 3) What obstacles interf ere with principalsÂ’ leadership behaviors on teacher efficacy? Hipp (1996) used Hoy and WoolfolkÂ’s (1993) two-dimensional self-efficacy construct to measure general teacher efficacy and personal teaching e fficacy. General teaching efficacy examined Â“a general belief about the power of teaching t o reach difficult childrenÂ” (Hoy and Woolfolk, 1993, p. 357). This particular conceptualization conveyed resiliency schema (bouncing back from adversity) due to the emphasis pl aced on difficult children. Personal teaching efficacy, on the other hand, considers the be lief in oneÂ’s own competence to improve student achievement. This study surveyed ten principals and 280 teachers. Teachers responded to a 16-item scale related to efficacy, a 34-item survey related to principal lea dership, and participated in one interview. Principals completed the 34-item leadership survey and participated in one interview. Statistical analysis indicated differenc es between the two
38 efficacy dimensions, yet found no significant relationships between principals Â’ influence on general or personal teaching efficacy. However, Hipp (1996) further anal yzed the interview transcripts and reported that the transformational style of leader ship related to teacher efficacy. Finally, constraints such as Â“unfocused priorities, negat ive environmental indicators, and decreasing public support for educationÂ” interfered w ith principalsÂ’ leadership behaviors on teacher efficacy (Hipp, 1996, p. 23). Ten years later, Nir (2006) questioned HippÂ’s (1996) results based on the low sample size, and the fact that the study only looked at one leadership style, transformational leadership. Furthermore, Nir (2006) criticized the studyÂ’ s absence of control variables and the use of a teacher-based analysis rather than a schoo l-based analysis. Hence, Nir (2006) devised his own study to reanalyze the relationship betwe en principal leadership and teaching efficacy using a larger sample size, cont rolled variables, and a school-based analysis. NirÂ’s (2006) study revealed no relationship between general teacher efficacy and principal leadership style and a Â“complexÂ” relationship between personal teache r efficacy and principal leadership style (p. 212). However, further analysis verifi ed HippÂ’s (1996) postulation linking transformational leadership to personal teacher efficacy Nir (2006) asserted that these results emphasized Â“the significance of the positive job e xperiences that promote individualsÂ’ satisfaction on the job and the potential contribution of the transformational leadership style for the shaping of these experiencesÂ” (p. 213). Even without a causal relationship, the presence of self-efficacy along with a pri ncipalÂ’s transformational leadership helps promote a more positive school climate, and ulti mately may enhance job satisfaction. This relatively new area of research requir es further inquiry
39 in order to connect the dots between leadership style, self-efficacy, and ultima tely resiliency. Leithwood and Jantzi (2008) examined various aspects of principalsÂ’ leadership efficacy and their effects on the entire school organization as well as student outcomes. While Nir (2006) analyzed principalsÂ’ influence on teacher efficacy, Leith wood and Jantzi (2008) investigated the relationship between principalsÂ’ efficacy and sc hool and classroom conditions. They measured a moderate effect of leader efficacy on school conditions and a weak but significant effect of principal efficacy on the percent of students meeting or surpassing state proficiency levels. Although Leithw ood and Jantzi (2008) referred to a leaderÂ’s resiliency in their Framework and Literature section, their investigation excluded this matter. Once again, this absence of resilienc y discourse points to a knowledge gap in the literature. Although self-esteem and self-efficacy constructs act as important c ognitive mechanisms used to ward off stressors and adversity (Rutter, 1985), less is known about the relationship between principalsÂ’ leadership behaviors, self-efficacy, a nd their ability to bounce back after adversity. Subsequent research involving these constructs may shed light on protective factors associated with principalsÂ’ resiliency. Professional development and problem solving. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ~Albert Einstein (Isaacson, 2007, p. 387) Professional development. By definition, self-efficacious principals believe in their ability to succ essfully complete a task in order to produce the intended outcome (Bandura, 1977). Accessing
40 education, training, and problem solving skills reveals yet another stratum from the resiliency theoryÂ’s multiple constructs. How important is subject-matte r-knowledge for principals and district administrators? Does this type of knowledge support a l eaderÂ’s resiliency? A review of the literature demonstrates that this type of research is in its infancy. This section brings together the research analyzing relationshi ps between resiliency, professional development, and problem solving skills. Common sense tells us that educators must possess a wealth of knowledge of the subjects they teach. However, researchers devoted little time to this phen omenon (Stein & Nelson, 2003). Shulman (1986) recognized this research gap and labeled it the Â“missing paradigmÂ” (p. 6). Policymakers read the research on teaching literature and find it replete with references to direct instruction, time on task, wait time, ordered turns, lowerorder questions, and the like. They find little or no references to subject matter, so the resulting standards or mandates lack any reference to content dimensions of teaching. Similarly, even in the research community, the importance of conte nt has been forgotten. Research programs that arose in response to the dominance of process-product work accepted its definition of the problem and continued to treat teaching more or less generically, or at least as if the content of inst ruction were relatively unimportant. (Shulman, 1986, p. 6) One reason for this missing paradigm may result from the principalÂ’s preferenc e for pedagogy over content knowledge. Farkas, Johnson, and Duffett (2003) reported that most principals and superintendents were comfortable with the level of new teache rsÂ’ content knowledge. Interestingly enough, in the same survey, only 16% of
41 superintendents rated their principals as excellent at matching professiona l development to the needs of their teachers. ShulmanÂ’s (1986) spotlight on this obvious omission led researchers to study teachersÂ’ knowledge of subjects. Stein and Nelson (2003) advanced this research tre nd by studying a relatively new construct called leadership content knowledge Still in its infancy, a review of the literature demonstrated a vague construal of thi s construct. For example, when examining school leaders, researchers struggled with recogniz ing the differences between subject matter content and knowledge about leadership. Knowledge about subject matter content is related in complex ways to knowledge about how to lead. In some cases, subject matter knowledge appears to be transformed for the purposes of providing leadership for instructional reform. In other cases, administrators' knowledge of how to lead, how to build the culture of a school community, how to use professional development programs and other resources well, how to conduct a curriculum selection process so that it is perceived as legitimate and politically viable, how to plan for the systemic a rray of interventions that will be needed in order to successfully reform a system' s academic program, and so on Â– appears to be transformed by newly learned subject matter. And, in still other cases, the two appear to be so tightly fused tha t they need to be actively disentangled. (Stein & Nelson, 2003, p. 424) What is further unclear is the relationship between principal resiliency and l eadership content knowledge. Stein and Nelson (2003) argued that principals with content knowledge profit over others without this subject knowledge depth. However, they questioned the practicality of expecting administrators to know content knowledge in a ll
42 subject areas, especially at the secondary level. Deep knowledge in one core subje ct along with a reliance on distributive leadership may resolve this dilemma. S tein and NelsonÂ’s (2003) qualitative study analyzed three interview transcripts fr om previous research projects. Clearly, this new construct requires more researc h to examine the significance of leadership content knowledge along with correlations to princi pal resiliency. In the meantime, topics aligned with professional development, suc h as mentoring and induction, appear in the literature and warrant review. Not surprisingly, several studies have determined that teachersÂ’ job satis faction increases when principals effectively mentor, train and support teachers (Aug ust & Waltman, 2004; Sparks, 2004; Tillman, 2005; Weiss, 1999). Many times a brand new teacher doesnÂ’t know what he or she doesnÂ’t know. This early stage of development for new teachers can be an extremely frustrating time for the administra tor who is trying to implement a support plan and equally as frustrating for the teacher who is struggl ing but unsure where to begin. In other words, a teacher must be taught how to reflect on his/her practice in order to internalize strengths and limitations as well as overc ome adversity. Sparks (2004) differentiated between staff development leaders and staff deve lopment providers. Â“The principal as professional development leader must understand deeply how changes take place in the structure and culture of the school organization and create a culture that understands and values high-quality professional developmentÂ” (Sparks 2004, p. 4). In terms of resiliency, professional development acts as a protective f actor for both the principal and faculty. When a principal relinquishes professional development responsibility or simply encourages teachers to attend training wi thout follow through, a clear message is sent to faculty: Â“Professional developm ent is your
43 responsibility.Â” It becomes even more troublesome when the message is interpr eted as, Â“Professional development is not important at this school.Â” A new teacher in thi s type of school culture may not get the proper support and ultimately become frustrated and burnout. However, principals promote resiliency in themselves and others by endorsing training and remaining directly involved in the professional development process. Research confirms that a principal can influence the induction of a brand new teacher. According to Youngs (2007), a principalÂ’s background, philosophy and interactions with new faculty can directly influence new teachers. In one st udy, Tillman (2005) followed the practices and experiences of a new teacher, mentor and a princ ipal during the teacherÂ’s first year. The study tried to determine what pract ices lead to better teacher competence, teacher retention and increased student achievement. Al though severely limited by a small sample size, Tillman (2005) still generali zed the results of her study and offered several recommendations. First, principals should be directly i nvolved with the mentoring process at the school, especially with African American teachers in the urban school setting. Backgrounds and experiences must be considered when developing mentoring plans for a new teacher. Tillman (2005) also argued that principa ls must consider opportunities for new teachers to work with a team in order to avoid teaching in isolation. Obviously, mentor selection is also critical during the me ntoring process. Finally, principals must be sure to make teachers feel welcome Â“by conveying the message that they are valued members of the school community, and that as instructional leaders, principals will take the time to support every new teac herÂ” (Tillman, 2005, p. 627). Although the limitations of TillmanÂ’s (2005) study call into question the generality of her results, her commonsense recommendations remain useful.
44 Youngs (2007) reported that principals can positively promote professional growth when they meet regularly with new teachers, directly facilitate mentor programs, demonstrate a keen understanding of district and state induction policies and have backgrounds in curriculum and instruction. The schoolÂ’s professional culture also had a direct impact on new teachersÂ’ induction. Effective principals Â“promoted integrat ed professional cultures in which experienced teachers were aware of new teac hersÂ’ needs for assistance and were actively involved in inductionÂ” (Youngs, 2007, p. 127). Professional development as a protective factor acts as a layer of support a nd bolsters teacher and principal resiliency. PrincipalsÂ’ professional training assists their performance and indirec tly supports student achievement (Knoeppel & Rinehart, 2008). Curiously, principals show little regard for their educational leadership training. A quantitative study invol ving more than 1000 public school superintendants and more than 900 public school principals analyzed these educational leadersÂ’ perspective regarding their professional role in s chools. Limitations of this study included the reliance on self-reported data. In t erms of their own professional development, principals viewed graduate school programs poorly. Only two percent of principals surveyed described their educational leadership prog ram as Â“most valuableÂ” in preparing them for their profession. Instead, principals re lied on mentoring and previous on-the-job experiences to help them prepare for their current position (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003). Nonetheless, training and professional development remains important. Principals exposed to the latest approaches rela ted to curriculum and accountability reform outperform principals who lack this training (Knoeppel & Rinehart, 2008). Unfortunately, principal evaluation tools rarely ass ess the
45 attributes most commonly associated with improving student achievement (G oldring, Cravens, Murphy, Porter, Elliot, & Carson, 2009). Clearly, these concepts require m ore research to tease out the relationship between principal resiliency and profes sional training. Problem solving. In addition to a principalÂ’s formal education and professional development, a successful leader relies on practical knowledge and real-world experi ence in order to problem solve (Germain & Quinn, 2005). Although the most experienced and effective principal places a premium on the proactive approach, the best plans derail wit hout a momentÂ’s notice. A principal fills a majority of the day maneuvering aroun d obstacles and resolving various problems. Student discipline, paperwork, presentations, classroom visits, deciphering NCLB, scheduling, attending parent conferences, and evaluat ing employees represent just the tip of the iceberg when describing a typical d ay as a principal. In fact, the words Â“typicalÂ” or Â“routineÂ” fall short whenever desc ribing the role of principal. Nearly 75% of principals surveyed believed that daily emergencies prevented them from spending time on matters related to classroom teaching (Fa rkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003). In addition to responding to these daily school demands, a principal must consider the overall school climate, pedagogy, content knowledge, and reform efforts. The overlap of these demands creates a uniquely intense dynamic ripe with quandaries and puzzles for the principal to untangle. How does the resilient principal persevere? The resilient leader relies on ingenuity and creativity to bounce back from the toughest situations. In his book, The Savage Mind, Lvi-Strauss (1966) coined the word
46 bricolage to describe the process of creating something from the tools within re ach. A bricoleur gathers all available resources and uses them to create new oppor tunities or solve problems (Lvi-Strauss, 1966; Coutu, 2002; Freeman, 2007; Aagard, 2009; Reilly, 2009). They imagine possibilities and get the job done. For example, facing declining student achievement, the bricoleur principal garners human resources, empowers t eacher leaders to action plan, involves parents and the community to align resources, and utiliz es every available tool to meet studentsÂ’ needs. Imagination, ingenuity, and creati veness befit the resilient principal who pursues solutions rather than excuses. Perhaps the most inspiring illustration of bricolage comes from Viktor FranklÂ’ s (1992) classic, ManÂ’s Search for Meaning. A Holocaust concentration camp survivor, Frankl (1992) recalled how he exchanged cigarettes for soup to avoid starvation. And although Frankl (1992) provided other examples of how he physically and shrewdly defied the odds and survived, it was his mental bricolage that constituted the differe nce between life and death. After admonishing himself for preoccupying his mind wi th daily and hourly living conditions, he wrote: I forced my thoughts to turn to another subject. Suddenly I saw myself standing on the platform of a well-lit, warm and pleasant lecture room. In front of me sat an attentive audience on comfortable upholstered seats. I was giving a lec ture on the psychology of the concentration camp! All that oppressed me at that moment became objective, seen and described from the remote viewpoint of science. By this method I succeeded somehow in rising above the situation, above the sufferings of the moment, and I observed them as if they were already of the pa st. (p.82)
47 Clearly, these mental exercises kept Frankl (1992) looking toward the future and ultimately contributed to his remarkable resiliency. Problem solving skills among educational leaders received little attent ion in the literature. However, two studies analyzed tacit knowledge as a means to study pr oblem solving skills of principals (Nestor-Baker and Hoy 2001; Germain & Quinn, 2005). Tac it knowledge refers to intuition or implicit knowledge grounded in experience (Germain & Quinn, 2005). Tacit knowledge differed between successful and typical superintendents (Nestor-Baker and Hoy 2001), and between expert and novice principals (Germain & Quinn, 2005). Although Germain and Quinn (2005) never directly addressed a principalÂ’s resiliency, they described differences in reactions to advers ity. Experienced principals relied on their past experiences and handled Â“unanticipated obstacles Â” more effectively than their novice counterparts. They had an internal sense of the organization's mission and used it as a guide when confronting obstacles. Expert principals were less likely to feel stres sed during potentially hostile situations. They engaged in more if-then thinking than did novice principals, and were not stymied by perceived roadblocks to their intended course of action. (Germain & Quinn, 2005, p. 85) While novice principals tend to avoid conflict, expert principals embrace challe nge. Besides utilizing the if-then problem solving approach, Germain and Quinn (2005) asserted that expert principals rely on extensive initial problem analysis In other words, as bricoleur, the effective principal continuously searches for options, relies on a repertoire of accumulated experiences, and utilizes tacit knowledge to overcome adversity.
48 The adage, Â“knowledge is powerÂ” comes to mind when describing professional development and problem solving as a protective factor. Although very few studies connect professional development with a leaderÂ’s resiliency, the literatur e clearly depicts the benefits of subject-matter knowledge as well as creative thinking. Obst acles and challenges epitomize a principalÂ’s passage through each school day. Hence the resilient principal must rely on his or her experience, tacit knowledge, and problem solving skills to bounce back from hardship. More inquiries studying this protective factor from a principalÂ’s perspective will advance resiliency research in the future. Autonomy. Â“No person is free who is not master of himself.Â” Epictetus, Greek philosopher As a political entity, the purpose of public education changes as our nationÂ’s agenda changes. Consequently, public schools act as Â“an agency for the expression of t he public philosophyÂ” (Johannigmeier & Richardson, 2008, p. 4). Currently, public education is consumed with the notion of accountability. Federal mandates such as N o Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), focus attention on student achievement via standardized assessments, merit pay for teac hers, and appraisal ratings for schools (Adequate Yearly Progress). Descri bed as rule-bound, uniform and bureaucratic, the accountability era ushered in an educational system tied to data collection, benchmarks, and high-stakes testing. Obviously, these standard-dri ven policies altered the landscape of classrooms, as schools responded by reducing curriculum variation, teaching the standardized test content, and implementing a sy stem
49 of rewards and sanctions based on studentsÂ’ high stakes test performance (Broome, 2008). Many argue that these state and federal mandates undermine the autonomy of teachers and school leaders. To this end, Broome (2008) used the formal rationalizati on theory and the McDonaldization phenomenon to demonstrate how institutionalized bureaucracies limit options and dictate peopleÂ’s choices. Ritzer suggested that the goals of fast food restaurants, such as McDonald's might serve as a better metaphor for explaining current trends in rationali zation. Specifically, Ritzer illustrated how the ideals of fast food restaurants (e fficiency, calculability, predictability, and the use of technology to control situations) have become pervasive standards for many professions and in other areas of modern life. Ritzer labeled this phenomenon, McDonaldization, and offered evidence that the health care industry, sports, higher education, recreation, and news media outlets are becoming increasingly McDonaldized. (Broome, 2008, p. 21) Clearly, McDonaldized instructional leaders function with less autonomy than their predecessors. From a resiliency perspective, what is autonomy and why is this construct important? How does autonomy connect to the Self Determination Theory, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, and Empowerment theory? This next section review s the literature related to autonomy and its bearing on resiliency. Gagn and Deci (2005) defined autonomy as Â“acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choiceÂ” (p. 333). The antonym of autonomy, heteronomy, Â“refers to regulation from outside the phenomenal self, by forces experienced as alien or pressuring, be they inner impulses or demands, or external contingencies of rew ard and
50 punishmentÂ” (Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1562). Autonomy differs from independence or individualism since an autonomous individual need not feel detached, selfish, or independent from the community (see Figure 2). On the contrary, autonomous behavior is positively related to collectivistic experiences (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In fact, an individual operates autonomously within a domain of rules and mandates if and when that person concurs with and endorses those external influences and pressures (Ry an & Deci, 2006). Therefore, endorsement and ownership, not independence, are requisite behaviors for an act to be deemed autonomous. Philosophers and psychologists also consider a personÂ’s motives when analyzing autonomy. Intrinsic motivation is an inherent construct in which an individual pursues challenges, creativity, and continues to learn and explore (Ryan & Deci, 2000). I ntrinsic motivation exemplifies autonomy since intrinsically motivated individuals find satisfaction from the task itself and chooses to continue by their own volition ( Gagn & Deci, 2005). Autonomous motivation differs from controlled motivation. Controlled motivation involves extrinsic rewards to pressure or cajole an individual into comple ting an activity. The Self-Determination Theory distinguishes between these two t ypes of motivation and measures extrinsic motivation on a continuum between autonomous and controlled behavior. Hence, many types of extrinsic motivation exist along thi s continuum. For example, Gagn and Deci (2005) referred to external, introjecte d, identified, and integrated regulation to differentiate among these various for ms of extrinsic motivation. Although describing these terms is beyond the scope of this r eview, this key distinction demonstrates the important connection between intrinsic motiva tion and autonomy.
51 Gagn and Deci (2005) defined internalization as the transformation of values, attitudes, or regulatory external structures into internal regulation, thus el iminating the need for external contingencies. In other words, an internalized behavior comes from within a personÂ’s own sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Researchers discovered thr ee elements associated with the highest levels of internalization: a meani ngful reason for completing the activity, the recognition of uninteresting tasks, and an emphasis on choice rather than control. This significance of choice frames one of the conditions ( autonomy) associated with resiliency. Furthermore, Self-Determination Theor y postulates that people must feel autonomous, competent, and connected to others (relatedness) in order to maintain the highest levels of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Gagn & Deci, 2005). Of these needs, Â“autonomy support is the most important social-contextual fac tor for predicting identification and integration, and thus autonomous behaviorÂ” (Gagn & Deci, 2005, p. 338). Studies reported that autonomous motivation yielded greater performance outcomes that included interesting, complex tasks as well as les s complex, controlled activities (Gagn & Deci, 2005). These three needs defined by the Self-Determination Theory also emerge as key components of resiliency theory. Much of the early research surrounding autonomy used a mini-theory within the Self-Determination Theory known as Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET). CET studies proposed that self-efficacy did not augment intrinsic motivation unless it was c oupled with a feeling of autonomy. Later research determined that tangible rewa rds, deadlines and mandates decreased intrinsic motivation whereas choice, self-direction, and autonomy increased intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, Flink, Boggiano, and Barrett (1990) analyzed autonomy supportive behaviors among teachers
52 and its relationship to intrinsic motivation and achievement. In this empirical s tudy, the researchers distinguished between teachersÂ’ behaviors used to pressure, c ontrol and regulate students versus teachersÂ’ behaviors used to guide and support students. The results of this study revealed that children performed significantly bette r with noncontrolling teachers. In sum, Â“performance impairment was evidenced when childre n were taught by pressured teachers who used controlling strategies and the absence of choice optionsÂ” (Flink, Boggiano, &Barrett, 1990, p. 922). A dearth of autonomy negatively impacts intrinsic motivation as well as student achievement. Another motivational construct, psychological empowerment, utilizes four other cognitions as the basis of its broad definition: meaning, competence, self-determ ination, and impact. Meaning refers to the value an individual places on a task and suggests a relationship between a personÂ’s beliefs and the requirements of the task. Compet ence or self efficacy refers to a personÂ’s belief in his or her ability to perform a task. Selfdetermination refers to peopleÂ’s autonomy and control over their own work. Finally, impact measures a personÂ’s influence on organizational outcomes (Spreitzer 1995). Spreitzer (1995) defined psychological empowerment as a set of cognitions molde d by the work environment. Researchers measured psychological empowerment on a continuum specific to the work domain rather than as an ostensible, globalized trait (Spreitzer, 1995). The significance of psychological empowerment resides in this specificit y to the work environment. In particular, Spreitzer (1995) established a positive relati onship between locus of control and psychological empowerment. Locus of control Â“explai ns the degree to which people believe that they, rather than external forces, determi ne what
53 happens in their livesÂ” (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1446). Additionally, empowermentÂ’s focus on the work environment allowed researchers to turn their attention to organizational behavior, job level strain, and leadership effectiveness. For example, as part of the ir psychological empowerment research, Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason (1997) revea led empirical evidence linking self-determination with increased job effective ness, increased job satisfaction, and decreased job-related strain. Managerial effectiveness is generally defined as the degree to which a ma nager fulfills or exceeds work role expectations. Because, by definition, empowered managers see themselves as competent and able to influence their jobs and work environments in meaningful ways, they are likely to proactively execute their job responsibilities by, for instance, anticipating problems and acting independent ly, and hence are likely to be seen as effective. More specifically, Thomas an d Velthouse (1990) argued that empowerment will increase concentration, initia tive, and resiliency and thus heighten managerial effectiveness. (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1448) Although SpreitzerÂ’s (1996) research on psychological empowerment provided organizational leaders with valuable insight in terms of its four cognitions (mea ning, competence, self-determination, and impact), she advised leaders to use a compre hensive approach rather than a piece meal implementation. The findings reported in our research indicate that organizations must create mor e complex empowerment interventions; in addition to providing decision-making autonomy to facilitate self-determination, organizations must create a suppor tive organizational culture, design jobs that are meaningful to employees, provide
54 training and development to enhance feelings of competence, and allow employees to have impact in their work unit through involvement in strategic goal setting and shared governance. (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997, p. 701) Not everyone endorses autonomy, choice and free will. Some question its existence while others suggest an individual could possess too much autonomy. For example, many behavioralists discounted the notion of autonomy and instead emphasized the use of external influences and reinforcement contingencies to control choice and behavior. To this end, Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) challenged the conventional wisdom purporting that the use of external pressures, such as rewards, reduced intrins ic motivation, creativity, and productivity. Do pizza parties, ice cream cones, and Â“poi ntsÂ” for correct answers on reading quizzes really squash a studentÂ’s desire to re ad recreationally? Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) claimed no and described these popul ar ideas as myth. To prove their point, they reviewed several empirical studies tha t demonstrated the benefits of rewards. However, Ryan and Deci (2006) critici zed Eisenberger and CameronÂ’s (1996) meta-analysis for its numerous errors rela ted to control groups, calculations, and classifications. Schwartz (2000) argued that too much autonomy creates negative circumstances. In his argument, Schwartz (2000) used the words autonomy and freedom as synonyms to define self-determination. A person who seeks full self-determination makes a mistake because when self-determination is carried too far, Â“it leads not to freedom of c hoice but to tyranny of choiceÂ” (Schwartz, 2000, p. 81). Schwartz (2000) warned without constraints or rules, unchecked freedom leads to Â“self-defeating tyrannyÂ” (2000, p. 81)
55 Rules allow us to function within parameters and socially accepted guidelines in order to maximize our potential. For example, a principal with total autonomy creates a problematic scenario w hen he refuses to honor standardized testing procedures established by the stateÂ’s D epartment of Education. A principalÂ’s philosophical alignment must not guide the implementati on of the stateÂ’s mandated assessment program. Like them or not, the principal must ope rate within the established boundaries developed within the education system. To disregard the rulebook altogether eventually leads to the tyranny described by Schwart z (2000). Conversely, Ryan and Deci (2006) stated that autonomy is not defined by the absence of rules or mandates and instead underscored the importance of ownership and endorsement Therefore, principals can still act autonomously within the educational syst em if they concur with or endorse these external demands. In view of this research, one could hypothesize that Â“conveying the importance of tasks and providing autonomy-supportive work climates would promote internalization of extrinsic motivation and benefit all employeesÂ” (Gagn & Deci, 2005, p. 355). From a principal leadership perspective, this premise remains crucial. Unfortunate ly, this underscores a major limitation of this research since no evidence supports this hypothesis. Conversely, Gagn & Deci (2005) cited evidence demonstrating that managers enhance intrinsic motivation and autonomous extrinsic motivation when they provide employees with more choices, respect their point of view, and promote self initiation. Whether theorists can extrapolate these trends to construct a wor king theory to promote autonomy-supportive work climates for principals remains a question. However, from a wellness model perspective, promoting autonomy as a protective f actor
56 to promote resiliency promises to yield positive psychological and performance enhancing outcomes. Meaning. Â“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.Â” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche (Shapiro, 2006, p. 553) A great majority of principals started their careers as teachers. T hus, one must consider the teaching profession when studying educational leaders. For man y of these individuals, the idea of teaching is much more than a job or work. Instead, they describe their motives as a calling or a vocation. In the literature, Hansen (1994) connecte d another protective factor from the previous section, autonomy, with the significance of finding meaning in the world. To describe the inclination to teach as a budding vocation also calls attention to the personÂ’s sense of agency. It implies that he or she knows something about himself or herself, something important, valuable, worth acting upon. One may have been drawn to teaching because of oneÂ’s own teachers or as a result of other outside influences. Still, the fact remains that now one has taken on that interest oneself. The idea of teaching Â“occupiesÂ” the personÂ’s thoughts and imagination. Again, this suggests that one conceives teaching as more than a job, as more than a way to earn an income, although this consideration is obviously relevant. Rather, one believes teaching to be potentially meaningful, as the way to instantiate oneÂ’s desire to contribute to and engage with the world. (Hansen, 1994, p. 267)
57 Howard and Johnson (2004) studied resilient teachers and found that a majority of them possessed a Â“moral purposeÂ” because they chose to work in disadvantaged schools. The chance of Â‘being able to make a differenceÂ’ in childrenÂ’s lives and the confidence they could do this was a strong feature of the teachersÂ’ talk. Far from being nave, zealous crusaders, our participants seemed to have a realistic understanding of what and how much they could do. (Howard & Johnson, 2004, p. 411) Other studies reported similar results. Teachers and teacher leaders identified as resilient referred to their endeavors as a Â“callingÂ” (Gu & Day, 2007; Patterson, Collins, and Abbott, 2004). The participants frequently used the terms commitment, compassion, and responsibility during the interviews. The common thread woven throughout the tea chersÂ’ stories was Â“strength and determination to fulfil their original call to t each and to manage and thrive professionallyÂ” (Gu & Day, 2007, p. 1314). As discussed earlier, limitations existed in both qualitative studies. Small sample sizes and generalizati ons about successful teaching practices place limitations on this research. However the cogent analyses of the transcripts delivered elaborate descriptions of scenarios r elated to protective factors within the resiliency domain. A portion of the resiliency literature intertwines spirituality wit h belief systems as a person searches for meaning during difficult times. As discussed earlier, Richardson (2002) described his third phase of resiliency as Â“a force within everyone that drive s them to seek self-actualization, altruism, wisdom, and harmony with spiritual source and strengthÂ” (p. 313). Patterson (2007) advised principals to strengthen their resilie ncy by clearly communicating their belief systems and acting Â“decisively, de spite the risks, when
58 your deepest values are at stakeÂ” (p. 22). Along the same vein, Coutu (2002) argued th at the values of the organization were more worthwhile than an organization comprised of resilient employees. However, very little empirical data supports eit her claim. Even so, recent articles discussed spirituality and its bearing on leadership. For example, Dent, Higgins, and Wharff (2005), analyzed 20 randomly selected articles about spirituality and leadership and developed eight categories. R esearchers used open coding Â“to immerse themselves in the data, discuss and debate among themselves, and be open for patterns and themes to come in to viewÂ” (p. 629). The researchers used CohenÂ’s Kappa to calculate the agreement between raters Their analysis revealed multiple definitions of spirituality in the workplace. Most articles linked workplace spirituality to religion without the auspices of scholarship to adva nce the theory. Dent, Higgins, and Wharff (2005) encouraged readers to exercise caut ion when studying spiritual leadership and warned, Â“researchers may want to step ba ck from their passion about their work and evaluate whether they are promoting a cause or proselytizing their own values and beliefs, rather than advancing scientific knowledgeÂ” (p. 643). Dent, Higgins, and WharffÂ’s (2005) category, entitled Â“epiphany,Â” discussed the transforming experience that immediately follows trauma or great suf fering. Peering through a resiliency lens, some researchers described organizational spiri tuality as discontinuous resulting from a defining moment or a calling. Connections to transformational leadership, relational leadership, and even positive psychology w ere evident. Overall, however, this category received negligible attention in the literature (Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005).
59 One such spiritual study reported a relationship between equanimity and leadership. Researchers defined equanimity as Â“an ability to find meanin g in hardships, feeling at peace or centered, and experiencing a strong bond to humanityÂ” (Gehrke 2008, p. 352). Gehrke (2008) claimed that these results indicated a similarity betwe en spiritual development and leadership development but provided little detail. Although implied, resiliency and more specifically, making meaning, was not addressed. Further more, the use of a nonrandomized sample along with a narrow focus on social leadership placed limitations on GehrkeÂ’s (2008) findings. Attaching meaning to an unfortunate event and learning from that experience occurs at both the individual and organizational level. The resilient principal turns inward in a reflective posture after suffering through a major hardship at the s chool. A certain amount of internalization results in which the principal learns from the ex perience in order to avoid a similar pitfall. On the contrary, the vulnerable principal feels he lpless, acts like a victim, and seeks to blame others for the misery. The resilient princ ipal moves forward while the other stagnates and loses ground. Like a person, the resilient organization operates in similar fashion. Accor ding to Coutu (2002), organizations that are built on a platform of strong values are better prepared to weather the storm of adversity. Since no company is immune to disaster, i t relies on its core set of beliefs to bounce back from catastrophe. Â“Strong values infuse an environment with meaning because they offer ways to interpret and shape eventsÂ” (Coutu, 2002, p. 52). The public school system exemplifies this point. School visions, missions and curriculums vary from town to town, however the core value of educating every child remains at the heart of every school in America. Effective scho ol leaders
60 reinforce the core beliefs that unite teachers and they promote a positive c ulture that supports learning for all children (Deal & Peterson, 2009). This set of values provi des meaning and unites educators in schools, especially during the darkest hours. The connection between meaning and resiliency is demonstrated by the harrowing stories of Holocaust survivors. Once the unimaginable suffering ended, newly libe rated Holocaust concentration camp survivors faced even more challenges as they battl ed bitterness and disillusionment. But, as Viktor Frankl (1992) so eloquently state d, even the most horrific life experiences provide meaning and purpose to push forward and look for opportunities in the future. Varying this, we could say that most men in a concentration camp believed that the real opportunities of life had passed. Yet, in reality, there was an opportunity and a challenge. One could make a victory of those experiences, turning life int o an inner triumph, or one could ignore the challenge and simply vegetate, as did a majority of the prisoners. (p. 81). Trauma, hardships, and adversity come in all shapes and sizes. Without a doubt, these horrific experiences leave an indelible mark. However, the resilient indi vidual avoids becoming a prisoner of these unfortunate events, trapped by bitterness, fear, or pas sivity. Instead, the resilient person searches for meaning and remains hopeful. Positive Affect. "Against the assault of Laughter nothing can stand." ~Mark Twain (Shapiro, 2006, p. 781) I enjoyed a once-in-a-lifetime experience when I attended the promotion ceremony for a Lieutenant General in the United States Army. The cere mony included
61 the usual pomp and circumstance expected during such a historic and formal event involving Army rituals and traditions. However, the promotion service also embraced something that I did not expect Â– humor. Throughout the ceremony, the audience was treated to gentle teasing and humorous anecdotes as the new Lieutenant Gener al thanked his colleagues, family and friends. This 3 Star General achieved remarkabl e success throughout his career and reached the pinnacle reserved for only a special few. The significance of this occasion never escaped him throughout his speech, however he injected humor from beginning to end. At one point, he remarked, Â“I donÂ’t take myself too seriously, but I do take the Army seriously.Â” This pithy statement provides a uni que window into the personality of this individual. As an extremely successful person, t he Lieutenant General relies on the positive emotion, humor, as one of his many personali ty traits to advance his career. Clearly, this cannot be his primary (or only) per sonality trait, as he is able to separate serious matters from the humorous ones. Accordingly, research supports the notion that a positive affect, including humor and happiness, is associated with successful outcomes in various aspects of life. Researchers also investigated the impact of positive emotions on organizational beha vior. Can organizational leaders benefit from the lessons of positive psychology? This se ction reviews this body of research and discusses the relationship between positive emoti ons and resiliency. The field of psychology experienced massive transformation after World Wa r II as attention was directed to veterans returning from war in need of psychologic al support. Clinicians made remarkable advancements by studying and treating mental illness during this time. Undoubtedly, a disease-based or pathological approach became the driving
62 force behind the mission of psychology. A preponderance of research involved repairing the damage or scars left over from divorce, drug abuse, physical and sexual abuse, de ath of loved ones, brain disorders and more. According to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000), this was not always the case. In fact, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) cited the work of several psychologists interested in improving peopleÂ’s lives and nurturing genius prior to World War II. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) reminded us that psychology Â“is not just the study of pathology, weakness, and damage; it is also the study of strength and vir tue. Treatment is not just fixing what is broken; it is nurturing what is bestÂ” (p. 7). During the last sixty years following World War II, psychology continues to slowly migra te towards a wellness model. Positive psychology seeks to understand positive emotions and fost er strength and resilience. According to Seligman (2002), positive psychology is buil t upon three tenants. First is the study of positive emotions. Second is the study of posit ive traits, characteristics, and abilities. Third, is the study of positive inst itutions such as strong communities, strong families, democracy, and free press (Seligma n, 2002). Interestingly, researchers used similar categories to breakdown the st udy of resiliency, including individual traits, family characteristics, and community and socie tal structures (Benzies & Mychasiuk, 2009). Utilizing a preventative mindset, positive psycholog y aims to build individualsÂ’ strengths and virtues to help them flourish throughout life. Measuring positive emotions is difficult. With only a few exceptions, most psychological measures relate to pathological psychology rather than positi ve psychology. An intelligence test is the most obvious exception of a positive metric Another method used to measure positive emotions examined the differences in yea rbook
63 smiles and whether the smiles correlated to positive outcomes thirty years later in life. Remarkably, picture analysis revealed that positive emotional expression i n the yearbook pictures predicted future marital status, higher marriage satisfaction, a nd increased personal well-being (Harker & Keltner, 2001). However, some researcher s note the difficulty of measuring other positive mental processes, such as adaptive def ense mechanisms and coping strategies (Vaillant, 2000). In response to this need, Vaillant (2000) reviewed three longitudinal studies related to five defense mechanisms: humor, altruism, sublimation, anticipation, and suppression. These mechanisms are organized in a hierarchical Defensive Funct ion Scale as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM -IV). Vaillant (2000) described these mechanisms as adaptive defenses or healthy denial becaus e they are transformative and make the best of a bad situation. Accordingly, he sele cted these five adaptive behaviors as a way to study similarities between the three sa mples. Vaillant (2000) discovered that these adaptive behaviors listed on the DSM-IV are indeed a good metric for positive psychology. Interestingly, adaptiveness of defenses wa s independent of education level, IQ, and socio-economic status (Vaillant, 2000). The advancement of positive psychology requires more quantitative means of measuring various adaptive behaviors beyond intelligent quotients. VaillantÂ’s (2000) work demonstrated a means to quantify positive mental health with a scale alrea dy in use. Reliable and valid scales assist researchers with more accurate data gathering and analysis. These metrics proved vital as researchers study protective fa ctors related to resiliency.
64 Positive emotions includes several attributes including Â“confidence, optimism, and self-efficacy; likability and positive construals of others; sociabilit y, activity, and energy; prosocial behavior; immunity and physical well-being; effective coping with challenge and stress; and originality and flexibilityÂ” (Lyubomirsky, K ing & Diener, 2005, p. 804). Many of these attributes, such as optimism and self-efficacy, overlap wit h resiliency theory and were discussed in greater detail in other sections of t his review. When things are going well and a person is experiencing success, he or she is more likely to pursue other goals to replicate those positive feelings. Furthe rmore, happy people access a bank of past experiences, resources, and skills they built over time during previous happy encounters (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005). In fact, researche rs used cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies, and experimental studies to ass ert the causation between happiness and successful outcomes (Lyubomirsky, King & Diene r, 2005). Lyubomirsky, King and Diener (2005) analyzed 225 published papers and dissertations to study the relationship between people who experience positive e motions and their success across various aspects of their lives. Their goal was to de termine if positive affect produced success by focusing on five questions: 1) Are happy pe ople successful people? 2) Are long-term happiness and short-term positive affect associated with behaviors paralleling success (adaptive characteristics and skills) ? 3) Does happiness precede success? 4) Do happiness and positive affect precede behaviors paralleling success? 5) Does positive affect lead to behaviors parallel ing success? The answers to these questions merit attention from both a personal and an organizational leadership standpoint.
65 Cross-sectional evidence suggested several benefits for happy people in work l ife, social relationships, and health. These benefits included better productivity, less burnout, more opportunities for professional advancement, as well as an increase in autonomy Interestingly, research supported the conclusion that happy people also benefi t from higher salaries. A review of the research also determined a strong link betwe en happy people and their ability to form social relationships, more fulfilling marriag es (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005). Combined, these factors seem to suggest that happy people are successful people in terms of work, relationships, and health. Although not specifically referred to in this study, these benefits may convey gr eat significance within the school culture. In other words, a happy principal may be more productive, more resilient, and less likely to burn out. Accordingly, the literature reviewe d by Lyubomirsky, King and Diener (2005), affirmed the notion that happy people are successful people. Lyubomirsky, King and DienerÂ’s (2005) meta-analysis studied long-term happiness and short-term positive affect in order to determine if they are ass ociated with behaviors paralleling success. In essence, question two asked, do Â“successes bols ter happiness, or the reverseÂ” (p. 825)? In other words, are positive moods associated with desirable characteristics? To answer the question, Lyubomirsky, King a nd Diener (2005) reviewed studies correlating long-term happiness with short-term positi ve affect. The characteristics associated with happiness and positive affect are group ed into six categories: 1) positive perception of self and others; 2) sociability and activi ty; 3) likability and cooperation; 4) prosocial behavior; 5) physical well-being an d coping; 6) problem solving and creativity. Lyubomirsky, King and Diener (2005) examined ea ch
66 category in their meta-analysis. Researchers purported happy people ar e characterized by high self-esteem and feel more positive about other people. Empirical data s uggested happy people are more sociable, outgoing, active, and more often described as extr overts. Happy people were deemed more likeable. Prosocial behaviors such as generosity altruism, and philanthropy are often associated with people who exhibit positive moods. Traits such as high self-esteem, social competence, and problem solving skills a re often discussed in the resiliency literature. Not surprisingly, studies linked healthier behavior and overall well-being t o positive affect. Lyubomirsky, King and Diener (2005) also cited studies in whic h people with greater positive feelings benefit from enhanced immune function. Better c oping strategies often associated with emotional and physical well-being, we re also positively correlated with positive emotionality. Finally, cross-sectional rese arch pertaining to problem solving and creativity Â“suggest that chronically happy people score hig her on measures of creativityÂ” (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005, p. 830). In fact, r esilient individuals use their creativity and problem solving skills to overcome adversity ( Coutu, 2002). Several studies in Lyubomirsky, King and DienerÂ’s (2005) meta-analysi s revealed a connection between happiness and flexibility as well as creativity. Accor ding to Lyubomirsky, King and Diener (2005), the attributes listed above Â“appear to promot e active goal involvement, which is adaptive in many circumstances and likely f acilitates success in a broad range of life domainsÂ” (p. 831). Based on this empirical evidenc e, the researchers concluded that happiness promotes success. Question three in Lyubomirsky, King and DienerÂ’s (2005) meta-analysis asked what comes first, happiness or success? Researchers used longitudinal studi es about
67 work life, income, and social relationships such as marriage and friendships to a nswer this question. Those who show high positive affect benefit from higher evaluations ratings from supervisors, higher incomes, and stronger relationships. Lyubomir sky, King, and DienerÂ’s (2005) data suggested that happiness proceeds success. The fourth question in Lyubomirsky, King and DienerÂ’s (2005), meta-analysis asked if happiness and positive affect precede behaviors paralleling success ? Once again, longitudinal investigations related to 1) positive self-perceptions; 2) sociab ility and activity; 3) physical well-being and coping and; 4) creativity and problem solving suggested Â“both long-term happiness and short-term pleasant moods tend to precede the desirable characteristics, resources, and behaviors with which they are correlatedÂ” (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005, p. 835). The authors recognized the small number of studies related to this question and suggested further research to substantiate the ir findings. Finally, question five in Lyubomirsky, King and DienerÂ’s (2005) meta-anal ysis addressed the question of whether positive affect lead to behaviors paralleling suc cess. In other words, will stimulating a personÂ’s positive emotions cause adaptive charact eristics to help that person flourish? According to Lyubomirsky, King and Diener (2005), Â“the evidence indicates that positive affect makes people feel good about themselve sÂ” (p. 836). Experimental studies reported people induced to feel happy benefit from their positive mood. These benefits included an increase in self-efficacy, better inte rpersonal interactions, and higher levels of energy. Encouraging happy thoughts also le ads a person to enjoy a task. In summary, the experimental literature supported the notion that
68 inducing positive affects leads to behaviors paralleling success (Lyubomirsk y, King & Diener, 2005). Lyubomirsky, King and DienerÂ’s (2005) meta-analysis suggested that positive outcomes and success proceeds and predicts happiness. Â“Success builds on successÂ” is a common proverb found throughout leadership literature. Can the same be said for positive affect? Do positive emotions build on positive emotions? A growing body of research supports this simple yet powerful claim that people use posit ive emotions such as joy, interest, contentment, pride, and love to Â“broaden and buildÂ” personal resources leading to future cycles of success (Fredrickson, 2001). Acc ording to Fredrickson (2001), certain thought-action tendencies Â“represent ways that posit ive emotions broaden habitual modes of thinking or actingÂ” (p. 220). This rounded response benefits the individual by broadening personal resources that will be drawn on again in the future especially when that individual faces adversity. FredricksonÂ’s (2 001) broadenand-build theory of positive emotions explained how or why happiness leads to a myriad of favorable outcomes. To test this broaden-and-build theory, Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, and Conway (2009) developed a study to examine the relationship between ego resili ence and happiness. Researchers defined ego resilience as a personality trait linked to a personÂ’s capacity to adapt to undesirable changes in the environment and bounce back from adversity. Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, and Conway (2009) researched whether positive emotions cultivated ego resilience and ultimately predicted future pos itive emotions. Eighty-six participants reported daily emotions on a website for one mont h. Researchers used four scales to measure the participantsÂ’ emotions: Pos itive Emotions
69 subscale, Negative Emotions subscale, Ego Resiliency 89, and the Satisfaction wit h Life scale. Results supported FredricksonÂ’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory. Specifically, Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, and Conway (2009) reported the following: Positive emotions scores were positively correlated with ego resilience and life satisfaction scores. Negative emotions scores were not correlated with life satisfaction scor es. Life satisfaction scores were not correlated with ego resilience scor es. Positive changes in ego resilience scores increased the correlation betwee n positive emotions scores and increased life satisfaction scores. Notably, positive emotion scores were a better predictor of growth than life satisfaction scores. According to the researchers, this finding revealed the importance o f momentary positive life events as opposed to the generality of overall life satisfaction. Lon g term growth (resilience) results from specific short-term effects of posi tive emotions. A personÂ’s positive emotions broaden and build personal resources leading to future cycles of success (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009). One positive emotion particularly associated with resilience is humor. Psychologists described humor as multi-faceted and classified the constru ct into various dimensions (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003). Some types of humor are classified as adaptive while other types are considered detrimenta l. For example, psychologists reported healthy psychological functioning is associated wi th affiliative, self-deprecating, or perspective taking humor. In fact, humor is shown to buffer the negative effects of stressful events such as depression and anxiety (Nezu, Nezu, &
70 Bissett, 1988). Conversely, sarcastic, disparaging, or avoidant humor are considere d less conducive to psychological well-being (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003). In order to measure the use of humor, Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, and Weir, (2003) developed the Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ). The HSQ divides humor into four dimensions: affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-def eating humor. Researchers described affiliative and self-enhancing humor as promot ing psychosocial well-being, whereas aggressive and self-defeating humor invo lves avoidance, negative or hostile feelings. The HSQ aligns with VaillantÂ’s ( 2000) description of humor as an adaptive defense. Additionally, self-enhancing humor items from the HSQ positively correlated with Â“cheerfulness, self-esteem, opti mism, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with social support, and negatively re lated to depression, anxiety, and bad moodÂ” (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003, p. 71). Researchers were encouraged by their initial validity measures, however they acknowledged the necessity for further testing. Combined with temperament mea sures or other psychological rating scales, the HSQ shows promise when examining adaptive behaviors related to resilience. This review of literature related to positive psychology and humor clearly identifies a burgeoning field with multiple prospects for future research. Fa cing adversity, resilient individuals rely on positive adaptive behaviors, such as humor, to overcome negative events. These positive experiences build on one another and broaden the resources available to the resilient individual for use in the future. Resear chers continue to develop valid and reliable metrics to measure these adaptive behaviors related
71 to resiliency theory and positive psychology. Since resiliency theory is a relatively new field, researchers urged more empirical and longitudinal studies. This resea rch would be especially pertinent within the school setting. In the meantime, positive psyc hology reminds all of us about the importance of acknowledging what is going right in our l ives without taking ourselves too seriously. Hope and optimism. I wrote this literature review during one of the most challenging economic periods in history, so it seems rather poignant to finish with this section, realistic hope a nd optimism Â– another road leading to the resiliency highway. Every organizati on suffers during these harsh economic times. Public or private, large or small; nothing and no one is immune from the effects of rising unemployment, decreased consumer spending, a sluggish market, and low confidence in the overall direction of the economy. Everyone is tightening his or her belt; and school systems are no exception. Doing more with le ss used to sound clich. However, the consequences of these turbulent times turned cli ch into reality. Hence, as the school leader, resilient principals meet the se challenges objectively and realistically, as they search for light at the end of the tunne l (Boyle & Woods, 1996). How does a person or an entire organization bounce back during these challenging times? According to the literature, part of the answer involves t he notion of hope. This section reviews the research concerning how the pathways of hope and optimism share a relationship with resiliency theory. The following summ arizes a body of research that examined these relationships between hope, performance, and re silience.
72 Concentration camp survivor, Viktor Frankl (1992) warned against losing hope. In his book, ManÂ’s Search for Meaning, he wrote, The prisoner who had lost faith in the future Â– his future Â– was doomed. With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and became subject to mental and physical decay. (p. 82) Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, (2006) defined hope as a multidimensional construct that involves 1) setting goals and having positive expectations to meet them; 2) coping when plans go awry; 3) persevering towards goals; and 4) redirectin g or changing strategies in order to succeed. Building on this goal-oriented perspective, Youssef & Luthans, (2005) described two factors associated with hope: agency (willpower) a nd pathways (waypower). Their description of these factors bear a striking res emblance to the theoretical perspectives linked to problem solving and bricolage discussed previ ously. The term pathways refers to the capability to generate ways to achieve goals and to create alternative routes if the original ones are blocked. Pathways t hinking develops through the systematic observation and refinement of Â“lessons of correlation/causalityÂ” (Snder et al., 2002, p. 259). When one can predict and explain events that are related in time and logical sequence, pathway thoughts ar e developed. (Youssef & Luthans, 2005, p. 321) Notice that in this definition, hope is not a random or fleeting thought, such as Â“I hope our students learn something today.Â” Rather, hope requires a personal investment (agency) and a plan of action to accomplish the task (waypower). An individual who hopes takes ownership, reflects, and thinks creatively in order to accomplish a goal
73 Similar to other constructs within the resiliency framework, hope and optimism a re positive, self-directed, and motivating capacities (Youssef & Luthans, 2007) Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, (2006) operationalized these concepts by describing positive organizational behavior (POB) and outlining guidelines for hum an resource development (HRD) of resiliency. Later research examined the se guidelines to determine if they supported resiliency and employee performance. Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa & Li (2005) distinguished between a trait and a psychological state. Traits remain fixed and tied to personality whereas states fluctuate based on context and situation. Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa & Li (2005) studied the states of hope, optimism, and resiliency and their relationship to performance. When combined, the researchers called these three states positive psychological capital. In this study, 422 Chinese workers from three factories completed questionnaires. Supe rvisory ratings and merit pay information generated the performance data. All t hree states (hope, optimism, and resiliency) along with their combination (positive psychological ca pital) related positively to supervisory performance ratings. Interestingl y, the relationship between resiliency and performance was stronger than hope or optimism alone, and w as similar to the results to that of merging all three states (positive psyc hological capital). Although the researchers used retranslation guidelines, the cross-cultural res earch posed limitations. Furthermore, supervisory ratings open the door to subjectivity and do not always identify the highest or lowest performers. However, later researc h addressed some of these limitations. For example, Youssef & Luthans (2007) used a multiple measures approach to strengthen the objectivity and accuracy of performance ratings. They selec ted three
74 work-related attitudes for this study: job satisfaction, work happiness, and organiz ational commitment. Furthermore, Youssef & Luthans (2007) conducted their study in the United States, thereby eliminating cross-cultural limitations. Data col lection included surveys from more than one thousand employees from 167 different organizations. Researchers used reliable and valid scales to measure hope, optimism and resil iency. For data analysis, they utilized correlational and stepwise regression analys es. The mixed results demonstrated that employeesÂ’ hope, optimism, and resilience were posit ively related to the work-related outcomes of job performance, job satisfaction and work happiness. Hope and resilience showed a positive relationship to organizational commitment. These findings underscored the importance of employeesÂ’ hope and optimism. Results from another study showed a similar relationship (Luthans, Nor man, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). Collectively, these findings demonstrated that hope and optimism, along with resilience influenced work-related outcomes. The literature acknowledged certain risks, especially pertaining t o optimism. Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, (2006) defined optimism as Â“generalized ex pectancy that one will experience good outcomes in life, which will lead to persistence in goalstrivingÂ” (p. 30). According to Westphal, Bonanno, & Bartone (2008), optimists view negative events as temporary or attribute them to external factors. An optim ist becomes vulnerable when stress builds to the point that surpasses positive expectations. Thi s is especially plausible once an optimist perceives the outcome as uncontrollable or outs ide her locus of control. Another risk factor involves an optimistÂ’s tendency to Â“underestimate the seriousness of a potentially threatening situation and thus to invest too little effort in coping with itÂ” (Westphal, Bonanno, & Bartone, 2008, p. 227). Hence,
75 realistic optimism offers a balanced approach to expectations while mainta ining a positive outlook. Coutu (2002) referred to this viewpoint as Â“sober and down-to-earthÂ” (p. 48) and described Morgan StanleyÂ’s preparedness years before the tragic bombi ng of the World Trade Center as an example of Â“hard-nosed realismÂ” (p.48). Ultimately, positive capacities such as hope and optimism share a relationshi p with resiliency. Empirically speaking, evidence demonstrated the positive influence of expecting things to go right. Authentic leaders are hopeful and optimistic (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Therefore, the resilient principal remains hopeful and realistica lly optimistic during these incredibly formidable times. Conclusion The resiliency constructs described in this literature review appear on the statetrait continuum (Luthans, Vogelgesang & Lester, 2006). Many of them seem fle xible, malleable, and adaptable to the current set of conditions. Other constructs seem more fixed and stable over time. For example, a person's attachment with others deve lops at a very young age and plays a significant role in social skill development and the abilit y to form meaningful relationships (Schore, 2001). Although social skills are indeed a learned and refined characteristic, a person who struggles socially may g rapple with relationships throughout life. Ultimately, a person's resiliency remai ns dependent on the contextual factors along with the appearance of other risk and protective factors in his or her life. Successful or unsuccessful adaptation to lifeÂ’s disruptions determ ines peopleÂ’s resiliency or their ability to cope with stress. Hence, while early at tempts at defining resiliency simply identified traits associated with this notion, later re search attempted to
76 discover its origin and relied on other academic fields such as physics, biology neuropsychology, and theology to learn even more. Since resiliency theory stems from positive psychology, my research follo ws a wellness model which focuses on the protective factors that ultimately contribut e to a principal's effectiveness. In the midst of the accountability era, pr incipals face increasing scrutiny as they strive to meet students' needs. The ability to bounce back f rom adversity becomes increasingly crucial as state legislators and local school boar ds place considerably more emphasis on student performance in the form of school grades, performance pay, and career ladders. As an instructional leader, the princi pal sets the tone for the entire organization. Thus, cognitive elements of a principal's engageme nt such as job satisfaction and work commitment drive this study's analysis of resili ency. In particular, this study proposes the following hypotheses: A relationship exists between job satisfaction and resiliency for principa ls. A relationship exists between work commitment and resiliency for princip als. Significant differences are evident in resiliency levels among principal s in various school settings. The data collection for this study included a survey distributed to principals who worked in public elementary, middle and high schools located in the state of Florida The questionnaire measured the respondent's level of job satisfaction, work commi tment, and overall resiliency using scales with established reliability and validi ty measures. Analysis of this data identified any relationships between principals cognitive elements of engagement and resiliency. School demographics such years of experienc e, school
77 location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment wa s collected for further analysis. Principals face an uphill battle as they continue to navigate the jagged terrain of educational reform. Now more than ever, schools need leaders who seek these challenges, learn from their mistakes, and move forward on behalf of their students A greater understanding of principal resiliency may encourage future resear chers to study this construct in terms of principal effectiveness. Remaining focused on what wor ks contributes to this reform effort.
78 Independence Individualism Cognitive Evaluation Theory What influences variability in intrinsic motivation? CET studies proposed that self-efficacy did not augment intrinsic motivation unless it was coupled with a feeling of autonomy. (Ryan & Deci, 2000) Self-Determination Theory Postulates that people must feel autonomous, competent, and connected to others (relatedness) in order to maintain the highest levels of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Gagn & Deci, 2005) Autonomy Acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choice ( Gagn & Deci 2005) Locus of control explains the degree to which people believe that they, rather than external forces, determine what happens in their lives (Spreitzer, 1995) Psychological Empowerment Utilizes four other cognitions as the basis of its broad definition: meaning, competence, selfdetermination, and impact. (Spreitzer, 1995) Intrinsic motivation An inherent construct in which an individual pursues challenges, creativity, and continues to learn and explore (Ryan & Deci, 2000) Figure 2. Autonomy vs. Independence
79 Chapter 3: Methodology Overview The previous chapters discussed how heightened accountability, an emphasis on instructional leadership, and ongoing educational reforms such as performance pa y altered the role of the school principal during the last decade. These role change s resulted in greater stress and a shortage of principals (Friedman, 2002; Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Whitaker, 1996, 2003). Stressors related to principal burnout included conflict (poor relations with coworkers, superiors, and parents), work overload, role ambiguity (reduced autonomy), negative perceptions related to organizational structure and climate (principals transferred without consent), and increased accountabil ity (Friedman, 2002; Whitaker, 1996, 2003). These role changes and added job responsibilities also contributed to a disconnect between what principals perceive d as a return toward management, and what reformers emphasized as a shift toward instructional leadership (Whitaker, 2003). Principals work in an extremely tumultuous environment (Friedman, 2002; Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Whitaker, 1996, 2003). Consequently, the study of principal resilience becomes especially relevant to these current trends in educat ional leadership. Specifically, this study examines: Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principa ls?
80 Is there a relationship between work commitment and resiliency for princi pals? Are there significant differences in resiliency levels among principals in various school settings? This chapter discusses the design of the research including sampling, miss ing data, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. Research Design Researchers defined survey studies or correlation studies as nonexperime ntal (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2005). Nonexperimental research designs Â“c annot rule out extraneous variables as the cause of what is being observed because they do not have control over the variables and the environments that they studyÂ” (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2005, p. 147). This exploratory study intended to gain a deepe r understanding of principalsÂ’ thinking and feeling about their work. Accordingly, this study used a questionnaire to measure participantsÂ’ self-reported leve ls of resiliency, job satisfaction, and work commitment. The questionnaire also included items to col lect demographic information (Appendix A) about the participant and the school where the participant worked. Figure 2 provided an overview of the research design used in this study. The design of this research relied on an online tool, called SurveyMonkey, to contact participants and collect the data. Participants received an email t hat included a short cover letter and an embedded link to the survey. The researcher promised anonymity and confidentiality to minimize sampling bias and increase the since rity level of the participants answering the questions.
81 The use of an online tool presented several advantages. The point and click process guaranteed a manageable, straightforward, and simple survey to complet e. This aspect was crucial since a principalÂ’s day is unpredictable and certainly f illed with multiple responsibilities. If principals interpreted the questionnaire a s time consuming or complicated, their chances of completing the survey diminished. Other advanta ges included reduction in cost and increased efficiency. Collecting data electr onically facilitated prompt and accurate sorting methods (Hewson, Yule, Laurent, & Vo gel, 2003). These conveniences allowed more time spent on data analysis rather than on data sorting. Additionally, as the name suggests, Â“snail mailÂ” takes days to rea ch its final destination; whereas email arrives instantaneously without the prohibitive cost s. Consequently, this study delivered two follow-up notices to increase the return rat e. In addition to the online advantages detailed above, survey research in general offers several benefits. For instance, surveys provide the ability to gather information about a large group of people in a relatively short amount of time as compared to observations or interviews. For purposes of this study, a copy of the survey was sent t o every public school principal in the state of Florida for whom the researcher wa s able to acquire an email address. Interviewing or observing over 2,500 people seems rathe r infeasible. Secondly, the standardization of questions and methods offered a precise t ool to gather large amounts of data, thus reducing the risk of subjectivity and variance f ound in observer research. Finally, Schuman (2008) concluded that surveys and polls serve a positive social function because they offer members of society a broader point of vi ew that may differ from their own.
82 Nevertheless, self-reported data can be a source of invalid or unreliable data (Ellis, 1994). For instance, participants may not understand the question or may forget the answers to the questions. Poorly designed questions may produce bias in the questionnaire and thus alter the results. Moreover, unpiloted or ill-conceptualized surveys lead to inaccurate results. In other cases, participants may cha nge their minds and change their answers during the course of the survey. Ellis (1994) reports thi s is common during long, in-depth surveys. Finally, some participants answer questions dishonestly, especially when the questions are more sensitive or personal in natur e (Ellis, 1994). Schuman (2008) warned against Â“survey fundamentalismÂ” and Â“survey cynicismÂ” (p. 21). Survey fundamentalism refers to a personÂ’s blind acceptance of the result s and the tendency to apply these results to the general population. From the opposite end of the spectrum, survey cynicism refers to the skeptic who believes the manipulat ion of a questionÂ’s wording allows the researcher to alter the results (Schuman, 2008). Addi tional criticism comes from phenomenologists, ethnomethodologists, and symbolic interactionists who take exception to the positivist methods of data collection (M arsh, 1982). A conscious effort was made to address these disadvantages of survey research in order to minimize any sample bias. For instance, the questionnaire included i tems written in a simple, straightforward and easy to understand manner. The promise of anonymity along with limiting the number of sensitive or intimate questions addre ssed participants' honesty. Finally, in order to address participants' failure to re call answers,
83 the directions for the three psychometric tools asked participants to answer bas ed their recent experiences within the last month. Sampling Surveys provide Â“statistical estimates of the characteristics of a t arget population, some set of peopleÂ” (Fowler, 2009, p. 11). This study used purposive sampling in order to select members of a specialized population (Neuman, 1994). Some researchers referred to this type of sampling as convenience sampling (Ellis, 1994) because all of the survey participants belonged to one group. The sample frame in this study included a purposive sample of all public school principals (elementary, middle, high school) in the state of Florida who agreed to complete and return an online survey. The purposive sample also included magnet and special purpose programs if the public school design fi t into one of these three categories: Elementary (PK Â– 5), Middle (6 Â– 8), and High School (9 Â– 12). The sample frame omitted all private school administrators and public school principals in those schools with a modified or non-traditional design (i.e. K Â– 8, Alternative, Adult, Technical, Vocational, etc.). Finding a manageable way t o amass the emails of private school principals in Florida proved too difficult, thus they were eliminated from the sample frame. Similarly, utilizing only traditional sc hool settings and eliminating nontraditional schools designs from the sample frame provided a mor e precise definition of the population. In all, roughly 2,800 principals belong to this sampl e frame. Hence, the sample size required to be representative of this population was 338 (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). According to Fowler (2009), researchers should consider three characteri stics of a sample frame: comprehensiveness, the probability of selection, and efficien cy.
84 Comprehensiveness and probability of selection remained high since this target population included every K Â– 12 public school principal in the state of Florida. This study contacted all participants via email and used an online survey. All Florida publ ic school principals have email addresses and The Florida Department of Education publishes these email addresses. Thus, this data collection process yielded a hi ghly comprehensive sample frame. Furthermore, as a purposive sampling, the high probabil ity of selection remained identical for each participant in the survey. The efficiency of a sample frame measures Â“the rate at which members of the target population can be found among those in the frameÂ” (Fowler, 2009, p. 21). This study excluded a very small percentage of public school principals from the target population. Specifically, this study excluded principals from non-traditional or modified schools such as K Â– 8, Adult, Technical, or Alternative public schools. Thus, this rather small exclusion yielded a highly efficient sample frame. In summary, thi s study met all of FowlerÂ’s (2009) criteria for an optimal sample frame. This researcher attempted to minimize sample attrition and reduce sampling bi as by following research based methods to increase return rates as reported by Lee Ellis (1994). These methods included: 1) pre-notifying prospective participants; 2) writing a clear and concise cover letter; 3) identifying the university sponsoring the r esearch; 4) sending follow-up emails; 5) developing a well-organized and brief survey; and 6) identifying the relevance of the survey to the participants. Ellis (1994) stat ed that combining these suggestions yielded the highest return rates in survey resear ch. The SurveyMonkey tool assisted the researcher with the facilitation of these s uggested methods.
85 Missing Data Missing data in a study threatens the validity of the results, leads to misa nalysis, incorrect conclusions, underestimated standard errors, and compromises the overall research (Tannenbaum, 2009). Common causes of missing data includes skipping questions or entire pages by accident, choosing not to answer a question if it's too personal, or becoming bored and skipping questions to finish the survey faster (van Ginkel, van der Ark, & Sijtsma, 2007). The researcher considered utilizing the mult iple imputation (MI) method to address missing data. According to Tannenbaum (2009), MI is adaptable, easy to implement, produces small statistical discrepancies and is preferred over the use of traditional methods such as listwise deletion and pairwise deleti on. Since there was very little missing data, the researcher decided to use listw ise deletion rather than MI. Instrumentation The instruments used in this study were research-based, established psychome tric tools, with extensive empirical support found throughout the literature. Previous reliability and validity testing confirmed the consistency, dependability and relevance of these instruments. Resiliency: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Connor and Davidson (2003) noted the clinical relevance of resilience along with its implications for individuals and organizations. With this in mind, the authors developed a well-validated, reliable, and simple to use measure of resilience know n as the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).
86 Connor and Davidson (2003) derived the content of their scale from researchers such as Rutter (1985) and Kobasa (1979) who studied resiliency and hardiness. The researcher selected the CD-RISC because the resiliency characteri stics listed by Connor and Davidson (2003) entwined with the protective factors described in the previous chapter: 1) relationships; 2) self-efficacy and self-esteem; 3) problemsolving and professional development; 4) autonomy; 5) meaning; 6) positive affect; and 7) hope and optimism. Table 2 lists the content of the CD-RISC. The 25 item scale measures each item on a five point range: not true at all (0), rarely true (1), sometimes true (2), often true (3), and true nearly all of the time (4). A participantÂ’s resiliency score ranges from 0-100. The highest score possible, 100, indicates the highest level of resilience (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Tests of the CD-RISC revealed, Â“sound psychometric properties, with good internal consistency and testÂ–retest reliabilityÂ” (Connor & Davidson, 2003, p. 81). The scale showed both convergent validity and divergent validity. The authors noted several limitations, including the surveyÂ’s inability to assess the resiliency proces s or theory and the lack of validation against biological measures of resilience. Although wor th noting, these limitations carried little relevance to this research since biologi cal measures or the assessment of the resiliency process were never components of this study.
87 Table 2 Content of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) Item # Description 1* Able to adapt to change 2 Close and secure relationships 3 Sometimes fate or God can help 4* Can deal with whatever comes 5 Past success gives confidence for new challenge 6* See the humorous side of things 7* Coping with stress strengthens 8* Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship 9 Things happen for a reason 10 Best effort no matter what 11* You can achieve your goals 12 When things look hopeless, I donÂ’t give up 13 Know where to turn for help 14* Under pressure, focus and think clearly 15 Prefer to take the lead in problem solving 16* Not easily discouraged by failure 17* Think of self as strong person 18 Make unpopular or difficult decisions 19* Can handle unpleasant feelings 20 Have to act on a hunch 21 Strong sense of purpose 22 In control of your life 23 I like challenges 24 You work to attain your goals 25 Pride in your achievements Note. Adapted from Â“Development of a New Resilience Scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC),Â” by K. M. Conner and J. R. T. Davidson, 2003, Depression and Anxiety, 18, 77. *Items 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 19 comprise the CD-RISC10. This table represents an abridged form of the scale, and should not be used in place of the CD-RISC. The CD-RISC is copyrighted and can only be obtained from the authors. Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) questioned the exploratory factor analysis ( EFA) of the CD-RISC conducted by Connor and Davidson (2003). The methodological issues they cited included vague factor selection criteria, the prevention of corre lating factors with one another, inconsistent or unclear themes, and the use of only two items to define a factor. Consequently, Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) reanalyzed the CD-R ISC to
88 determine "whether the CD-RISC measures resilience as a unitary dim ension or multiple latent dimensions" (p. 1020) and to further validate this psychometric tool. The new analysis reported inconsistent or non-salient loadings across two EFAs. They also reported disparate themes on two items, which caused difficulties in interpreta tion. Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) addressed these problems by developing an abridged 10-item version of the CD-RISC. Originally, a two-factor version use d items with salient loadings for hardiness and persistence. However, further analysi s led Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) to retest a single factor version of the CDRISC. Two EFAs and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the shorter version reveal ed good internal consistency and construct validity. In fact, scores on the abridged ver sion of the CD-RISC correlated strongly to the scores on the original version (r = .92). He nce, this study used the abridged version of the CD-RISC (CD-RISC 10) to measure the res iliency levels of principals. Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) reported a Cronbach Alpha reliability coeffi cient of .85 on the CD-RISC 10. Correlations with other measures supported the CD-RISC 10Â’s construct validity (Campbell-Sills, Forde, & Stein, 2009) as well as its c onvergent and discriminant validity (Campbell-Sills, Forde, & Stein, 2009; Campbell-Sill s & Stein, 2007). In a recent study, Campbell-Sills, Forde, and Stein (2009) calculated the mean score of 31.8 (SD = 5.4) for the CD-RISC 10. Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (JSI). Locke (1976), defined job satisfaction as Â“. . a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of oneÂ’s job or job experiencesÂ” (p. 1304). In 1951, Arthur Brayfield and Harold Rothe published an attitude scale that provided an index of
89 job satisfaction (JSI). The researchers used a combination of Thurstone and L ikert scaling methods to construct this index. The JSI includes both affective and cogniti ve components and is widely used in business management research (Agho, Price, & Mueller, 1992; Brooke, Russell, and Price, 1988; Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1986; Leong, 2001; Moorman, 1991; Mount, Ilies & Johnson, 2006) and educational research (Ho & Au 2006; Stempien & Loeb, 2002; Wu & Short, 1996). Brayfield and Rothe (1951) developed the original instrument with 18 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. On the 18-item scale, scores ranged from 18 to 90 with a neutral point at 54. Brayfield and Rothe (1951) reported strong validity and reliabi lity with a Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of 0.87. In general, a corre lation coefficient equal or greater than .80 indicates adequate reliability (Marczyk, DeMa tteo, & Festinger, 2005). Subsequent studies substantiated these results. Moorman (1991) analyzed the JSI with confirmatory factor analysis to determine the fit of a single dimensi on measuring job satisfaction. The comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index ( TLI) were .93 and .91, respectively. Moorman (1991) reported a chi-square score of 222.51 (df = 123, N= 225, p < .001) of the JSI. Similarly, Petty, Brewer, and Brown (2005) reported a Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of .98 on the 18-item JSI. Wu and Short (1996) used the JSI to measure the relationship of empowerment to teacher job commitme nt and job satisfaction and reported acceptable reliability and validity. Some researchers described the global nature of the JSI as inadequate. Ho a nd Au (2006) criticized the JSI for only measuring the affective state of an employ ee and ignoring the cognitive, judgmental process. While some argued the JSI conta ins
90 cognitive components (Mount, Ilies & Johnson, 2006), the disagreements in the literature about the specific factors in the JSI are not related to this study. Furtherm ore, while arguing the inadequacies of the measure the researchers acknowledged the af fective nature of the measure. Since this study examined the affective levels of job s atisfaction and work commitment, the possible limitations in the JSI instrument are in areas that did not directly affect this study. Revisions to the JSI included abridged five-item (Table 3) and six-item (T able 4) versions with similar reliability and validity as the original 18-item inst rument. For instance, Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller (1986) used an abridged six-item ve rsion of the JSI (Price & Mueller, 1981) to investigate the relationships in either di rection between satisfaction and commitment over time. The six-item JSI achieve d a good reliability level during two separate trials with a Cronbach's alpha of .868 and .863, respectively. Another study surveyed 550 employees using the six-item JSI and achieved a CronbachÂ’s alpha of .90 (Agho, Price, & Mueller, 1992). Brooke, Russell, and Price (1988) also demonstrated the validity and reliability of this six-item satis faction index. The five-item JSI met similar reliability and validity standards. For i nstance, Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) used a five-item JSI. After surveyin g 222 employees, this satisfaction scale achieved a good reliability level with a Cronbach's alpha of .88. Other studies reported good reliability and validity results for the f ive-item scale (Ho & Au, 2006; Bono & Judge, 2003; Mount, Ilies & Johnson, 2006; Saari & Judge, 2004; Ilies & Judge, 2004). The five-item JSI (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) shared three questions in common with the six-item JSI (Price & Mueller, 1981; Curry, Wakefield, Pri ce, &
91 Mueller, 1986; Agho, Price, & Mueller, 1992). However, the five-item JSI included two reverse scored items and used a different response scale range (0 Â– 10). Thi s study utilized the six-item JSI because the five point response scaled aligne d with CD-RISC and the Three-Component Model (TCM) Employee Commitment Survey (Meyer & Allen, 1991; 1997). This allowed for a consistent response scale throughout the entire questionnaire and reduced the chance of scale confusion on behalf of the participants. Table 3 Five-Item JSI Item # Question 1 I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job 2 Most days I am enthusiastic about my work 3 Each day of work seems like it will never end (reverse scored) 4 I find real enjoyment in my work 5 I consider my job rather unpleasant (reverse scored) Note. The response scale ranged from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree) Adapted from Â“Dispositional Effects on Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Core Evaluations,Â” by T. A. Judge, E. A. Locke, C. C. Durham, and A. N. Kluger, 1998, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 17-34. Adapted from Â“Self-Concordance at Work: Toward Unde rstanding the Motivational Effects of Transformational Leaders,Â” by J. E. Bono and T. A. Judge, 2003, Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571. Adapted from Â“Teaching Satisfaction Scale : Measuring Job Satisfaction of Teachers,Â” by C. L. Ho and W. T. Au, 2006, Educational and Psychological Measurements, 66, 172-185. Table 4 Six-Item JSI Item # Question 1 I find real enjoyment in my job 2 I like my job better than the average person 3 I am seldom bored with my job 4 I would not consider taking another kind of job 5 Most days I am enthusiastic about my job 6 I feel fairly well satisfied with my job Note. The researcher used this six-item JSI in this stu dy. The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Adapted from Â“Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses,Â” by J. L. Price and C. W. Mueller, 1981, p. 99. Adapted from Â“On t he Causal Ordering of Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment,Â” by J. P. Curry, D. S. W akefield, J. L. Price, and C. W. Mueller, 1986, Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847-858. Adapted from Â“Discriminant Validity of M easures of Job Satisfaction, Positive Affectivity and Negative Aff ectivity,Â” by A. O. Agho, J. L. Price, and C. W. Mu eller, 1992, Journal of Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196.
92 Three-Component Model (TCM) of Commitment. Researchers defined organizational commitment as Â“a psychological link bet ween the employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the empl oyee will voluntarily leave the organizationÂ” (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Meyer and Allen (1991) described this multidimensional construct as an employeeÂ’s mindset or feeling s about his relationship with an organization and further subdivided this psychological state int o three distinct categories: a desire (affective commitment), a need ( continuance commitment), and an obligation (normative commitment). When an employee feels aligned with the mission and vision of the organization, or personally identifies with t he organizationÂ’s values and goals, that employee displays affective commitment (desire). The employee who remains out of need (health benefits, retirement plan, seniority ) displays continuance commitment. In other words, this employee associates a cost with leaving or staying with the company. Finally, when an employee feels moral ly obligated to continue working for an organization, he demonstrates normative commitment. Normative commitment involves the measure of personal sacrifice and the leve l of loyalty associated with an employee on behalf of the organization (Meyer & A llen, 1991). This multidimensional view of the work commitment construct led to development of the Three-Component Model (TCM) of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The authors of this instrument divided the TCM into three sections (Affective, Continuance, and Normative). The original scale is comprised of eight questions per section and the revised scale includes six questions in each section. This study used the revised version (18 total items) for the purposes of this study. Although the original
93 TCM utilized a seven-point response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (st rongly agree), Meyer and Allen (2004) reported that a five point scale works well. The refore, this study utilized a five-point response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This decision ensured that the survey remained consistent with CD-RISC and the JSI. Based on Meyer and AllenÂ’s (2004) recommendation, the items from the three scales were mixed on the questionnaire. The participantsÂ’ responses within eac h scale were averaged to calculate an overall score for Affective, Continuance, and N ormative commitment. See Table 5 for sample items for work commitment scales (Me yer & Herscovitch, 2001). Table 5 Sample items for work commitment scales TCM Subscale Sample items Affective I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. Continuance Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity. Normative I would feel guilty if I left this organization right now. Note. The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Adapted from Â“Commitment in the Workplace: Toward a General Model,Â” by J. P. Meyer and L. Herscovitch, 2001, Human Resource Management Review 11 299-326. While some researchers questioned whether the TCM really measures att achment rather than an employeeÂ’s emotion or affect, others argued that references to c onstructs such as happiness on the TCM do indeed relate to positive affect (Jaros, 2009). Other criticism of the TCM described problems related to the wording or refining of item s to better align with newer conceptualizations of commitment. Overall, the relia bility and validity of the TCM remained strong in several studies (Meyer, Allen, & Smit h, 1993; Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Jaros, 2009). Allen and Meyer
94 (1996) reported alpha coefficients for the Affective, Continuance, and Normati ve commitment as .85, .79, and .73, respectively. Furthermore, test-retest reliabilities fell within the acceptable range (Allen & Meyer, 1996). In summary, the 18-item TCM portion of this studyÂ’s questionnaire provided the means to measure work commitment a s an independent variable in order to investigate whether any relationship existed be tween this variable and resiliency. Data Collection Variables. The independent variables are manipulated, controlled, or classifying variabl es (explanatory). Dependent variables measure the effect of the independent v ariables (response). The purpose of this study was to measure the relationship between principalsÂ’ work commitment and job satisfaction (independent variables) and re siliency (dependent variables). A secondary purpose of this study was to measure the rela tionship between the participantsÂ’ demographics (independent variables) and resilie ncy (dependent variable). Questionnaire. The participant questionnaire divided the survey items into four sections. Section One, Demographics, collected information about the principals (gender, ethnicity experience, age, and education), community (urban, suburban, or rural), school (K-12 level, size, school grade, AYP status, Title I status, and Differentiated Ac countability status) and students (poverty, disabilities, and English Language Learners rat e). Sections Two, Three and Four measured the principalsÂ’ work commitment, job satisfaction a nd
95 resilience using the psychometric instruments described above. Table 6 summ arizes the sections within the questionnaire. Figure 3 represents an overview of the researc h design. Table 6 Survey Summary Survey Section Demographics TCM JSI CD-RISC 10 Number of Items 20 items 18 items 6 items 10 items Score Range N/A 18 Â– 90 6 Â– 30 0 Â– 40 Neutral Point N/A 54 18 20 Note. The survey included a total of 54 items. Developed in 1999, SurveyMonkey is the self-described world leader in webbased survey tools. According to their website, their customers Â“include 100% of the Fortune 100, as well as other businesses, academic institutions, and organizations of a ll shapes and sizesÂ” (SurveyMonkey, n.d., About Us section). The website utilizes secur e socket layer technology (SSL) encryption to secure data, a requisite when using copyrighted psychometric instruments described above. The researcher entere d the instruments along with the demographic questions into SurveyMonkey. The items from each instrument were added to the questionnaire according to the directions found in e ach UserÂ’s Guide. No items were altered or amended for purposes of this study. T he aggregated instruments including demographics resulted in a 54-item questionnair e. Principals within the sampled frame received an email outlining the purpose of the study and encouraging their participation (see Appendix B). An embedded link within the cover letter email gave the participants access to the sur vey. Participation was voluntary and selecting to complete the survey acknowledged participants' consent t o be part of the study. Appendix C includes a copy of the informed consent letter.
96 Data Analysis Null hypotheses. Table 7 summarizes the null hypotheses for these tests: Table 7 Null Hypotheses H 0 Null Hypothesis H 0 1a No relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principals H 0 2a No relationship between work commitment and resiliency for principals H 0 3a No relationship between work commitment (affective, continuance, and normative), job satisfaction and resiliency for principals H 0 4a No relationship between years of experience and resiliency for principals H 0 5a No relationship between school location and resiliency for principals H 0 6a No relationship between school poverty rate and resiliency for principals H 0 7a No relationship between school level and resiliency for principals H 0 8a No relationship between salary and resiliency for principals H 0 9a No relationship between student enrollment and resiliency for principals Note. H 0 = Null hypothesis Statistical analyses. This study analyzed data by means of descriptive statistics and linear regr ession. This study used descriptive statistics to analyze the principals' scores on t he CD-RISC 10, TCM, and JSI. Measures of the independent and dependent variables were obtained by calculating the scores from the surveys according to the instrumentsÂ’ dir ections. The alpha coefficient was calculated for each variable to determine internal r eliability. Bivariate statistics use correlations and simple linear regression to depi ct how variables relate (Ellis, 1994). These statistical analyses were divided into three st eps. First, the relationship was examined between principalsÂ’ resilience a nd the six demographic variables (years of experience, school location, school poverty rate, s chool
97 level, principal salary, and student enrollment). Using regression, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was calculated to determine the significance of the re gression model. Next, the same procedures were utilized to analyze the relationship between principal resiliency and job satisfaction as well as principal resiliency and the thre e sub scales of work commitment (Affective, Continuance, and Normative). Finally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the total amount of variance of princ ipalsÂ’ resiliency that was accounted for by the demographics, job satisfacti on, and work commitment. A Bonferroni correction was applied to correct for the possibility of a Family-wise Error from the multiple comparisons that were conducted throughout t he analysis. Table 8 summarizes the statistical analyses utilized to test each null hypothesis. Table 8 Summary of Analyses Methods used to Test Null Hypotheses H 0 Instrument Analysis Method H 0 1a JSI and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression H 0 2a TCM and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression H 0 3a JSI, TCM, and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression. H 0 4a Questionnaire and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression H 0 5a Questionnaire and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression H 0 6a Questionnaire and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression H 0 7a Questionnaire and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression H 0 8a Questionnaire and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression H 0 9a Questionnaire and CD-RISC 10 Linear regression Note. Questionnaire refers to 20-item researcher developed demographic section. Listwise deletion used for those surveys with missing data.
98 Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between principalsÂ’ resiliency, job satisfaction and work commitment. This chapter described each psychometric tool used to measure a participantÂ’s resiliency, job satisfact ion, and work commitment (CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM). This overview included the validity and reliability measures of each instrument as well as a description of the d emographic questionnaire used in this study. Chapter 3 described the sample frame, detailed whi ch participants were omitted, and the use of SurveyMonkey to survey K-12 public school principals in the state of Florida. The researcher utilized listwise deletion to address missing data since very little data were missing. Finally, this chapter s ummarized the studyÂ’s nine null hypotheses and provided a general overview of the statistical a nalysis. The next chapter will present an overview of this studyÂ’s results. Chapter 4 will review the methodology, summarize the findings, and present a descriptive analy sis of all three psychometric instruments. The next chapter will also detail the three step approach used in the regression analysis.
Descriptive Analysis Resiliency (CD-RISC10) Poverty Rate K-12 Level Size Urban Age Gender Figure 3. Overview of the Research Design Data Analysis Descriptive Analysis Correlation Analysis Linear Regression Cognitive Scales Resiliency Job Satisfaction Scale (JSI) Work Commitment (TCM) Student Identification Poverty Rate SWD & ELL Rates School Identification Size FL School Grade AYP Status Title I Status Community Identification Suburban Rural Participant Identification Gender Experience Education Overview of the Research Design 99 Linear Regression Work Commitment (TCM) SWD & ELL Rates Florida DA Status Rural Ethnicity
100 Chapter 4: Results Overview This chapter reviewed the results of the survey and described the findings of the statistical analyses used to analyze the data. As reported earlier, the r ole of principal continues to change (Catano & Stronge, 2007), and many school based administrators find themselves juggling multiple responsibilities that range from manage rial to instructional leadership. Moreover, principals serve a broad constituency base i ncluding students, superintendents, parents, legislators, and community leaders. Many ti mes, the needs of these various populations conflict with one another. For example, the community may demand that the principal develop social programs to support student safety, violence prevention, and social competence. At the same time, the state department of education demands academic accountability, publishes schoolsÂ’ te sts results, and sanctions low performing schools. Furthermore, principals remain responsible for daily managerial duties such as facility maintenance, budge ts, district reports, and payroll. These role changes add to the principalÂ’s plate without re moving any other responsibilities (Catano & Stronge, 2007; Whitaker, 2003). Ultimately, the increase in these demands takes its toll and leads to greate r stress and burnout (Friedman, 2002; Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Whitaker, 1996, 2003). Indeed,
101 principals react differently to these stressors and some seem better equi pped to weather the storm than others. Using Henderson and MilsteinÂ’s (2003) definition, principal resiliency is described as Â“the capacity to spring back, rebound, successfull y adapt in the face of adversity, and develop social, academic, and vocational competence despite exposure to severe stress or simply to the stress that is inherent in todayÂ’s w orldÂ” (p. 7). As previously stated in Chapter 3, this study tested nine hypotheses, the nulls of which are: H 0 1a: No relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principals H 0 2a: No relationship between work commitment and resiliency for principals. H 0 3a: No relationship between work commitment (affective, continuance, and normative), job satisfaction and resiliency for principals. H 0 4a: No relationship between years of experience and resiliency for princ ipals. H 0 5a: No relationship between school location and resiliency for principals. H 0 6a: No relationship between school poverty rate and resiliency for principal s. H 0 7a: No relationship between school level and resiliency for principals. H 0 8a: No relationship between salary and resiliency for principals. H 0 9a: No relationship between student enrollment and resiliency for principals. The following sections review the results of the descriptive analysis and regression analysis for this study. Review of Methodology As reported in Chapter 3, the survey consisted of three research-based, establi shed psychometric tools: 1) Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC10) (Connor & Davidson, 2003); 2) Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) (Brayfiel d & Rothe,
102 1951); and 3) Three-Component Model (TCM) of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The fourth section of the survey asked the participant to answer several demographi c questions. The survey was emailed to 2,966 public school principals across the state of Florida. As detailed in Appendix D, email servers bounced back (rejected) 70 survey s. A total of 753 principals completed the survey for a response rate of 26%. Like mos t surveys, some participants skipped various questions. The researcher utilized li stwise exclusion to address missing data (Tannenbaum, 2009). Furthermore, the sample fra me omitted public school principals in those schools with a modified or non-traditional design (i.e. K Â– 8, Alternative, Adult, Technical, Vocational, etc.). Ultimatel y, this study analyzed 627 principal surveys. This sample size nearly doubled the sample size requi red to be representative of this population as described in Chapter 3 (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Summary of the Findings Descriptive analysis. Of the 753 surveys collected, 627 surveys met the criteria delineated in the sam ple frame. This data from 627 principals were analyzed and represented four r egional areas across the state of Florida: Florida Panhandle (7.8%), North Florida (11.3%), Ce ntral Florida (51.2%), and South Florida (29.3%). Surveys were sent to principals located in all but two districts. Franklin county and Putnum county were omitted since they did not comply with the Florida Department of EducationÂ’s request to submit personnel email addresses. Appendix D lists the number of surveys sent to each district and the number of electronic bounce backs (rejected).
103 Nearly 65% of principals in this sample were female and 34% were male. At the elementary level, 76% of principals who responded were female. At the secondary level, 44% of principal respondents were female. For a national comparison, the Nationa l Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Aud et al., 2010) reported that during the 20072008 school year, 59% of principals were female at public elementary schools nationwide, while 29% of the principals at the secondary level were female. The age of participants was reported in five year increments with responses ranging from Â“30 to 34Â” to Â“75 to 79Â” (mode = Â“55 to 59Â”) with a majority (84.7%) identifying themselves as white. In a national survey, 79.5% of elementary pr incipals and 84.1% of secondary principals identified themselves as white (Aud et al., 2010). As expected, most principals in this sample earned a MasterÂ’s degree (74.2%) whil e 25.0% earned a doctorate or professional degree. The national average for doctorate or professional degree for elementary and secondary principals was 33% and 37.7% respectively (Aud et al., 2010). The average overall tenure as a principal for thi s sample was 9.29 years. However, the average years of service at their current sc hool was only 4.54 years. 13.1% of surveyed elementary principals and 11.8% of surveyed secondary principals served 20 or more years as a principal. Aud et al. (2010) reported that 7.6% of elementary principals and 5.4% of secondary principals served 20 or more years as a principal during the 2007-2008 school year. Most principals surveyed (75.5%) reported their salary ranged from $70,000 to $100,000. Nationally, the average salary in 2007Â–2008 of elementary and secondary public school principals was $91,500 and $86,400 respectively (Aud et al., 2010).
104 Over half of the principals who completed this survey worked at an elementary school (63.8%), but all school levels were well represented in this sample. When as ked to describe their school, 45.6% of principals indicated that their school was located in a suburban community, 31.4% in an urban community, and 21.1% in a rural community. Thirty percent of respondents worked in schools where more than 70% of the students qualified for a free or reduced lunch. For comparison, in 2011, 38% of Florida principals (including charter and alternative schools) worked in schools where more than 70% of the students qualified for a free or reduced lunch (Florida Department of Education, 2011). Psychometric tool analysis. This study used three psychometric tools: the CD-RISC 10, the JSI, and the TCM. The CD-RISC 10 item scale measured each item on a five point range: not true at al l (0), rarely true (1), sometimes true (2), often true (3), and true nearly all of the time (4). A participantÂ’s resiliency score ranged from 0-40. The highest score possible, 40, i ndicated the highest level of resilience. The six-item version of the JSI utilized a f ive point response scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This study also used the revised version of the TCM with six questions in each section (18 total items). The revised TCM utilized a five-point response scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The participantsÂ’ responses within each scale were s ummed to calculate an overall score for Affective, Continuance, and Normative commit ment. As shown in Table 9, the reliability alphas calculated for each tool in this study remain consistent with previous research (Agho, Price, & Mueller, 1992; Brooke,
105 Russell, & Price, 1988; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Jaros, 2009; Campbell-Sills, Forde, & Stein, 2009). Table 9 summarizes the principalsÂ’ scores on all three psychometric tools. The mean CD-RISC 10 score was 35.23 with a standard deviation of 4.08. As a comparison, Campbell-Sills, Forde, and Stein (2009) administered the CD-RISC 10 to 764 respondents from a general community and reported a mean score of 31.78 (SD = 5.41). The shape of a distribution depends on the way scores are distributed on a scale of measurement. Kurtosis measures a distributionÂ’s degree of peakedness. A leptokur tic distribution indicates a grouping of scores at the center of the distribution creat ing a tall peak. A platykurtic distribution indicates a more uniform distribution with scores s till grouped at the center but creating a smaller peak (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1994). The distribution of the CD-RISC 10 was classified as slightly negativel y skewed with more scores at the upper end of the distribution (sk = -1.583). The distribution was also leptokurtic (ku = 8.364) since there were few outlying values which cre ated a more acute peak around the mean. The mean JSI score was 26.22 with a standard deviation of 3.71. The distribution was classified as negatively skewed with more scores at the upper end of the di stribution (sk = -1.970). JSIÂ’s distribution was leptokurtic (ku = 6.828), which indicated a tall peak. For comparison, Agho, Price, and Mueller (1992) administered the six-item JSI to 550 employees and reported a mean score of 20.89 with a standard deviation of 4.90. An earlier study conducted a test Â– retest of the six-item JSI to 508 nurses and re ported separate means of 21.87 (4.16) and 21.19 (4.20) (Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1986).
106 Finally, the mean TCM scores for the Affective, Continuance, and Normative subscales were 24.75, 18.01, and 22.10 respectively. All three subscales were negative ly skewed with more scores toward the upper end of the distribution. However, only the Continuance subscale was platykurtic (ku = -.333). Both the Affective and Normati ve subscale scores of the TCM showed a slightly leptokurtic distribution. Previous studi es used the revised six-item TCM (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). However, the researc hers used a seven-point scale instead of the five-point scale used in this study. Thus, this researcher did not include a comparison to mean scores from previous research. Table 9 Summary of Descriptive Statistics and CronbachÂ’s alpha for CD-RISC 10, JSI and TCM Measure N M Mdn Mode SD sk ku CD-RISC 10 608 35.23 36.00 40.00 4.08 .849 -1.583 8.364 JSI 608 26.22 27.00 30.00 3.71 .854 -1.970 6.828 TCM Affective 612 24.75 25.00 29.00 3.98 .802 -1.047 1.241 TCM Continuance 613 18.01 18.00 18.00 4.28 .662 -.035 -.333 TCM Normative 606 22.10 22.00 22.00 4.32 .756 -.540 .289 Note. sk = skewness; ku = kurtosis Results of Research Questions The analysis for this research followed a three-step approach using an AN OVA with a Bonferroni correction. This three step approach was utilized in order to provide information that allowed statistical corrections for Family-wise e rror due to multiple comparisons using a Bonferronni correction approach. Step 1 utilized a linear reg ression analysis with a Bonferroni correction to determine if there was a signif icant relationship between each of the six demographic variables (years of experience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment) and principa l resiliency. Step 2 analyzed the relationship between the JSI, TCM and the CD-RI SC 10.
107 Results from Step 1 and Step 2 were used to identify which variables would be included in Step 3. Step 3 regressed only the variables showing a significant relationshi p in the previous two steps onto the CD-RISC 10. Regression analysis. Step 1. Due to the potential overlap between demographic variables, the researcher used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine which demographic variables wer e significantly related to principal resilience. Demographic variable s were dummy coded. After running the regression analysis, the Pearson product moment correlati on coefficient (r) was determined by calculating the square root of the coefficient of det ermination (R 2 ). A Bonferroni correction was applied to the significance test to correct for fa mily-wise error. As shown in Table 10, none of the variables showed a significant relationship with the CD-RISC 10, resulting in a failure to reject null hypotheses H 0 4a, H 0 5a, H 0 6a, H 0 7a, H 0 8a, and H 0 9a. Table 10 Linear regression with Demographic Variables and CD-RISC 10 CD-RISC 10 Total experience Experience in current school School location School poverty rate S chool level Principal salary Student enrollment Pearson Correlation .027 .028 .028 .027 .033 .064 .001 Sig. .507 .509 .493 .516 .421 .117 .975 N 591 555 596 603 608 599 606 R Square .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .004 .000 Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) after Bonferroni c orrection.
108 Step 2. To test the null hypothesis H 0 1a of no relationship between resiliency and job satisfaction, linear regression with ANOVA was performed with a Bonfer roni correction. As in Step 1, the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r) was determine d by calculating the square root of the coefficient of determination (R 2 ). The results of the statistical test revealed a positive relationship between resiliency and job satisfaction. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 11 displays these results. Table 11 Linear regression with JSI and CD-RISC 10 JSI Pearson Correlation .404 ** Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 R Square .163 N 592 Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) after Bonferroni c orrection. Following the same procedure as described above, linear regression with an ANOVA was used to test the null hypothesis H 0 2a of no relationship between resiliency and the three sub scales of work commitment (affective, continuance, and normative) The results of the statistical test demonstrated a relationship between r esiliency and all three sub scales of work commitment (affective, continuance, and normative). These results are summarized in Table 12.
109 Table 12 Linear regression with TCM and CD-RISC 10 Affective Continuance Normative Pearson Correlation .294 ** -.139 ** .167 ** Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 .001 <.001 R Square .086 .019 .028 N 594 596 588 Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) after Bonferroni c orrection. Multiple regression analysis. Step 3. Since the demographic regression analyses performed in Step 1demonstrated no significant relationship to principalsÂ’ resiliency, these variables wer e not included in Step 3. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the total amount of vari ance that job satisfaction and work commitment accounted for principalsÂ’ resilienc y. The JSI and each subscale of the TCM (affective, continuance, and normative) were regres sed onto the CD-RISC 10. The overall regression model was significant as measured by ANOVA, R=.435, F (4, 554) = 32.085, p < .001, and explained approximately 18.9% of the variance in principal resilience (R 2 = .189). The independent variable of job satisfaction was found to have a significant influence in the overall regressi on model on principalsÂ’ resiliency, t = 7.951, p < .001. Only one subscale of the TCM, affective commitment, explained unique variance in principal resilience, t = 3.770, p < .001. Based on the results of the significance tests, null hypothesis H 0 3a was rejected. Checks for multicollinearity did not reveal any serious violations. Tolerance and Var iance Inflation Factor (VIF) values did not suggest questionable multicollinearity (T olerances = .45-.85; VIFs = 1.17-2.23). Table 13 summarizes these results.
110 Table 13 Multiple regression of JSI and TCM predictors of CD-RISC 10 Variable B SE Significance test Result JSI .385 .048 .353 t= 7.951** p<.001 Affective .223 .059 .216 t= 3.770** p<.001 Continuance -.005 .040 -.005 t= -.119 ns Normative -.118 .052 -.124 t= -2.274 ns Note. TCM instrument is subdivided into three sections: Affective, Continuance, and Normative commitment. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-taile d) after Bonferroni correction. R 2 = .189 Table 14 summarizes the results of the nine null hypotheses. Table 14 Summary of Null Hypotheses Results H 0 Null Hypothesis Result H 0 1a No relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principals Reject H 0 2a No relationship between work commitment and resiliency for principals Reject H 0 3a No relationship between work commitment (affective, continuance, and normative), job satisfaction and resiliency for principals Partially reject H 0 4a No relationship between years of experience and resiliency for principals Failure to reject H 0 5a No relationship between school location and resiliency for principals Failure to reject H 0 6a No relationship between school poverty rate and resiliency for principals Failure to reject H 0 7a No relationship between school level and resiliency for principals Failure to reject H 0 8a No relationship between salary and resiliency for principals Failure to reject H 0 9a No relationship between student enrollment and resiliency for principals Failure to reject Note. H 0 = Null hypothesis
111 Summary of Findings This study examined survey results from a sample of 627 principals from the stat e of Florida utilizing descriptive, correlation, and regression analysis. Result s indicated that there was a significant relationship between job satisfaction and res iliency for principals as well as a significant relationship between work commitment and resiliency for principals. Furthermore, none of the six demographic variables (years of e xperience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment) showed a significant relationship to principal resilience. Howe ver, both job satisfaction and affective work commitment explained unique variance in principa l resilience. In summary, null hypotheses H 0 1a, H 0 2a, and part of H 0 3a were rejected. This study failed to reject null hypotheses H 0 4a, H 0 5a, H 0 6a, H 0 7a, H 0 8a, and H 0 9a. These results indicated that both job satisfaction and affective work commitment were significantly related to a principalÂ’s resilience as measured by the J SI, TCM, and CDRISC 10. Appendix E lists Table A1 Â– Table A7 summarizing the CD-RISC 10, JSI and TCM (Affective, Continuance, and Normative) scores according to principal and sc hool demographic variables. The following chapter will provide a summary of the results of the study. Chapter 5 will also summarize the conclusions of the study in terms of the statement of t he problem, their significance, and discuss connections to prior research. The chapte r will also detail the studyÂ’s limitations, implications for practice within public s chool systems, and provide suggestions for future research.
112 Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion Summary of Findings As the literature suggests, principals work under increasingly stressful con ditions (Catano & Stronge, 2007, Friedman, 2002; Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Whitaker, 1996, 2003). Using Henderson and MilsteinÂ’s (2003) definition, this study defined principal resiliency as Â“the capacity to spring back, rebound, successfully adapt in t he face of adversity, and develop social, academic, and vocational competence despite exposure t o severe stress or simply to the stress that is inherent in todayÂ’s worldÂ” (p. 7) Given these additional stressors mentioned above, the resilience construct offers an import ant perspective into the thoughts and feelings of public school administrators. This stud y assessed predictors of resilience in a large sample of public school principals. In order to study the resiliency of principals, this researcher conducted an ana lysis of 627 surveys completed by public school principals from the state of Florida. The mean CD-RISC 10 score was 35.30; 3.52 points above the mean score Campbell-Sills et al. (2009) reported after they administered the CD-RISC 10 to a large community sa mple (764 participants) from the United States. Years of experience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment were not related to principal resilience. How ever, results
113 from this empirical study indicated that there was a significant relat ionship between job satisfaction and resiliency for principals as well as a significant r elationship between affective work commitment and resiliency. Discussion of the Research Questions This study indentified the following relationships: 1. There is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency for p rincipals. 2. There is a positive relationship between affective work commitment and resi liency for principals. 3. There are no significant differences in resiliency levels among princip als in various school settings. Specifically, none of the demographic variables (years of experience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment) showed a significant effect on principal resilience. The following sections will discuss these findings in detail. Job satisfaction and principal resiliency. Principals who remain satisfied with their job appear to be more resilient than their peers who are less satisfied. The JSI uses words such as like, enjoy a nd enthusiasm to measure a personÂ’s job satisfaction. Clearly, a principal must like his or he r job in order to achieve high scores on the JSI. In reality, some principals find little pleasure in their work, which ultimately affects their resilience. This speaks to the ever-changing role of a principal who seems to be laden with more responsibility while at the same time loses more and more autonomy. The essential functions of the principalship changed over the last 30 years. A renewed focus on instructional leadership, high-stakes testing, Differentia ted
114 Accountability, data mining, and various reform efforts translated to more mee tings, more reports, more mandated processes, and certainly more accountability. Like managers in most professions, principals attend several meetings. In lar ger districts, these meetings typically provide district leaders an opportunit y to update the principals about policies, mandates, procedures, facility, budgets, and other matt ers related to the business of managing a school. For example, NCLB rules require principals to ensure that teachers hold the proper certifications and only teach subje cts for which they are deemed in-field. In the state of Florida, certification rules are complicated and change often. In fact, in many large districts an entire department is devoted t o certification. Despite the amount of human resources districts devote to this one ar ea, the principal is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of a schoolÂ’s personnel cert ification. Hence, long meetings about certification, NCLB, and Differentiated Accou ntability take hours to explain, followed by countless reminder emails and memos. Additionally, once they return to their schools, principals spend more time scouring over certificat ion reports to ensure their accuracy. Unfortunately, one or two errors can cost a school (and the district) thousands of dollars. All of this time focused on just one topic Â– certification. Now add in the rules and regulations for budgets, standardized testing, nutritional services, school securi ty, facility maintenance, and classroom-size amendment reports, and now one can see why principals look more like bean counters rather than instructional leaders. The business of leading a school, its teachers, and students competes with the responsibilities of managing a school. Principals face mounting pressure to generate accurate repor ts, while simultaneously visit classrooms, mentor teachers, and meet with parents. Over time,
115 these stressful conditions can erode job satisfaction, work commitment, and eventuall y a principalÂ’s resilience. Ultimately, district leaders must decide what they expect from public school principals. The dichotomous relationship between managing and leading a school overlaps with a principalÂ’s sense of autonomy. Obviously, the most effective principals s trike the proper balance between managing and leading a school and know when to use certain skills to achieve the best results. Yet, what happens when a principalÂ’s wings a re clipped so far back that he or she can no longer strike that balance? What happens when principals cannot make independent, site-based decisions at their schools? During this era of accountability, principalsÂ’ responsibilities continually increased whi le their independence to make school level decisions diminished. State officials and district leaders hold principals highly accountable for far more while removing their i nfluence to lead at their own discretion. In other words, an inverse relationship exists betwe en a principalÂ’s autonomy and a principalÂ’s responsibility. A diminished ability to make sitebased decisions impacts the manner in which a principal leads. More mandates, more regulations, and more responsibility, with less autonomy tips the balance toward management skills. On the heels of Race to the Top and to what some see as the nationalization of public education, district and state officials feel the immens e pressure to produce student achievement results. This translates to more constraints and more control with less autonomy for principals. Ironically, it also means more account ability for school-based administrators. At some point, the most resilient principals may c hoose to fly somewhere else, even a different profession, rather than have their wings clipped to
116 the bone. A less resilient principal may characterize the situation as Â“hopeles sÂ” and choose to stay, even if he or she is unsatisfied with the job. Empowered administrators seek decision-making autonomy and supportive organization cultures that encourage shared governance and professional development to improve self-efficacy. This, in turn, increases effectiveness, resiliency and job satisfaction. (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Results from this study supporte d the literature by demonstrating a positive relationship between a principalÂ’s jo b satisfaction and a principalÂ’s resiliency. In the end, district leaders must consider the duti es, functions, and level of autonomy of their school level administrators. Keeping them satisfied with their profession ultimately strengthens their resilienc y. Affective work commitment and principal resiliency. Authentic leadership. The theoretical perspective on authentic leadership advanced by Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) served as the philosophical framework to build a developmental model of principal resiliency. Empirical research found that the capacity for self-reliance was a common trait among authentic leader s (Macik-Frey, Quick, & Cooper, 2009). A self-reliant individual relies on oneÂ’s own abilities to accomplish tasks. Not surprisingly, traits such as autonomy, self-efficacy, and independence closely align with self-reliance. This study demonstrated that principals with higher levels of work commitme nt also had higher levels of resilience. As discussed in the literature revie w, authentic leaders promote a positive and ethical climate inside the organization (Walumbw a, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). In a school setting, the principal sets t he
117 tone for the entire school (Hughes, 1995). As an authentic leader, the effective princi pal shares and models a vision. A clear vision communicates the direction of the school for its students, teachers, and parents. A clear mission also advances the belief tha t collectively the school will flourish, even during times of challenge. The results of this study reported that principals who align themselves with the mission and vision of the district or school were more likely to display higher levels of resilience. Considered a protective factor (Maddi, 2002), researchers describe d commitment as an employeeÂ’s mindset or feelings about his or her relationship wit h an organization and further subdivided this psychological state into three distinct cat egories: a desire (affective commitment), a need (continuance commitment), and an obli gation (normative commitment) (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Of the three categories, affe ctive work commitment explained unique variance in principal resilience in this study. Whe n an employee feels aligned with the mission and vision of the organization, or personally identifies with the organizationÂ’s values and goals, that employee displays af fective commitment (desire). As a highly committed employee, the authentic leader models resilience a nd promotes a positive climate for students and teachers. The results of this study a dded to a growing body of literature by identifying a positive relationship betwe en work commitment and principal resiliency. In a school setting, principals with high l evels of affective commitment internalize school and district goals, view themselve s and others as family members, and derive personal meaning from their work. All of these trait s seem to influence the climate of the school. In turn, the climate of the school would foster positive attitudes among students, teachers, parents, and even the community at lar ge. As
118 reported in the literature, a positive school climate means that principals plac ed a premium on relationships, identified with their followers on a personal level, reco gnized and nurtured talent, built strong social networks, and fostered trust with stakeholders (Hughes, 2005). If a positive organizational climate leads to greater job satisf action and commitment (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008), this implies that increasing job satisfaction would augment a principalÂ’s resiliency, a relationship that was empirically supported in this study. Demographic variables and principal resiliency. According to this study, there are no significant differences in resiliency levels among principals in various school settings. None of the demographic variables (ye ars of experience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment) were related to principal resilience. Consequently, the researcher failed to reject the null hypotheses related to these demographic variables (H 0 4a H 0 9a). These results ostensibly refute the general consensus among practitioner s that the demographic variables listed above influence a principalÂ’s resiliency. Howe ver, these results warrant more consideration. First, this study did not measure differenc es in the levels of stress or hardship among the listed variables. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the researcher assumed that principals faced similar challenge s across all of these demographic variables. For example, a high school principal encounters the same stressful conditions as the elementary and middle school principals. In other words the purpose of this study was to measure the principalsÂ’ resiliency levels in res ponse to the adversity they face in their positions. Additional research may investigate s tress level differences between demographic variables. For example, do principals with l ess
119 experience encounter greater adversity than principals with more experie nce? Instead, this study investigated the reaction to this constant adversity (resiliency level) without measuring the adversity itself. Second, to the best of this researcherÂ’s knowledge, district leaders do not utilize psychometric tools to measure principalsÂ’ resiliency levels to assist w ith placement. If the SuperintendentÂ’s staff believes that certain sites produce more stressful conditions than others, then they might place a principal who quickly bounces back from adversity in those high pressure schools. However, districts do not use this type of resiliency screening, and therefore principals with varying resiliency levels ar e scattered among different types of schools. Therefore, the lack of difference in resiliency levels among principals in various school settings may be a result of not using resiliency mea sures for placement rather than a true lack of difference. Put simply, if districts do not c onsider this trait during placement, then measureable differences may not exist. Third, as merit pay continues to garnish attention at both the national and state level, the results of this study require consideration. Paying a principal m ore money showed no significant relationship with a principalÂ’s resiliency level. These r esults seem to parallel other research regarding educator bonus pay and its relationship wi th student achievement (Springer et al., 2010). It seems that the profession of educating childr en goes beyond a bonus or the promise of financial gain. Instead, the feelings of job satisfaction and the desire to remain with the district drive the resiliency o f a principal. In the end, principals and their educator peers desire the satisfaction that co mes with inspiring children to reach their fullest potential.
120 Finally, it must be emphasized that high resiliency scores do not necessarily equate to principal effectiveness. Just because a principal bounces back each tim e he or she faces adversity, does not mean that this principal leads the school effective ly. A highly resilient principal may also be a poor administrator. Authentic leade rship involves many traits, including resiliency as an important characteristic. In the ir pursuit for the most effective principal, district leaders must consider the traits ass ociated with authentic leadership as well as the resiliency of the individual applying for the job. I f and when this occurs, it may be possible to measure significant differences in resi liency levels among principals in various school settings. Principal Protective Factors Autonomy The results of this study emphasize the importance of the alignment between the principal and the school district, especially in terms of mission and vision. When principalsÂ’ wings are clipped too far back, they may choose to find another means t o lead with autonomy. The principal may attempt to recapture the autonomy by moving to a different school, a different district, or even choose a different profession. Part of the autonomy and self-esteem skill set is the ability to say no and seek an alternat ive avenue to lead authentically. In other words, too much of a shift toward management, with less emphasis on leadership, could result in a migration of resilient principals to positi ons where they feel better aligned to the mission and vision of the organization. Principa ls who embrace the authentic leadership style may migrate to a place where the y are encouraged to fly.
121 To extend this point, the CD-RISC 10, the instrument used in this study to measure resilience, asked principals to evaluate their own ability to achie ve goals and adapt to change. Since the literature connected concepts of independence, self-determination, and autonomy to resiliency, one could argue that empowered principals scored themselves higher in these areas. This underscored the importance of autonomy since a high rating on these questions increased a respondentÂ’s overall resiliency score. What happens when the ability to set individualized goals or adapt to change decrea ses for principals? Considering the example of certification meetings and rules discussed above, if the trend toward management coupled with a reduction in autonomy continues, then both job satisfaction and resiliency may decrease. Since this study demonstr ated a significant relationship between job satisfaction and resiliency, districts may want to consider the fragile balance between management and instructional leaders hip when defining the responsibilities of building level administrators. Problem solving. Principals spend a great amount of time solving problems. In fact, most principals stated that daily emergencies prevented them from spending tim e on matters related to classroom teaching (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003). Akin to a fireman, a tasked principal moves about the school putting out little fires as they arise. When ignored or dealt with ineffectively, these little fires quickly rage into inf ernos. Thus, effective principals rely on their problem solving skills to tackle the multip le issues brought on by students, teachers, and parents. These problem-solving skills include creativity, adaptability, flexibility, and focus. Three of the ten questions on the CD-RISC
122 10 pertain to problem solving capabilities. Hence, higher resiliency scores re flect an increased ability to problem solve. The literature points to experience as a determining factor in the use of taci t knowledge between expert and novice principals. Tacit knowledge refers to intuition or implicit knowledge grounded in experience (Germain & Quinn, 2005). Although the literature purported that experience affected the manner in which a leader a pproached a problem, in this study, years of experience showed no significant relationship with the CD-RISC 10. Thus, instead of experience, imagination, ingenuity, and creativeness be fit the resilient principal who pursues solutions rather than excuses (Lvi-Strauss 1966; Coutu, 2002; Freeman, 2007; Aagard, 2009; Reilly, 2009). A word of caution must be issued to those who may interpret these results to mean that years of experience do not matter. Indeed, a personÂ’s prior experiences allow him or her to survey a situation and develop a plan based on those past occurrences. Over time, a seasoned principal may detect patterns or trends based on similar s ituations from the past. The key, however, rests on the skill set that the principal honed over time to solve problems. Creativity and ingenuity help principals bounce back from tough situations. Pedestrian problem solving skills interfere with a principalÂ’s r esiliency especially when faced with complicated issues. Thus, years of experience may only contribute when there is an abundant resource of effective problem solving skills to t ap. In other words, years of experience may only support a personÂ’s resiliency whe n that person already has the capacity to effectively solve problems.
123 Self-esteem and self-efficacy. True self-esteem measures a personÂ’s own self worth which, in turn, correlates to positive psychological outcomes such as higher self-regard, a more secure sense of self, and greater internalized behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1995). Self-efficacy, descr ibes the belief in oneÂ’s ability to successfully complete a task in order to produce the intende d outcome (Bandura, 1977). Several scholars linked self-esteem and self-efficac y to the resiliency construct (Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1982; Rutter, 1985; Bandura, 1990; Benson, 1997; Bobek, 2002; Wayman, 2002; Richardson, 2002; Howard & Johnson, 2004; Gu & Day, 2007). At least three questions on the CD-RISC 10 measured personal competence or judgments about oneÂ’s ability to complete a task. Principals who believe in themselves, especially during the most challengi ng times, utilize protective mechanisms, such as self-efficacy, to ward off the negative effects of hardship. In addition to believing in him or herself, a principal must belie ve in the schoolÂ’s mission. Affective commitment measures an employeeÂ’s alignment with the mission and vision of the organization, or how the employee personally identifies with the organizationÂ’s values and goals. In this study, affective commitment, expla ined unique variance in principal resilience. Principals who aligned themselves wi th the mission of the organization scored higher on the CD-RISC 10. Therefore, these self-enhancing cognition acts may pertain to oneÂ’s belief in self as well as the or ganizationÂ’s mission. The literature described authentic leaders as self-aware individuals w ho foster positive self-development (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). In this context, a self-aware principal can be described as one who exhibits th e protective
124 factors embodied in the resiliency construct. More specifically, a selfaware leader understands and adapts to the current environment. For example, the skill set used by a principal in an urban setting may look different from the skill set used by a princ ipal in a suburban setting. A principal who remains committed to the school and the district continuously seeks opportunities to sharpen these skills. Moreover, after assessing a situation, self-efficacious principals amass resources aligned with the ir strengths. The belief in oneÂ’s ability to successfully complete a task sets the stage for a positive approach to overcoming hardship. In other words, resilient principals rarely give up. Instead, they search for solutions because they believe in their own ability as we ll as the abilities of others. Limitations of the Study Chapter 1 indentified several limitations to this study. The collection and ana lysis of the data brought additional limitations to the surface. As previously mentioned, a nonrandomized sample included only public school principals (elementary, middle, and high school) from the state of Florida. This restrictive sample limits the ge neralizability to other populations such as private school principals, district-level administrators, or corporate management personnel. Secondly, since the study was administered anonymously and relied on selfreported data, there was no way to verify the accuracy of the respondentÂ’s a nswers. The answers provided by the participants in this survey were assumed to be genuine a nd accurate. Additionally, the principals who devoted the time to complete the survey may possess certain characteristics that resulted in higher CD-RISC 10 scor es. Conversely, an overwhelmed principal who is behind on important deadlines while dealing with multiple
125 disruptions may not volunteer to complete a survey. Will a discouraged or overwhelm ed principal take the time to complete a voluntary survey? It is impossible to know if principals with primarily positive responses participated at a higher or lower rate than those with more negative thoughts and feelings. Thirdly, the timing of the survey may have biased the results. Most principals completed the survey in late July and early August, prior to the beginning of the 2010 Â– 2011 school year. Traditionally, this is a time of year when principalsÂ’ spirits are high as they personify the anticipation and excitement of the coming school year. Convers ely, this time of year brings last minute planning, facility preparations, inter viewing, and student placement. Hence, many principals report higher stress levels than othe r points throughout the year. Conducting a test Â– retest may have addressed this timi ng limitation in the research. Finally, the word Â“organizationÂ” used in the TCM instrument may have affected the results of this study. The word Â“organizationÂ” is used in the directions and is found i n 17 out of 18 questions. Some principals asked if Â“organizationÂ” referred to the district or the school site. The intent for this particular research was to measure a principa lÂ’s work commitment to the district. Therefore, the word Â“organizationÂ” referred to the dis trict. In an effort not to alter the instrument in any way, the researcher elected not to replace the word Â“organizationÂ” with the word Â“district.Â” However, the ambiguity surrounding this issue placed limitations on the analysis of these data. Principals may feel more aligned to their own school than they do to their district.
126 Implications for Practice Human Resource (HR) management practices are defined collectively as "the means for acquiring, developing, and retaining a high-quality workforce, one t hat can carry out the instructional programs thought to lead to improved student achievement" (Heneman & Milanowski, 2004, p. 109). Quality HR practices ultimately enhance organizational performance by changing the effectiveness of the workforce The Superintendent and the SuperintendentÂ’s staff make countless decisions every day. Y et, of all of those decisions, one of the most important is the recruitment and retention of quality personnel via their HR management practices. This is especially tr ue when it comes to the selection of a principal. The consequences are too costly whenever a dis trict fails to bring together the best team of professionals with a strong instructio nal leader at the helm. A poor hire means deeper levels of support, more time monitoring, and possibly more time documenting to undo a hiring error. All of this time equates to injudicious expenditures especially when district staff are pulled away from other matters that involve the mission of the school system. During this time of educational reform, the pundits place great emphasis on the retention of instructional personnel, albeit mostly teachers. In fact, recent research conducted by Duckworth, Quinn, and Seligman (2009) used the term teacher grit to describe the resilient nature of a teacher who remains effective even duri ng the most difficult times. Since effective HR management practices enhance the or ganization as a whole, districts stand to benefit from retaining the highest quality principal s. This study implies that the elusive path to principal retention involves job satisfaction, affe ctive work commitment, and the resiliency construct.
127 The empirical results of this study revealed the significant relationshi p between a principalÂ’s affective work commitment and his or her resiliency. As previously stated affective commitment occurs when an employee feels aligned with the mis sion and vision of the organization, or personally identifies with the organizationÂ’s values and go als. Moreover, principal job satisfaction was a statistically significant pre dictor of a principalÂ’s resilience. Aside from anecdotal signs, how do district leaders m easure the affective work commitment and job satisifaction of their site-based admini strators? This study suggests that there may be benefits to adopting more formal measures to identify these feelings and attitudes among principals. In fact, this study put forth three r esearchbased, established psychometric tools with extensive empirical support found throughout the literature. In the past, the term Â“Company ManÂ” usually described the employee who sacrificed for the district and who outwardly supported district goals. This ra ther pejorative term besmirched those individuals who aligned themselves with the vis ion and mission of the district. However, this study suggests certain benefits, namely inc reased resiliency, when principals demonstrate higher levels of affective work c ommitment in the form of alignment to district mission and vision. In other words, the empirica l data from this research suggest that a Â“Company ManÂ” who is highly satisfied wit h his job may possess the capacity to rebound and successfully adapt in the face of adversity In light of these findings, districts policies related to the hiring and retenti on of site-based administrators require further review. The fact that none of the demographic variables (years of experience, school location, school poverty rate, school level, principal salary, and student enrollment) were
128 related to principal resilience underscores the implications discussed a bove. To the best of this researcherÂ’s knowledge, district leaders give little to no considerati on to the resiliency construct when placing principals. If district leaders cons idered the resiliency construct when placing principals at schools, one could argue that demographic variabl es would predict principal resiliency in the future. Traditionally, the most challeng ing school environments involve high poverty rates in rural or urban settings. When Superintendents consciously place the most resilient principals at the most chal lenging schools, a relationship will begin to emerge between the school location (urban, rural, and suburban), the poverty rate, and the resiliency levels of principals. Simply paying principals more money to work at the most challenging schools may not be enough to retain resilient principals. However, current reform effor ts encourage the use of merit pay, salary bonuses, and other financial incentives to rewa rd the most effective educators. While many argue that professional educators deserve to make more money, the results from this research showed no relationship between sala ry and principal resilience. Perhaps affective work commitment and job satisfac tion act more as intrinsic motivators as compared to the extrinsic motivation derived from a n increase in salary. Paying a principal more money hardly matters if he o r she shows little commitment to the mission of the district and remains unsatisfied. Along the same lines, this research suggests certain benefits to implementi ng methods to develop school leaders by enhancing principal resiliency. Principals could directly benefit from professional development related to the protective fac tors associated with the resiliency construct. Topics include personnel relationships, self-effi cacy, selfesteem, problem solving, autonomy, finding meaning, positive affect, hope, and
129 optimism. Building awareness about this relatively new resiliency construc t offers advantages. Specifically, it emphasizes the importance of human management as w ell as the importance of retaining the most effective school leaders. Implications for Future Research Given the current dearth of research related to principal resiliency, this study opens the door for an effusion of research connecting the thoughts and feelings of principals to the resiliency construct. For example, raising student achieve ment remains a top priority for the current White House administration along with school distri cts around the nation. Subsequently, many studies measured different variables and their relationship with student achievement. For instance, after tracking teachers who worked in demanding school settings for one year, a recent study reported that teache r grit and life satisfaction remained significant predictors of student performanc e (Duckworth, Quinn, & Seligman, 2009). Teachers with grit remained resilient during the most challenging times. Life-satisfaction referred to a teacherÂ’s le vel of contentment with his or her life. As a follow-up to Duckworth, Quinn, and SeligmanÂ’s (2009) research, future studies could determine if a relationship exists between highly resilient princ ipals and their studentsÂ’ achievement. For example, could a principalÂ’s high score on the CD-RISC 10 predict higher student scores on a standardized assessment? In addition to student achievement, later research must analyze the relationship between re siliency and principal performance. Do the most resilient principals perform at the highes t levels? Further research should analyze the balance between management and instructional leadership as it relates to the construct of principal resilienc y. Since this
130 study empirically supports the notion that job satisfaction is related to a princ ipalÂ’s resiliency, one may ask: are principals more satisfied leading or managi ng? An iteration of this research design could analyze the duties associated with managing and instructional leadership and its relationship to resiliency. The analysis of the se relationships will shed light on this delicate balance principals must strike among these often-opposing duties. This study measured the CD-RISC 10 scores of principals in elementary, middle and high schools. This sample frame did not include other district level administrator s such as supervisors, generalists, specialists, directors, or superintendents. Fut ure studies could compare the resiliency levels of district-based administrators to the r esiliency levels of the site-based administrators measured in this study. Moreover, the CDRISC 10 scores reported in this study could be compared to middle level managers in business organizations. How resilient is the school principal as compared to the business manager? Are their differences in resiliency levels between other groups such as teachers or the general population? This study discussed seven protective factors a resilient person (or organi zation) uses to mitigate risk factors in the environment: 1) relationships; 2) self-ef ficacy and self-esteem; 3) problem-solving and professional development; 4) autonomy; 5) meani ng; 6) positive affect; and 7) hope and optimism. Further research might also consider whi ch factors significantly predict a principal resiliency within a school s etting. Given the abundance of school culture research, the protective factors listed above could serve a s a conceptual bridge between the resiliency construct and implications related t o school culture. Does a principalÂ’s resiliency transfer to other members of the sc hool?
131 Researchers established the contagion effect of resiliency within organiz ations (Youssef, 2004). In the future, researchers could measure whether similar effects occur in the school setting. Finally, as discussed above, the timing of this survey may have skewed the results. Future studies could implement a CD-RISC 10 pre-test and a post-test in or der to measure principal resiliency levels at different points during the school yea r. Do resiliency levels change at the beginning of the year, just before standa rdized testing, or at the end of the school year? A test, re-test model should be conducted to analyze the CD-RISC 10 for its stability over time. Conclusion On November 4, 2009, President Barack Obama gave a speech at Wright Middle School in Madison, WI, and said the following: There are some schools that are starting in a tough position Â– a lot of kids coming from impoverished backgrounds, a lot of kids coming in that may have not gotten the kind of head start that they needed; they start school already behind. And even though there are heroic teachers and principals in many of these schools, the fact is that they need some extra help. And that's why the fourth measure we' ll use in awarding Race to the Top grants is whether a state is focused on transforming not just its high-performing schools, not just the middle-of-thepack schools, but the lowest-performing schools. We'll look at whether they're willing to remake a school from top to bottom with new leaders and a new way of teaching, replacing a school's principal if it's not working, and at least ha lf its staff; close a school for a time and then reopen it under new management, even
132 shut down the school entirely and send its schools Â– send its students to a better school nearby. ( http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/11/a_year _after_ el_1.html ) During an era of accountability and school reform, the message from the President on down remains clear: public school leaders and teachers must raise student achi evement and must remain accountable for their studentsÂ’ performance. Clearly, during the l ast decade, both school and district leaders witnessed mounting pressure to overcome the hurdles that interfere with school success and implement strategies to improve public schools. The President, and others that advocate for school reform, view impoverished neighborhoods, language barriers, and insufficient budgets as excuses rather than contributors to failing schools. Instead, as the President points out in his remarks above, principals are expected to overcome these challenges and be replaced if they do not succeed. Is principal resiliency fundamental to developing effective schools? Res earch affirms the importance of effective school leadership, positive attitudes, low er turnover, increased satisfaction, and high levels of commitment. By definition, resilie nt principals quickly find ways to overcome feelings of discouragement, frustration, and exasperat ion. They look for the meaning for why something just happened, learn from the experience, and move on. Resilient principals avoid victimization thinking and focus on solving the problem. Clearly, our students and teachers deserve the most effective principals lea ding their schools. Although a significant relationship exists between job satisfa ction and
133 resiliency as well as affective work commitment and resiliency, the res earcher offers a word of caution. Namely, resiliency and effectiveness may overlap in some are as, but may differ in others. Depending on oneÂ’s definition of effectiveness, the possibility exists that an ineffectual principal may also show strong resiliency tr aits. For this reason, this study used an authentic leadership model (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) as the philosophical framework to build a developmental model of principal resiliency. The concurrence of resiliency and authentic leadershi p sets the stage for a positive school climate built upon tenets of trust, transparent relationships, sel fdevelopment, and self-awareness. The resilient authentic leader finds ways t o overcome the many challenges that manifest in schools every day in order to foster the most positive school climate. Principals work in extremely tumultuous environments. Moreover, the daily challenges and adversity public school principals face intensifies each y ear. During this time of great reform, principals must cling to their sense of agency and lead w ith a sense purpose and authenticity. Now more than ever, districts are searching for a me ans to retain its best and brightest school leaders. Although not a panacea, part of the ans wer revolves around the resiliency construct. Consequently, the study of principal resi lience becomes especially relevant to these current trends in educational leader ship. In the end, the resiliency construct may transcend the limits of the accountabilit y era. "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing; the last of the human freedomsÂ—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way" (Frankl, 1992, p. 104).
134 References Aagard, M. (2009). Bricolage: Making do with what is at hand. Creative Nursing, 15, 8284. Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196. Albrecht, S. F., Johns, B. H., Mounsteven, J., & Olorunda, O. (2009). Working conditions as risk or resiliency factors for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1006-1022. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior 49 252-276. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Drake, L. (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educat ion Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. August, L., & Waltman, J. (2004). Culture, climate, and contribution: Career satisfa ction among female faculty. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 177-192. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
135 Bandura, A. (1990). Reflections on nonability determinants of competence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 315-362). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28 117-148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Benight, C. C. & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recov ery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129Â– 1148. Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids. Minneapolis: Search Institute. Benzies, K. & Mychasiuk, R. (2009). Fostering family resiliency: A review of the key protective factors. Child and Family Social Work, 14, 103Â–114. Blase, J. & Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Bobek, B. L. (2002). Teacher resiliency: A key to career longevity. The Clearing House, 75 (4), 202-205. Bogar, C. B., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2006). Resiliency determinants and re siliency processes among female adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84, 318-327. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571.
136 Boyle, M., & Woods, P. (1996). The composite head: Coping with changes in the primary headteacher's role. British Educational Research Journal, 22 (5), 549568. Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307Â–311. Brooke, P. P., Jr, Russell, D., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measure s of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 139Â—145. Broome, J. L. (2008). Multiage education as an alternative to the McDonaldization of schools: Applying RitzerÂ’s sociological framework to modern education. Journal of Multiage Education, 3 (1), 20-23. Bruner, D. Y., & Greenlee, B. J. (2000). Measures of work culture in high and low performance schools. Research in the Schools, 7 (2), 71Â–76. Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refineme nt of the ConnorÂ–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 1019Â–1028. Campbell-Sills, L., Forde, D. R., & Stein, M. B. (2009). Demographic and childhood environmental predicators of resilience in a community sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 1007-1012. Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy bel iefs as determinants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (4), 821-832.
137 Catano, N. & Stronge, J. H. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10, 379-399. Clauss-Ehlers, C.S., & Wibrowski, C.R. (2007). Building educational resilience and social support: The effects of the educational opportunity fund program among firstand second-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 574-594. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361-368. Commission on Children at Risk. (2003). Hardwired to connect: The new scientific case for authoritative communities New York, NY: Institute for American Values. Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82. Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coutu, D. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80 46-55. Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847-858.
138 Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises (2 nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem, (pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum. Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005). Spirituality and leadership: An empirical review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 625-653. Doherty, P., (1991). The exploratorium museum web site: That's the way the ball bounces. Retrieved from http://www.exploratorium.edu/sports/ball_bounces/index.html Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 540-547. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality of myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153Â–1166. Ellis, L. (1994). Research methods in the social sciences Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Epictetus. (2009). The internet classics archive: The golden sayings. Ret rieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/goldsay.3.3.html Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about whatÂ’s needed to fix public schools New York: Public Agenda.
139 Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining children's self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916-924. Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods. Applied social research methods series, v. 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Frankl, V. E. (1992). ManÂ’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218Â– 226. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises?: A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365Â–376. Freeman, R. (2007). Epistemological bricolage: How practitioners make sense of learning. Administration and Society, 39, 476-496. Friedman, I. A. (2002). Burnout in school principals: Role related antecedents. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 229Â–251. Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence, and development: Continuities in the study of schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable to psychopathology, and the search for stress-resistant children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 159-174.
140 Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcome s associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34 (4), 416-430. Gehrke, S. J. (2008). Leadership through meaning-making: An empirical exploration of spirituality and leadership in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 49, 351-359. Germain, L. S., & Quinn, D. M. (2005). Investigation of tacit knowledge in principal leadership. The Educational Forum, 70, 75-90. Giles, C. (2008). Capacity building: Sustaining urban secondary schools as resilient selfrenewing organizations in the face of standardized educational reform. The Urban Review, 40, 137-163. Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Porter, A. C., Elliot, S. N., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess leadership? Elementary School Journal, 110, 19-39. Gu, G., & Day, C. (2007). Teachers resilience: A necessary condition for effecti veness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1302-1316. Hanchey, S. G., & Brown, R. (1989, March). The relationship of teacher burnout to primary and secondary appraisal, coping systems, role strain and Teacher/Principal behavior Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Hansen, D. T. (1994). Teaching and the sense of vocation. Educational Theory, 44 259275.
141 Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in womenÂ’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112Â–124. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2007). Improving instruction for students with learning needs: Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership, 64 (5), 16-21. Hass, M. & Graydon, K. (2009). Sources of resiliency among successful foster y outh. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 457Â–463. Henderson, N. & Milstein, M. M. (1996). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Henderson, N. & Milstein, M. M. (2003). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Heneman, H.G. & Milanowski, A.T. (2004). Alignment of human resource practices and teacher performance competency. Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (4), 108-125. Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C. (2003). Internet research methods: A practical guide for the social and behavioural sciences London: Sage Publications. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1994). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Hipp, K. A. (1996, April). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Ho, C. L., & Au, W. T. (2006). Teaching satisfaction scale: Measuring job satisfac tion of teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 66, 172-185.
142 Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient teachers: Resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 7 399-420. Hoy, W., & Woolfolk, A. (1993). TeachersÂ’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372. Hughes, L. W. (2005). Developing transparent relationships through humor in the authentic leader-follower relationship. In J. W. Gardner, B. J. Avolio & F. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development; monographs in leadership and management (Vol. 3, pp. 83-106). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Hughes, M. F. (1995). Achieving despite adversity: Why are some schools successful in spite of the obstacles they face? A study of the characteristics of effective and less effective elementary schools in West Virginia using qualitative and quantitative methods. Charleston, WV: West Virginia Education Fund. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398004) Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2004). An experience-sampling measure of job satisfacti on: Its relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13 367Â– 389. Imants, J. G. M., & DeBrabander, C. J. (1996). Teachers' and principals' sense of efficac y in elementary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(2), 179-195. Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His life and universe. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Jazzar, M., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Critical issues in educational leadership. Boston: Pearson.
143 Jaros, S. (2009). Measurement of commitment. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions. (pp. 347-381). New York: Routledge. Johanningmeier, E. V., & Richardson, T. R. (2008). Educational research, the national agenda, and educational reform. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 17-34. King, M. L. (1968). Where do we go from here? Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Kirk, D. H. & Goon, S. (1975). Desegregation and the cultural deficit model: An examination of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 45 (4), 599-611. Klein, A., & McNeil, M. (2010). Administration unveils ESEA reauthorization blueprint. Education Week 29 (25), 19. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Kleiser, G. (2005). Dictionary of proverbs. New Delhi: Chaman Enterprises. Knoeppel, R. C., & Rinehart, J. S. (2008). Student achievement and principal quality: Explaining the relationship. Journal of School Leadership, 18, 501-527. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1Â–11. Krejcie, R. V. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Anderson, S. (2007). District contributions to school leaders' sense of efficacy: A qualitative analysis. Journal of School Leadership 17 (6), 735-770.
144 Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly 44 (4), 496-528. Leong, F. T. L. (2001). The role of acculturation in the career adjustment of Asian American workers: A test of Leong and ChouÂ’s (1994) formulations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 262-273. Lvi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297Â–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization Review, 1, 247Â–269. Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 25-44. Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate-employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219-238. Lyubomirsky, S. L., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 14, 803Â–855. Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. C., & Cooper, C. L. (2009). Authentic leadership as a pathway to positive health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 453-458.
145 Maddi, S. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research, and practice. Consulting Psychology Journal, 54, 173-185. Marczyk, G. R., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and methodology Essentials of behavioral science series. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. Marsh, C. (1982). The survey method: The contribution of surveys to sociological explanation. Winchester, MA: George Allen & Unwin. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48Â–75. McTigue, E. M., Washburn, E. K., & Liew, J. (2009). Academic resilience and reading: Building successful readers. The Reading Teacher, 62, 422Â–432. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 538-551. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (2004). TCM employment commitment survey (Academic Users Guide 2004). The University of Western Ontario, Department of Psychology.
146 Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a genera l model. Human Resource Management Review 11 299-326. Moorman, R. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizens hip? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855. Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-622. Nebbitt, V. (2009). Self-efficacy in African American adolescent males living in urban public housing. Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 295-316. Nestor-Baker, N. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendents: Its nature, meaning, and content. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 86129. Neuman, W. L. (1994). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., & Bissett, S. E. (1988). Sense of humor as a moderator of the relation between stressful events and psychological distress: A prospective analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 520-525. Nir, A., & Kranot, N. (2006). School principal's leadership style and teachers' se lfefficacy. Planning & Changing, 37(3/4), 205-218. Nye, B., Hedges, L., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2004). How large are teacher effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 237-257.
147 Pajares, F. (2005). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implicati ons for teachers and parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy and adolescence (pp. 339Â–367). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Patrick, J. E. (1995). Correlation between administrative style and school climate. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387853) Patterson, J. H., Collins, L., & Abbott, G. (2004). A study of teacher resilience in ur ban schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 3-11. Patterson, J. L. (2007). Strengthening resilience in tough times. Principal, 86, 16-22. Petty, G., Brewer, E., & Brown, B. (2005). Job satisfaction among employees of a youth development organization. Child & Youth Care Forum, 34(1), 57-73. Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 329-346. Pounder, D. G., & Merrill, R. J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 2757. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Professional turnover: The case of nurses. New York: Spectrum. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing. Reilly, M.A. (2009). Opening spaces of possibility: The teacher as bricoleur. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 376-384.
148 Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58 (3), 307-321. Rohall, D. E., & Martin, J. A. (2008). The impact of social structural conditions on psychological resilience to stress. In B. J. Lukey, & V. Tepe, (Eds), Biobehavioral Resilience to Stress (pp. 301-318) Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group. Rockwell, S. (2006). Facilitating the fourth r: Resilience. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43 (1), 14-19. Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children's responses to stress and disadvanta ge. Annals Academy of Medicine, 8, 324-338. Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors an d resistance to psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68Â–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557Â–1586. Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43 395-407. Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 7-66.
149 Schuman, H. (2008). Method and meaning in polls and surveys. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55 79-88. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press. Shapiro, F. R. (2006). The Yale book of quotations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shulman. L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 4-14. Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S., Ybasco, F., Borders, T., Babyak, M., & Higgins, R. (1996). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321-335. Sparks, D. (2004, February). The power of organizational culture. Transformational Professional Learning. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/transformational/index.cfm Sparks, D. (2007). Leading for results: Transforming teaching, learning, and relationships in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 1442-1465.
150 Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological e mpowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504. Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfac tion, and strain. Journal of Management, 23 679-704. Springer, M.G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V.N., Lockwood, J.R., McCaffrey, D.F., Pepper, M., Stecher, B.M. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from http://www.performanceincentives.org Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 423-448. Stempien, L. & Loeb, R. (2002). Differences in job satisfaction between gener al education and special education teachers implications for retention. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 258-267. SurveyMonkey. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://surveymonkey.com Tannenbaum, C. E. (2009). The empirical nature and statistical treatment of missing data (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and These s database. (UMI No. AAT 3381876) Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1994, January). Predicting teachers' sense of efficacy and job satisfaction using school climate and participatory decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
151 Tillman, L. C. (2005). Mentoring new teachers: Implications for leadership pract ice in an urban school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 609-629. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202Â–248. U. S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology American Psychologist, 55, 89-98. Valencia, R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. London: The Falmer Press. van Ginkel, J. R., van der Ark, A., & Sijtsma, K. (2007). Multiple imputation of item scores in test questionnaire data, and influence on psychometric results. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(2), 387-414. Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal leaders hip: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44 (4), 458-95. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126. Wayman, J. C. (2002). The utility of educational resilience for studying degree attainment in school dropouts. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (3), 167178.
152 Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers' moral e, career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 861-879. Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. New York: McGraw-Hill. Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. New York: Cornell University Press. Westphal, M., Bonanno, G. A., & Bartone, P. T. (2008). Resilience and personality. In B. J. Lukey, & V. Tepe, (Eds), Biobehavioral Resilience to Stress (pp. 219-257) Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group. Whitaker, K. S. (1996). Exploring causes of principal burnout. Journal of Educational Administration, 34, 60-71. Whitaker, K. S. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitme nt and selection: An international perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 37-54. Wu, V., & Short, P. (1996). The relationship of empowerment to teacher job commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Instructional Psychology 23 (1), 85-89. Yarrow, A. L. (2009). State of mind. Education Week, 29(8), 21-23. Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals' beliefs and actions influence new teachers' experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 101-137. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2005). Resiliency development of organizations, leaders and employees: Multi-level theory building for sustained performance. In W. L Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. Walumbwa (Eds.), Monographs in Leadership and
153 Management, Vol. 3: Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice (pp. 303-343) Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774800.
155 Appendix A Demographic Questionnaire 1. Are you Male or Female? Male Female 2. Are you Hispanic or Latino? No, not Hispanic or Latino Yes, Hispanic or Latino a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. 3. What is your race? American Indian or Alaska Native a person having origins in any of the origi nal peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. Asian a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, S outheast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, e.g. Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. Black or African American a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander A person having origins in an y of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. White A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. 4. What is your age as of July 1, 2010? 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 or more
156 5. What is the highest level of education you have completed? If currently enrolled, m ark the previous grade or highest degree received. Bachelor degree (for example: BA, BS) Master's degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, MEd, MSW, MBA) Professional degree (for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) Doctorate degree (for example: PhD, EdD) 6. What was your own yearly income in 2009? Please include bonus pay, performance pay, merit pay, or other salary incentives. $40,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $70,000 $70,001 to $80,000 $80,001 to $90,000 $90,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $110,000 $110,001 to $120,000 $120,001 to $130,000 $130,001 to $140,000 $140,001 to $150,000 $150,001 or higher 7. What is your current marital status? Married Partner Divorced Widowed Separated Never been married 8. Have you ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, military Reserve s, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation for deployment (i.e. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Middle East). Now on active duty On active duty in the past, but not now Training for Reserves or National Guard only Never served in the military 9. How many years have you served as a principal as of July 1, 2010? 10. How many years have you served as a principal in your current school as of Jul y 1, 2010?
157 11. Is your school an elementary, middle, high school, or non-traditional? Elementary Middle High School Non-traditional or modified schools (such as K Â– 8, Adult, Technical, or Alternative ) 12. What region of Florida is your school located? Florida Panhandle North Florida Central Florida South Florida 13. Florida School Grade during the 2009-2010 school year: A B C D F 14. Did your school make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) during the 2009-2010 school year? Yes No 15. Select your schoolÂ’s status according to FloridaÂ’s Differentiated A ccountability System during the 2009-2010 school year. Prevent I Prevent II Correct I Correct II Intervene Not in Differentiated Accountability System 16. How many students attended your school during the 2009-2010 school year? 1 to 250 251 to 500 501 to 750 751 to 1000 1001 to 1250 1251 to 1500 1501 to 1750 1751 to 2000 More than 2000
158 17. Is your school located in an urban, rural, or suburban community? Urban Rural Suburban 18. What percentage of your students qualified for a free or reduced lunch during the 2009-2010 school year? 0% to 10% 11% to 20% 21% to 30% 31% to 40% 41% to 50% 51% to 60% 61% to 70% 71% to 80% 81% to 90% 91% to 100% 19. What percentage of your students was labeled English Language Learners (E LL) during the 2009-2010 school year? 0% to 10% 11% to 20% 21% to 30% 31% to 40% 41% to 50% 51% to 60% 61% to 70% 71% to 80% 81% to 90% 91% to 100% 20. What percentage of your students was labeled Students With Disabilities (SWD ) during the 2009-2010 school year? 0% to 10% 11% to 20% 21% to 30% 31% to 40% 41% to 50% 51% to 60% 61% to 70% 71% to 80% 81% to 90% 91% to 100%
159 Appendix B Email to Principal Dear Principal, As a former Hillsborough principal, I know your time is extremely precious. I al so experienced the incredible demands placed upon administrators during an era of increasing accountability. It is with tremendous respect that I ask you to give me 20 minutes to help me learn m ore about the work life of a school administrator. As a doctoral candidate at the University of South Florida, I decided to study t he thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of public school principals in the state of Florida. All survey responses are anonymous; not even I will know your answers. Your participation will assist educators study principals' working life during a per iod of reform. The attached "Informed Consent" letter provides additional information. If you a gree to participate, please click on the link below to begin the anonymous survey. Thank you. Respectfully, Jason Pepe email@example.com Click on this link to begin the Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RKT98BN
160 Appendix C Informed Consent Letter Informed Consent to Participate in Research eIRB #1 545 Information to Consider Before Taking Part in this Research Study Title of Study: The Relationship of Principal Resiliency to Job Sat isfaction and Commitment: An Exploratory Study of K-12 Public School Principals in Florida The following information is being presented to hel p you decide whether or not you want to be part of a research study. Please read carefully. If there is anything that you do not fully understand, please a sk Jason Pepe. His contact information is provided below. Th is research is considered to be minimal risk. That means that the risks associated with this study are the same as what you face every day. There are no known additional risks to those who take part in th is study. A researcher wants to study the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of public school principals in the state of Florida. The questions the researcher wants to a nswer will help people understand how principals vi ew their work life as a school administrator. If you t ake part in this study, you will be asked to comple te a short questionnaire via a secure website called SurveyMon key. The survey takes about 25 minutes to complete. Your responses are completely anonymous. The resear cher may publish what is learned from this study. If so, the researcher will not let anyone know your na me. The researcher will not publish anything else t hat would let people know who you are. All the informat ion will be reported by groups. For example, the researcher will write a report that tells how many principals serving elementary students made a certa in score on the survey. No one will know your score. N o direct benefits to you are expected from particip ation in this study. Information gathered from this study will help educators study principalsÂ’ work life du ring a period of reform. You should only take part in this study if you want to volunteer. You should not feel that there is an y pressure to take part in the study, to please the i nvestigator or the research staff. You are free to participate in this research or withdraw at any time. There wi ll be no penalty or loss of benefits you are entitl ed to receive if you stop taking part in this study. If you have any questions, concerns or complaints a bout this study, contact Jason Pepe, firstname.lastname@example.org If you have questions about your rights as a par ticipant in this study, general questions, or have complaints, concerns or issues y ou want to discuss with someone outside the researc h, call the Division of Research Integrity and Complia nce of the University of South Florida at (813) 974 9343. I freely give my consent to take part in this study I understand that by clicking Â“ YES Â” I am agreeing to take part in research. I have received an email con taining the same information written above. Yes (proceed with questionnaire) http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RKT98BN No (do not proceed) EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP & POLICY STUDIES Â• COLLEGE O F EDUCATION University of South Florida Â• 4202 East Fowler Aven ue, EDU 105 Â• Tampa, Florida 33620-5650 (813) 974-3420 Â• FAX (813) 974-5423
161 Appendix D Surveys Emailed and Electronically Bounced Back (Rejected) District Name Surveys Emailed Surveys Bounced Back District Name Surveys Emailed Surveys Bounced Back Alachua 38 0 Lake 42 0 Baker 7 1 Lee 84 1 Bay 32 1 Leon 48 1 Bradford 5 0 Liberty 3 0 Brevard 87 1 Madison 6 0 Broward 232 11 Manatee 52 1 Calhoun 5 1 Martin 23 0 Charlotte 20 0 Monroe 10 0 Citrus 22 0 Nassau 15 0 Clay 40 1 Okaloosa 37 0 Collier 52 0 Okeechobee 10 0 Columbia 15 0 Orange 186 0 Dade 360 0 Osceola 48 3 Desoto 8 1 Palm Beach 177 4 Dixie 5 0 Pasco 76 0 Dozier/Okeec NA NA Pinellas 121 0 Duval 159 0 Polk 115 2 Escambia 54 2 Santa Rosa 31 1 Flagler 17 0 Sarasota 47 2 Gadsden 14 0 Seminole 63 2 Gilchrist 4 0 St. Johns 32 0 Glades 3 0 St. Lucie 37 0 Gulf 6 0 Sumter 11 0 Hamilton 2 0 Suwannee 8 0 Hardee 8 0 Taylor 6 1 Hendry 10 0 Union 4 1 Hernando 21 2 Volusia 66 1 Highlands 17 0 Wakulla 8 0 Hillsborough 238 22 Walton 14 0 Holmes 7 1 Washington 7 0 Indian River 24 5 Franklin 0 0 Jackson 16 0 Marion 46 0 Jefferson 3 1 Putnum 0 0 Lafayette 2 0 Total 2966 70 Note. There are 67 counties in the State of Florida. The Florida Department of Education provided the email address for every public school principal with the exc eption of principals located in Franklin and Putnum counties. Only 70 email addresses out of 2966 were electronically bounced back (rejected) by email servers.
162 Appendix E Tables A1 Â– A7 Table A1 CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Gender Are you Male or Female? RISC10 JSI TCMA TCMC TCMN Missing N 6 5 6 5 6 % 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% Mean 34.167 27.400 22.500 16.800 20.500 Std. Deviation 4.021 2.302 4.593 3.834 4.324 Female N 392 395 396 400 389 % 64.5% 65.0% 64.7% 65.3% 64.2% Mean 35.638 26.271 24.952 18.058 22.231 Std. Deviation 3.702 3.606 3.686 4.275 4.296 Male N 210 208 210 208 211 % 34.5% 34.2% 34.3% 33.9% 34.8% Mean 34.510 26.087 24.424 17.942 21.905 Std. Deviation 4.638 3.926 4.452 4.310 4.363 Note. N = number, TCMA = TCM Affective, TCMC = TCM Continuance, and TCMN = TCM Normative.
163 Table A2 CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Region What region of Florida is your school located? RISC10 JSI TCMA TCMC TCMN Missing N 2 2 2 2 2 % 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Mean 31.500 27.000 26.000 20.000 27.000 Std. Deviation .707 1.414 .000 2.828 .000 Central Florida N 313 312 314 317 311 % 51.5% 51.3% 51.3% 51.7% 51.3% Mean 35.217 26.179 24.599 18.114 21.910 Std. Deviation 4.320 3.986 4.131 4.308 4.449 Florida Panhandle N 46 48 49 47 48 % 7.6% 7.9% 8.0% 7.7% 7.9% Mean 35.217 26.646 26.061 17.000 23.146 Std. Deviation 3.602 2.740 3.024 4.530 3.724 North Florida N 69 69 70 69 68 % 11.3% 11.3% 11.4% 11.3% 11.2% Mean 35.710 26.551 25.186 17.319 22.765 Std. Deviation 3.313 3.123 3.827 4.164 3.774 South Florida N 178 177 177 178 177 % 29.3% 29.1% 28.9% 29.0% 29.2% Mean 35.124 26.028 24.458 18.331 21.842 Std. Deviation 4.060 3.664 3.967 4.183 4.386 Note. N = number, TCMA = TCM Affective, TCMC = TCM Continuance, and TCMN = TCM Normative.
164 Table A3 CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Location Is your school located in an urban, rural, or suburban community? RISC10 JSI TCMA TCMC TCMN Missing N 12 12 12 12 12 % 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Mean 35.9167 26.3333 24.3333 18.4167 21.6667 Std. Deviation 3.28795 3.49892 4.94209 3.65459 4.65800 Rural N 128 129 132 129 132 % 21.1% 21.2% 21.6% 21.0% 21.8% Mean 35.2031 26.6434 25.7500 18.2016 23.0303 Std. Deviation 3.80915 3.12949 3.70758 3.79840 4.09606 Suburban N 278 279 278 280 272 % 45.7% 45.9% 45.4% 45.7% 44.9% Mean 35.4137 26.3692 24.7842 17.9536 22.1360 Std. Deviation 3.64262 3.52941 3.92945 4.21909 4.25652 Urban N 190 188 190 192 190 % 31.3% 30.9% 31.0% 31.3% 31.4% Mean 34.9474 25.6915 24.0211 17.9323 21.4316 Std. Deviation 4.85203 4.27285 4.05120 4.70942 4.44401 Note. N = number, TCMA = TCM Affective, TCMC = TCM Continuance, and TCMN = TCM Normative.
165 Table A4 CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Poverty Rate Percent of free and reduced lunch RISC10 JSI TCMA TCMC TCMN Missing N 5 5 6 6 6 % 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Mean 33.000 26.400 25.000 16.833 23.000 Std. Deviation 5.612 2.702 2.828 2.927 4.604 0% to 10% N 10 9 10 10 10 % 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% Mean 34.900 26.000 26.000 16.600 23.900 Std. Deviation 2.998 2.828 4.346 4.248 4.012 11% to 20% N 33 33 35 34 35 % 5.4% 5.4% 5.7% 5.5% 5.8% Mean 35.818 25.788 24.857 18.176 20.857 Std. Deviation 3.477 4.775 4.153 3.857 4.654 21% to 30% N 64 62 62 64 62 % 10.5% 10.2% 10.1% 10.4% 10.2% Mean 35.313 26.613 24.935 17.656 22.323 Std. Deviation 3.976 3.138 3.908 4.005 3.797 31% to 40% N 74 73 75 72 73 % 12.2% 12.0% 12.3% 11.7% 12.0% Mean 35.662 26.575 25.427 17.667 23.137 Std. Deviation 3.022 3.283 3.256 4.269 3.977 41% to 50% N 71 74 73 75 72 % 11.7% 12.2% 11.9% 12.2% 11.9% Mean 35.296 25.662 24.329 17.280 21.306 Std. Deviation 5.602 4.795 4.816 4.382 4.915
166 Table A4 (Continued) CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Poverty Rate 51% to 60% N 77 79 79 78 75 % 12.7% 13.0% 12.9% 12.7% 12.4% Mean 35.091 26.759 24.468 18.295 22.173 Std. Deviation 3.700 2.690 4.278 4.221 4.118 61% to 70% N 81 80 81 79 77 % 13.3% 13.2% 13.2% 12.9% 12.7% Mean 35.000 26.375 24.988 18.633 22.532 Std. Deviation 4.016 3.293 3.459 4.365 4.031 71% to 80% N 77 77 75 76 75 % 12.7% 12.7% 12.3% 12.4% 12.4% Mean 34.792 25.805 24.773 18.263 22.027 Std. Deviation 4.281 4.165 3.944 4.365 4.505 81% to 90% N 51 50 50 53 53 % 8.4% 8.2% 8.2% 8.6% 8.7% Mean 35.216 25.300 24.140 19.264 21.642 Std. Deviation 3.635 4.097 3.817 4.166 4.447 91% to 100% N 65 66 66 66 68 % 10.7% 10.9% 10.8% 10.8% 11.2% Mean 35.5231 26.6364 24.4545 17.3939 21.7941 Std. Deviation 4.334 3.436 4.207 4.570 4.386 Note. N = number, TCMA = TCM Affective, TCMC = TCM Continuance, and TCMN = TCM Normative.
167 Table A5 CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by School Level School Level RISC10 JSI TCMA TCMC TCMN Elementary School N 384 392 392 393 386 % 63.2% 64.5% 64.1% 64.1% 63.7% Mean 35.263 26.314 24.796 18.109 22.008 Std. Deviation 3.932 3.310 3.829 4.239 4.220 Middle School N 125 121 123 120 123 % 20.6% 19.9% 20.1% 19.6% 20.3% Mean 35.544 25.868 24.488 17.767 21.756 Std. Deviation 3.591 4.483 4.116 4.107 4.212 High School N 99 95 97 100 97 % 16.3% 15.6% 15.8% 16.3% 16.0% Mean 34.727 26.263 24.876 17.900 22.907 Std. Deviation 5.111 4.167 4.419 4.653 4.763 Note. N = number, TCMA = TCM Affective, TCMC = TCM Continuance, and TCMN = TCM Normative.
168 Table A6 CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Income What was your own yearly income in 2009? Please include bonus pay, performance pay, merit pay, or other salary incentives. RISC10 JSI TCMA TCMC TCMN Missing N 4 5 5 5 5 % 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% Mean 36.000 27.400 25.000 15.600 21.800 Std. Deviation 2.944 2.074 3.536 5.128 2.588 $50,001 to $60,000 N 1 1 1 1 1 % 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Mean 30.000 24.000 18.000 24.000 22.000 Std. Deviation $60,001 to $70,000 N 34 36 34 35 36 % 5.6% 5.9% 5.6% 5.7% 5.9% Mean 33.7353 26.4444 24.2941 17.8571 22.1944 Std. Deviation 3.86365 2.51219 4.23928 4.18782 4.87454 $70,001 to $80,000 N 134 134 135 133 131 % 22.0% 22.0% 22.1% 21.7% 21.6% Mean 35.037 25.978 25.067 18.729 22.229 Std. Deviation 3.778 3.292 3.558 4.070 4.416 $80,001 to $90,000 N 170 173 175 177 175 % 28.0% 28.5% 28.6% 28.9% 28.9% Mean 35.124 26.127 24.657 18.175 22.194 Std. Deviation 4.030 4.148 4.085 4.080 4.171 $90,001 to $100,000 N 153 153 154 151 149 % 25.2% 25.2% 25.2% 24.6% 24.6% Mean 36.013 26.536 24.857 17.530 21.973 Std. Deviation 3.496 3.212 4.007 4.375 4.196
169 Table A6 (Continued) CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Income $100,001 to $110,000 N 73 70 70 73 71 % 12.0% 11.5% 11.4% 11.9% 11.7% Mean 34.589 25.829 24.571 17.890 21.845 Std. Deviation 5.580 4.559 4.024 4.364 4.723 $110,001 to $120,000 N 28 25 28 28 28 % 4.6% 4.1% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% Mean 36.714 26.600 24.714 17.679 21.786 Std. Deviation 3.053 4.975 4.345 5.099 4.467 $120,001 to $130,000 N 4 4 3 3 3 % 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Mean 33.500 27.000 18.333 13.000 21.333 Std. Deviation 6.856 3.559 6.658 1.000 5.508 $130,001 to $140,000 N 2 2 2 2 2 % 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Mean 36.000 27.000 27.000 10.000 21.500 Std. Deviation 5.657 2.828 1.414 5.657 .707 $140,001 to $150,000 N 1 1 1 1 1 % 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Mean 28.000 24.000 29.000 23.000 27.000 Std. Deviation $150,001 or higher N 4 4 4 4 4 % 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Mean 34.500 26.750 24.750 18.500 24.500 Std. Deviation 4.655 1.258 3.775 .577 3.109 Note. N = number, TCMA = TCM Affective, TCMC = TCM Continuance, and TCMN = TCM Normative.
170 Table A7 CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Enrollment How many students attended your school during the 2009-2010 school year? RISC10 JSI TCMA TCMC TCMN Missing N 2 2 2 2 2 % 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Mean 36.500 27.500 26.000 15.000 17.000 Std. Deviation 4.950 2.121 1.414 2.828 5.657 1 to 250 N 9 9 9 9 9 % 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% Mean 34.222 25.556 23.000 19.333 21.556 Std. Deviation 4.893 3.539 3.122 3.606 3.812 251 to 500 N 64 66 65 65 64 % 10.5% 10.9% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% Mean 34.813 26.015 24.708 19.031 22.438 Std. Deviation 4.411 3.614 4.336 4.015 4.553 501 to 750 N 211 218 216 217 215 % 34.7% 35.9% 35.3% 35.4% 35.5% Mean 35.294 26.298 24.870 17.710 21.986 Std. Deviation 3.782 3.451 3.640 4.343 4.084 751 to 1000 N 154 152 154 154 151 % 25.3% 25.0% 25.2% 25.1% 24.9% Mean 35.318 26.020 24.656 18.123 21.781 Std. Deviation 3.793 3.675 3.883 4.121 4.038 1001 to 1250 N 59 58 59 57 58 % 9.7% 9.5% 9.6% 9.3% 9.6% Mean 36.102 26.172 25.017 17.684 22.431 Std. Deviation 3.412 4.365 4.277 4.119 4.695
171 Table A7 (Continued) CD-RISC 10, JSI, and TCM Scores by Enrollment 1251 to 1500 N 37 34 37 37 38 % 6.1% 5.6% 6.0% 6.0% 6.3% Mean 34.108 26.735 24.865 18.324 22.605 Std. Deviation 3.414 2.678 3.743 4.007 4.175 1501 to 1750 N 18 18 18 18 18 % 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% Mean 35.111 26.278 23.278 17.444 21.556 Std. Deviation 4.825 4.675 6.182 4.409 6.391 1751 to 2000 N 21 21 21 21 20 % 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% Mean 36.476 27.810 25.333 17.905 23.600 Std. Deviation 3.855 2.294 4.115 5.328 4.272 More than 2000 N 33 30 31 33 31 % 5.4% 4.9% 5.1% 5.4% 5.1% Mean 34.455 25.533 24.645 17.818 22.355 Std. Deviation 6.874 5.501 4.491 5.065 4.903 Note. N = number, TCMA = TCM Affective, TCMC = TCM Continuance, and TCMN = TCM Normative.