Understanding Role-Making in Leadership Performance

  • John Mancinelli
  • Michele Acker-Hocevar


With high-stakes educational environment, principals need to reconceptualize their leadership in order to make their schools responsive, adaptive, and productive. This is a challenge for principals that have emerged from the ranks of the teaching ranks, typically learning their leadership frameworks by “taking” their role from previous principals and concepts of leadership they have experienced. The phenomenon of strict adherence to a predefined role is referred to as role-taking by Hart (Principal succession: establishing leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993) and because of today’s high-stakes environment, has become an out-of-date way of thinking about the leadership role because of its static view and disregard for reciprocal leadership grounded in a dynamic interaction between the students, teachers, central office, parents, and the community. This chapter explores how principals can shift their traditional role-taking processes to role-making processes that are performance-based, relational, reflective, contextual, and involve collaborative reciprocating engagement of constituents to adequately address the complexities of educational reform.


  1. Abbott, M. L., & Fouts, J. T. (2003). Constructivist teaching and student achievement: The results of the school – Level classroom observation study Washington (trans: Education). Seattle: The Washington School Research Center (WSRC), Seattle Pacific University.Google Scholar
  2. Acker-Hocevar, M., Cruz-Janzen, M., & Wilson, C. (2012). Leadership from the ground up: Effective schooling in traditionally low performing schools. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing Inc..Google Scholar
  3. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Barringer, W. R. (2006). Leadership and learning: A comparative case study of leadership practices in two Washington State High Schools. Doctorate Doctoral, Washington State University. University Resources.Google Scholar
  5. Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. (Research report RB637), 10.Google Scholar
  6. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations artistry, choice, and leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Borman, G., & Kimball, S. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do teachers with higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? Chicago Journals, 106(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (p. 181). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (Vol. 1, pp. 127–162). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cawelti, G. (1984). Behavior patterns of effective principals. Educational Leadership, 41, 3–3.Google Scholar
  11. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. doi: 10.1177/089504805276143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375–395. doi: 10.3102/01623737025004375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copland, M. A., Talbert, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (2003). In M. A. Copland & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  14. Crow, G. M. (2010). Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: Perspectives on socialization. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 310–323. doi: 10.1108/09578230610674930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools, SUNY series in educational leadership. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement (Vol. 8).Google Scholar
  19. Drago-Severson, E. (2012). The need for principal renewal: The promise of sustaining principals through principal-to-principal reflective practice. Teachers College Record, 114, 56.Google Scholar
  20. Dwyer, D. C. (1984). The search for instructional leadership: Routines and subtleties in the principal’s role. Educational Leadership, 41, 32–37.Google Scholar
  21. Dwyer, D. C. (1985). Understanding the principal’s contribution to instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1), 3–18. doi: 10.2307/1492627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Emison, G. A. (2004). Pragmatism, adaptation, and total quality management: Philosophy and science in the service of managing continuous improvement. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(2), 56–61. doi: 10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2004)20:2(56) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education (p. ix, 68p). Santa Monica: Rand Corporation/National Institute of Education (U.S.).Google Scholar
  24. Elmore, R. (2000). Leadership for effective middle school practice. Introduction. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(4), 268–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Goldring, E., Huff, J., May, H., & Camburn, E. (2008). School context and individual characteristics: What influences principal practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grashow, A., Linsky, M., & Heifetz, R. A. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  28. Grissom, J. A., & Harrington, J. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: An examination of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. Chicago Journals, 116(4), 583–612.Google Scholar
  29. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247. doi: 10.2307/1001205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44. doi: 10.1177/0013161x96032001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. doi: 10.1080/0924345980090203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 654–678. doi: 10.1177/1741143210379060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart, A. W. (1993). Principal succession: Establishing leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  34. Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals instructional leadership and school performance – Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21–34. doi: 10.3102/01623737014001021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124–134.Google Scholar
  36. Heise, M. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act: The federalization and legalization of educaitonal policy. Fordham Law Review, 63(2), 39.Google Scholar
  37. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2007). Management of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Honig, M. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office Administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 627–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. S. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the institute for learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jorgensen, M. A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). San Antonio: Pearson, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders (p. 32). Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  43. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2010). Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems (p. 42). Seattle, WA: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  44. Lai, E. (2015). Enacting principal leadership: Exploiting situated possibilities to build school capacity for change. Research Papers in Education, 30(1), 70–94. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2014.880939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2008). Turnaround schools and the leadership they require. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar
  47. Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mancinelli, J. L. (2014). What supports do elementary principals need in order to implement teacher evaluation?. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.Google Scholar
  49. McGregor, D. (1957). The human side of enterprise. Reflections: The SoL Journal, 2(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Portin, B. (2004). The roles that principals play. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 14–18.Google Scholar
  51. Portin, B., Alejano, C. R., Knapp, M. S., & Marzolf, E. (2006). Redefining roles, responsibilities, and authority of school leaders (trans: C. o. Education, Vol. 3, p. 41). Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  52. Portin, B. S., Knapp, M. S., Dareff, S., Feldman, S., Russell, F., Samuelson, C., & Yeh, T. L. (2009). Leadership for learning improvement in urban schools (trans: C. f. t. S. o. T. a. Policy, p. 140). Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  53. Reilly, D. H. (1984). The principalship: The need for a new approach. Education, 104, 242–247.Google Scholar
  54. Scribner, J. P. (1998). Teacher efficacy and teacher professional learning. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, St. Louis. Research retrieved from.Google Scholar
  55. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). Constructing and changing theories of practice: The key to preparing school administrators. The Urban Review, 23(1), 39–49. doi: 10.1007/bf01120237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Stien, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–448. doi: 10.3102/01623737025004423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837–848. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. United States National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the secretary of education, United States Department of Education (p. 31). Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education. [Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor].Google Scholar
  60. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad (p. 122). Technical Report. Dallas: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  61. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Mancinelli
    • 1
  • Michele Acker-Hocevar
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington State University, Tri-CitiesRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations