Dr. Reginald Leon Green

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
VOLUME 26, NUMBERS 1 & 2, 2013
33
Exploring Leader Behavior Informed by the Thirteen Core
Competencies and Their Influence on Teacher Job Satisfaction
Detris Crane, EdD
Principal
Shelby County Schools
Millington, Tennessee
Reginald Leon Green, EdD
Professor
University of Memphis
______________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to determine if teacher job satisfaction is
enhanced when principals value and exhibit behaviors informed by thirteen (13) core
competencies. An analysis of data from the study revealed that principals in the study valued the
thirteen (13) core competencies and frequently used them in the administration of their schools,
as perceived by both teachers and principals. Leadership behavior, informed by the thirteen (13)
core competencies, and teacher job satisfaction were significantly correlated. These findings
support the assumption that leader behavior influences teacher job satisfaction. Principals who
perceive the thirteen (13) core competencies to be important and exhibit behavior informed by
the competencies are likely to have teachers who experience more job satisfaction.
Keywords: core competencies; leadership behavior; teacher job satisfaction
______________________________________________________________________________
Public education remains under pressure to address the academic needs of all students.
As the criticism intensifies, the search for practices and processes for use in improving the
academic achievement of students continues to be at the forefront. According to the National
Association of Elementary School Principals (2001), the focus of the search has shifted to the
role of the principal. In the search for effective practices and processes, principals are being
asked to become instructional leaders (Lashway, 2002). Part of the process of instructional
leadership is the monitoring and supervision of teachers.
There is a strong relationship between student achievement and instructional leadership
practices (Bulach, Boothe, & Pickett, 2000). Edgerson and Kritsonis (2006) emphasize that a
quality of effective schools is a principal who is an instructional leader. These principals are
open and effective, praise teachers’ efforts, convey high expectations for teacher and student
performance, actively involve teachers in decision making and provide teachers with the
autonomy to try creative approaches. As a result of these practices, they tend to have greater
success in leading instructional programs (Blase & Kirby, 2000).

DETRIS CRANE and REGINALD LEON GREEN
34
The shift to higher accountability has also placed greater demands on teachers. Teacher
effectiveness has become a federal and state priority and a major topic of debate across the
country (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Southern Regional Education Board, 2011). The issue of
teacher effectiveness has gained urgency as schools and districts have come under increased
pressure to raise student achievement. The public is demanding more information about the
effect individual teachers have on student learning (Sartain, Stoeling, & Brown, 2010). As a
result, policy makers have called for teacher evaluations that can identify a range of teacher
effectiveness. This call is making it necessary for principals to evaluate teacher effectiveness,
and principals must be able to establish and maintain positive relationships with teachers to be
effective in the evaluation process.
Blase and Blase (1999) identified characteristics of school principals that positively
influence classroom teaching, and, conversely, the characteristics that negatively influence
classroom teaching. Their study focused on teachers’ perspectives on effective instructional
leadership. Findings in the study indicate that instructional leaders have the greatest effect on
teachers when they collaborate with teachers to promote reflection and promote professional
growth.
According to Edgerson and Kritsonis (2006), the relationship between teachers and
principals can become strained when test scores fall below the established accountability
standards. Increasing pressure from principals for teachers to raise student achievement can be
problematic and can cause some teachers to experience lower morale, decreased job satisfaction,
or even exit the profession (Hardy, 1999; Tye & O’Brien, 2002).
Teachers comprise the largest portion of the professional body in a school, have the most
contact with students throughout the day, and influence the environment of the school. The
reverse is also true; when teachers have negative feelings about their position, they may
negatively impact the students and the school (Eaker & Gonzalez, 2006; Edgerson & Kristonis,
2006; Green, 2010). In most instances, when teachers feel positively about their position, they
have a positive influence on the students and the school.
Literature Review
Behaviors of Effective School Leaders
Public demands for more effective schools have placed growing attention on the crucial
role of school leaders in promoting powerful teaching and learning (Blase & Kirby, 2000;
LaPointe & Davis, 2006). The call for principals to become instructional leaders has soared to
the top of the educational renewal agenda (Lashway, 2002). Research suggests that effective
instructional leadership strongly affects the quality of teaching and student learning (Leithwood,
Seashore, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
Researchers have identified specific instructional leadership behaviors related to
improving the teaching and learning process (Blase & Blase, 1999). Andrews and Soder (1987)
defined instructional leadership to include four areas of responsibility: (1) resource provider; (2)
instructional resource; (3) communicator, and (4) visible presence in the building. Although
leaders previously focused on resource allocation and process requirements, today’s leaders have
additional responsibilities related to student achievement and the skills necessary to motivate and
lead people who influence student learning (Green, 2010; O’Donnell & White, 2005).
O’Donnell and White (2005) emphasized that the primary responsibility of the school

35
leader is to facilitate teaching and learning with an overall mission of enhancing student
achievement. However, for the most part, previous studies have addressed school climate,
instructional and leadership standards, school structure, data analysis, and the use of instructional
strategies. As a result, there is a void in terms of definitive characteristics of individuals who are
expected to provide this leadership.
Public Impact (2008), in a report funded by the Chicago Public Education Fund, sought
to clarify the most critical competencies that enable school leaders to be successful in attempts to
turn failing schools around. The study yielded four clusters of competencies: driving for results,
influencing for results, problem solving, and showing confidence to lead. Davis, Darling-
Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) reported that attributes of effective school leaders
influence student achievement through two important pathways — the support and development
of effective teachers and the implementation of effective organizational processes. Leithwood et
al. (2004) outlined: developing people, setting directions for the organization, and redesigning
the organization as three core leadership practices of high-quality leaders.
Consequently, Green (2010) identified thirteen (13) core competencies that school
leaders must believe to be important and exhibit behaviors informed by them if they are to
become effective instructional leaders. The competencies are aligned with the ISLLC Standards.
The ISLLC standards focus on six (6) areas: (1) vision; (2) school culture; (3) management; (4)
collaboration; (5) ethical integrity and fairness, and (6) political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Prince, 2007). The ISLLC Standards outline six
specific skill sets principals must acquire, understand, and be able to implement to effectively
lead 21st century schools (CCSSO, 1996; Green, 2009; Waters & Grubb, 2004). The standards
also identify leadership practices that should take precedence if a school leader is to effectively
meet the challenges of 21st century schools (Waters & Grubb, 2004).
Perhaps the most obvious evidence underpinning the competencies is Waters et al. (2003)
identification of twenty-one (21) responsibilities that positively affect achievement and the
specific behaviors and characteristics associated with those responsibilities. The findings of these
researchers indicate that effective school leaders can have dramatic influence on achievement of
students. As leadership ability increases, so does student achievement. All of Green’s (2010),
thirteen (13) core competencies reference behaviors that require the leader to be aware of and
informed of details and to be able to use the information to address current and potential
problems. The competencies also describe the expectations and responsibilities that successful
leaders of 21st century schools must exhibit. A brief description of each of the competencies is
listed below:
1. Visionary Leadership: Effective leaders demonstrate energy, commitment, and an
entrepreneurial spirit; they communicate values and a conviction that all children will
learn at high levels and inspire others with that vision.
2. Unity of Purpose: Effective leaders collect and utilize data to develop and clarify a
purpose that focuses on student learning; praise teachers’ efforts; convey high
expectations for teacher and student performance; actively involve teachers in
decision-making, and provide teachers with the autonomy to try creative approaches.
3. Learning Community: Effective leaders demonstrate a dedication and willingness to
assist teachers in improving their instructional skills by furnishing needed resources

36
to teachers; create a school climate where the primary focus is on teaching and
learning; place emphasis on instruction, and view parents as partners in their
children’s education.
4. Instructional Leadership: Effective leaders facilitate the application of current
knowledge in learning and human development; they use data to make instructional
program decisions that meet the needs of all students.
5. Curriculum and Instruction: Effective leaders keep school personnel focused on
student learning and are able to put into practice curriculum that contains research-
based strategies to meet the needs of all students.
6. Professional Development: Effective leaders demonstrate commitment to their own
professional development and the professional development of others.
7. Organizational Management: Effective leaders skillfully implement procedures and
processes to govern the workflow; establish clearly defined, school-wide academic
and behavioral standards to promote high expectations, and hold teachers and
students accountable for learning.
8. Assessment: Effective leaders conduct assessments and identify needs of students, as
well as strengths and weaknesses of teachers.
9. Reflection: Effective leaders set aside time to think about their professional practices
and decisions with a focus on improvement.
10. Collaboration: Effective leaders engage teachers in dialogue about instructional
strategies and student performance; they allow teachers and other stakeholders to
participate in decision making.
11. Diversity: Effective leaders create an environment in which the ethical and moral
imperatives of schooling are valued; they recognize and eliminate unfair treatment
and inequalities.
12. Inquiry: Effective leaders conduct inquiry into effective school research; acquire a
deep understanding of change and know how to initiate, lead, and sustain the change;
examine current research to identify leadership best practices, and align their actions
with the goals and visions of the school.
13. Professionalism: Effective leaders are diligent in implementing ethical standards of
the education profession through their daily activities.
The thirteen (13) core competencies outline behaviors that principals should exhibit to be
successful school leaders. The literature clearly supports these competencies. There is little doubt
that leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader and the
characteristics of the environment of the schoolhouse (Gray & Stark, 1988). Consequently, the

37
prevailing assumption is that when school leaders believe these competencies to be important
and exhibit behaviors informed by them, the students in the schools they lead will achieve
academically.
Strong school leadership is known to be a key factor in supporting student achievement;
however, what is less clear is how that leadership affects teachers’ job satisfaction (Wahlstrom &
Louis, 2008). In addition to enhancing student achievement, school leaders must also create the
kind of school environment and exhibit the type of behavior that promotes teacher satisfaction.
Teacher Job Satisfaction
A growing body of research on effective schools has consistently pointed to the
importance of responsible, assertive, visible school leadership for school success (Sergiovanni,
1999). School leaders have a direct influence on teachers and the effectiveness of the teaching-
learning relationships (Cotton, 2003; Mulford, 2003). Researchers have investigated the
relationship between school leader behaviors and teacher satisfaction (Davis & Wilson, 2000;
Lester, 1990; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory,
2000; Tye & O’Brien, 2002). According to Barth (2006), the nature of relationships among
teachers and principals has a greater influence on the culture of that school and on student
achievement than anything else. Barth goes on to say that if the relationships between
administrators and teachers are trusting, helpful, and cooperative, then the relationships between
teachers and students, between students and students, and between teachers and parents are likely
to be the same.
While leadership is a critical component of an effective school, Goodlad (2004) warned
that it would be a mistake to identify the school leader as the main factor influencing teacher
satisfaction; however, leader behavior is one of many factors that influence teacher job
satisfaction. The challenge is to identify those factors that school leaders can control leading to
teacher job satisfaction.
Some factors that lead to teacher job satisfaction are rooted in the work of Herzberg,
Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) who identified the satisfying and dissatisfying factors.
According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, people in the work force are influenced by two sets
of factors: motivation factors and hygiene factors. On the one hand, motivation factors, such as
achievement, recognition, responsibility, interest, and growth, if met, can lead to enhanced job
satisfaction. These factors are directly related to four of the thirteen core competencies: unity of
purpose, learning community, collaboration, and professional development. On the other hand,
hygiene factors, such as salary, security, work conditions, quality of supervision, and
interpersonal relations, if neglected, will lead to increased job dissatisfaction. These factors can
be related to the competencies, organizational management and professionalism. Herzberg
postulated that the absence of hygiene factors does not necessarily lead to enhanced satisfaction.
Bogler (2001) suggests that leaders must address motivation factors in order to improve job
satisfaction.
The fact that 50% of new teachers drop out of the profession in the first five years has
propelled improving teachers' job satisfaction to the top of reform initiatives (Woods &
Weasmer, 2004). Waddell (2010) conducted a study to examine critical components that cause
teachers to remain in urban schools past the five-year attrition mark. The results of this
qualitative study indicate the need for school leaders to provide environments in which teachers
are supported and regarded as valued decision makers in their schools. Waddell’s (2010) study

38
also reveals two major categories of leadership behavior influence: external and internal.
External themes included: (a) relationships with coworkers; (b) relationships with principals, and
(c) relationships with students. Internal themes that emerged were (a) perseverance; (b) self-
efficacy; (c) service, and (d) a sense of ownership. Of the external themes, the two that were
experienced by all participants were relationships with co-workers and relationships with
principals.
Teacher job satisfaction is increased through supportive school leaders, teachers
participating in decision making, collegial relationships, quality professional development, and
collaborative work (Waddell, 2010). A teacher’s satisfaction with his or her career may influence
the quality and stability of instruction given to students (NCES, 1997). In fact, teachers who do
not feel supported in their work may not be motivated to do their best work in the classroom.
Using nationally representative samples for public school teachers and principals, Shen, Leslie,
Spybrook, and Ma (2012) inquired into whether principal background and school processes are
related to teacher job satisfaction. The authors found that school processes, particularly career
and working conditions, staff collegiality, administrative support, and to a lesser extent, positive
student behavior and teacher empowerment, are positively associated with teacher job
satisfaction. Of the thirteen (13) competencies, learning community, organizational
management, collaboration, and professionalism speak to these factors.
Wynn and Brown (2008) found that beginning teachers relate principal leadership,
mentoring, and professional learning communities to their job satisfaction. Administrative
support and leadership, student behavior and school atmosphere, and teacher autonomy are
working conditions associated with teacher satisfaction; the more favorable the working
conditions were, the higher the satisfaction scores were (NCES, 1997). Of the thirteen (13)
competencies, learning community and collaboration speak to these factors.
Futernick (2007) reported positive relationships among teachers as a key contributor to
teacher retention and job satisfaction. Teachers in his study experienced greater job satisfaction
because of strong collegial support, input in the operation of the school, and input into what they
teach. Additionally, experienced teachers were drawn to schools with high-quality professional
development and effective principals. Bogler (2001) stated that teachers who experience low
levels of involvement in decision making generally experience low levels of job satisfaction. Of
the thirteen (13) competencies, unity of purpose, professional development, learning community,
and organizational management speak to these factors.
In a study to examine the effect of administrative support on teachers' job satisfaction and
intent to stay in teaching, administrative support was found to be the most significant predictor of
teachers' job satisfaction, while teachers' job satisfaction was the most significant predictor of
teachers' intent to stay in teaching (Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011). Likewise, three intrinsic
motivators --personal teaching efficacy, working with students, and job satisfaction --were
perceived to significantly influence satisfaction and retention (Perrachione, Petersen, & Rosser,
2008). Of the thirteen (13) core competencies, instructional leadership, curriculum and
instruction, and professional development support these findings.
Teacher job satisfaction is paramount in fulfilling the mission of education. In his study
on teacher occupational perceptions and job satisfaction, Bogler (2001) found that teacher
perceptions of occupational prestige, self-esteem, autonomy at work, and professional self-
development contribute the most to job satisfaction. Teachers reported feeling highly satisfied
when their work gave them a sense of self-esteem, provided them with opportunities for self-
development, gave them a feeling of success, and allowed them to participate in determining

39
school practices. The competencies that speak to self-development are professional development
and reflection.
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (1997), administrative
support and leadership, student behavior, school atmosphere, and teacher autonomy are working
conditions associated with teacher satisfaction; the more favorable the working conditions were,
the higher the satisfaction scores were. Additionally, the study found that teachers with greater
autonomy show higher levels of satisfaction than teachers who feel they have less autonomy.
Administrative support, student behavior, and feelings of control were consistently shown to be
associated with teacher job satisfaction. All of the thirteen (13) core competencies speak to these
factors as the core competencies influence leader behavior which leads to teacher job satisfaction
and, consequently, effective instruction.
In this era of increased accountability and pressure to improve student achievement,
principals are being asked to focus on developing effective leadership behaviors as they face the
challenges of improving instruction and maintaining teacher job satisfaction. What we do not
know is which leader behaviors increase job satisfaction of teachers. If, as the literature suggests,
principals’ behaviors influence teacher job satisfaction and teacher job satisfaction leads to
enhanced student achievement, then determining the leadership behaviors of effective principals
that lead to higher levels of teacher job satisfaction is imperative (Darling-Hammond, 2007;
Lester, 1990; Prince, 2007). Given the current focus on leadership behavior and teacher job
satisfaction, these researchers sought to determine if teacher job satisfaction is enhanced when
leaders exhibit behaviors informed by Green’s (2010) thirteen (13) core competencies.
Theoretical Framework
According to Yukl (1999), no single theory should be expected to include all aspects of
leadership behavior. He observes that much of the research over the last fifty (50) years has
involved dyadic (one individual to another specific individual) relationships between a leader
and a follower. Within this context, he goes on to look at a number of follower-based theories,
including leader-member exchange which emphasizes the importance of the follower role to a
leader. The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory is one of the most recent theories of
leadership and one of the first to include the follower in leadership processes. The central focus
of this theory is on the relationship or dyadic exchange between the supervisor and subordinates
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
is grounded partly in role theory, (Graen, 1976) focuses on the two-way relationship between
supervisors and subordinates, and aims to maximize organizational success by establishing
positive interactions between the two (Trunckenbrodt, 2000).
Leader-member exchange focuses on creating positive relationships between leader and
members, thus increasing organizational success. The role of the leader is to create an engaging
work environment by establishing positive relationships.
The quality of relationships between leaders and followers is often studied via LMX
theory and can be used to describe a reason for the development of positive and effective
relationships (Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2009).
The LMX theory conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the
interactions between leaders and followers that lead to relationship development. The research
gives attention to the differences in the quality of those relationships. Relationships that are
positive lead to positive outcomes (Clemens, Milson, & Cashwell, 2009) and increased job

40
satisfaction (Harris et al., 2009). The quality of LMX affects members’ work ethics, productivity,
satisfaction, and perceptions. High-quality relationships are likely to develop to a point where
there is a high degree of trust, mutual dependence, support, and loyalty. From the follower’s
perspective, leaders who are perceived to be competent, experienced, fair, and honest are more
likely to be supported, thus leading to job satisfaction.
The study examined the relationship between leader behavior informed by Green’s
(2010) thirteen (13) core competencies and teacher job satisfaction. Figure 1 summarizes the
relationship between leader-member exchange, leader behavior, and teacher job satisfaction in a
conceptual model.
Figure 1. The relationship between leader behavior and teacher job satisfaction.
This figure provides a conceptual model for studying the relationship of LMX to leader behavior
and teacher job satisfaction.
Methodology
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to determine: (a) the extent to
which school leaders perceive Green’s (2010) thirteen 13 core leadership competencies to be
important; (b) the extent to which leaders exhibit behaviors informed by the competencies; (c)
Leader-Teacher
Relationship
Reduced
Job Satisfaction
Enhanced
Job Satisfaction
Low
Quality
High
Leader Behavior
Informed by 13
Core
Teacher
Perception
of LeaderBehavior

41
the extent to which teachers believe their principals exhibit behaviors informed by the
competencies, and (d) the relationship, if any, between the extent to which teachers perceive that
their principals’ behavior is informed by the competencies and their level of teacher job
satisfaction. The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. To what extent, if any, do school leaders perceive the thirteen (13) core competencies
to be important?
2. To what extent, if any, do the thirteen (13) core competencies inform the behavior of
school leaders in the administration of their schools?
3. To what extent do teachers perceive that the school leader exhibits behaviors informed
by the thirteen (13) core competencies?
3. Is there a relationship between the job satisfaction of teachers and the extent to which
they perceive that their school leader’s behavior is informed by the competencies?
Sample Population and Demographics
Principals and teachers in three school districts in the southeast United States were
selected to participate in the study. The three districts were chosen through convenience
sampling. According to district websites, the three school districts consist of 42 elementary
schools, 17 middle schools, and 11 high schools for a total of 70 schools, each with one
principal.
With approval of each district’s superintendent, the Leadership Behavior Inventory
(Green, 2006) was sent to all 70 principals within the three districts. A total of 62 principals
responded to the surveys and provided information as to the importance they place on the
behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies and the frequency to which they
exhibit those behaviors. The responses resulted in an overall return rate of 88.7%.
Demographics of the principal population were collected to guide the researchers during
the analysis of data for this study and to provide data for future research regarding characteristics
and qualities that might have an effect on leader behavior. In regard to gender, the majority of
the principals who participated in the study were female (76%). Seventy-nine percent of the
principals had 10 or less years of experience as a principal. This demographic data is shown in
Table 1.

42
Table 1
Principal Demographics
Frequency %
Gender
Male
Female
15
47
24%
76%
Years of Teaching Experience
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
20+ years
5
13
20
24
8%
21%
32%
39%
Years of Principal Experience
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
20+ years
30
19
7
6
48%
31%
11%
10%
Note. N = 62
Instrumentation
Two different questionnaires were used to collect data from principals and teachers: The
Leadership Behavior Inventory (Green, 2006) and The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire (Bentley &
Rempel, 1980).
The Leadership Behavior Inventory (LBI) was developed under the leadership of Dr.
Reginald Leon Green, Professor at the University of Memphis, in 2006 (Green, 2006). Two
forms of the inventory were developed to assess the principal’s behavior: (1) the “self” version,
to be completed by the principal and (2) the “teacher” version, to be completed by the teachers
supervised by the principal. Both versions contain the same questions.
The independent leader behavior was measured using the Leadership Behavior Inventory.
The inventory consists of 39 items, seeking responses on a Likert-type scale. For each item, the
inventory asks respondents to indicate whether the school leader exhibits a specific behavior
almost always, frequently, occasionally, seldom, or never. Two versions of the Leadership
Behavior Inventory were used. One measured principals’ perceptions regarding their own
leadership behaviors [Appendix D], and another measured teachers’ perceptions regarding the
leadership behavior of their principals [Appendix E]. Each competency was measured by three
statements, and the mean competency score was calculated for each category. The survey was
administered online using ProQuest, a web-based survey collection survey.
The Leadership Behavior Inventory was content validated by peer judgments made by 20
school leaders and 136 teachers in a study by Ivie (2007). The school leaders and teachers
chosen were asked to answer as to whether the statement accurately reflected the designated
competency and whether the question was easy to understand. Some of the wording of the

43
questions was changed after receiving feedback. The inventory was then field-tested by teachers
(Ivie, 2007).
The Leadership Behavior Inventory reliability study was conducted through survey
completion for teachers. Reliability was calculated for the instrument using means with
Cronbach’s alpha and split-half reliability. The Leadership Behavior Inventory had a high level
of internal consistency with an alpha of .905. The Cronbach’s alpha levels by individual
competency domain were also high, ranging from .899 to .912. The split-half alpha ranged
from .825 to .827, with correlation between .832, and the Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
was .908 (Ivie, 2007).
The dependent variable, teacher job satisfaction, was obtained using the Purdue Teacher
Opinionaire by having teachers indicate their degree of satisfaction on ten different subscales.
Bentley and Rempel (1980) designed the opinionaire to measure teachers’ opinions about their
school (work) environment and morale.
The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire is a standardized instrument that asks teachers to
respond to one-hundred (100) questions on a Likert-type scale, that scores and indicates how the
respondents feel about certain questions or issues and investigates10 factors of morale that
include: teacher rapport with the principal; satisfaction with teaching; rapport among teachers;
teacher salary; teacher load; curriculum issues; teacher status; community support; school
facilities and services, and community pressures. The end product is a subset of scores that helps
to determine an overall job satisfaction measurement.
The reliability of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire (PTO) was determined by
administering the survey to over 3,000 teachers in sixty Indiana schools and sixteen Oregon
schools. After the initial administration, Bentley and Rempel (1980) waited four weeks and
administered the opinionaire again. Results indicated that the instrument’s reliability is very
strong, with a range of .62 to .88 for the various factors and a total score of .87.
The validity of the PTO was established by having principals at the Indiana and Oregon
schools report how they thought their respective faculties would respond to the factors. Median
scores were used to compare teachers’ responses with the responses of the principals. Results
indicated that the scores were not significantly different.
Data Collection
Data were collected through surveys measuring the extent and frequency to which the
school leaders believe that they exhibit behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core
competencies, the extent to which teachers perceive that school leaders exhibit those behaviors,
and teacher job satisfaction. Both surveys were administered online, and data were collected
online using ProQuest, a web-based survey collection software.
Data Analysis
Quantitative methods were used to determine if there is a relationship between the extent
to which principals believe their behaviors are informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies,
teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s behavior as measured by the Leadership Behavior
Inventory, and teacher job satisfaction as measured by the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire. In order
to examine the results, descriptive data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS version 20.0-not in references) to answer research questions one, two, and, three.

44
Correlational analyses were used to determine the significant relationship among variables and to
answer research question four.
Results
Principals indicated the perceived importance they place on a specific behavior informed
by the thirteen (13) core competencies using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = unimportant, 2 = of
little importance, 3 = moderately important, 4 = important, or, 5 = very important). Results
revealed that principals perceived behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies to
be important. The average mean score for each competency was 4.58 or higher. The top four
most important core competencies, as perceived by the principals, were (a) assessment (M =
4.81); (b) inquiry (M = 4.77); (c) learning community (M = 4.76) and, (d) professionalism (M =
4.76).
Overall, principals in this population place importance on leader behaviors informed by
all of the thirteen (13) core competencies. Though all of the competencies were deemed
important by the principals, the least amount of importance was placed on (a) collaboration (M =
4.61); (b) curriculum and instruction (M = 4.60); (c) professional development (M = 4.60) and,
(d) unity of purpose (M = 4.58). Figure 2 shows the mean score for principals regarding the
extent to which they perceived behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies to be
important to them in their role as school leaders.
Figure 2. The importance principals place on the thirteen (13) core competencies. This
figure shows the average importance that principals placed on each competency.
N = 62
Principals indicated the extent to which they used behaviors informed by the thirteen (13)
4.81
4.77 4.76 4.76
4.71
4.69 4.68
4.66 4.65
4.61 4.60 4.60
4.58
4.45
4.50
4.55
4.60
4.65
4.70
4.75
4.80
4.85

45
core competencies, using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = occasionally, 4
= frequently, or, 5 = always). Results revealed that principals perceived that they frequently
exhibited behaviors informed by all of the core competencies (M = 4.27 or higher). The top four
most frequently used core competencies, as perceived by principals, were (a) assessment (M =
4.61); (b) organizational management (M = 4.53); (c) inquiry (M = 4.50), and (d) learning
community (M = 4.48). The competencies used least by principals in the population sample
were: (a) unity of purpose (M = 4.31); (b) professional development (M =4.31); (c) collaboration
(M = 4.31), and (d) curriculum and instruction. Figure 3 shows the mean scores of the principals
regarding the frequency they perceived that they exhibited behaviors informed by the thirteen
(13) core competencies.
Figure 3. The frequency principals exhibit the thirteen (13) core competencies. This figure
shows the average frequency that principals used behaviors informed by the thirteen (13)
competencies.
N = 62
Results reveal that teachers believed that their principals frequently exhibited behaviors
informed by all of the thirteen (13) core competencies (between M = 4.05 and M = 4.59). The
top four competences exhibited most often by principals, as perceived by teachers, were: (a)
assessment (M = 4.59); (b) curriculum and instruction (M = 4.55); (c) unity of purpose (M =
4.47), and (d) collaboration (M = 4.46). Although teachers believed that their principals
frequently exhibited behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies, instructional
leadership (M = 4.05) was perceived by teachers to be the least used by principals. Figure 4
shows the mean score for teachers regarding their perceptions on the extent to which their
principals exhibited behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies.
4.61
4.53
4.5 4.48 4.48 4.47 4.45
4.40
4.37
4.31 4.31 4.31
4.27
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

46
Figure 4. The frequency teachers perceive principals exhibit behavior informed by the 13
core competencies. This figure shows the average frequency that teachers perceived
principals used behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) competencies.
N = 346
Of the top four competencies indicated by teachers, principals also believed that they
most frequently exhibited behaviors informed by assessment (M = 4.61). Teachers indicated that
the competency used least by their principals was instructional leadership (M = 4.05). Principals
identified unity of purpose (M = 4.58) as the competency least used. Table 2 shows comparisons
between principals’ perceptions and teachers’ perceptions regarding the frequency principals
used behaviors informed by the core competencies.
Teacher Perception and Teacher Job Satisfaction
When examining the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and the extent to which
principals exhibited behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) competencies, a significant
correlation was found between teacher job satisfaction and teachers’ perceptions regarding the
frequency of which principals exhibited behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core
competencies (r =.616, p < 0.01). The significance of this correlation provides strong evidence
for the presence of a significant relationship. This suggests that the higher the teacher’s
perception regarding the extent to which a principal exhibited behaviors informed by the thirteen
(13) core competencies, the higher the teacher’s job satisfaction.
4.59
4.55
4.47 4.46
4.39 4.37 4.37 4.35 4.35 4.34
4.29
4.25
4.05
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

47
Table 2
Correlations Between Teacher Job Satisfaction and Teachers’ Perceptions
Regarding the Importance of and the Extent to which Principals Exhibit
Behaviors Informed by the thirteen (13) Core Competencies
Pearson’s r p
Importance
Frequency
.616
.645
.000
.000
Note. Correlation is significant at the 0.01level (2-tailed).
N = 346 for each group.
Pearson r2 value (.379) indicates that approximately 38% of the variability of teachers’
job satisfaction is related to their perceptions of the frequency in which the principal used
behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies. This value represents a moderate
effect size for the relationship between these two variables. Overall, the results imply that
teachers in this study have higher job satisfaction when they perceive their leaders exhibit
behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies.
The findings also revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between teacher
job satisfaction and the importance principals place on behaviors informed by the thirteen (13)
core competencies (r = .645, p < 0.01). According to Waddell (2010), effective principals
provide environments in which teachers are supported and regarded as valued decision makers in
their schools. The findings indicate that teachers in this population sample believe principals to
value and use behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies.
Discussion
The Importance of the 13 Core Competencies
The study sought to determine the extent, if any, to which school leaders perceived the
thirteen (13) core competencies to be important. Analysis of the data revealed that principals
from the population sample believe the thirteen (13) core competencies to be important in the
administration of their schools. In the literature, the top competencies that leaders need to have in
order to enhance teaching and learning and to transform underperforming schools are to: (a)
articulate a clear vision for high student achievement; (b) demonstrate the ability to analyze and
use data to identify student needs, inform instruction, and provide high-quality professional
development; (c) develop, implement, and evaluate rigorous curricula to accelerate student
achievement; (d) support the development of all teachers; and (e) manage resources and
operations that support student learning. Principals’ perceptions mirror the literature reports in
regard to competencies needed by leaders in 21st century schools.

48
Leader Behavior Informed by the 13 Core Competencies
In addition to believing that the thirteen (13) core competencies are important, principals
in the study reported that they perceived that they frequently used behaviors informed by the
thirteen (13) core competencies. Davis et al. (2005) identified three aspects of the principal’s job:
(a) developing a deep understanding of how to support teachers; (b) managing the curriculum in
ways that promote student learning, and (c) developing the ability to transform schools into more
effective organizations that foster powerful teaching and learning for all students. These findings
are reflected in the thirteen (13) core competencies, specifically, (a) professional development;
(b) curriculum and instruction, and (c) organizational management. The thirteen (13) core
competencies inform leader behaviors that focus on what is essential, what needs to be done, and
how to get it done to improve teaching and learning (Green, 2010).
The Perception of Teachers Regarding the Behavior of Their Principal
The teacher perception data shows that principals frequently used behaviors informed by
all of the thirteen (13) core competencies. Administrative support and leadership, school
atmosphere, and teacher autonomy are working conditions associated with teacher satisfaction
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1997). The more favorable the working conditions
were, the higher the satisfaction. Administrative support was cited in the literature review as
being one of the top indicators of teacher job satisfaction (National Center for Education
Statistics, 1997; Shen et al., 2012; Waddell, 2010). Ross and Gray (2006) found that principals
who use transformational leader behavior (i.e. giving teachers opportunities to participate in
developing school goals, diagnosing instructional needs, and providing appropriate professional
development) were likely to have a positive impact on teachers’ beliefs about their capacity and
commitment to organizational values. The top four most frequently used competencies, as
identified by both teachers and principals, describe the type of transformational leader behavior
identified in the literature.
The Relationship Between Principal Behavior and Teacher Job Satisfaction
The results from the teachers’ perceptions of the principals’ behavior and the relationship
to job satisfaction are consistent with previous research indicating their importance. School
leaders must create the kind of school environment and exhibit the type of behavior that
promotes teacher satisfaction (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Waddell (2010) declared that teacher
job satisfaction is increased through supportive school leaders, teachers participating in decision-
making, collegial relationships, quality professional development, and collaborative work. Price
(2012) found that the level of job satisfaction among teachers is directly affected by the
relationship with their principals. As evidenced by the strong correlation between teachers’
perceptions of leaders’ behavior and teachers’ job satisfaction, if principals exhibit behavior
informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies, teacher satisfaction will be enhanced.
Goodlad (2004) emphasized the importance of identifying factors that school leaders can
control which lead to teacher job satisfaction. The current exploration of teacher job satisfaction
and leadership behavior was based on three assumptions: (a) the relationship between teacher job
satisfaction and the behavior of the school leader (Bishay, 1996; Bogler, 2001; Chong, 2010;
Futernick, 2007; Tickle et al., 2011; Waddell, 2010; Wynn & Brown, 2008); (b) the thirteen (13)

49
core competences that inform school leader behavior for effective principals of 21st -century
schools (Green, 2010); and (c) the relationship between principals exhibiting behavior informed
by the thirteen (13) core competencies and the level of teacher job satisfaction will be enhanced
(Green, 2010; Ivie, 2007).
Limitations of the Study
This study is restrictive in that the findings represent a convenience sample population
consisting of school principals and teachers from three school districts in the southeastern United
States. Therefore, the findings may not accurately represent perceptions of principals and
teachers in all educational settings. Also, the study did not examine differences in teacher
perceptions of principal behavior and teacher job satisfaction with respect to demographic
information. Schools with different demographic information, such as age, gender, grades taught,
education level, or years of teaching experience in their current school, might reveal different
results (Anderman, 1991; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001). It should also be noted that
differences in principal behavior foster cultural differences within a school which could affect
the satisfaction level of teachers (Anderman, 1991).
Conclusion
The findings of the study are significant to the rapidly changing era of standards-based
reform and accountability that has fueled a shift in the role of the principal. Principals can no
longer function solely as building managers. They are required to become leaders of learning
who can develop a team of teachers who deliver effective instruction (Dufour & Eaker, 1998;
Dufour & Marzano, 2011; Wallace Foundation, 2011). Thirty years of research has shown that
effective principals can significantly influence student achievement and turn around failing
schools (Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005). Acquiring and mastering the necessary
skills to significantly influence student achievement can be challenging for principals. From a
preponderance of the literature, Green (2010) identified thirteen (13) core competencies that
describe what school leaders should be able to do and inform the knowledge and skills that
research has concluded are necessary for effective practice in school reform. This study
confirms past research stating that school leaders who exhibit behaviors informed by the thirteen
(13) core competencies are equipped to create positive learning environments that enhance
teacher motivation, increase teacher job satisfaction, and increase teacher efficacy (Farmer,
2010; Fee, 2008; Green, 2010; Ivie, 2007).
The literature review included many studies that support the notion that leadership
behavior clearly impacts teacher job satisfaction. Another theme that emerged from the review
of existing research was that effective school leaders possess skills used to forge collaborative
relationships with their teachers. Results of this study indicate that principals place importance
on and use the thirteen (13) core competencies in their daily responsibilities as school leaders.
Teachers in the study population indicated that they perceive that their principals frequently
display behaviors informed by the thirteen (13) core competencies. The correlation of data
revealed that job satisfaction is enhanced when teachers perceive that their principals practice
leader behaviors informed by the thirteen core competencies.

50
References
Anderman, E. M. (1991). Teacher commitment and job satisfaction: The role of school culture
and principal leadership. National Center For School Leadership. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational
Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.
Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership,
63(6), 8-13.
Bishay, A. (Fall, 1996). Teacher motivation and job satisfaction: a study employing the
experience sampling method. Journal of Undergraduate Science, 3, 147-154.
Bentley, R., & Rempel, A. (1980). Manual for the Purdue teacher opinionaire (2nd ed.). West
Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue Research Foundation.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers' perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P. B. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.
Bulach, C., Boothe, D., & Pickett, W. (2000). Analyzing the leadership behavior of school
principals. The Connexions Project. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m13813/1.1/
Chong, S. (2010). Herzberg: The two-factor theory and project management [Internet]. Version
6. Knol. Retrieved from:
http://knol.google.com/k/stevenchong/frederickherzberg/2e3144udfqrpg/9
Clemens, E. V., Milson, A., & Cashwell, C. S. (2009). Using leader-member exchange theory to
examine principal-school counselor relationships, school counselors' roles, job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Professional School Counseling , 13, 75-85.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (1996). Interstate school leader licensure
consortium: Standards for school leaders. Boston, MA: Author.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad approach to leadership within
formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13,46-78.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Recognizing and enhancing teacher effectiveness: A policy
maker’s guide. In J. Manise (Ed.), Strengthening teacher quality in high need schools -
policy and practice (pp. 1-26). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance
assessments can measure and improve teaching. Retrieved from the Center for American
Progress website:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdf
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership
study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ effort to empower teachers: Effects on teacher
motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House, 73(6), 349-353.

51
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998) Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Dufour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of learning. How district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Eaker, R., & Gonzalez, D. (2006). Leading in professional learning communities. National
Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision journal, 24(1), 6-13.
Edgerson, D. E., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). Analysis of the influence of principal-teacher
relationships on student academic achievement: A national focus. Doctoral Forum:
National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 1(1).
Farmer, A. (2010). The perception of teachers and principals on leaders’ behavior informed by
13 core competencies and its relationship to teacher motivation. (Unpublished
Dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Fee, C. (2008). Teachers’ and principals’ perception of leader behavior: A discrepancy study
(Unpublished Dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California’s teachers so all students learn.
Sacramento, CA: California State University.
Goodlad, J. I. (2004). A place called school: Twentieth anniversary edition. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making process within complex organizations. In Dunnette, M.D.
(Ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 9,175-208.
Gray, J. L., & Starke, F. A. (1988). Organizational behaviour: Concepts and applications.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Green, R.L. (2006). Leadership behavior inventory for principal (Unpublished instrument).
Memphis, TN: Center for Urban School Leadership, University of Memphis.
Green, R.L. (2009). Practicing the art of leadership. A problem-based approach to
implementing the ISLLC Standards (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Green, R. L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership. A framework for leading 21st
century schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hardy, L. (1999). Why teachers leave. American School Board Journal, 186(6), 12-17.
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. B., & Kacmar, M. (2009). Leader member exchange and
empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371-382.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY:
John Wiley University.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM
Corp.
Ivie, S. C. (2007). School leaders' behavior informed by thirteen core leadership competencies
and the relationship to teacher job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Memphis, Memphis, TN.

52
Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management(Report Number EDO-EA-02-07) . Eugene, OR: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
LaPointe, M., & Davis, S. (2006). Exemplary programs produce strong instructional leaders.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Retrieved from
http://seli.stanford.edu/research/documents/ucea_papers/sls_ucea_leaders.pdf
Leithwood, K., Seashore, L., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning (review of research). The Wallace Foundation,
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education. Retrieved from the Wallace Foundation website:
http://www.wallacefoundation.org
Lester, P. E. (1990). Fifty ways to improve teacher morale. The Clearing House, 63(6), 274-
275. Retrieved online from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30188495
Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development,
Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school
effectiveness. A paper commissioned by the Education and Training Policy Division,
OECD, for the Activity Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers,
University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.
National Association of Elementary Schools. (2001). Leading learning communities: Standards
for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: NAESP.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s
teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher
compensation. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (Statistical Analysis Report). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97471.pdf
O’Donnell, R.J., & White, G.P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals’ instructional
leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(845), 56-71.
Pearson, L., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress,
work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Education Research Quarterly,
29(1), 37-53.
Perrachione, B., Petersen, G., & Rosser, V. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers'
perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 1-17.
Retrieved from OmniFile Full Text Mega database.
Price, H. E. (2012). Principal-teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal
and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39-85.
Prince, C. D. (2007). The role of leadership on teacher attrition in high-need schools. In J.
Manise (Ed.), Strengthening teacher quality in high need schools - policy and practice
(pp. 94-133). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Public Impact (2009). School turnaround leaders: Competencies for success. A report for the
Chicago Public School Fund. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.
Ross, J., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects
of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798‐822.

53
Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. (2010). Rethinking teacher evaluations: Findings from
the first year of the excellence in teaching project in Chicago public schools. Chicago IL:
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from
ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/Teacher%20Eval%20Final.pdf
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shen, J., Leslie, J., Spybrook, J., & Ma, X. (2012). Are principal background and school process
related to teacher job satisfaction? A multilevel study using schools and staffing survey
2003-04. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 200-230.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2011). Measuring a teacher’s value and effectiveness in
SREB states (Policy Brief No. 11E14). Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from
http://publications.sreb.org/2011/11E14_Value_Teacher1.pdf
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2000). Creating a context conducive to
change. Retrieved from www.sedl.org/csrd/connections/april2000/april2000.pdf
Tickle, B., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on U.S.
public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 342-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.002
Truckenbrodt, Y. B. (2000, Summer). The relationship between leader-member exchange and
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Acquisition of Review Quarterly, 7,
233-243.
Tye, B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(1), 24-33.
Waddell, J. (2010). Fostering relationships to increase teacher retention in urban schools.
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(1), 70-85. Retrieved from
http://www.joci.ecu.edu
Wallace Foundation. (2011). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching
and learning. The Wallace Perspective. New York, NY. Retrieved from the Wallace
Foundation website: www.wallacefoundation.org
Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles
of professional community, trust, efficacy and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of
standards for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Aurora, CO: Mid-
continental Research for Education and Learning.
Waters, J.T., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B.A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-
continental Research for Education and Learning.
Woods, A. M., & Weasmer, J. (2004). Maintaining job satisfaction: Engaging professionals as
active participants. The Clearing House, 77(3), 118-121. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30185892
Wynn, S. R., & Brown, K. M (2008). Principal leadership and professional learning
communities: What beginning teachers value. International Journal of Educational
Reform, 17(1), 37-63.
Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.

54
Authors
Detris Crane, Ed. D. is the principal of Lucy Elementary School, Shelby County Schools –
Millington, Tennessee.
Reginald Leon Green, Ed. D. is Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of
Education at the University of Memphis. Dr. Green teaches courses in educational leadership
with a focus on instructional leadership, school reform, and models for turning around low
performing schools. His research interests include school leadership, team building for effective
teaching and learning, superintendent/board relations, school district restructuring, and the
effects of nurturing characteristics on the academic achievement of students.

Dr. Reginald Leon Green

More Related Content

Similar to Dr. Reginald Leon Green

Recently uploaded

Dr. Reginald Leon Green