Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 205–219 | Cite as

Female traditional principals and co-principals: Experiences of role conflict and job satisfaction

  • Ellen Wexler Eckman
  • Sheryl Talcott Kelber
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper presents a secondary analysis of survey data focusing on role conflict and job satisfaction of 102 female principals. Data were collected from 51 female traditional principals and 51 female co-principals. By examining the traditional and co-principal leadership models as experienced by female principals, this paper addresses the impact of the type of leadership model (traditional principalship or co-principalship) has on women principals with regard to role conflict and job satisfaction. The co-principals experienced lower levels of role conflict and higher levels of job satisfaction than did the female traditional principals.

Keywords

Co-principalship Leadership models Role conflict Job satisfaction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Association of California School Administrators. (2001, June). Recruitment and retention of school leaders: A critical state need. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.acsa.org/publications.
  2. Bacharach, S., & Mitchell, S. (1983). The sources of dissatisfaction in educational administration: A role-specific analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(1), 101–128. doi: 10.1177/0013161X83019001006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailyn, L. (2006). Breaking the mold: Redesigning work for productive and satisfying lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, C., & Chase, S. (1993). The underrepresentation of women in school leadership. In C. Marshall (Ed.), The new politics of race and gender (pp. 141–154). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  5. Boris-Schacter, S., & Langer, S. (2006). Balanced leadership: How effective principals manage their work. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bunnell, T. (2008). The Yew Chung model of dual culture co-principalship: A unique form of distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, iFirst article, 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, J. (1999). The job satisfaction of managerial and executive women: Revisiting the assumptions. Journal of Education for Business, 75(2), 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chirichello, M. (2003). Reinventing the principalship: From centrist to collective leadership. In F. Lunenburg & C. Carr (Eds.), Shaping the future: Policy, partnership and emerging perspectives. Oxford, UK: Scarecrow Education.Google Scholar
  9. Clarkberg, M., & Moen, P. (2001). Understanding the time-squeeze: Married couples’ preferred and actual work-hour strategies. The American Behavioral Scientist, 44(7), 1115–1136.Google Scholar
  10. Court, M. (2003). Different approaches to sharing school leadership. Research Associate Reports, National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/researchassociates/.
  11. DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 87(634), 43–65.Google Scholar
  12. Eckman, E. (2002). Women high school principals: Perspectives on role conflict, role commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of School Leadership, 12(1), 57–77.Google Scholar
  13. Eckman, E. (2006). Co-principals: Characteristics of dual leadership teams. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(2), 89–107. doi: 10.1080/15700760600549596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of candidates for the job of school principal? National Association of Secondary School Principals and National Association of Elementary School Principals. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.principals.org/.
  15. Ferrandino, V., & Tirozzi, G. (2000, March 22). The principal, keystone of a high- achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need. Education Week, 19(28).Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, A., Christensen, P., & Degroot, J. (2005). Work and life: The end of the zero-sum game. In Harvard business review on women in business (pp. 95–123). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
  17. Friesen, D., Holdaway, E., & Rice, A. (1983). Satisfaction of school principals and their work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(4), 35–58. doi: 10.1177/0013161X83019004003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerson, K., & Jacobs, J. (2001). Changing the structure and culture of work: Work and family conflict, work flexibility, and gender equity in the modern workplace. In R. Hertz & N. Marshall (Eds.), Working families: The transformation of the American home (pp. 207–226). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Grogan, M. (1999). Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 518–536. doi: 10.1177/00131619921968743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Gronn, P., & Hamilton, A. (2004). “A bit more life in the leadership”: Co-principalship as distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 3–35. doi: 10.1076/lpos.3.1.3.27842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groover, E. C. (1989). Perceptions of the co-principalship as implemented in High Point, North Carolina (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Greensboro).Google Scholar
  23. Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other non-traditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518–559. doi: 10.1177/0013161X06290641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Houston, P. (1998). The ABC’s of administrative changes. Education Week, 17(38), 32–44.Google Scholar
  25. Hurley, J. (2001). The principalship: Less may be more. Education Week, 20(37), 37–39.Google Scholar
  26. Institute of Educational Leadership. (2000, October). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. A Report of the Task Force on the Principalship. Washington, DC: IEL.Google Scholar
  27. Jackson, P. W. (1977). Lonely at the top: Observations on the genesis of administrative isolation. The School Review, 85(3), 425–432. doi: 10.1086/443351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klenke, K. (1996). Women and leadership: A contextual perspective. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  29. Kochan, F., Spencer, W., & Mathews, J. (2000). Gender-based perceptions of the challenges, changes, and essential skills of the principalship. Journal of School Leadership, 10(4), 290–310.Google Scholar
  30. Korba, W. (1982). The co-principal plan: Some insights and some cautions. NASSP Bulletin, 66(456), 57–63. doi: 10.1177/019263658206645610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lashway, L. (2006). The landscape of school leadership. In S. Smith & P. Piele (Eds.), School leadership: Handbook for excellence in student learning (4th ed., pp. 18–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  32. Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 45–72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Matthews, L. J., & Crow, G. M. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role conceptions for contemporary principals and assistant principals. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Mendenhall, D. R. (1977). Relationship of organizational structure and leadership behavior to teacher job satisfaction in IGE schools (Tech. Rep. No. 412). Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.Google Scholar
  35. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2001, November). News release: Priorities and barriers in high school leaderships. Retrieved from http://www.principals.org/.
  36. National College of School Leadership. (2006). What we know about school leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ncls.org.uk.
  37. Nevill, D., & Damico, S. (1974). Development of a role conflict questionnaire for women: Some preliminary findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(5), 743. doi: 10.1037/h0037052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paterson, F. (2006). New models of headship: Co-headship. National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/publications.
  39. Pierce, M. (2000). Portrait of the ‘Super Principal’. Harvard Education Letter Research Online. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2000-so/principal.shtml/.
  40. Pounder, D., & Merrill, R. (2001a). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–57.Google Scholar
  41. Pounder, D., & Merrill, R. (2001b). Redesigning the principalship could have a positive impact on the pipeline supply. School Administrator, 58(10), 18–21.Google Scholar
  42. Protheroe, N. (2001). Attracting and retaining high quality people for the principalship: Problems and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  43. Rice, E. M., & Schneider, G. T. (1994). A decade of teacher empowerment: An empirical analysis of teacher involvement in decision-making, 1980–1991. Journal of Educational Administration, 31(1), 43–58. doi: 10.1108/09578239410051844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Riehl, C., & Byrd, M. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary footnotes to an optimistic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 45–64.Google Scholar
  45. Schneider, G. T. (1984). Teacher involvement in decision-making: Zones of acceptance, decision conditions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 18(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  46. Sergiovanni, T. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  47. Shockley, R., & Smith, D. (1981). The co-principal: Looking at realities. The Clearing House: A Journal for Modern Junior and Senior High Schools, 55, 90–93.Google Scholar
  48. Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Strike, K. A. (2005). The ethics of school administration. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, D., McNamara, J., & Hoyle, J. (1997). Job satisfaction in educational organizations: A synthesis of research findings. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(1), 7–37. doi: 10.1177/0013161X97033001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomson, P., & Blackmore, J. (2006). Beyond the power of one: Redesigning the work of school principals. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 161–177. doi: 10.1007/s10833-006-0003-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. West, E. (1978). The co-principalship: Administrative realism. High School Journal, 61, 124–246.Google Scholar
  53. Whitaker, K. (2001). Where are the principal candidates? Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 82–92. doi: 10.1177/019263650108562509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Young, M., & McLeod, S. (2001). Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: Factors affecting women’s decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 462–502.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationMarquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.College of NursingUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options