Journal of

Educational Socialization to a new

Administration
33,1
conception of the
principalship
22
Gary M. Crow
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, and
Catherine Glascock
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

Restructuring schools requires a new conception of the role of principal.

Institutions which train potential administrators are confronted with how best
to help them conceive their new role in a way that facilitates restructuring. If we
are to reform schools successfully, we need to understand how individuals, in
the process of moving from novice to professional, change their conception of
the role.
This article reports on a study of candidates in a non-traditional principal
preparation programme in order to examine the socialization process of
developing a conception of the role. Because the programme was designed to
train principals to lead restructured schools, the socialization process focused
on developing innovative rather than custodial conceptions of the role[1-3].
The article begins with a review of the research context on role conception
and professional socialization, then describes the methodology and reports the
findings. The article concludes with implications for training principals and for
research on the socialization of principals.

Research context
The following review of literature is organized in terms of four questions: Why
is the principal’s role conception important? What are the sources of role
conceptions? What are the components of a role conception? What is the
process of socialization to a new role conception?
Before examining literature that emphasizes its importance, we will define
role conception from two perspectives: societal and individual. The societal
perspective defines role conception as an image of a profession as seen by the
community at large or the occupational community in which the profession
exists[4,5]. This image consists of “shared beliefs about the meaning and
mission of occupational group membership in relation to society’’[6].
The second approach to defining role conception is from the individual’s
perspective. Becker and Carper[7], Davis[8], and Hughes[9] identify the
Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 33 No. 1, 1995,
pp. 22-43. © MCB University Press, A version of this article was presented at the annual conference of the University Council for
0957-8234 Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 31 October 1992.
existence of a role conception as a requirement for identifying with a new role. A new
Davis holds that the process takes place when one exchanges a “layman’s view” conception of the
of the role for a professional view[8, p. 237]. “To function effectively in a new principalship
role, a person must develop a way of viewing himself or herself in that role – a
subidentity”[10].

Importance of role conception 23

Various researchers and theorists contend that role conception plays an
important part in the way individuals enact their role. Levinson[11],
Newcomb[12], and Ortiz[13] assert that this conception is an active factor in
transforming prescription into performance. Dwyer et al.[14] and Scott et al.[15]
found that the meaning administrators attach to their actions differs between
those who are effective and ineffective. Effective administrators have a broader
vision of their actions and tasks, which includes values and beliefs that
prioritize tasks, a determination of the ultimate purpose of their role, and an
understanding of how they fit into school reform. The importance for a new
administrator is clear. Becker and Carper[7], along with Davis[8], found that
“ownership of a role” is an essential ingredient in the identification with a new
role. This “ownership” helps to build confidence and to establish effective
strategies for responding to new responsibilities.

Sources of role conception

Four major sources of role conception identified in the literature are societal,
occupational, organizational and individual. Tyack and Hansot[16] demonstrate
the influence that social values have on the image of educational leadership in
the USA. During the common school movement, the educational leader was
thought of as an “evangelical missionary”, establishing the public school
institution. Callahan[17] discusses how values and perspectives of business
leaders influenced school administrators to apply scientific management
techniques to schools. Schlechty[18], more recently, maintains that the historical
image of educational leaders influences the conception of the role today. He
traces the pattern from early administrators viewed as moral leaders passing
on the traditions of society, to business innovators who initiated scientific
techniques, and to chiefs of staff in an institution designed to alleviate pain and
suffering. Schlechty depicts the schools of today and tomorrow as “knowledge-
work organizations” with the focus on learning and the administrator as a
“leader of leaders”.
The second source of role conception is the occupational community.
Button[19] views occupational members as striving continually to upgrade the
status of their roles. Hughes describes individuals as attempting “to revise the
conception that their various publics have of the occupation and of the people
within it. In so doing, they also attempt to revise their own conception of
themselves and their work”[9, p. 44]. Button[19] identifies the way the
principalship in the USA has moved from an emphasis on teaching to one that
is totally administrative.
Journal of Changes which take place in other roles, for example parents, teachers and
Educational students, can also affect the role conception of the administrator[20,21]. For
Administration example, as parents become educational consumers, they demand entrepreneurial
skills in the administrator[22-24].
33,1 Organizations also significantly influence conceptions of a role by the
information provided, deliberately or not, by colleagues, superiors and
24 subordinates[10]. Hughes states that “one of the most important things about
any man is his audience or his choice of the several audiences to which he may
address his claims to be of some worth”[9, p. 43]. Administrators’ audiences
include teachers, other staff, students, colleagues, the superintendent, school
board, parents and other community members[21,22,25-28].
Demographic, geographic and structural elements of an organization
influence role conception. For example, Hallinger and Murphy[29] found that
low SES school administrators assume both a co-ordinating and controlling role
while administrators in high SES schools emphasized co-ordination.
Finally role conception is influenced by the individual. A person’s life stages,
career experiences, and interactions with family, friends and colleagues
influence the way roles are perceived[10,30-32]. Greenfield argues that a more
holistic view of administrators would “recognize that issues of self-development
and events in the non-work dimensions of an individual’s life may well
influence, either positively or negatively, the character of one’s organizational
behaviour at work’’[30, p. 7].
Sergiovanni’s concept of mindscapes offers a useful way to look at how
individuals define their roles. Mindscapes are “mental images and frameworks
through which administrative reality and one’s place within this reality are
envisioned by the person’’[33, p. 45]. They may consist of beliefs concerning
how schools work, the purpose of school, and the nature of leadership.
Sergiovanni suggests that mindscapes act as road maps guiding the person’s
actions and behaviours.

Components of a role conception

Research has emphasized four components which define a particular role
conception: role set relationships, task priorities, language and values.
Greenfield’s[2] discussion of the socialization of new administrators identifies
four dimensions of a typical administrative perspective:
● teacher relationships;
● community relationships;
● superior/colleague relationships; and
● the prioritization of tasks to enhance organizational stability and
maintain effective and efficient school operations.
These features deal with the prioritization of tasks and relationship building
with staff, students, community and superiors. The majority of these features
concern human relations and the impact of interactions on the organization as A new
a whole as well as on the administrator. conception of the
Language is used to articulate the vision of the role and to perform the duties principalship
of the role[34]. Variations in language incorporate the set of rules and codes of
the role which differ depending on the occupational “sub-community”, the
organization and the individual. Language will vary with place, time, and
person-environment fit. 25
The last area of concern is recent in the research arena: values. Foster[35] and
other critical theorists argue that leadership should not be viewed without
understanding the values of both leaders and followers. Quantz et al.[36]
describe a programme which emphasizes leadership values in relation to
democratic authority in schools. Since the discussion of reform in schools and
the role of administrators in those schools is the focus of much research, it is
reasonable to look at those values of the players who participate in establishing
the reforms and the process of conceptualizing their roles.

Socialization mechanisms
Various researchers[10,37,38] have identified three mechanisms in the process
of socialization to a new role: exploration, giving up the previous role, and
adjusting self and new role to each other. Exploration is the seizure of the idea
of the new role as a possibility for one’s self. It may consist merely of a decision
to seek the role or involve many steps of investigation, research and the
gathering of others’ opinions[10].
Giving up the old role, for example a teacher moving to administrator, may
prove to be the most difficult since habits have been established in the old role.
Hall[10] argues that a modification of self-esteem may take place, for example,
moving from a mastery level to a position of novice. Crow et al.[39] found the
shift from master to novice to be a problem for individuals moving from
business to teaching.
Van Mannen and Schein[1] identify this process of leaving an old role as
emphasizing either divesting of the old role or investing in a new role.
Greenfield[2] found that socialization to the principalship typically emphasizes
divestiture, that is, leaving teaching, which may discourage the individual from
retaining particular norms of teaching, for example, a focus on classroom
process and outcomes.
Individuals, who move to a new role, make adjustments in the new role
conception so that they feel comfortable. New relationships are established in
terms of individual needs and perceptions of the new role. Each person
responds to a given situation in a personal manner characteristic of her/himself.
Hart[40], in a more recent discussion of socialization, distinguishes
professional and organizational socialization. Professional socialization deals
with the skills, knowledge and dispositions required to be part of the
profession[41,42]. Organizational socialization comes to the forefront when an
individual assumes a position in a specific organization[43]. These two areas of
Journal of socialization may conflict if the specified organization does not hold the same
Educational values as the professional training environment.
Administration Jones[44] offers a taxonomy which identifies three areas of socialization of the
administrator: context, content, and sociality. Context refers to the situation in
33,1 which the beginning principal must operate; this includes teachers, students,
other administrators and superiors. Content refers to the knowledge to be
26 gained, the manner of presentation and perhaps the limited time given to learn
the material.
Sociality refers to the “use of social forces to influence outcomes’’[44, p. 456].
This sociality may be serial or disjunctive depending on the presence or absence
of a previous role model. Serial sociality exists if there is a strong, previous role
model for the new administrator, while disjunctive sociality exists if no role
model is present. The absence of a role model allows the new administrator to
be innovative and less likely to adhere to old ways and styles of doing business,
while a previous role model may give direction and confidence to the new
administrator. On the negative side, the absence of a role model may cause
initial floundering or lack of confidence, while presence of a role model may
create a more conservative, custodial view of the role[30].

Methodology
The sample for this study consists of the first cohort of candidates in a non-
traditional principal preparation programme at an urban university in eastern
USA. The programme was designed to recruit women and minorities into the
principalship and to prepare these individuals for site-based managed schools.
The university and the city board of education collaborated in the recruitment,
training and placement of candidates. The cohort consisted of 17 individuals (four
men and 13 women) who entered the programme in the autumn of 1989 and
completed it in the winter of 1991.
Data for the study were collected in two ways. First, candidates received and
completed questionnaires on entry to the programme. These questionnaires asked
for career history, circumstances relating to the decision to teach and to enter
administration and a variety of questions concerning their views regarding site-
based management, decision making, and other features of role conception (see
Appendix). Second, candidates were interviewed when they completed the
programme. This semistructured interview focused on their perspectives on the
preparation programme and the principalship: what stood out for them about the
training; what they most looked forward to about the principalship; what they
most dreaded; and their criteria for evaluating themselves as professionals.
Responses to these questions were used to identify sources of role conception,
definitions of role conceptions, and the process of socialization to a role conception.
Questionnaires were received from 16 of the 17 individuals in the first cohort.
The analysis used in this presentation is based on both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies. The quantitative analysis makes use of descriptive
statistics to understand entry level perspectives on the role of the principal. Owing
to the small sample, no attempt is made to draw statistical inferences to larger
populations. The qualitative analysis is based on case reviews of all 16 exit A new
interviews. Patterns and themes were identified from content analysis and conception of the
organized in terms of sources of role conception, definition of role conception, and principalship
mechanisms of socialization to a role conception. These two kinds of analysis
permit us to describe the perspectives of candidates at entry and to understand
how their conception of the role changed during the course of the programme. The
analysis also allows us to identify alternative explanations for the role change. 27

Description of preparation programme

The content and process of the preparation programme must be understood in
order to interpret findings and develop conclusions regarding this study. We
organized this description according to three major elements: selection of
candidates, programme content and programme process.

Selection of candidates
Candidates were recruited and selected in such a way as to find the most able
but possibly overlooked teachers, especially among women and minorities. The
following elements constituted the recruitment and selection process:
(1) Nomination by superintendents with emphasis on identifying excellent
teachers among women and minorities.
(2) Rigorous application process requiring nominees to reflect on career
history, experiences as a teacher/learner, and vision of leadership.
(3) Reference letters from superintendent, principal, and peer along with
documentation of work with adults and children.
(4) First cut selection made by advisory committee consisting of (college)
faculty and board of education staff members.
(5) Videotaped sessions with semifinalists in small groups to assess abilities
to communicate, work co-operatively, influence group opinion and
facilitate group task completion.
(6) Final selection by a panel of recognized experts unaffiliated with the
college who viewed videotapes and read applications[45].
These elements, along with a cohort approach to the preparation, reinforced the
uniqueness of the programme and the selected candidates. At the initial
meeting of the first cohort, the president of the college spoke of the programme
as “the West Point of educational leadership training”. Individuals selected for
the programme knew they were the first cohort in a programme which faculty
and sponsors considered different from traditional administrator training
programmes.

Programme content
The primary aim of the programme was to develop leaders for schools of
tomorrow, characterized by site-based management and shared decision
Journal of making. Although the programme provided experiences as well as content
Educational about the administration of schools as they are typically found today, faculty
Administration were especially concerned that candidates develop the vision and skills to lead
a different type of school, especially one in which student empowerment
33,1 through learning, teacher empowerment and site-based management were
central. Following the custodial versus innovative role distinction[1], the
28 programme designers emphasized experiences which encouraged students to
question traditional caretaker roles of the principal and consider new
definitions of the mission and strategies of the role.
The content of the programme consisted of three major components:
theoretical, experiential and analytical. The primary features of each
component are:
(1) Theoretical component:
● use of conceptual approaches from social sciences, literature and art
to provide multiple perspectives on educational processes;
● foundations course on adult development, curriculum development,
organizational diagnosis and leadership; and
● skill courses, such as supervision, finance, and planning.
(2) Experiential component:
● paid, semester-long, full-time internship with mentor;
● college faculty adviser to plan internship, lead cohort advisement
conferences, and help candidates reflect on experiences;
● on-site visits to exemplary programmes; and
● two laboratories: communication and leadership.
(3) Analytical component:
● introduction to research methodologies to diagnose schools and
implement change strategies; and
● action research project on a school innovation.

Programme process
Candidates progressed through the programme in a cohort, which reinforced a
“shared ordeal’’[46] quality to the programme. Course assignments, outdoor
leadership experiences, and advisement conferences emphasized group
cohesiveness and co-operation. The released time internship with a mentor and
frequent conferences with college faculty encouraged the development of an
innovative role orientation. Throughout the programme, candidates were
reminded that both the college and the board of education viewed them as a
select cadre of potential leaders.
At the inception of the programme, a decision was made to emphasize
collaboration between the college and board of education by appointing
codirectors, one from each institution. The board of education codirector was
not appointed until after the first cohort began. Soon thereafter, the college A new
codirector acquired other responsibilities which reduced the time she had conception of the
available to the programme. Some candidates felt that the increased role of the principalship
board of education codirector, together with the gradual separation from the
programme of the first group of college faculty, led to a bureaucratization of the
programme and a less nurturing atmosphere.
At the end of the programme, candidates expected to be placed in schools, 29
either as assistant principals or principals. Just before the programme ended,
however, a severe budget crisis resulted in cutbacks for the school system and
difficulty in placing all the candidates. One year after the end of the programme,
nine of the 17 individuals had received some type of administrative
appointment, either at the school or district level. Three of these were acting or
interim principals/directors of schools and three were acting assistant
principals.

Socialization to a new conception of the principalship

Our analysis and interpretation of the data are organized in terms of three
major components outlined in the research context section: sources of role
conception, definitions of role conception and the socialization process of
developing a role conception. We use information from the previous description
of the programme, quantitative analysis of data from the entry questionnaires,
and qualitative analysis from the exit interviews.

Sources of role conception

Data used in this study permit us to identify sources of role conception at two
points in time: at the beginning of the programme prior to the internship and at
the end of the programme.
Entry data. When asked to describe the circumstances leading to their
aspiration to the principalship, candidates identified the nature of the job as the
major factor (see Table I).
These individuals arrived at their training experiences with some awareness –
of the nature of the principal’s job. Because of their long tenure as teachers (X=
17.3 years), this group had ample opportunity to witness principals. Although
they may have some misconceptions of the role, they are unlikely to be deceived
completely regarding what principals do. When candidates reflected on their

External influences 7 (19.4%)

Nature of the job 24 (66.7%)
Supervisory experience 3 (8.3%)
Other 2 (5.6%)
Total 36 (100%) Table I.
Influences leading to
Note: statistics are based on number of mentions rather than cases
aspiration for
principalship
Journal of previous work as a teacher or in another educational position, they identified
Educational three major types of skills which they felt will be helpful when they become
Administration principals: interpersonal, special tasks and leadership (see Table II).
Interpersonal skills, which is the category most frequently mentioned, include
33,1
communicating, motivating, and working with diverse groups. Special task
skills include such areas as organizing and evaluating. The category of
30 leadership includes decisiveness, assertiveness, flexibility and facilitative skills.
These perceptions suggest they saw administration as concerned primarily
with interpersonal relations rather than an expansion of instructional roles.
These candidates, unlike many teachers, explored other occupations before
entering education. Such an experience may provide an awareness of
alternative ways to conceive the role which typically are not characteristic of
educational administrators. The importance of interpersonal skills developed in
teaching is reinforced by prior occupations (see Table III). These candidates
apparently do not perceive any special benefits from their work in other
occupations which differ from those benefits derived from being a teacher.
We also asked candidates to describe a principal with whom they had
worked. If, as Greenfield[2] suggests, most principal candidates are primarily
socialized by incumbents in the role, this question should provide important
information regarding the kind of role conceptions they witnessed.
The candidates’ descriptions fall primarily into two categories: work with
students and work with adults. As can be seen in Table IV, only 9.7 per cent of
the candidates’ comments describe their principals as innovators. Over 70 per
cent of the responses involve positive comments about their principal. So we are

Interpersonal skills 33 (41.3%)

Special task skills 19 (23.8%)
Leadership skills 23 (28.8%)
Other 5 (6.3%)
Total 80 (100%)
Table II.
Note: statistics are based on number of mentions rather than cases
Prior occupational
skills: education

Interpersonal skills 17 (37.0%)

Special task skills 13 (28.3%)
Leadership skills 13 (28.3%)
Other 3 (6.5%)
Total 46 (100%)
Table III.
Note: statistics are based on number of mentions rather than cases
Prior occupational
skills: non-education
Positive: works with students 10 (32.3%)
A new
Positive: works with adults 8 (25.8%)
conception of the
Positive: personal qualities 4 (12.9%)
principalship
Positive: interested in innovation 3 (9.7%)
Negative: interpersonal skills 4 (12.9%)
Negative: leadership skills 1 (3.2%)
31
Negative: other 1 (3.2%)
Total 31 (100%) Table IV.
Note: statistics are based on number of mentions rather than cases Descriptions of
principals they have
known

inclined to think these principals had an influence on the candidates’

perceptions of acceptable role conceptions.
These questions identify three major sources of role conception at entry into
the preparation programme: their presocialization experiences in which they
witnessed principals performing jobs, their previous experiences as teachers
and outside education where certain skills are perceived as beneficial for
administration, and their perception of principals with whom they worked.
Although our data do not provide a way to determine the potency of these
sources, they suggest these candidates entered the programme with many of
the same influences that Greenfield[2,47] found with traditional candidates.
Exit interview data. The semi-structured interviews held at the end of the
programme gave us the opportunity to identify additional sources of role
conception occurring during the course of the training programme. Candidates’
responses to a general question regarding what stood out for them about the
programme identified five sources of role conception: college faculty and
programme, internship, cohort, the board of education, and themselves.
Candidates felt that during the initial stages of the programme, college
faculty provided a contrast with the vision presented by the board of education.
One student remarked:
At first, we were thrilled because of (the college’s) philosophy. With (college faculty), we knew
there would be a lot of techniques, but it would be different from the board of education…
When the board of education took over, things bent toward bureaucracy, which was not
entirely bad, because it is a bureaucracy.

Other individuals described the college faculty as giving them a sense of “super-
power” convincing them they were special and could effect change.
Candidates also identified the internship as a source of role conception. What
the college provided in terms of vision for future schools, the internship
provided in terms of “what’s out there and what goes on” in schools. The earlier
potency that candidates ascribed to the faculty and programme gave way to the
impact of the school system and the internship. This tension among these
Journal of sources suggests the dilemma between a conception focusing on the future and
Educational a conception based on the reality of today.
Administration Probably the strongest response regarding sources of role conception focused
on the cohort. According to the candidates, the cohort gave them a sense of
33,1 identity. As one individual said, the cohort helped him in terms of “where I saw
myself, and where I’d like to be”. By exchanging ideas, the cohort also provided
32 a set of shared beliefs; it helped them coalesce into similar visions of the role.
The board of education was also a source of role conception. As has been
previously mentioned, candidates saw the board, in contrast with the
programme and faculty, as emphasizing bureaucracy. But some individuals
seemed to see this as a necessary balance, “because it is a bureaucracy”.
Finally, candidates identified themselves as a source of role conception.
Perhaps because of values and conceptions they brought from teaching and
other occupations and their experiences as minorities and women in an urban
context, they have hopes for what can be accomplished for children. One
student commented that the cohort helped to “validate my own sense of
mission”.
Data from both instruments suggest candidates were influenced by a
complex system that may create tension as they develop a conception of the
principalship. They brought with them extended experience as a teacher in
which they witnessed the work of principals. This experience was both
expanding and limiting. As they developed an identity with administration,
they saw the work principals do which differs from teaching. In this way, an
administrative perspective which is broader than the classroom is reinforced[2].
At the same time, they may have witnessed principal conduct which
emphasized a custodial orientation. This behaviour focused on the
interpersonal relationships necessary for maintaining organizational stability.
During the preparation programme, they were confronted with tension
among several sources of role conception: college faculty who emphasize the
future and a school system, including mentor principals and the board of
education, who emphasize the present. In the midst of this tension, they were
left with values and norms they developed out of their own sense of mission and
the exchange and validation that came from their membership in a cohort.

Definitions of role conception

In this section, we will present findings concerning how candidates envisaged
the role in terms of three major areas: vision of the school, task priorities of the
principalship, and the nature of authority and leadership.
Vision of the school. Our data identify realities of school life which candidates
perceived as important in constraining or facilitating a vision of the school. We
asked these candidates which factors determine a principal’s decisions. As can
be seen in Table V, their responses centred primarily on external constraints
that affect the school, e.g. federal, state, and district mandates and directives, as
well as community expectations on the school. The next most frequent category
of responses had to do with school-level factors such as staff skills and fiscal
issues. When they entered the programme, these candidates were aware of the A new
external and internal constraints that affect what a principal can envisage for conception of the
the school. principalship
Three questions in the exit interview were especially useful in describing
their vision of schools: What do you most look forward to about being a
principal? What do you most dread about being a principal? If you were a
principal now, what criteria would you use to evaluate yourself in the job? Their 33
responses focused on students and staff.
These candidates were especially concerned that a vision of the school
address the learning needs of students. One candidate stated, “I think it should
be a place where the majority of people believe the students can learn”. In
addition, candidates envisaged a school where there is an atmosphere which
encourages “exploration and learning”; an enriched atmosphere rather than a
remedial one. Another candidate contrasted her vision with current reality: “I
don’t want our minimum standards to become what is (the) maximum that is
required of kids. And that’s what’s happening”. This concern with student
learning also comes across in their stress on test scores. Several individuals
admitted this emphasis on testing is not in line “with (the college’s) philosophy”
but it is reality. “Standardized testing is a fact and is going to be with us for a
while. Children have to be able to do these kinds of tests and do well on them,
because of the types of jobs they want.”
Candidates also described their vision of the school as one in which children’s
affective needs are met; where they are comfortable in school and enjoy going to
school; where “kids have limits but are comfortable”. Another individual
depicted her envisaged school as one where “We have children who mediate
rather than fight; children who want quiet time in the yard to read a book”.
Several candidates envisaged schools which respond to the urban crisis
surrounding them. One individual wanted to work “with different people who
are in tune with what is going on in urban America (where) all children are
becoming an endangered species”. In part, this means a school where we “bring
back humanity and values”.
A conflict among visions is evident in candidates’ statements. Some
emphasized the importance of learning outcomes, in particular test scores, in a

External factors 28 (54.9%)

Personal influences 5 (9.8%)
School factors 14 (27.5%)
Other 4 (7.8%)
Total 51 (100%) Table V.
Note: statistics are based on number of mentions rather than cases Factors which most
determine principals’
decisions
Journal of good school; while others said nurturing must accompany the concern for
Educational outcomes:
Administration If I see a child in my school that’s happy, that gets along well, I think – wonderful. But if I look
at that child’s test scores and that child isn’t doing well, and that child’s in the sixth grade, I’m
33,1 going to be very disturbed by that. At (internship school) I saw a lot of warmth, but I saw
children in tenth grade that were reading on the fourth grade level.
34 Another candidate suggested that attempting to emphasize both nurturing and
learning outcomes may be impossible:
This may sound awful. But given a choice, l would like to send a child out with the skills to
take care of himself, to be able to read, to feel self confidence…I don’t think the way schools
are set up you can do both nurture and outcomes. You have to make a choice.

Their visions of school also involved staff concerns, such as staff morale,
attendance and competence. But they included creativity and collaboration, as
well: “the way teachers want to try new ideas, collaborate with each other”.
When asked how she would evaluate herself, one student responded, “When I
walk through (the school) do I see good things happening…Do people have lots
of initiatives? Do they come to me with new ideas as well as old complaints?”
The earlier concern with test scores is also reflected in the need for teachers to
focus on outcomes and teach skills.
Although they envisaged innovative schools, these candidates recognized
political, staff and societal obstacles which may keep schools from being
creative. There are political and bureaucratic elements in school systems that
require principals to “kiss up” and to be responsive to district initiatives without
district backing. Furthermore, resistant or uncommitted teachers can prevent
the school from being effective. “We need skilled people to deal with these
problems and you need teachers who are committed. I see very few skilled
people.” “You’re tied up by union decisions; all the other things that keep you in
the same framework; (we) need different ways to see schools.” Other candidates
pointed to societal issues, such as the lack of commitment to education and the
values perpetuated by the society, over which principals have no control:
What frightens me the most is what I don’t have control over – the rest of society itself.
America doesn’t have a commitment to education. Governments don’t commit the kinds of
resources we really need if we want to be a society that does not fall apart. There are values
imparted by society to children, through media, that are almost stronger than
school’s…Schools should be a sanctuary and haven away from things like drugs.

The vision of school which these candidates described is laden with conflict.
They wanted student-centred schools but saw a possible tension between a
focus on outcomes and a focus on nurturing. They viewed schools as places
where teachers are innovative and collegial but where concern with teacher
attendance and commitment is necessary. This group came into the programme
with a sense of the societal and political constraints on schools and appears to
have only reinforced that perception.
Priorities of principals’ tasks. A principal’s role conception is defined in part
by the kinds of tasks considered important. In the entry questionnaire,
Emphasizes student learning 12 (19.0%)
A new
Innovates 6 (9.5%)
conception of the
Supports teachers’ growth 9 (14.3)
principalship
Good interpersonal skills 8 (12.7%)
Encourages collaboration 10 (15.9%)
Encourages parental involvement 3 (4.8%)
35
Good managerial skills 2 (3.2%)
Charismatic leadership traits 8 (12.7%)
Other 5 (7.9%)
Total 63 (100%) Table VI.
How candidates would
Note: statistics are based on number of mentions rather than cases
like to be described as a
principal

candidates were asked to image themselves as principal of a school where one

of their teachers was being nominated for the principal training programme
and was asked to describe his/her principal. “How would you like to be
described?” Table VI depicts their responses. Candidates emphasized student
learning, teacher growth and collaboration as vital tasks of the principalship.
But they also stressed qualities of the principal’s personal style including
charisma, emphasis on innovation and good interpersonal skills.
At the end of the programme, these and several additional themes regarding
task priorities appeared to be central to their conception of the principal’s role.
Emphasizing, supporting and monitoring student learning were crucial for
these individuals. This reflected their concern with test scores, but candidates
also emphasized the principal’s role in creating learning environments which
support student growth.
In addition to student learning, these candidates stressed the principal’s
responsibility for effective work with parents and smooth management of the
school. Although neither of these tasks was stressed as much as student
learning, some candidates emphasized the principal’s managerial role
regarding creating an orderly environment. One individual made a connection
between managerial tasks and vision when he described his current principal
who is “not very competent…kids are running around the hall; some people
don’t have passes; there are fights at lunch; not much learning; no vision; no
educational philosophy; just get through the day”.
Candidates reserved many of their comments for the principal’s role in
working with staff. Their statements fall into two categories which imply
different relationships with faculty: overcoming resistance and facilitating
creativity. In the first instance, candidates described resistant teachers who
have to be coaxed into participating in change. One individual related an
episode when she attempted to motivate teachers to try a new reading project:
Journal of I threw it out in a faculty conference with very lukewarm response because it’s hard to
motivate…I decided to do it anyway. I had orientation meetings for all the classes and the
Educational children loved it. The parents loved it. And we did it over the backs of the teachers, which is
Administration something I don’t normally do. But now I would say that, out of the staff, 90 per cent have
33,1 bought in because the children and parents forced them to buy in.

Other candidates, in contrast, viewed teachers as a source of ideas for

36 improving the school. One individual, describing what he looks forward to
about being a principal, said, “I can inspire people to make changes…I’m
looking forward to facilitating programs, to giving people the opportunity to be
creative…”
During the programme, candidates’ views regarding the principal’s tasks
were both enlarged and differentiated. In addition to encouraging and
supporting student learning, candidates began to view the principal’s work
with parents and in managerial areas as crucial. Moreover, when candidates
finished the programme, their views regarding working with staff took on at
least two different meanings: a sense of teachers as a resistant force versus a
sense of teachers as a creative force.
Nature of authority and leadership. A major component of the principal’s role
conception involves authority and leadership. In the entry questionnaire, we
asked candidates what the principal’s primary role is in school-based
management. The overwhelming response centred on motivating and
supporting teachers (see Table VII). Their responses suggested a less directive
approach to authority and leadership than we saw in the exit interview.
When they finished the programme, candidates were more likely to describe
authority and leadership in terms of sole authorship of change and autonomy of
leadership. When they become principals, the candidates look forward to
“being in charge”, “doing it my way” and “being on my own”. Most respondents
emphasized a vision which would be their own creation. One individual
anticipated “being able to see my mission work; my mission become a reality;
taking responsibility for it. Being a true agent of change”. They also
emphasized a view of leadership in which the principal must get others to buy
into that vision. “The idea is to get a vision in place and get everybody to buy
into it.” “You can bring in ideas but, if you can’t get staff on your side, your
hands are tied.” Another candidate described the principalship this way. “Being
a principal is doing it my way: But it’s not just a selfish vision of mine, having

Resource allocator 6 (24%)

Motivator 14 (56%)
Group dynamics 2 (8%)
Ultimate authority 3 (12%)
Table VII. Total 25(100%)
Principal’s role in Note: statistics are based on number of mentions rather than cases
school-based
management
an educational vision and philosophy. Moving a faculty, community and group A new
of students to follow in that belief. And work cohesively. That’s what’s tough.” conception of the
Several candidates were eager to create a school from scratch, to “be a principalship
pioneer”. “I don’t want just a job title; rather I want to start a school or be a
pioneer in some new change.” Another individual anticipated the “...ability to
mold a school in the image of what I think the school should be. Make it a
reality.” 37
A few candidates talked about the need for principals to facilitate the
creativity of others and to enable people to work together. One candidate
described her mentor principal’s experience in this way. “The principal allowed
teachers to have a lot of input. They were independent; she was a facilitator. She
let them tell her what was needed; then she put her knowledge and expertise
into place.” But this candidate feared that resistant teachers are more typical
and she dreaded dealing with them when she becomes a principal. These
comments about the principal as facilitator were dramatically infrequent when
compared with the former theme.
By the end of the programme, candidates’ views of authority and leadership
were more directive in focus than what they depicted on entry when they
stressed facilitative leadership. The sense of facilitating and supporting
teachers gave way to a sense of the principal’s autonomy in creating a vision
and the principal’s role in persuading others to buy into that vision.

Socialization processes in developing a role conception

In this section, we discuss three mechanisms of the socialization process for this
group of principal candidates: the élite selection process, the change of focus
within the programme, and the continuity of the cohort’s influence.
Élite selection process. The rigorous selection process which each candidate
experienced helped to create the feeling of being a member of an élite group.
Since this was the first cohort, they probably felt the impact of this uniqueness
more than other cohorts. They were confronted by press coverage of the
programme and introduced frequently to leading civic figures. The staff
consistently reinforced the idea that this programme was different from other
programmes. One individual remarked, “We were made in the beginning to feel
very different. We had something that was very special…we could make a
change.” This sense of being a member of an élite encouraged them to feel they
were able to effect important changes for children and schools: “College faculty
made us feel special, gave us a sense of super power; we could conquer the
world.”
Along with this feeling of being among the élite was a perception of being
pioneers. A candidate described the feeling she had in the beginning of being “a
pioneer in something”. Another individual compared the first cohort with those
that followed. “We felt we were more independent (than subsequent cohorts).
The following cohorts followed board of education directives, board of
education mentality, (they were) very bureaucratic.”
Journal of Change of focus within the programme. Immediately after describing this
Educational early perception of being élite, the candidates discussed the way the
Administration programme changed. A candidate described the shift as one in which the
programme became more bureaucratic. Another individual, after describing the
33,1 support she felt from the college faculty, stated:
But (the support) didn’t continue. First instructors left…The original vision became foggy. We
38 expected too much from (the college). (The college) didn’t stay with us step by step…The
internship was great; the highlight of the program; (I) got energy from that. But when I had to
return to (my) original school, I lost a lot of what I worked so hard to gain.

This candidate’s comments highlight not only how the de-emphasis on college
faculty affected a change of focus within the programme but also how the move
from the rarefied atmosphere of the programme to the reality of their school
changed their perception of the programme’s value.
The uniqueness of the programme and élite quality of the candidates created
an expectation that the board of education would quickly move members of this
group into administrative positions. In fact, one candidate said, “When we
started, we thought we would be in a special school. Being the first, if we were
all put in a special district, we could see more change.” One year after
completing the programme, however, only half of the first cohort were in
administrative positions, and the others were in their original schools.
The internship also created a change of focus. While it gave candidates
experience outside their school settings, it created an awareness of the reality of
current school life, “what’s out there; what goes on”.
Our view is that these events changed the focus for candidates in two ways.
First, it changed the focus from the future to the present. In the beginning of the
programme, candidates were concerned about how to lead the schools of
tomorrow; at the end they were concerned with how to lead the schools of today.
Second, the focus of site-based management changed from facilitating teachers’
work to being the sole authority. Although we have no data to confirm a cause-
effect relationship, we suspect that the élite quality they felt in the beginning
together with the confrontations with resistant teachers, which they
encountered during the internship, influenced this perception of themselves as
sole authorities with responsibility to develop a vision and persuade teachers to
buy it.
Cohort and continuity. The most consistent socialization mechanism
throughout this programme was the cohort. Candidates frequently mentioned,
during the exit interview, the important role that the cohort played during their
preparation experiences.
We suspect that the cohort accomplished two things for these candidates in
terms of socialization to a role conception. First, being in a cohort consistently
rekindled the feeling of being an élite. The group reinforced the initial reason
why they were chosen. Even when programme faculty changed and candidates
perceived that the programme was dominated by the board of education, they
could look to one another to remind them of their uniqueness.
 Second, we believe the cohort helped candidates to reconcile the change of A new
focus. Although the present reality of schools was emphasized over future conception of the
innovation in the programme shift, the cohort reinforced their perception of principalship
themselves as change agents – as leaders of both today and tomorrow.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest implications for training principals and for research on 39
principal socialization.

Implications for training principals

The experiences of these candidates emphasize the need to redesign training
programmes in at least three ways: redefine uniqueness; re-establish
collaboration between university and school system; and reinforce the role of
cohort.
The élite quality which candidates felt helped to create a sense of
powerfulness to bring about change; however, it reinforced a role conception
which separated teachers and administrators. This separation, forecast by
Sergiovanni[48], does not encourage the collegiality among teachers and
administrators which the literature suggests is conducive to school
improvement. Instead of producing a group of élite leaders, we believe training
programmes should encourage the development of role conceptions which
emphasize élite schools, i.e. teams of teachers, administrators, parents and
students who view their school as unique and creative. Training programmes
may be able to create this kind of perspective by emphasizing co-operative
rather than individual efforts. The cohort approach lends itself to such an
emphasis through assignments, for example, action research, conducted by a
team rather than an individual.
Our case highlights the difficulties of collaboration between university and
school system. However, we believe that such collaboration is crucial for
developing administrators with innovative role conceptions. The future and
present perspectives which we encountered in this study are equally important
in designing training programmes which encourage candidates to facilitate
creative change[36]. We suggest that for this collaboration to be effective three
factors must be present: parity, reciprocity, and a common language[49]. Parity
of status is necessary so that both university and school system are viewed as
equal partners. Reciprocity of effort ensures the expertise of each partner is
recognized and contributed to the programme. Finally, universities and school
systems must develop a common language which avoids both the pitfalls of
academic jargon and anti-theoretical perspectives. The creation of professional
development schools for training educational administrators, along the lines of
Holmes Group partnerships, could help to re-establish the kind of collaboration
which helps candidates develop role conceptions that focus on changing
schools to meet present and future needs.
Our study also emphasizes the function of the cohort as a socialization
mechanism. Developing training programmes around a cohort approach is an
Journal of excellent way to encourage the development of innovative, rather than
Educational custodial, norms and to facilitate commitment to change after candidates move
Administration into the principalship.
33,1 Implications for research
The development of effective training programmes for administrators requires
40 an expanded research base which should include longitudinal studies that
investigate at least three questions. First, what kinds of role conceptions persist
through the early stages of the principalship? Not only would this help in
designing more effective training programmes, but would help redefine
effective conceptions of the role.
Second, what is the long-term relationship and effect of the cohort? How long
do cohort members stay in touch and what kinds of support do they continue to
give? This information could facilitate the development of cohorts during the
training period.
Third, do role conceptions change in mid-career and what are the sources of
this change? Early research assumed that role conceptions were static.
However, experience and recent writings[40, 50, 51] suggest that principals may
change role conceptions. This research could benefit training programmes by
identifying strategies to encourage lifelong learning and change.
Training programmes do much more than give future principals the skills
they need to do the job. They also may inculcate values and norms regarding
what schools can and should be and how leadership can help in making these
visions a reality. Whether they are able to help candidates develop innovative
perspectives on the role depends in part on the kinds of socialization
mechanisms they establish. Our success in doing this will help determine
whether educational reform becomes a reality or the most recent fad.

Note and references

1. Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H., “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”, in Staw,
B.M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1979,
pp. 209-64.
2. Greenfield, W.D. Jr, “Being and becoming a principal: responses to work contexts and
socialization processes”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 1985.
3. The custodial versus innovative distinction was defined by Van Maanen and Schein[1] in
terms of responses to socialization. A custodial or caretaker response is “marked by an
acceptance of the role as presented and traditionally practiced by role occupants” (p. 229).
In contrast, the innovative response involves “a rejection and redefinition of the major
premises” of the knowledge, mission, and/or strategies practised by most role occupants
(p. 229). The distinction has been used by W.D. Greenfield to describe principal
socialization.
4. Caplow, T., The Sociology of Work, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1954.
5. Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S., “Occupational communities: culture and control in
organizations”, in Staw, B. and Cummings, L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1984, pp. 287-365.
 6. Birnbaum, D. and Somers, M., “The meaning and measurement of occupational image for A new
the nursing role”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 16 No. 2, 1989, p. 202.
7. Becker, H.S. and Carper, J., “The development of identification with an occupation”,
conception of the
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, 1956, pp. 289-98. principalship
8. Davis, F., “Professional socialization as subjective experience: the process of doctrinal
conversion among student nurses”, in Becker, H., Geer, B., Riesman, D. and Weiss, R. (Eds),
Institutions and the Person, Aldine, Chicago, IL, 1968.
9. Hughes, E.C., Men and Their Work, Free Press, Glencoe, IL, 1958.
41
10. Hall, D.T., “Breaking career routines: mid-career choice and identity development”, in Hall,
D.T. (Ed.), Career Development in Organization, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1986, p.
302.
11. Levinson, D., “Role, personality and social structure in the organizational setting”, Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, 1959, pp. 170-80.
12. Newcomb, T.M., The Acquaintance Process, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY,
1961.
13. Ortiz, F.I., Career Patterns in Education. Women, Men and Minorities in Public School
Administration, Praeger, New York, NY, 1982.
14. Dwyer, D., Barnett, B. and Lee, G., “The school principal: scapegoat or the last great hope?”,
in Sheive, L. and Schoenheit, M. (Eds), Leadership: Examining the Elusive, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, 1987.
15. Scott, C., Ahadi, S. and Krug, S., “An experience-sampling approach to the study of
principal instructional leadership II: a comparison of activities and beliefs as bases for
understanding effective school leadership”, report of the National Centre for School
Leadership, University of Illinois, College of Education, Urbana Champaign, IL, 1990.
16. Tyack, D. and Hansot, E., Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820-
1980, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1982.
17. Callahan, R., Education and the Cult of Efficiency, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL, 1962.
18. Schlechty, P.C., Schools for the Twenty-First Century: Leadership Imperatives for
Educational Reform, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1990.
19. Button, H.W., “Doctrines of administration: a brief history”, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 2, 1966, pp. 216-24.
20. Shedd, J.B. and Bacharach, S.B., Tangled Hierarchies: Teachers as Professionals and the
Management of Schools, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1991.
21. Watkins, P., “Devolving educational administration in Victoria: tensions in the role and
selection of principals”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 29 No. 1, 1991, pp. 22-
38.
22. Crow, G.M., “The principal in schools of choice”, The Urban Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, 1992, pp.
165-74.
23. Goldring, E.B., “System-wide diversity in Israel: principals as transformational and
environmental leaders”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 30 No. 3, 1992, pp. 49-
62.
24. Kerchner, C.T., “Bureaucratic entrepreneurship: the implications of school administration”,
in Bacharach, S. (Ed.), Education Reform: Making Sense of It All, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
MA, 1990.
25. Blase, J.J., “The micropolitical orientation of teachers toward closed school principals”,
Education and Urban Society, Vol. 23 No. 4, 1991, pp. 356-78.
26. Goldring, E.B., “Elementary school principals as boundary spanners: their engagement
with parents”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 28 No. 1, 1990, pp. 53-62.
Journal of 27. Marshall, C. and Scribner, J.D., “‘It’s all political’: inquiry into the micropolitics of
education”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 23 No. 4, 1991, pp. 347-55.
Educational 28. Morris, V.C., Crowson, R.L., Porter-Gehrie, C. and Hurwitz, E., Principals in Action, Charles
Administration E. Merrill, Columbus, OH, 1984.
33,1 29. Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J., “Instructional leadership and school socio-economic status: a
preliminary investigation”, Administrators Notebook, Vol. 31 No. 5, 1983, pp. 1-4.
30. Greenfield, W.D. Jr, “Career dynamics of educators: research and policy issues”,
42 Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, 1983, pp. 5-26.
31. Schein, E.H., Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational Needs, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978.
32. Van Maanen, J., Organizational Careers: Some New Perspectives, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY, 1977.
33. Sergiovanni, T.J., “Constructing and changing theories of practice: the key to preparing
school administrators”, The Urban Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, 1991, pp. 39-50.
34. Gronn, P., “Talk as the work: the accomplishment of school administration”,
Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, 1983, pp. 1-21.
35. Foster, W., Paradigms and Promises, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1986.
36. Quantz, R.A., Cambron-McCabe, N. and Dantley, M., “Preparing school administrators for
democratic authority: a critical approach to graduate education”, The Urban Review, Vol.
23 No. 1, 1991, pp. 3-19.
37. Louis, M.R., “Surprise and sense making: what newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, 1980, pp.
226-51.
38. Nicholson, N., “A theory of work role transitions”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
29, 1984, pp. 172-91.
39. Crow, G.M., Levine, L. and Nager, N., “No more business as usual: career changers who
become teachers”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 98 No. 3, 1990, pp. 197-223.
40. Hart, A.W., ‘“Leader succession and socialization: a synthesis”, Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 61 No. 4, 1991, pp. 451-74.
41. Bullough, R.V. Jr, “Supervision, mentoring, and self-discovery: a case study of a first-year
teacher”, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Vol. 5, 1990, pp. 338-60.
42. Bullough, R.V. Jr, Knowles, J.G. and Crow, N.A., “Teacher self-concept and student culture
in the first year of teaching”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 91, 1989, pp. 209-33.
43. Buchanan, B., “Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1974, pp. 533-46.
44. Jones, G.R., “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, 1986.
45. Crow, G.M., Mecklowitz, B. and Weekes, Y.N., “From teaching to administration: a
preparation institute”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 2 No. 4, 1992, pp. 188-200.
46. Lortie, D.C., “Shared ordeal and induction to work”, in Becker, H.S., Geer, B., Riesman, D.
and Weiss, R., (Eds), Institutions and the Person, Aldine, Chicago, 1968, pp. 252-64.
47. Greenfield, W.D. Jr, “Administrative candidacy: a process of new role learning – Part I”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 15 No. 1, 1977, pp. 30-48.
48. Sergiovanni, T.J., “The dark side of professionalism in educational administration”, Phi
Delta Kappan, March 1991, pp. 521-6.
49. Mergendoller, J., Mutual Inquiry: The Role of Collaborative Research on Teaching in School-
based Staff Development, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development, San Francisco, CA, 1980.
 50. Parkay, F.W., Currie, G.D. and Rhodes, J.W., “Professional socialization: a longitudinal A new
study of first-time high school principals”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28
No. 1, 1992, pp. 43-75. conception of the
51. Crow, G.M., “Reconceptualizing the school administrator’s role: socialization at mid- principalship
career”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 4 No. 2, 1993, pp. 131-52.

Appendix
Principals Institute Survey
43
(1) When did you decide you wanted to be a teacher? (check one)
during grade school
during high school
during college
after college
(2) What circumstances led you to enter teaching?
(3) When did you decide you wanted to be a principal?
(4) What were the circumstances that led you to aspire to the principalship?
(5) What aspects of the Principals Institute led you to apply?
(6) Have you taken administration courses prior to the Principals Institute?
● If yes, what motivated you to take courses in administration?
(7) As you look back over the various jobs you have had…
● What skills as a classroom teacher or other school/district position of responsibility
have you developed that can be helpful to you as a principal?
● What skills in non-education positions have you developed that can be helpful to you as
a principal?
(8) List four adjectives you would use to describe your current principal.
(9) Briefly describe an incident illustrative of a principal whom you have worked with or
known.
(10) List four adjectives you would use to describe your ideal principal.
(11) What do you believe to be the principal’s role in a school-based management model?
(12) From your experience, what factors most determine the decisions a principal makes?
(13) What kind of experiences (school settings, training, interaction, exposures, etc.) would help
you become the type of principal you want to be?
(14) The time is 1994. You are the principal of Utopia Intermediate School. One of your staff is
a student in the Principals Institute and has been asked to describe an actual experience
illustrative of their principal. How would you like to be described?