A Roadmap For Leadership PDF

A ROAD MAP FOR LEADERSHIP DRIVEN SYSTEMIC CHANGE IN
INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
by
Thomas Craig Perry

Bachelor of Arts, University of North Dakota, 1988
Master of Science, University of North Dakota, 1997
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the
University of North Dakota
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Doctor of Education
Grand Forks, North Dakota

December
2010
UMI Number: 3455232
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT
Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3455232
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
This dissertation, submitted by Thomas Craig Perry in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education from the University of North Dakota,
has been read by the Faculty Advisory Committee under whom the work has been done
and is hereby approved.
(2.
tisLudU^J
Chairperson
'CLA^LA~ O.
^IULLUL
This dissertation meets the standards for appearance, conforms to the style and
format requirements of the Graduate School of the University of North Dakota, and is
hereby approved.
( I
Dean of the Graduate School
JUQtojml^ AST
Date
'
2<?/Q
PERMISSION
Title
A Road Map for Leadership Driven Systemic Change in

Interscholastic Athletic Programs
Department
Educational Leadership
Degree
Doctor of Education
In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a
graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree that the library of this
University shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission
for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who
supervised my dissertation work or, in her absence, by the chairperson of the department
or the dean of the Graduate School. It is understood that any copying or publication or
other use of this dissertation or part thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without
my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me
and to the University of North Dakota in any scholarly use which may be made of any
material in my dissertation.
Signature
^
Date
iii
N-<=*"- / o
>
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
LIST OF TABLES
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABSTRACT
xiv
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
MSHSL Leadership Services
Leadership Theory and Organizational Change Theory
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Significance of the Study
Researcher Background
Definitions
Abbreviations and Acronyms
11
Assumptions
11
Delimitations
12
Summary
12
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
13
Minnesota State High School League

iv
13
III.
Leadership Theory
33
Universal Components of Leadership
52
Transformational Leaders and Change Agents
53
Framing Leadership
56
Organizational Change Theory
74
Framing and Refraining
78
Communication Change Components
81
Framing Change Theory
84
Summary
98
PROCEDURES
100
100
Development and Description of MSHSL ELRSP Survey
101
Description of MSHSL ELRSP Population
102
Description of MSHSL ELRSP Data Collection
102
Description of MSHSL ELRSP Data Analysis
103
Development and Description of NIAAA LTPLS Instrument
104
Description of NIAAA LTPLS Population
106
Description of NIAAA LTPLS Data Collection
106
Description of NIAAA LTPLS Data Analysis
107
Data Analysis
Ill
IV. RESULTS
113
114
Results of MSHSL ELRSP Data Analysis
115
Results of Summating Ratings for Leadership Programming

Importance
117
126
Results of NIAAA LTPLS Data Analysis
128
Summary
132
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
135
Summary
135
Conclusions and Discussion
137
Limitations
152
Recommendations
153
Recommendations for Educators
153
Recommendations for Further Study
155
APPENDICES
158
Appendix A: MSHSL Survey Evaluation of Programs and Services of the

Minnesota State High School League (March 2008)
Appendix B: NIAAA Leadership Training Program Leadership Survey:
Perceptions of Leadership Traits
REFERENCES
159
161
165
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. Blake and McCanse Leadership Grid

2.
National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association

Leadership Survey Scoring Grid
VII
110
112
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Page
Minnesota State High School League Information on Gender, Leadership
Position, School Type and School Size (N = 289)
115
Minnesota State High School League Available Responses and

Response Values (N = 289)
116
Minnesota State High School League Average Value High Importance

In Descending Order (N = 289)
117
Minnesota State High School League Average Value Medium Importance

in Descending Order (N = 289)
118
Minnesota State High School League Average Value Low Importance

119
Minnesota State High School League Category in Descending

Order (N = 289)
120
Minnesota State High School League Category 1: Eligibility and

Compliance in Descending Order (N = 289)
123
Minnesota State High School League Category 2: Recognition and Awards

124
Minnesota State High School League Category 3: Tournaments in

Descending Order (N = 289)
124
Minnesota State High School League Category 4: Education and

Professional Development in Descending Order (N = 289)
125
Minnesota State High School League Category 5: Programming in

Descending Order (N = 289)
126
Minnesota State High School League Category 6: Student and School

Services in Descending Order (N = 289)
127
vm
13.
Minnesota State High School League Category 7: Legislative and Rule

Making in Descending Order (N = 289)
127
14.
Minnesota State High School League Category 8: Sponsorship and Financial

Support in Descending Order (N = 289)
128
15.
National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Information

on Gender, Education, Experience, and Professional Development
Opportunities (N = 392)
129
National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Primary

Leadership Style (N - 392)
130
National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Secondary

Leadership Style (N = 392)
131
National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Primary and

Secondary Leadership Styles (N = 392)
133
16.
17.
18.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
At an age too young to recognize anything but the soothing effects, this all began
with a Scottish lullaby. Barely above a whisper, soothing and calming, it washed away
all tears and later washed away all fears. It was the sound of the words, not their
meaning, that first captured me. And as I grew, their meaning became clear, with
powerful tones and emotions distinct. From lullabies to limericks, puns, and
poemsthen later the magic of books and phrases.
This all began with a Scottish grandmother's unconditional devotion to her
grandchild. She taught me the value of speaking the Queen's English, albeit in her
Coatbridge brogue, and she instilled in me the importance of learning. She created a
desire to read and to write and to learn as much as I could.
These values were also the very sentiments shared by my Mum. She built on
these values and showed me the greatest quality one can ever have is to persevere. No
matter how deep or dark it may appear to be, she always saw the light and provided the
way. For both of them I will be forever gratefulgrateful for their passion for life, their
love for learning, and their encouragement to go far.
If not for them, this journey would have ended many years ago. And it truly has
been a journey. The road has not been easy and sometimes the roadblocks and detours
placed me at a point where I considered stopping this journey of education and
self-discovery. At first the doctoral cohort was a destinationhurry up, let's get there in
x
a couple of years and be done with this. Then the journey became painful, an agonizing
"I have to get this trip over before it kills me" excursion. It got to the point that I ended
this journey, choosing to forget the values I had been taught, and choosing to look upon
this as a misguided educational detour that would never be started again.
However, I soon learned the pursuit of a doctorate truly is a journey, not so much
of education but of self-discovery. To simply want the education and the "Dr." in front
of your name followed by "PhD or EdD" after your name is less significant than the path
chosen to truly discover what is important. So, I re-started the journey. I had to start; I
couldn't leave this unfinished. This was not about the degree on the wall or the initials
alongside my name; this was about the journey of self-discovery, and about being true to
myself and those around me.
If not for Dr. John Olson, a mentor and friend who saw potential beyond anything
I could imagine, I would not have reached this destination. He, with passion and his stoic
Norwegian witI know, I know, Norwegian wit is an oxymoronrekindled the flame of
learning. Thank you, John, for all you have given me.
If not for Dr. Sherry Houdek, my chair and guidemy navigator on this
incredible tripI would have never completed this trip. She pulled out the map and
showed me the way. She was with me at the start 10 years ago and she has been with me
every step of the journey. At each roadblock and detour her calming influence to "stay
the course, complete the journey" kept me on this road. Thank you for your belief in me.
I also want to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Richard Landry, Dr.
Susan Koprince, Dr. Margaret Healy, Dr. Gary Schnellert, and Dr. Kent Hjelmstad.
Their guidance, insight, and direction provided the important pieces to help me properly
xi
frame the final product. Equally important is Sharon Fields, my editor, who kept me on
my timelines, kept me on task, and who kept encouraging me to complete the journey.
If not for three individualsChase, Chloe, and Charleywho accepted losing
their dad for days and nights on end as I worked toward completing this journey, I would
have never completed the journey. We lost some time but we grew to appreciate the time
we did have together. Thanks for your support, your encouragement, and the simple
"Love you dad. Hope your writing is good today."
But truly, the most important person in this journey is my wife Holly. She is
without a doubt the best student I have ever known and the best person I have ever met.
On this journey there were hundreds of times I would say to myself "learn like she learns
and today will be a good writing day." For her, I wanted to be the best that I could be.
She is my best friend, my soul mate, the mother to our children, andsimplymy life.
Without her, I would have never got behind the wheel to start this journey. Without her, I
would have never completed this step of the journey. With her, together we will start the
next journey.
If not for the Scottish lullabies, the perseverance of a single parent committed to
raising her three boys, the support and guidance of so many along the way, and if not for
that cold night in a hockey rink in Grafton 22 years ago where I first met the young lady
who would become my life, this journey would not have been completed. I am truly
grateful, truly blessed, and I look forward to starting the next journey.
I close with a quote from the great bard I have used for decades to guide my
lifea quote that now, more so than ever before, shines with clarity and completeness:
xii
This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to anyman.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 3, 78-82
xiu
ABSTRACT
The relationship between the leadership services of the Minnesota State High
School League (MSHSL) and the leadership needs of the MSHSL members provides an
opportunity for the MSHSL to create systemic change which, when implemented, should
prove to be effective for the members' future management of their interscholastic
programs. The purpose of the study was twofold:
1. to identify the importance MSHSL members place on existing leadership
programs, resources, and services available for use by each MSHSL member
school; and
2. to identify the leadership styles currently being used by interscholastic athletic
directors.
Data were gathered from two separate surveys. The Minnesota State High School
League Evaluation of Leadership Resources, Services, and Programs (MSHSL ELRSP)
was administered in March 2008. The MSHSL survey was electronically submitted to
the athletic director at each of the 492 member schools. The MSHSL received 371
completed surveys out of 492 within the eight-week response window.
The National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Leadership
Training Program Leadership Survey: Perceptions of Leadership Traits (NIAAA LTPLS)
was administered from December 2004 through December 2007. Survey responses were
received from 370 of the 445 athletic directors who were surveyed. High school athletic
xiv
directors attending professional development classes at state and national athletic

directors' conferences across the nation were surveyed.
Understanding the relationship existing between the leadership programming
needs of member schools and the leadership programming offered by the MSHSL
provided the insight needed to address the leadership direction for the long-term future of
the MSHSL. The importance MSHSL member schools place on currently available
leadership programming and the identified programming needs for the future provided
the MSHSL staff and Board of Directors with the vision necessary to grow the MSHSL.
Furthermore, identifying and understanding the leadership styles currently being used by
athletic administrators across the nation may allow the MSHSL staff and MSHSL Board
of Directors to develop strategies and programming to assist member schools to
effectively implement change in their school communities. Implementing change may
positively impact the school communities, and most importantly, the students who
participate in MSHSL sponsored activities, athletics, and fine arts programs.
xv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The relationship between the leadership services of the Minnesota State High
School League (MSHSL) and the leadership needs of the MSHSL members provides an
opportunity for the MSHSL to create systemic change which, when implemented, should
prove to be effective for the members' future management of their interscholastic
programs. An organization's ability to create effective change is really about
understanding theory and action. Fullan (2008) elaborates on the relationship between
theory and action:
Give me a good theory over a strategic plan any day. A plan is a toola piece of
technology only as good as the mind-set using it. Theories make sense of the real
world and are tested against it. The best theories are at their core solidly
grounded in action, (p. 1)
Adding to Fullan, Bolman and Deal (2003) point out:
Managers, consultants, and policy makers draw, formally or otherwise, on a
variety of theories in an effort to change or improve organizations. Yet only in
the past few decades have social scientists devoted much time or attention to
developing ideas about how organizations work. (p. 10)
Ellsworth (2000) adds that planned changechange that is understood and
managedmust bring all of the diverse change models together to provide the
1
administrator with a full complement of options to implement change. Fullan (2006)

offers an additional perspective regarding change:
Change theory or change knowledge can be very powerful in informing education
reform strategies and, in turn, getting resultsbut only in the hands of people
who have a deep knowledge of the dynamics of how the factors in question
operate to get particular results, (p. 22)
To discover what really is happening in the MSHSL members' interscholastic
athletic programs the theory of action must also be reflective (Fullan, 2006). Argyris'
(2000) organizational change research and the distinction he made between "espoused
theories" and "theories in use" will help identify what strategies are actually in use.
Fullan's (2005, 2006, 2008) research focusing on theories of action rather than theories of
use may also help connect the change strategies to the desired outcomes and results.
Dewey (1927) offered the insight it is not that we learn by doing but that we learn by
thinking about what we are doing. Mintzberg (2004) further supports Fullan, Dewey, and
Argyris, explaining "programs designed to educate practicing managers in context; such
leadership has to be learned, not just by doing but by being able to gain conceptual
insight while doing it" (p. 200).
MSHSL Leadership Services
The Minnesota State Fligh School League currently offers leadership services,
programs, and resources to member schools in over 70 different areas categorized into
eight groups: Eligibility and Compliance, Recognition and Awards, Tournaments,
Education and Professional Development, Programming, Student and School Services,
Legislative and Rule Making, and Sponsorship and Financial Support. Students from the
2
MSHSL member schools participating in the 31 athletic programs, 5 fine arts programs,
and 4 adapted programs have the opportunity to take advantage of the social, cultural,
educational, and health benefits of the MSHSL leadership services, resources, and
programs through their participation in extracurricular programs.
Leadership Theory and Organizational Change Theory
A review of leadership theory is necessary to properly investigate and analyze the
research in this study. This study attempts to determine high school athletic director
leadership styles and define the leadership programming services and needs for high
school extracurricular programs. Understanding the evolution of leadership theory
provides an opportunity to frame current leadership practices. The discussion of the
major concepts, contexts, and classifications of leadership, and categorizing of leadership
theorists and theories into the four framing categories created by Bolman and Deal
(2003): Structural Frame, Human Resource Frame, Political Frame, and Symbolic Frame
should allow the researcher to sufficiently answer the research questions. Using the four
frames the leadership review will also involve a discussion and eventual understanding of
the differences and distinctions between leaders and managers, leadership and
management, and demonstrate the components of effective and dynamic leadership.
A review of organizational change theory is necessary to properly investigate and
analyze the application and implementation of the findings of this study. Understanding
the application of successful change theories in the business and education environments
provides a context for the research data. With a conclusive analysis of the data, research
based recommendations for framing and reframing change can be suggested.
The research of Bolman and Deal (2003), Collins (2009), Fullan (2008),
Hargreaves and Fink (2006), and Lencioni (2007) provides insight into the application of
multi-framed leadership and organizational change. Additionally, Hargreaves and Fink
(2003) indicate leadership is sustained when it is planned and distributedwhen it is
shared. Sustained leadership, with a multi-frame lens, is inherent to accomplishing the
task of meeting the leadership needs of the member schools of the MSHSL. Schools
must review the way in which they are structured and leaders must review the way in
which they lead and the methods used to impart change. Perhaps Mintzberg (2004) sums
it up best:
Leadership is not about making clever decisions and doing bigger deals, least of
all for personal gain. It is about energizing other people to make good decisions
and do other things. In other words, it is about helping release the positive energy
that exists naturally within people. Effective leadership inspires more than
empowers; it connects more than controls; it demonstrates more than it decides. It
does all this by engagingitself above all and consequently others, (p. 143)
To accomplish the task of implementing multi-framed human resources or people-centric
organizational change, all or parts of their change models offer the best opportunity to
create a roadmap for leadership driven systemic change in interscholastic athletic
programs.

The purpose of the study was twofold:
school; and
directors.
Data were gathered from two separate surveys. The primary survey instrument,
Minnesota State High School League Evaluation of Leadership Resources, Services, and
Programs (MSHSL ELRSP), was administered in the spring of 2008. The MSHSL
survey was electronically submitted to the athletic director at the 492 MSHSL member
schools. The MSHSL received 294 (59.8%) completed surveys, returned within an
eight-week response window. The secondary survey instrument, National Interscholastic
Athletic Administrators Association Leadership Training Program Leadership Survey:
Perceptions of Leadership Traits (NIAAA LTPLS), was administered from December
2004 through December 2007 to high school athletic directors attending workshops,
seminars, and professional development classes at state and national athletic director
conferences held. Survey responses were received from 392 (93.0%) of the 445 athletic
directors who were surveyed.
needs of the school community and the leadership programming offered by the MSHSL
for its member schools provides the insight needed to address the leadership direction for
the long-term future of the MSHSL. The amount of importance member schools placed
5
on currently available leadership programming, resources, and services, and the identified
programming needs for the future, provide the MSHSL staff and MSHSL Board of
Directors with data to shape the vision necessary to implement ongoing development for
the MSHSL. Furthermore, identifying and understanding the leadership styles and traits
currently being used by interscholastic athletic administrators across the nation allows the
MSHSL staff and MSHSL Board of Directors to develop strategies and programming to
assist member schools to effectively implement change in their school communities.
Implementing change may positively impact the school communities and, most
importantly, the students who participate in MSHSL sponsored activities, athletics, and
fine arts programs.
Research Questions
1. What perceived value do the MSHSL member schools' athletic director,
principal, and superintendent place on the leadership resources, services, and
programs currently offered by the MSHSL as it relates to the needs of their
individual community?
2. What leadership styles are athletic administrators using in their high school
athletic programs?
Significance of the Study
The core of this study is based on the research of theorists like Argyris, Collins,
Fullan, Hargreaves, Lencioni, Mintzberg, and Bolman and Deal. Understanding the
evolution of leadership theory of the past 100 years, combined with a focused and
comprehensive review of organizational change theory of the past 30 years, will provide
the building blocks for this study. The MSHSL history and the processes used through its
6
93-year history to evolve and change will be additional foundation stones to build a
productive program for change. Identifying the actual leadership styles currently used by
athletic administrators across the nation will provide beneficial insight into how
interscholastic athletic departments operate.
In theory, the purpose of educational change is based on the assumption that
schools want to accomplish their goals more effectively by replacing some structures,
programs, and practices with better ones (Fullan, 2006, 2008). The same theory holds
true for an educationally based organization like the Minnesota State High School
League. The organization's goal is to help schools meet their school communities' goals
set for their interscholastic programs. The process of making that happen requires
making changes in the current structure, replacing existing programs and practices and
implementing new programs and practices (D. V. Stead, personal communication, April
21, 2010).
Lencioni (2002) contends the key to the change process is not financial, nor is it a
particular strategy or a specific technology. "The key to change is teamworka mastery
of a set of behaviors that are theoretically uncomplicated but extremely difficult to put
into practice" (p. 91).
If the leadership traits, styles, and theories high school athletic administrators
currently use to manage, operate, and lead their interscholastic athletic and activities
programs can be examined, if the organizational change/social change theories that best
serve systemic change in an educational environment can be identified, if the impact or
importance member schools place on the current MSHSL leadership programs, resources,
and services can be determined, then the MSHSL can create and provide an
7
organizational change plan for implementation by the school leaders of the member
schools to manage, operate, and lead their interscholastic programs to best meet current
and future needs of their school communities. The MSHSL must first determine how the
member schools operate within their individual school communities, then identify the
leadership programming needs of the school communities, and finally provide tools or
programs that when implemented will allow planned systemic change to occur.
If a framework for systemic change can be created for and successfully
implemented by MSHSL member schools, the change framework may have national and
international applications (D. V. Stead, personal communication, April 21, 2010). As the
MSHSL is to the state of Minnesota, each of the other 49 states also has an organization
whose sole purpose is to serve the interscholastic high school programs for that state. As
well, several of the Canadian provinces have interscholastic athletic program
management organizations that serve the high schools of each province in a fashion
similar to the model in the United States. The anticipated end result of this study is the
creation of a change system that, when implemented for interscholastic athletic programs,
can best serve the needs of each school and the school community.
Researcher Background
Athletics and athletic administration essentially spans my entire life. I
participated in organized athletics moving up through community-sponsored youth
sports. I participated as a varsity high school athlete and I was a NCAA Division I
college athlete. Since 1986 I have been involved with the high school and college
education process, interscholastic athletics, and intercollegiate athletics as a teacher,
coach, and administrator. I spent 5 years as a high school coach, 4 years as a university
coach, 15 years in athletic administration, and I continue to coach at the youth level.
For the past five years I have served as an associate director with the MSHSL. I
oversee the eligibility and compliance of MSHSL rules, policies, and bylaws as applied
by the member schools. I am the state tournament director for boys' and girls' hockey,
boys' and girls' tennis, and wrestling. I work with advisory committees and I also
oversee the MSHSL Sports Medicine Advisory Committee and the MSHSL Coaches
Certification Program.
During the past 15 years I have also served the National Interscholastic Athletic
Administrators Association (NIAAA) in a number of capacities. I served on the NIAAA
national board. Currently I am a member of the NIAAA Publications Committee and
serve as national co-chair for two courses offered in the NIAAA Leadership Training
Program. As a national instructor with the NIAAA, I have had the opportunity to teach
and speak at conferences and training seminars in over 25 states.
Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined to clarify their
meaning or identify the abbreviations and acronyms used for this study:
Athletic Director: The individual responsible for the administration, management,
and organization of the athletic and activities programs at a high school; also commonly
referred to as Activities Director or Athletics/Activities Administrator.
Board of Control: The original, five-member governing body of the Minnesota
State High School League; this term was used from 1923 to 1975.
Board of Directors: The governing body of the Minnesota State High School
League replacing, in name, the Board of Control.
Frames: Formats or arenas to label and organize schools of thought or theory that
create mental models or maps (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Leadership: A process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2007).
Leadership Services: The MSHSL leadership services, programs, and resources
offered by the MSHSL in eight categories: Eligibility and Compliance, Recognition and
Awards, Tournaments, Education and Professional Development, Programming, Student
and School Services, Legislative and Rule Making, and Financial Support.
Member Schools: A term used to describe any public school, private school,
charter school, or home school that voluntarily chooses to join the Minnesota State High
School League.
Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals (MASSP): The
professional organization for the high school principals of Minnesota.
Minnesota Education Association (MEA): The professional organization for
teachers in the state of Minnesota.
Minnesota State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA): The first name
of the current Minnesota State High School League.
Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL): A voluntary, nonprofit
association of public and private schools with a history of service to Minnesota's high
school youth since 1916.
10
Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA): The professional organization for

school board members in the state of Minnesota.
Minnesota Public Schools Music League (MPSML): The professional
organization for high school music teachers and leaders in the state of Minnesota.
National Federation of High Schools (NFHS): The governing body serving the
50-member state high school athletic/activity associations, plus the District of Columbia.
National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association (NIAAA): A
volunteer membership organization for any person involved in interscholastic athletics at
any level, providing service and resources to develop and to enhance leadership skills and
to offer opportunities for professional growth.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
MSHSL ELRSP: Minnesota State High School League Evaluation of Leadership
Resources, Services, and Programs survey instrument.
NIAAA LTC: National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association
Leadership Training Courses.
NIAAA LTPLS: National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association
Leadership Training Program Leadership Survey instrument.
Assumptions
The assumptions are as follow:
1. The MSHSL responders understood the survey and were truthful in their
responses.
2. The MSHSL programs, resources, and services were identified appropriately
through the survey.
11
3. The interscholastic athletic administrators understood the survey and were

truthful in their responses
4. The leadership styles used were understood appropriately through the survey.
Delimitations
1. For the purpose of this study, the MSHSL member school respondents were
limited to all member school administrators who responded to the survey
between March 1, 2008, and May 7, 2008.
2. The final analysis of the data from both surveys is limited in this study to the
responses to each survey.
Summary
Chapter I provided a brief introduction into this study, including the purpose of
the study and the significance of the study. Chapter II presents a literature review,
including the MSHSL history and its leadership programs, resources, and services for
member schools. A review of the most current leadership theory framing concepts and
organizational change and development theory concludes the literature review. Chapter
III defines the method of this study. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study in
tabular and narrative form. Chapter V includes a discussion of the findings and
recommendations for action.
12
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chapter II presents the review of literature, which was divided into the following
sections: the Minnesota State High School League, leadership services provided by the
MSHSL, leadership theory framing concepts, organizational change and development
theory framing concepts, and summary.
The MSHSL has been in existence since 1916 and materials published by the
MSHSL serve as the source of information linking the MSHSL survey to the MSHSL
programming history. A service based organization, the MSHSL is a voluntary, nonprofit
association of public and private schools. Since its inception, the primary purposes were
to (a) promote amateur sports and (b) to establish uniform eligibility rules for
interscholastic contests (Voigt, 2008). In 1928, the MSHSL broadened its scope to
include all interscholastic athletic activities as well as fine arts programs, speech, and
debate. The Minnesota State High School League has existed as a nonprofit, voluntary
association of high schools since its inception. In 1960, it was officially incorporated
under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a nonprofit corporation. In this continual
pattern of addition and growth, the MSHSL broadened its scope, adding music in 1965,
girls' athletics in 1969, and adapted programs in 1994 for the cognitively or physically
impaired (Voigt, 2008).
13
In 2009, nearly 500 schools are members of the MSHSL (Voigt, 2009). Most of
the schoolsapproximately 435are actual brick and mortar high schools, with the
remaining schools either special schools or home schools.
The MSHSL member schools annually choose to join the League. The League
exists to provide competitive, equitable, and uniform opportunities for high school
students to learn valuable lessons through participation in athletics and fine arts. The
League also provides support for member schools with programs addressing
sportsmanship, chemical health, and scholarship recognition. The MSHSL oversees
more than 4,500 registered contest officials and judges and it provides educational
programs for coaches and students (Voigt, 2009).
The MSHSL neither solicits nor receives any state funding. Most revenue comes
from state tournament ticket sales and merchandising sales, broadcast rights, and
corporate partnerships. The MSHSL also annually returns hundreds of thousands of
dollars to schools participating in state tournaments and contests to help offset their costs
associated with "Going to State."
There is no defining momentno specific date, location, or event known as the
first interscholastic activity to take place in the state of Minnesota. Debate tournaments
involving Minnesota high schools took place as early as 1902, a state track meet was
scheduled annually beginning in 1909, and the first state high school basketball
tournament was staged in 1913 (Bell, 1923; Freng, 2005). As the state's population
continued to grow in the 20th century so too did the establishment of high schools and
participation in interscholastic events (Peterson, 1947). The public interest for and
14
participation in interscholastic activities was exciting but led school leaders to believe
organization and control of interscholastic activities under one administrative umbrella
was necessary.
Freng (2005) indicated:
The creation of an organization to establish uniform playing and eligibility rules
was needed if high school athletic activities were to move from the days of
pick-up teams, quarrels, serious charges of unfairness, in intermittently severed
relations between neighboring schools, (p. 5)
The ME A superintendents' section addressed the issue at a meeting in the spring of 1914,
by creating a committee to research and develop a plan for the organization of the State
High School Association (Bell, 1923). One year later the committee delivered a
preliminary report to the MEA superintendents. Based on the committee
recommendations the MEA superintendents created the Minnesota State High School
Association (MSHSA) in 1916.
Once the MSHSA was created, superintendents from the MEA developed and
implemented a constitution to govern member schools. The MSHSA constitution listed
two primary purposes for the new organization: (a) to promote pure amateur sports and
(b) to establish uniform rules for interscholastic athletic contests (Bell, 1923). Since the
early formation of the MSHSA and the evolution of the MSHSAA into the current
MSHSL, the primary purposes identified in the original constitution of 1916 have
continued to serve as guiding principles for the management of high school programs.
The 2008-2009 Founding Purposes are listed below:
15
1. To provide, promote, extend, manage and administer a program of activities

for youth of the schools of the state on subsection, and state levels in the fields
of athletics, speech, music and dramatics on a competitive basis, as well as
such other curricular and extracurricular activities as may from time to time be
sponsored by the schools of Minnesota.
2. To establish uniform and equitable rules for youth in inter-school activities.
3. To elevate standards of sportsmanship and to encourage the growth of
responsible citizenship among the students, member schools and their
personnel.
4. To protect youth, member schools and their personnel from exploitation by
special interest groups.
5. To provide mutual benefit and relief plans for the assistance of school students
injured in athletic events or supervised school activities in meeting medical
and hospital expenses incurred by reason of such injuries.
6. To serve the best interests of member schools and their students by providing
a medium of cooperation and coordination in educational fields of endeavor
and a series of related activities on a state-wide basis, which they individually
could not achieve or accomplish for their students and which aid can assist the
schools in maintaining a constantly improved program. (Stead, 2008, p. 2)
The MSHSL Mission Statement and the Core Beliefs also support the original,
1916 guiding principles. The current 2008-2009 MSHSL Mission Statement is as
follows: "The Minnesota State High School League provides educational opportunities
for students through interscholastic athletic and fine arts programs and provides
16
leadership and support for member schools" (Stead, 2008, p. 2). The current MSHSL
Core Beliefs for the organization are listed below:
Participation in school activity programs is a privilege and not a right.
Sportsmanship needs to have a constant presence in all school-based activity

programs.
Students should have an equal opportunity to participate in all activities

offered by their school.
Ethical behavior, dignity and respect are non-negotiable.
Student participants who choose to be chemically free must be supported.
Collaborative relationships with parents enhance a school's opportunity to

positively impact student success.
Academic priorities must come before participation in athletic or fine arts

activities.
Positive role models and an active involvement in a student's life by parents

and others are critical to student success.
High school activity programs are designed for student participants, and adults
must serve in a supportive role.
The success of the team is more important than individual honors.
Compliance with school, community and League rules is essential for all
activity participants.
Participation in school-sponsored activities must be inclusive, not exclusive.
Ethical behavior, fairness, and embracing diversity best serve students and
school communities. (Stead, 2008, p. 2)
17
Reviewed on an annual basis by the MSHSL Board of Directors, the Founding

Purposes, the Mission Statement, and the Core Beliefs were last revised and changed in
the spring of 2006. The current Founding Purposes, Mission Statement, and Core Beliefs
have breadth and depth with the management and operation of interscholastic programs
when compared to the original two primary purposes crafted for the League in 1916. The
MSHSL Founding Purposes, Mission Statement, and Core Beliefs not only allow the
management of interscholastic programs, they also guide change (Stead, 2006).
The MSHSL is more than a series of games, matches, or events in a state
tournament series. The MSHSL is an organization which directs and regulates activity
programs in Minnesota high schools, as well as promoting these programs as part of the
total education of the young men and women who participate (Freng, 2005). From the
early, formative days through today, changes have taken place in the MSHSL. The
MSHSL Board of Directors and MSHSL elected Representative Assembly are the two
leadership groups. Those two groups have implemented continued change using the
MSHSL guiding principles (Stead, 2008). A description of Board and Representative
Assembly directed change occurring over the MSHSL's 10-decade history follows. The
MSHSL history demonstrates the evolution, growth, and change in the following eight
leadership services: Eligibility and Compliance, Recognition and Awards, Tournaments,
Education and Professional Development, Programming, Student and School Services,
Legislation and Rule Making, and Sponsorship and Financial Support.
During the formative years of the organization, from 1916-1930, member schools
were provided consistent playing rules and organized regular season and post-season
interscholastic competition. By the mid 1920s, the MSHSL had grown from 127 schools
18
in 1916 to 257 schools and, by 1930, 435 member schools participated in MSHSL
sponsored programs in football, basketball, track, and baseball, with swimming and
hockey discussed as future possibilities (Bell, 1923). A five-member Board of Control
comprised of superintendents from member schools handled the administration for the
MSHSL. Issues reviewed by the Board during this time included:
Legislative and Rule Making: Drafting membership rules and constitutional

bylaws;
Eligibility and Compliance: Crafting the rules of play for each sponsored
activity;
Tournaments: Creating post-season tournament formats;
Programming: Status of Girls' Interscholastic Athleticsvoting to prohibit

girls' interscholastic activities and support intra-mural programs.
Student Services: Athletic Courtesyknown today as Sportsmanship.
These five issues continue to be part of the eight leadership services, resources, and
programming today.
The first 15 years of the organization can be labeled as the formative or
foundation years, whereas the next two decadesthe 1930s and 1940swere building
on the foundation with growth and change. During this time the Board of Control and the
Representative Assembly were the change agents responsible for developing the MSHSL
into the organization as it is known today. A review of some of the main issues faced by
the organization in the 1930s and 1940s included:
March 1932: ProgrammingThe Representative Assembly received an

inquiry from the Minnesota Public Schools Music League (MPSML) asking
19
for the merger of the MPSML with the Minnesota State High School League.
This is the first request for a merger between these two organizations. The
request was denied (Smith, 1932).
May 1932: Eligibility and ComplianceThe Minneapolis schools joined the

League in all activities, including basketball. The addition of the Minneapolis
schools resulted in a redistricting of member schools into 32 districts in 8
regionsthe basic organizational and competitive structure of the MSHSL for
many years (Smith, 1932).
March 1936: LegislativeThe Representative Assembly approved an

amendment which increased the size of the Board of Control from five to
eight members with each region to have one member on the Board
(Smith, 1936).
March 1937: ProgrammingThe Athletic Accident Benefit Plan was adopted

by the Representative Assembly. The Athletic Accident Benefit Plan
provided a financial schedule of benefits for student athletes who had incurred
injury while participating in Minnesota State High School League sponsored
programs (Smith, 1937).
September 1938: LegislativeBaseball was given exception status to the

Independent Team Rule. The Independent Team Rule states that a member of
a high school team cannot participate on any non-school team in the same
sport. The exception for baseball allowed members of a high school baseball
team to also participate with a non-school baseball team (Smith, 1938).
20
These key issues addressed through the first 30 years of the organizationadding or
removing participation programs, determining the size of the legislative and
representative bodies, non-school participation rules and policies, and membership
growthare themes remaining on the year-to-year agenda of the Minnesota State High
School League (Stead, 2009).
By 1945 the membership of the Minnesota State High School League grew to 495
member schools (Peterson, 1945). The Board of Control and the Representative
Assembly continued to manage the operations of the MSHSL and also strategize on the
direction for growth and change. The mission and vision for the organization continued
to serve as guiding principles. In the second quarter century, the Board of Control and
the Representative Assembly were faced with deciding the direction of major growth and
change. During the 1940s, the fourth decade of operation for the Minnesota State High
School League, the key issues included:
March 1944: ProgrammingThe Representative Assembly considered

approving Minnesota State High School League membership for private and
parochial schools. The request to allow private and parochial school
membership with the League was defeated 29-3. In later years this request
would be mandated by State Legislation (Peterson, 1944).
March 1945: TournamentsThe Board of Control approved a State Hockey

Tournament for 1946 to be played at the St. Paul Auditorium. This addition
proved to be the single most important change in the association, guaranteeing
the financial solvency of the League (Peterson, 1945).
21
March 1946: Student ServicesA Group Benefit plan was implemented in

1946 to help offset the medical expenses student athletes faced when suffering
an injury (Peterson, 1946).
The issues above demonstrate the work and the process by the MSHSL Board of Control
and Representative Assembly during the 1940s.
The 1950s and 1960s progressive changes placed the Minnesota State High
School League at the top nationally, when student and MSHSL schools, programs,
services, and resources were compared to other state associations (Hill, 1951). During
the MSHSL's middle period of existence, 1950s-1970s, the direction and growth of
membership programs, resources, and services provided to the members schools changed.
The MSHSL was faced with similar issues and themes as in the earlier decades; the very
issues and themes that brought productive and progressive change now brought
negativity, divisiveness, and litigation. Some of the issues included:
Legislative and Rule Making: The Board of Control grew to nine members, with
eight geographical section representatives and the addition of the Commissioner of
Education of the Department of Education (Hill, 1950). Board of Control representative
membership change reflected the statewide growth of the MSHSL. The inclusion of the
Commissioner of Education solidified the MSHSL relationship with the Minnesota
Department of Education. The new Board of Control immediately faced many
challenges.
Programming: Early in 1953 the Board of Control denied a proposal to televise
the entire 1954 state basketball tournament (Hill, 1953). They did approve the televising
of the 1954 Championship game only. From a financial perspective the Board of Control
22
felt televising the entire tournament would negatively affect the revenue and profitability
of the state tournament.
Eligibility and Compliance: The MSHSL continued its stance regarding
non-school participation and all-star contests. The Board of Control decided students
who participate in MSHSL sponsored programs were not able to participate with a
non-school team or in an all-star event in the same sport outside of the official MSHSL
season. If a student participated with a non-school team or in an all-star contest the
student became ineligible to participate with the high school program for one year.
Non-school participation rules and policies would go on to consume the agenda of the
MSHSL (Hill, 1954).
Programming: At the March 1955 Board of Control meeting (Hill, 1955) the
Board passed a resolution to survey schools regarding interest in a two-class basketball
tournament. Over 500 schools were surveyed and the results of the survey indicated 150
schools voted to support two classes of basketball while 306 schools voted no.
Classification of schools, multiple classes for competition, and the assignment of schools
into competitive sections for post-season participation are ongoing issues faced by the
MSHSL on an annual basis (Hill, 1966; Freng, 1974, 1982; Stead, 1998, 2006).
A survey of other issues before the Minnesota State High School League
Representative Assembly and Board of Control for the 1950s and 1960s included:
March 1956: Legislative and Rule MakingThe Board of Control adopted an

amendment to the transfer bylaw for implementation in the 1956-1957 school
year, providing the Board of Control the authority to waive the transfer rule if
23
they were convinced the transfer was unavoidable and not for athletic reasons
(Hill, 1956).
March 1956: Legislative and Rule MakingAt a MSHSL Board of Control

meeting, the Board changed the structure of the Board of Control; a
representative from the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) was
added, bringing the Board of Control membership to a total of 10 members
(Hill, 1956).
March 1958: Eligibility and ComplianceAdditional restrictions were placed

on non-school participation of high school student athletes at the March 1958
Board meeting. Students who attended a camp or clinic outside of the high
school season would lose one year of high school eligibility in that same sport
(Hill, 1958).
December 1959: Legislative and Rule MakingThe Representative

Assembly passed a resolution authorizing the Board of Control to "take any
and all necessary and proper action to cause the Minnesota State High School
League, heretofore a Voluntary Association, to incorporate as a Non-Profit
Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota" (Hill, 1959, p. 29). In
March 1960 the Representative Assembly voted and approved the Articles for
Incorporation as a Non-Profit Corporation (Hill, 1960).
December 1961: ProgrammingThe Representative Assembly agreed to

form a committee to study the idea of music becoming a MSHSL sponsored
program (Hill, 1962). During the next year the committee sought and
received input from the member schools and existing music organizations
24
around the state. Using the information gathered from the member schools
the committee submitted a resolution to the MSHSL Representative Assembly
at the December 7, 1962, meeting to add music as a MSHSL sponsored
program. The resolution was passed at the March 22, 1963, Representative
Assembly meeting (Hill, 1963).
October 1969: TournamentsFollowing two years of study, numerous

committee meetings, discussions at District Officers meetings and
Representative Assembly meetings, the Board of Control determined in the
fall of 1969 that a two-class basketball tournament would be implemented as a
two-year experiment, beginning with the 1971 tournament (Hill, 1969).
Perhaps the single most important change brought to the MSHSL was the March
1968 adopted resolution by the MSHSL Representative Assembly to assume
responsibility for administrating a girls' interscholastic program. A year of committee
work brought the development of bylaws, rules, and policies for girls' interscholastic
activities. In March 1969 the Representative Assembly voted to sponsor girls'
interscholastic activities and the Bylaws and Rules for Girls' Interscholastic Athletics
were adopted, including the organization of a Women's Advisory Committee to the
League to assist in the ongoing development and implementation of programs for girls
(Hill, 1969).
On April 23 and 24, 1971, a Congress of the MSHSL member schools was called
for the restructuring of the Articles of Incorporation, the Constitution, the Special Rules
Sections of each League activity program, and the establishment of a General Rules
Section (Freng, 1971). This gathering is now referred to as "The First Congress of
25
Schools." The primary purpose was to update the present MSHSL structure and to bring
it into compliance with existing Non-Profit Laws of the State of Minnesota. In addition,
proposals of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, nominated by the Department of
Education Commissioner of Education, and appointed by the Board of Directors, were
acted upon at this meeting. Of the 486 total members, 447 had official representation at
this historic meeting (Freng, 1971). This was the first meeting of the total membership in
the MSHSL's 55-year history of the League.
On December 8 and 9, 1972, representatives from 427 of the 484 member schools
gathered at the Minneapolis Auditorium to participate in the MSHSL's Second Congress
of Schools. Over 900 students, school board members, legislators, superintendents,
principals, athletic directors, and coaches of athletic and non-athletic activities actively
participated in the action of the Congress (Freng, 1971). The Second Congress was
important and successful, not because changes resulted, but rather because of the manner
in which it was conducted. The Congress' proceedings were the result of a democratic
procedure which enabled each of the 900 participants to listen, to learn, and to express
their opinions concerning MSHSL rules dealing with (a) alcohol, tobacco, and drugs and
(b) summer participation as applies to football, basketball, and hockey.
On April 17, 1975, MSHSL members approved amendments providing changes
necessary to implement reorganization and reassignment for two-class competition
(Freng, 1975). The ballot results were 357 "yes" and 62 "no." The MSHSL Board of
Directors assigned the largest 128 schools by enrollment to the "AA" classification. All
other member schools were assigned to Class "A." In April 1983 the Board of Directors
26
adopted a policy which assigned schools with a minimum enrollment of 500 students to
Class "AA" and schools with an enrollment of 1-499 to Class "A."
The Third Congress of Schools meeting, held in the St. Paul Civic Center
Auditorium on November 11 and 12, 1987, had more than 600 administrators and school
board members attending from 296 member schools of the MSHSL. The theme of the
Congress of Schools was "Ownership Through Commitment, Cooperation and
Communication" (Freng, 2005). The purpose of the two-day meeting was to provide an
opportunity for MSHSL member schools to participate in workshops and round table
discussions (Bies, 1987).
Throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century the MSHSL
continued its pattern of evolution, growth, and change in the eight leadership services
categories. The examples below demonstrate, by leadership category, a sample of the
nearly 100 years of growth and change in leadership services for the member schools
(D. V. Stead, personal communication, April 21, 2010).
Category 1: Eligibility and Compliance
1995: Mirroring newly enacted state law regarding sexual harassment and
hazing, the MSHSL Board of Directors created MSHSL bylaw
209Sexual/Racial/Religious Harassment/Contact and Hazing in
League-Sponsored Athletic and Fine Arts Activities. This new bylaw
includes specific language for the assault of contest officials, differentiates
between harassment and hazing, and specifically identifies hazing as a
criminal offense.
27
2007: After 18 months of review, a 48-member Ad Hoc committee

comprised of students, coaches, athletic directors, principals,
superintendents, community members, and state legislators recommended
changes to MSHSL bylaw 111Transfer and Residence. The
recommendations were presented to the MSHSL Representative Assembly
which ultimately passed more stringent suspensions for transfer students
who change schools without a corresponding family residence change,
while at the same time creating new eligibility possibilities for online and
charter school students.
Category 2: Recognition and Awards
2001: Since its creation in February 2001 the MSHSL Officials

Recognition program has recognized the service of the over 5,000
registered officials who serve the student athletes and schools on an
annual basis. The program recognizes years of service in 10-year
increments as well as identifying those individuals who have served the
member schools above and beyond.
2003: The Challenge Cup is an awards program designed to recognize

Minnesota high schools for excellence in athletics and fine arts activities.
The Challenge Cup is awarded to two high schools, one Class A school
and one Class AA school, that earn the most points based on their
participation and finish in section and state fine arts and athletics
tournaments.
28
Category 3: Tournaments
1991: Member schools receive revenue shares for participation in state

tournaments for athletics and fine arts. On an annual basis the MSHSL
Board of Directors allocates 8-9% of the $7.5 million annual operating
budget as revenue share returned to member schools on per participant
value.
2006: As has been the case since 1916 the MSHSL has continued to add
programs and levels of competition. In 2006 the sports of golf, softball,
and baseball were expanded from two competitive classes to three classes.
Adding an additional level of classification provided the opportunity for
more students to have the opportunity to participate in a state tournament.
Category 4: Education and Professional Development
1993: The Board of Directors approved a series of meetings to be held

throughout the state during the fall, winter, and spring. Executive staff
from the League office travel across the state to hold these regional
meetings in a community in each of the eight geographical competitive
sections to share information relative to League activities. In its current
state, area meetings are held in the fall and in the spring. Attendance by
one administrator from each member school is mandatory at the fall area
meetings.
2009: To meet the statutory requirement requiring the certification of high

school head coaches, the MSHSL creates a coaches education program.
Partnered with the NFHS Coaching Principles curriculum the course is
29
specifically tailored to the needs of high school coaches and includes

Minnesota specific modules. Utilizing the latest in technology the course
blends face to face instruction with online curriculum modules and
interactive videos.
Category 5: Programming
1992: The MSHSL becomes the first state association in the nation to
sponsor adapted programming for cognitive and physically impaired
students. Currently in its 19th year students can participate in soccer, floor
hockey, softball, and bowling.
1998: Back in 1969 the MSHSL became the first state association in the
nation to officially sponsor athletic programs for girls. Continuing with
that tradition girls' hockey is added, bringing the total number of girls'
programs to 12.
Category 6: Student and School Services
1996: The MSHSL introduces a website with administrative pages for all
member schools and becomes one of the first state associations to make
the move to the World Wide Web. The introduction of the website begins
the movement to move away from traditional mailings and publications to
a web based location of League information. In 2010 the website became
the site for all school program statistics and the League introduced a high
school sports information program where students from each school use
the school specific web pages as a delivery format for timely school,
student, and sports news.
30
2005: The MSHSL embarked on a new, innovative

initiativeTeamUpfor its member schools. TeamUp is a resource
based program that provides educational materials to school administrators
to help them create a positive, safe athletic environment that promotes
respect, responsibility, fairness, and integrity. The League annually
develops two to three educational modules that focus on education,
eligibility, and health and wellness. School administrators use the
resources in forums that currently exist in their school, such as
parent-student pre-season meetings, coaches' meetings, school assemblies,
and in other community gatherings.
Category 7: Legislative and Rule Making
1990: The MSHSL Board of Directors Eligibility Committee, a

sub-committee comprised of five members of the Board, becomes the
leading rule and policy making group for the League. Annual policy and
rule review by the Eligibility Committee is then presented to the Board for
final approval. Previously, the entire Board reviewed League policies and
rules.
2006: The Board of Directors approved the newest revision of the Fair
Hearing Procedures. First enacted in 1989, the Fair Hearing Procedures
and Acknowledgement of Rights are provided for all students who wish to
appeal a school's determination of a student's eligibility. A student
advocacy appeal process, the Fair Hearing Procedures, ensures all student
participants can fairly have their eligibility determinations reviewed.
31
Category 8: Financial Support
2006: Broadcasting state tournament contests first started in 1954 when

the state championship game for boys' basketball was televised. Over the
years the number of contests and tournaments broadcasted and the fees
continued to grow. In 2006 the MSHSL signed a 10-year television
broadcast agreement with St. Paul based Channel 45 valued at $10 million
over the life of the contract for the right to broadcast the state girls'
basketball, boys' basketball, football, girls' hockey, and boys' hockey.
This contract is unmatched by any other state association in the United
States.
1990: The first corporate sponsors partner with MSHSL. The value of the
first partnership brought $250,000 to the League in each year of the
three-year agreement. In 2010, six manufacturing partners (companies
that provide basketballs, tennis balls, and other game equipment) and six
financial partners provide over $620,000 in financial ($400,000) and
equipment ($220,000) support. These examples demonstrate the
MSHSL's evolution, growth, and change over the past decades.
The MSHSL has, since 1916, demonstrated continual programming changes to

meet the needs of the school communities. The literature review provided insight into the
development and implementation of programs in the eight programming categories of the
MSHSL. Next, the literature review will look at the historical evolution of leadership
theory.
32
Leadership Theory
Leadership is a critical factor in the success and effectiveness of organizations
(Autry, 2001; Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 1994; Kotter, 1982, 1988; Kotter &
Rathgeber, 2005; Peters & Waterman, 1982). If the leadership traits, styles, and theories
high school athletic administrators currently use to manage, operate, and lead their
interscholastic athletic and activities programs are to be examined, an understanding of
the historical evolution of leadership theory is imperative.
Leadership discourse can be traced back centuries to the days of Sun Tzu
(500 BC) and Socrates (400 BC). Yet contemporary researchers and theorists continue to
struggle when they attempt to define leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Collins, 2001;
Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
Stogdill (1974) contends in his review of leadership research that there are almost
as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it.
This search for leadership understanding, this need to capture a clear-cut definition of
leadership, leaders, and the evolution of leadership theory and its application to
educational settings, is a requisite step before a comprehensive review of change theory
can take place (Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Covey, 1991; Goleman, McKee, & Boyatzis,
2002; Kotter, 1988; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Kotter & Rathgeber, 2005).
We live in an age, an eraa block of timein a society fascinated with
leadership. Television talk shows and talk radio regularly discuss who has it or who does
not. The shelves in bookstores are lined with popular books about leaders, books by
leaders, and row upon row of "how to" books promising to make better leaders. As
Bennis and Nanus (2007) wrote:
33
Leadership is a word on everyone's lips. The young attack it and the old grow
wistful for it. Parents have lost it and police seek it. Experts claim it and artists
spurn it, while scholars want it. Philosophers reconcile it (as authority) with
liberty and theologians demonstrate its compatibility with conscience. If
bureaucrats pretend they have it, politicians wish they did. Everybody agrees that
there is less of it than there used to be. (p. 1)
People are entranced and captivated by the idea of leadership. They want to find ways to
become effective leaders, believing leadership is the way to improve how they relate to
and present themselves to others (Northouse, 2007).
This search for an understanding of leadership, this need to capture a clear-cut
definition of leadership and leaders, this desire to define a singular path to become a
leader must also involve a discussion and eventual understanding of the differences
between leaders and managers and leadership and management (Bennis, 2000; Bennis &
Nanus, 2007; Covey, 1989; Goleman et al., 2002; Kotter, 1988, 1996). Regardless of the
settingthe corporate or business world, academic institutions and educational
environments, or the social sectorleadership is a highly sought after and highly valued
commodity (Autry, 2001; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Collins, 2001; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
This highly valued commodity called leadership has been difficult if not
impossible to define (De-Pree, 1989, 1992; Manske, 1990). Leadership practice is
centuries deep in development, but it was not until the turn of the 20th century where
leadership research, analysis, and study first attempted to define leadership and identify
leaders. In that time researchers have examined leadership from a variety of perspectives
and studies. The examination and study of leadership has proven that defining leadership
34
is a difficult task. As well, the studies also show there are a wide variety of approaches to
explain, conceptualize, and classify leadership (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004;
Bass, 1990;Northouse, 2007).
Contemporary researchers and theorists alike have struggled and continue to
struggle when attempting to finish the sentence: "Leadership is . .." (Bennis &
Nanus, 2007; Collins, 2001; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003). Bennis and Nanus (2007) stated:
Decades of academic analysis have given us more than 850 definitions of
leadership. Literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders have been
conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear and unequivocal
understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders, and
perhaps more important, what distinguishes effective leaders from ineffective
leaders and effective organizations from ineffective organizations, (p. 4)
Northouse (2007) continues, "As soon as we try to define leadership, we immediately
discover that leadership has many different meanings" (p. 1). Bolman and Deal (2003)
added, "There is confusion and disagreement about what leadership means and how
much difference it can make" (p. 25). What complicates the attempt to describe
leadership is the confusion between manager and leader.
Historically, as noted by Sashkin and Sashkin (2003), researchersin their
attempts to define and classify leadershipmade little distinction between the terms
"manager" and "leader." From the turn of the 20th century through the early 1980s
leadership research usually involved supervisors and lower-level managers. While at
Ohio State University, Stogdill (1948) reviewed over 100 supervisor/manager research
reports with the single goal of trying to discover common themes and conclusions about
35
leadership traits and characteristics. Researchers at the University of Michigan (Katz,

Maccoby, & Morse, 1950) also conducted several studies of supervisory leadership, as
did Blake and Mouton (1985) at the University of Texas. House (1977) at Wharton led
studies in the late 1960s and early 1970s and Hershey and Blanchard (1969) researched
the same supervisor/manager leader topics at Ohio State University. By the mid 1970s,
75 years of research and application had provided little definitive or practical knowledge
about leadership (Collins, 2001; Northouse, 2007).
Defining or understanding the distinction between the two
conceptsmanagement and leadershipis imperative. Management studies first
emerged in the early years of the 20th century with the advent of the industrial revolution
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). In one of those studies, Fayol (1916/1949) identified the
primary functions of management as staffing, planning, organizing, and controlling. For
the most part, research and studies like Fayol's, from 1900 to 1980, were limited to the
study of supervisors and lower-level managers (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003). In a review of
these early studies, Bennis and Nanus (2007) believe leadership is influencing and
guiding in direction, while management is the ability to take charge and accomplish a
task: "Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right
thing" (p. 20). Essentially, Bennis and Nanus have determined leadership is effectiveness
through vision and judgment while efficiencythe mastery of routinesbest describes
management.
Kouzes and Posner (2007) believe what separates leaders from managers is the
ability to get others to want to do rather than getting others to do. Krantz and Gilmore
(1990) noted the essence of leadership when compared to management is an individual's
36
ability to clearly communicate the mission, vision, and strategic plan. Planning,
organizing, and controlling, according to Kotter (1988), form the structural components
of management while visioning, networking, and relationship building solidify the
cornerstones of the change-oriented process called leadership. Comparing the functions
of management with the functions of leadership, Kotter (1996) later added to his earlier
discussion of management and leadership, indicating the function of management is to
provide order and consistency to organizations while the primary function of leadership is
to produce change and movement. Clarifying the differences between management and
leadership provides the opportunity to discuss the concepts of leadership.
In the second edition of their 1985 book, Bennis and Nanus (2007) reflected on
their major leadership concepts from the first editionvision, empowerment, and
organizational learning and trustand identified new leadership concepts to emphasize.
They believe:
1. Leadership is about character, a continually evolving thing;
2. Leadersto keep organizations competitivemust be instrumental in
creating a social architecture capable of generating intellectual capitals;
3. The significance of a strong determination to achieve a goal or realize a
visiona conviction or passioncannot be exaggerated;
4. The capacity to generate trust and sustain trust is the central ingredient in
leadership;
5. True leaders have an uncanny way of enrolling people in their vision through
their optimismsometimes unwarranted optimism.
6. Leaders have a bias toward action that results in success, (p. xi)
37
Sashkin and Sashkin (2003) provide a blended approach, contending the three
basic elements of leadership are the leader's personality, his or her behavior, and the
situational context of leadership. As well, Kouznes and Posner (2007) have identified
five factors that must be present in leadership:
1. Challenging the Process: searching for opportunities to do things better;
experimenting and taking sensible risks to improve the organization.
2. Inspiring a Shared Vision: constructing a future vision; building follower
support for the vision.
3. Enabling Others to Act: fostering collaboration (as opposed to competition
among followers); supporting followers in their personal development.
4. Modeling the Way: setting an example by one's own behavior; focusing on
step-by-step accomplishments by followers, so that large-scale goals seem
more realistic and attainable through a process of many "small wins."
5. Encouraging the Heart: recognizing followers' contributions; finding ways to
celebrate followers' achievements.
The practices identified by Kouznes and Posner are very similar to the Bennis and Nanus
strategies. Clearly, defining and understanding leadership is a constant process, a
constant attempt to create concepts and context. The ability to conceptualize leadership,
to classify the components of leadership, and to place leadership in context will
ultimately provide the insight necessary to identify organizational effectiveness (Collins,
2001, 2005, 2009; Collins & Porras, 1994; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Goleman, 1995;
Goleman et al., 2002; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Kotter & Rathgeber, 2005).
38
Understanding leadershipvirtually impossible to define, with multiple

meanings, hundreds of definitions, and thousands of research studiesremains the
critical factor or component of organizational effectiveness (Collins, 2001; Fullan, 2005;
Kouzes & Posner, 1987, 2007; Marzano, 2003; Peters & Waterman, 1982). The best
companies, the best businesses, the best schools, and the best organizations have one
commonality: They have not just good leadersthey have great leaders (Collins &
Porras, 1994; Kotter, 1982; Kotter & Rathgeber, 2005; Lynn, 1987). Those
organizations, businesses, and schools that don't have great leaders are looking for a way,
a method, and a concept to find great leaders. It is the search for great leadership in the
educational environment that guides this study. As Hersey and Blanchard (1988) point
out, "The successful organization has one major attribute that sets it apart from
unsuccessful organizations: dynamic and effective leadership" (p. 33).
Dynamic and effective leadership is the pivotal force behind successful
organizations; to create vital and viable organizations, leadership is necessary to help
organizations develop a new vision of what can be, then mobilize the organization to
change toward the new vision (Bennis & Nanus, 2007). The ability to lead and to
understand how to leadto not only grasp what it takes to be a dynamic and effective
leader but also to engage in dynamic and effective leadershipis imperative for
individuals who currently are, or who seek to become, educational administrators who are
educational leaders.
Hargreaves and Fink (2006) provide an additional layer to leadership and
organizational effectiveness, indicating that leaders who develop other leaders provide
the core of effective and dynamic leadershipleadership that is sustainableand
39
sustainable leadership spreads. True leadership sustains as well as depends on the

leadership of others. Kanter (2004) adds, "The fundamental task of leaders is to develop
confidence in advance of victory in order to attract the investments that make victory
possiblemoney, talent, support, empathy, attention, effort, or people's best thinking"
(p. 19). Simply put, the relationship between leaders and followers is the single, critical
factor to grow great organizations or great educational systems (Covey, 1991;
Goleman, 1995; Goleman et al., 2002; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Senge, 1990).
The breakthrough in leadership theory and its practical application that has
occurred over the past 25 years is found not in finally obtaining a definition for
leadership, nor is it a result of finally separating managers and leaders. Rather, it is found
in conceptualizing leadership in concepts and contexts and classifications (Antonakis et
al., 2004; Bass, 1990; Hickman, 1998).
A review of research on leadership shows there are a great variety of theories,
contexts, and classifications. Fleishman et al. (1991) identified over 65 theoretical
approaches or classification systems that have been developed to define leadership. The
"Great Man" theories from the turn of the 20th century (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003),
Stogdill's (1948, 1974) Trait Approach, Katz et al.'s (1950) Skills Approach, French and
Raven's (1959) Bases of Social Power, Blake and Mouton's (1985) Managerial Grid,
Kotter's (1990) Functions of Management and Change, and the Level 5 leadership model
from Collins and Porras (1994) are all examples of the classification systems that have
developed themes, concepts, and components to identify and group the commonalities of
leadership research. Green (2001) grouped the leadership periods of the 20th century into
five categories: Early Trait Theory, Behavior Theory, Contingency Theory, Situational
40
Theory, and Power Theory. All of these theories and concepts are derivatives of the
universally accepted foundational leadership classifications: Trait Theories, Behavioral
Theories, Situational Theories, Contingency Theories, and Transformational Theories
(Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
Researchers during the first 50 years of the 20th century examined leadership
theories and leadership skills, differentiating between leader and follower characteristics
(Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003). Early
leadership theories focused on the qualities that distinguished and differentiated between
leaders and followers (Bass, 1990). Initially, the dominant approach to leadership was
the "Great Man Theory" which assumed that the capacity for leadership was inherent
(Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Hollander, 1978). This research concluded great leaders were
born, not made; leaders were believed to be born with great traits. Research focused on
identifying the qualities and characteristics in great social, political, and military leaders
with the goal of understanding great leadership through understanding the personal
characteristics or traits that made the great leaders effective (Bennis & Nanus, 2007;
Northouse, 2007; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
The study of The Great Man Theory naturally evolved into Trait Theory research.
Essentially, these researchers focused on leader and follower relationships identifying the
leaders' characteristicstheir traitsseeking to find the single trait or combination of
traits that would fully and completely explain leadership and also provide a method to
identify leaders. In the early 1920s and 1930s, leadership research focused on trying to
identify the traits that differentiated leaders from non-leaders (Northouse, 2007).
41
The early leadership theories were content theories, focusing on what the effective
leader is, not on how to effectively lead. Sets of traits and characteristics were identified
to assist in selecting the right people to become leaders. Physical traits include being
young to middle aged, energetic, tall, and handsome. Social background traits include
being educated at the "right" schools and being socially prominent or upwardly mobile.
Social characteristics include being charismatic, charming, tactful, popular, cooperative,
and diplomatic (Northouse, 2007; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
Trait theorists identify the personality or behavioral characteristics shared by
leaders. Basically, they attempt to identify the intellectual, emotional, physical, and
personal characteristics of leaders (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1973). The trait
approach to understanding leadership assumes that certain physical, social, and personal
characteristics are inherent in leaders. Prominent trait researchers Stogdill (1948, 1974)
and Bass (1985, 1990) led studies that investigated individual traits such as birth order,
intelligence, child rearing practices, and socioeconomic status and consistently identified
the presence of intelligence, self-confidence, determination, and sociability in leaders
(Northouse, 2007). Simply, the trait theory approach to leadership proclaims the key to
effective leadership is the personality of the leader.
Directly opposite of trait theory, behavioral leadership theories are based on the
belief that leaders are made, not born. Behavioral theorists identified the determinants of
leadership so people could be trained to be leaders. Significant research in behavioral
research took place from 1945 to 1965. Behavioral leadership focuses on what leaders
do, how they act, and what behaviors leaders exhibit. Sashkin and Sashkin (2003) and
Hersey and Blanchard (1988) indicate behavioral leadership is not about who the leaders
42
are; it is about what they do. Behavioral researchers determined leadership is composed
of two kinds of behaviors: task behaviors that facilitate goal accomplishment by helping
group members accomplish their goals, and relationship behaviors that help subordinates
feel comfortable with themselves and with the situations they find themselves in
(Northouse, 2007).
Behavioral research identified determinants of leadership so people could be
trained to be leaders. Training programs were developed to change managers' and
leaders' behaviors so they could learn the best styles of leadership. McGregor's (1960)
Theory X and Theory Y, along with the Ohio State University Leadership Studies and the
University of Michigan studies, the Blake and Mouton (1985) Managerial Grid, and the
Blake and McCanse (1991) Leadership Grid, are the best known models of
managerial/leadership behavior.
"
Trait and behavioral leadership theories were followed by situational leadership
research which grew its roots from the mid 1960s to the late 1970s. Prominent
"Situational" or "Contingency" theorists like Fiedler (1964) and his Contingency Model,
Hersey and Blanchard (1969, 1996) and their Life Cycle Theory of Leadership, Robert
House (1977) and his Path-Goal Leadership, and Vroom and Yetton (1973) and their
Leader-Participation Model essentially believed "if leadership is not simply who one is,
nor is it just a matter of engaging in the correct behaviors then it must be about doing the
right thing at the right time" (p. 61). Situational leaders and contingency leaders must be
able to identify the environmental clues then adapt their leadership behaviors to meet the
needs of the followers in each particular situation.
43
Fiedler's (1964) Contingency Model focused on the realization that leadership

effectiveness depends on the interaction of qualities of the leader with the demands of the
situation. Fiedler identified three situations that define an effective leadership
relationship:
1. The leader-follower relationship: identify how well the leader gets along with
employees;
2. The task structure: determine the structure level of the situation from highly
structured to minimally structured; and
3. Position power: confirm the authority and legitimate power the leader has in
the relationship.
Fiedler's (1964) Contingency Model illustrates there is no best way for leaders to
lead. Rather, situations will create different requirements for different leadership styles.
Successful leaders must be able to identify the clues in the environment and adapt their
behavior to meet the needs of the followers. Contingency theory is a slight shift from true
situational leadership in that it shifts the focus from looking only at the leader to looking
at the leader in conjunction with the situation. It is a leader-match theory that emphasizes
matching the leader's style with the demands of the situation (Northouse, 2007).
Just like Fiedler, other researchers attempted to identify the distinctive
characteristics of the setting to which the leader's success and effectiveness could be
attributed (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). The situational approach suggests leaders would fulfill
different functions in situations with different tasks. These approaches propose that
doing the right thing is contingent on the situation.
44
Hersey and Blanchard (1988), prominent situational leadership theorists,

developed widely recognized approaches to understanding this leadership approach.
Their premise for situational leadership implies that the types of leadership skills and
traits to be engaged are dependent on the demands of the followers. A leader's actions
are based on his or her ability to determine the amount of direction or "Task Behavior" to
initiate, the amount of socio-emotional support or "Relationship Behavior" the situation
requires, and the level of maturity of the followers. The foundational component of the
Hersey and Blanchard model is two-way or multi-way communication including
listening, facilitating, and supportive behaviors. Through communication the leader will
first determine the maturity level of the followers then decide the amount of direction and
facilitation the situation requires. Once the maturity level is determined the appropriate
leadership style can be determined and applied. The Hersey and Blanchard (1996)
leadership styles are telling, selling, participating, and delegating. Essentially, effective
situational leaders and contingency leaders match their skills to the needs of others at that
specific moment.
As leadership theory has evolved the question researchers continue to ask is
simply "What research evidence is available to support the effectiveness of a leadership
theory?" (Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Collins & Porras, 1994;
Goleman et al., 2002; Kotter, 1990; Kotter & Rathgeber, 2005). Thousands of research
studies have been completed, testing the effectiveness of trait, behavior, and situational
leadership theories with mixed results (Northouse, 2007). Some of the research findings
support, while others contradict, the overall effectiveness of behavior or
situational/contingency models of leadership. Sashkin and Sashkin (2003) contend,
45
"None of the three basic approachestrait, behavior or situationalprovide convincing

or significantly useful answers to the puzzle of how to achieve leadership that matters"
(p. 27). To Sashkin and Sashkin, "leadership that Matters . . . is leadership that makes a
difference, a difference that occurs in the lives of the followers, in a group or
organization" (p. 33). Effective leadership incorporates behavioral elements, personality
traits, and situational context and meshes them within the structure or culture of the
organization to create an environment that means something to both followers and
leaders.
This type of leadership is visionary, compelling followers to enthusiastically
participate in the process of attaining the leader's vision. This type of leadership creates
conditions enabling others to create their own meaning, meaning that has a uniquely
personal element that provides the follower with ownership and satisfaction. Bass
(1985), Burns (1978), De-Pree (1989, 1992), Sergiovanni (1992, 2000), Collins (2001),
Kotter (1996), and Senge (1990) share similar beliefs to those of Sashkin and Sashkin
(2003). Truly effective leadership relevant today requires a paradigm shift. The
paradigm shift aligned the old ways of thinking about leadership into a new context:
Leadership is not about creating a vision; it is about actively visioning. Visionary
leadership does not predict the future; rather it creates the future. Visionary leadership
involves, empowers, and enables followers. Visionary leadership that matters is
transformational leadership.
Burns (1978) shifted the leadership paradigm with his introduction of
transformational leadership theory, a movement away from the traditional theory:
transactional leadership. Transactional leadershipthe historical approach to identifying
46
leadershipis a transaction or an exchange where followers have a clearly defined role

and are guided and directed by the leader to meet the established goals through specific
task requirements, and in return the follower is financially compensated or rewarded in
some other fashion for the work. Transformational leaders are charismatic and visionary,
appeal to the moral values of the followers, and inspire followers to transcend their own
self-interests for the good of the organization and think about goals and problems in new
and different ways (Northouse, 2007). Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) concluded that
leadership was not about a transactionmotivating followers to exchange effort for pay;
rather, they believed leadership was about transforming people and transforming the
social organizations.
Transformational leadership can be described simply as a relationship movement
from "bartering" to "bonding" (Sergiovanni, 1984). In the transformational setting
leaders and followers create the bond through shared vision and continual visioning, but
most importantly through a mutual commitment to common values and beliefs. In this
relationship a transformational leader is a moral value leader who instills the feelings of
admiration, confidence, and commitment in the followers by coaching, advising, and
delegating power and authority (Burns, 1978). A moral value leader:
1. Creates a relationship based not solely on power but also on mutual needs,
aspirations, and higher values.
2. Stimulates followers intellectually, providing the opportunity to develop new
ways to think about problems, to reach goals, and meet the vision and mission
of the organization.
47
3. Grows the relationship, converting followers into leaders and leaders into
moral agents who both elevate the relationship from moral leadership to a
higher levelservant leadership (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
De-Pree (1992) identifies the transition from a moral value leader to a servant
leader as the ultimate goal of transformational leadership. Selfless serving of others, with
shared visioning and mutual commitment to the greater good of the organization, is the
essence of creating and sustaining effective, successful organizations. Simply,
transformational leadership is about morality and motivation (Northouse, 2007).
Since Burns (1978) first introduced the paradigm shift known as transformational
leadership, no other single leadership theory has received more attention or research
(Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Kotter & Cohen, 2002). In fact, transformational leadership is
still referred to as the "New Leadership" paradigm (Northouse, 2007). One of the most
encompassing approaches to leadership, transformational leadership is concerned with
the process of identifying how leaders inspire others to accomplish goals and create great
things. Leaders must understand their need to adapt to the situation by recognizing the
needs and motives of both the organization as a whole and the followers individually.
The seminal work of Burns (1978) attempted to link the roles of leaders and
followers through morality and motivation. Subsequent transformational leadership
theorists expanded and expounded upon the work of Burns. The research and study also
sheds light on why transformational leadership continues to be relevant in organizations
today. Bass (1985, 1990), Bennis and Nanus (2007), Kouzes and Posner (1987, 2007),
Sergiovanni (1992, 2000), and Sashkin and Sashkin (2003) have all provided insight and
growth to the "new" leadership paradigm known as transformational leadership.
48
The research work of Bass and Riggio (2006) determined leaders are both
transformational and transactional, to varying degrees at different times in the
relationship with the followers. This assertion by Bass and Riggio contradicts Burns'
(1978) belief that a leader is either transformational or transactional but cannot be both.
Bass (1985) went on to argue that transformational leadership motivates followers to do
more than expected by:
1. Raising the followers' level of awareness about the importance and value of
realizing the organization's goals,
2. Creating the desire to think not about personal interests solely but to place the
interests of others or the organization above self-interests, and by
3. Compelling followers to visit the higher needs of others and of the
organization.
By focusing on the followers rather than the leaders, Bass was able to expand the concept
of transformational leadership.
Bennis and Nanus (2007) built upon the foundation laid by Burns and Bass. Like
Bass (1985), their focus was to determine how leaders actually go about the process that
is transformational leadership. Burns did not identify how leaders work in the process;
he identified the concept and existence of transformational leadership. Bennis and Nanus
(2007) focused on the actions and behaviors of transformational leaders to determine the
effect of the behaviors and actions on followers. Their study identified the common
threads that linked and connected exceptional leaders, common threads they categorized
as the five issues central to the leader/follower relationship. Transformational leaders
have a clear vision of the future of the organization, are social architects who shape and
49
form the company by communicating the shared meanings followers and leaders hold for
the organization, create trust by sharing their position and sticking by them, and by
creating positive self-respect and self-regard by emphasizing their strengths rather than
their weaknesses and by creating a sense of positive self-worth in the followers
(Bennis & Nanus, 2007).
The research of Kouzes and Posner (1987, 2007) studied the same issues as
Bennis and Nanus, focusing on the behaviors of leaders as they work with followers to
clearly identify the five fundamental factors necessary to the relationship to ensure
organizational effectiveness, but most importantly, to get extraordinary things
accomplished. The five factorsmodel the way, inspire a shared vision, enable others to
act, challenge the process, and encourage the heartare each supported with two specific
behaviors that provide strategies for practicing exemplary leadership.
Sergiovanni (1992, 2000) emphasizes the roles of intuition, emotion, values,
personal dreams, and what he calls "mindscapes" in his study of transformational
leadership. The heart of leadership has to do with what a person believes, values, dreams
about, and is committed tothe individual's personal dream. Moral commitment to the
goals of the organization and a commitment to a shared vision of a better future rather
than seeking to satisfy one's own self-interests are the principal tenets of Sergiovanni's
(2000) framing of transformational leadership.
Sashkin and Sashkin (2003) frame transformational leadership into four specific
leadership behaviors: communication leadership, credible leadership that builds trust,
caring leadership focused on respect, and creating empowerment opportunities.
Conceptually, there is little difference in the categorization or framing of transformational
50
leadership from Burns through Sashkin and Sashkin. In fact, Sashkin and Sashkin
present a solid, viable summary of transformational leadership. Effective
transformational leadership emphasizes communication, recognizes shared values and
morals by placing others above self-interests, and by placing the success of the
organization above personal achievement. At the same time a culture of trust and
positive self-regard ensures that commitment to others rather than self-interests will
benefit the entire membership of the organization. Additionally, Howell and Avolio
(1993) identify true transformational leadership as socialized leadership, concerned with
the collective good, based on mutuality and comprehensiveness of shared values and
morality.
Bass and Riggio (2006) believe transformational leadership has long-standing,
sustained relevance due to its emphasis on intrinsic motivation and follower
development. Northouse (2007) supports Bass and Riggio, indicating the modern day
workforce wants inspiration and empowerment, and a combination of qualities will best
prepare them for success. With respect to transformational leadership Northouse (2007)
concludes:
Successful transformational leadership has strong intuitive appeal, it emphasizes
the importance of followers in the leadership process, it goes beyond traditional
transactional models and broadens leadership to include the growth of followers
and it places strong emphasis on morals and values, (pp. 203-204)
This paradigm shift in leadership theory is a shift to transformational leadership.
With simplistic concepts that are easily comprehended it has sustained its prominence in
the study into leadership theory and organizational development on a simple,
51
fundamental tenet: Effective leadership and organizational success hinges on the proper
communication of visiona daily visioning that sustains positive growth and change
(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Sergiovanni, 1992).
Universal Components of Leadership
The past three decades have produced a multitude of qualitative studies
examining leaders and leadership in organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This
extensive research has further identified the universal themes or components of effective
leadership. Leadership theory research, for the most part, can be narrowed down or
focused on the two most widely accepted contexts of leadership: the clash between
"One-Best-Way Leadership" and "Contingency Leadership" (Fiedler, 1964; Hersey &
Blanchard, 1969; House, 1977).
In a comprehensive review of leadership theory framing concepts Northouse
(2007) found the following four components universal to the classification systems:
1. Leadership is a processit is not a trait or characteristic that determines
leadership but a transactional event that occurs between the leader and the
follower. The leadership process engages the leader and follower in a
non-linear relationship that depends on interaction that is not restricted only to
the formally identified leader in the group.
2. Leadership involves influencewith the emphasis on how the leader affects
the followers. Without influence, followers will not follow and leaders cannot
lead.
3. Leadership occurs in a group contextwhere the influencing process leads
the follower toward a common purpose.
52
4. Leadership involves goal attainmentthe primary focus of the process: for

without a direction for the group, no amount of influenceregardless of how
great the process is believed to bewill create the desire in a follower to
follow. Leaders direct their energies, focus and abilities toward empowering
followers to move toward the common goal. (p. 18)
After identifying the four universal components of leadership classification
systems Northouse (2007) surveyed leadership research determined to gather common
threads used to define leadership. As Bennis and Nanus (2007) note:
Decades of academic analysis have given us more than 850 definitions of
leadership. Literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders have been
conducted in the last seventy-five years alone, but no clear and unequivocal
understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders, and
perhaps more important, what distinguishes effective leaders from ineffective
leaders and effective organizations from ineffective organizations, (p. 4)
Keeping the words of Bennis and Nanus in mind, Northouse summarized the research
and then reviewed 75 years of leadership definitions before developing his own definition
of leadership. Northouse defines leadership as "a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p. 3). In this study,
Northouse's definition of leadership will be used.
Transformational Leaders and Change Agents
Armed with those four components common to leadership classification systems,
Northouse (2007) also concluded leadership involves leaders and followersthose who
engage in leadership will be leaders and those to whom the leadership is directed will be
53
followers. Northouse's conclusions regarding leadership support the earlier work of

Burns (1978), Heller and Van Till (1983), and Jago (1982)all of whom believe leaders
need followers and followers need leaders.
A proper understanding of visioning and a comprehensive review and discussion
of transformational leadership are imperative to any discussion or examination of
organization change theory. Transformational leaders are recognized as modern day
change agents, who are strong role models, who can develop a vision, and who can
clearly articulate the vision for an organization (Bass, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1994;
De-Pree, 1992). These change agent leaders set the highest of standards and empower
the followers to meet these standards by creating an environment of trust that gives
meaning to the life of the organization. Framing leadership theory, in particular
transformational leadership theory, into contexts that can transition into a review of
organizational change theory is also fundamental to comprehending how best to create
effective change in educational settings. Finally, creating effective systemic change in a
high school environment requires a complete comprehension of what leadership is and is
not, the universal or common components of effective transformational leadership, and
the recognition that paradigms shift and reframe leadership theory and organizational
change theory (Sergiovanni, 2000).
Bass (1990) believes these classification systems generally view leadership as the
focus of group processes where the leader is the center of group change and activity, and
whose actions demonstrate the will of the group. To Bass, leadership is conceptualized
from a personality perspectivesuggesting that a leader is either able to induce others to
54
accomplish tasks by using traits and characteristics that he or she possesses, or a leader's
actions or behaviors will bring about group change.
Bolman and Deal (2003) point out "leadership is not a tangible thing. It exists
only in relationships and in the imagination and perception of the engaged partners"
(p. 12). Most views of leadership conclude leaders get things done, with the expectation
that leaders will inspire, leaders will persuade, and leaders will convince others to pursue
common goals that grow beyond self-interest. As well, Northouse (2007), Kotter (1990),
and Bolman and Deal (2003) believe any discussion of leadership classification systems
and leadership in organizations should include the concepts of Trait vs. Process, Assigned
vs. Emergent Leadership, Leadership and Power, and Leadership vs. Management.
Regardless of the classification system used, common themes can be determined.
Bolman and Deal (1984) believe leadership is a relationship requiring engaged
partners. It is a process that requires an interaction between a leader and a follower, an
exchange of commitment, an acceptance of vision. Messagescommunicationflow
back and forth; leadership is not a one-way process. Gardner (1989) states, "Leaders are
not independent actors; they both shape and are shaped by their constituents" (p. 33).
Bolman and Deal (2003) add:
Leadership, then, is not simply a matter of what a leader does but of what occurs
in a relationship. The relationship of leadership is based on perceptions,
involving our upbringing, our character, our emotion as well as our past and
current situations, (p. 21)
Without question leaders get things done, but leadership is not a matter of what a
leader does, but of what he or she is able to get others to do. Leaders have power and
55
they are powerful, yet care must be taken to minimally wield that power. Leaders have
authority and at the same time they have to be careful with how they apply their
authority. The transition from leadership theory to change theory is what leadership is
and is not, what it can and cannot do. The transition, the common thread, the link is
communication. Leadership is synonymous with vision, vision equates to change, and
change is a message delivered that effectively communicates that the innovation sought
has now been implemented (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Collins, 2001; Deal & Kennedy,
1982; De-Pree, 1989; Goleman et al., 2002; Sergiovanni, 2000).
True leadership exchange is multi-framed and situational. It is a paradox; it is a
contradiction. They give growth and also grow, they have power but empower, and they
are able to enable. If leadership is sustained visioning and visioning is indeed the
implementation of change, then melding organizational leadership theory and
organizational change theory to create sustained and effective change can be done using
Bolman and Deal's (2003) four frames of organizations.
Framing Leadership
Earlier, the leadership theory literature review received a traditional
categorization or framing. Leadership theory has historically been categorized or
grouped as follows: trait theory, behavior theory, situation/contingency theory, and
transformational theory (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2005). Bolman and Deal (2003) offer an
alternative method to label or frame leadership theory, a method based on their study of
organizations and their research into organizational leadership, culture, development,
andequally importantorganizational change. Bolman and Deal (2003) have sorted
through the organizational systems for categorizing leadership theory and consolidated
56
the theories into four perspectives: the Structural Frame (Factory), the Human Resources
Frame (Families), the Political Frame (Jungles), and the Symbolic Frame (Temples). The
Bolman and Deal (2003) framing theory assumes that the four orientations represent the
ways in which leaders lead and the ways in which leaders perceive organizational
situations to exist. Further, the four frame theory represents the ways leaders are molded
and shaped to most effectively manage situations.
A "frame," as defined by Bolman and Deal (2003), is a method to label and
organize schools of thought or theory that creates "mental models, maps, mind-sets
schema or cognitive lenses. As a mental map, a frame is a set of ideas or assumptions
you carry in your head. It helps you understand and negotiate a particular 'territory'"
(p. 12).
In the study of leadership theory and organizational theory the frames provide the
opportunity to conceptualize different theoretical approaches to an issue, and at the same
time provide the opportunity for a researcher to determine the approach or combination
of approaches that will be most successful when applied. Simply put, "a frame . . . is a
coherent set of ideas that enable you to see and understand more clearly what goes on day
to day" (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 41). The Bolman and Deal Four Frames as they apply
to categorization of leadership theory and organizational theory are identified below.
The effective leader in the Structural Frame is a social architect whose leadership
style is analysis and design. The structural leader focuses on "goals specialized roles and
formal relationships" (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 140). As well, the structural leader
emphasizes strategy, environment, implementation, experimentation and adaption, and
"champions a pattern of well-thought out roles and relationships that when properly
57
designed can accommodate both collective goals and individual differences" (Bolman &
Deal, 2003, p. 45). The structural leader designs and implements a process or blueprint
detailing the formal expectations and interactions of the leaders and followers in the
organization.
Bolman and Deal (2003) identify the six assumptions of the structural frame:
1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.
2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through
specialization and a clear division of labor.
3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of
individuals and units mesh.
4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences
and extraneous pressures.
5. Structures must be designed to fit an organization's circumstances (including
its goals, technology, workforce, and environment).
6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be
remedied through analysis and restructuring, (p. 45)
The structural leader as a change agent focuses on the organizational design,
confident that implementing a rational, controlled system will maximize energy and
resources and it will eliminate the waste of time and money (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In
the structural frame the leader will clarify the organizational goals and the lines of
authority; manage the external environment; develop a clear process appropriate to task
and environment; and focus on the tasks, facts, and logicnot personality and
58
emotionsnecessary to achieve the desired outcome or change (Katzenbach & Smith,

1993; Likert, 1976).
In the structural frame two issues are central to the successful implementation of
change: differentiationthe allocation of work, and integrationthe coordination of
roles in the organization once the responsibilities have been assigned (Bolman &
Deal, 2003). The concepts of differentiation and integration evolved from the early 20th
century studies conducted by structural researchers Fredrick Taylor (1911/2007), Henri
Fayol (1916/1949) and the subsequent research by Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick
(1937).
Referred to as "Scientific Management," the research of Taylor identified a series
of methods and arrangements necessary to an organization to ensure maximum efficiency
by identifying the "one best way" for accomplishing any given task (Taylor, 1911/2007).
Taylor's research sought to increase output through systemic efficiency by using
scientifically based investigative and inquiry methods to discover the fastest, least
fatiguing, and most efficient production process. Still relevant today, Taylor's ideas
continue to be dominant influences on the design and management of organizations
(Shafritz et al., 2005).
The contributions of Fayol (1916/1949) to scientific management include the
structural tenets of specialization, span of control, authority, and the delegation of
responsibility. Shafritz et al. (2005) point out Fayol was the first to develop a
comprehensive theory of management. Central to his management theory, Fayol
(1916/1949) developed six principles that he believed were universally applicable to
every type of organization: technical (production of goods), commercial (buying, selling,
59
and exchange activities), financial (raising and using capital), security (protection of
property and people), accounting, and managerial (coordination, control, organization,
planning, and command of people).
Weber (1964/2005) further defines and refines the structural frame with respect to
differentiation, identifying the structural concept of bureaucracy or, more specifically,
"monocratic bureaucracy"a philosophy that described the created and maximized
rational norms for a system. The Weber bureaucracy outlined several components:
1. Fixed division of labor;
2. Hierarchy of offices;
3. Set rules governing performance;
4. Separation of personal from official property and rights;
5. Technical qualifications for selecting personnel; and
6. Employment as primary occupation and long-term career.
Further research into the work of Weber and the structural frame focused on and
examined work relationships; organizational structure choices; and the impact of
structure choice and implementation on productivity, morale, and employee effectiveness
(Blau & Scott, 1962).
Additional research by Mintzberg (1979) in the structure of organizations focused
on the basic structural parts of the organization, identifying the five basic parts of the
organization tied to the task of integration. The five parts are the operating core, the
strategic apex, the middle line, the techno structure, and the support staff. Mintzberg's
(1979) basic five theory addresses the structure of an administrative hierarchy when
multiple levels of management and supervision exist in an organization. The division of
60
labor is paramount, and creating specialized roles is necessary to ensure the desired goals
and changes can occur.
Essentially, the structural frame works best when the goals and information are
clear, when cause and effect relationships are delineated with clarity, and when there is
little conflict and a stable legitimate authority. The effective structural leader is a rational
decision maker who will set objectives and coordinate resources when planning change,
realign roles and responsibilities to fit tasks when reorganization is necessary, guide the
organization by establishing goals that will keep the organization headed in the right
direction, and who will establish a formal control system that evaluates performance for
the distribution of rewards (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The effective structural leader will
also assign authority to managerial positions to resolve conflict through a hierarchal
distribution of power and communicate facts and information directly to followers. The
structural leader becomes ineffective when he becomes a petty tyrant whose realigning
changes to the organization create confusion in the differentiation of work and the
integration of duties (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Likert, 1976; Mintzberg, 1979).
The effective leader in the Human Resources Frame is a catalyst and servant
whose leadership style emphasizes support, empowerment, advocacy, and responsiveness
to employee needs. The human resources leader "focuses on organizations' human side"
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 14). As well, the human resources leader emphasizes people
and views them as the heart of the organization and attempts to be responsive to their
needs and goals as a process to gain commitment and loyalty. Human resources leaders
believe in people and communicate that belief through their visibility and accessibility.
With an emphasis on communication, the human resources leader listens well and
61
encourages personal warmth and openness by "highlighting the relationship between

people and the organization. People need organizations and organizations need people
but their respective needs are not always aligned" (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 132). The
human resources leader emphasizes people and organization alignment.
The relationship between the behavior of people in an organization and the
resources an organization provides for its people is central to the human resources frame.
Bolman and Deal (2003) contend the human resources frame is built on the following
core assumptions that highlight the sensitive relationship between the people of the
organization and an organization for its people:
1. Organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the reverse.
2. People and organizations need each other. Organizations need ideas, energy,
and talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities.
3. When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer.
Individuals are exploited or exploit the organizationor both become victims.
4. A good fit benefits both. Individuals find meaningful and satisfying work,
and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed, (p. 115)
Shafritz et al. (2005) note that in the human resources frame "people are considered to
be as important as or more important than the organization itself (p. 145).
Follet's (1926/2005) study of motivation and group dynamics proposes and
argues for participatory leadership, leadership where the employees and employers
cooperatively assess the situation and decide what should be done at that moment in that
situation. Follett points out a participatory leadership style, a style defined by Bolman
and Deal (2003) as a human resources frame of leadership that "facilitates better attitudes
62
within the organization because nobody is necessarily under another personthey all
take their cues from the situation" (Shafritz et al., 2005, p. 147). The research findings of
Follet, Mayo, and Roethlisberger questioned the long held belief in organizations that
workers had no rights. Instead they concluded that "people skills, attitudes, energy and
commitment were vital resources that could make or break an organization" (Bolman &
Deal, 2003, p. 114).
The Hawthorne studies conducted by Mayo (1933) and also involving
Roethlisberger (1941), a researcher on Mayo's staff, provide the foundation for the first
look at the human resources frame in organizations. Follett's (1926/2005) research also
examines the human resources frame and provides an early analysis of the role of
participatory leadership in an organization. Discussions of motivation and the hierarchy
of needs provided through the research and study of organizations by Maslow (1943,
1954) and McGregor (1960) are equally important to the growth and development of the
human resources frame.
Mayo and Roethlisberger began their research from the perspective of scientific
management to identify the environmental changes that would enhance and increase
worker performance. The study, begun as a review of what is now called the structural
frame, produced the earliest insight into the human resources frame (Bolman & Deal,
2003; Shafritz et al., 2005). The results of the Hawthorne study produced a set of
assumptions that would displace the assumptions of classical organizational theory,
producing the first comprehensive study of the effects of employee motivation in an
organization.
63
Maslow (1954) and McGregor (1960) examined motivation and the needs of
workers in an organization, further expanding the ideas first brought to the human
resources frame by Mayo, Roethlisberger, and Follet. Grouping motivation and needs
into five basic hierarchal categories, Maslow developed the theory that people are driven
by a variety of wants and needs whereby once the lower physiological and safety needs
are satisfied individuals will be motivated to seek higher needs like a sense of belonging,
esteem, and self-actualization.
McGregor (1960) used Maslow's five-level hierarchy as the launching point for
his human resources frame. McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y leadership paradigm
explains in the Theory X frame that leaders' assumptions about workers tend to become
self-fulfilling prophecies where workers are destined to be lazy and unsatisfied, while the
Theory Y frame proposes that the essential task of a leader is to arrange the
organizational conditions so that people can achieve their own goals by directing their
efforts toward organizational rewards.
McGregor (1960) argues that the human resources leader as a change agent
focuses on the people of the organization, encouraging a back and forth flow or sharing
of information to move decision making down into the organization. In the human
resources frame the leader will ensure all aspects of the organization are operating very
openly and honestly. Employees are provided accurate information that enables and
empowers them to make informed decisions to change the operation of the organization
(Argyris, 1970, 1990; Blake & Mouton, 1985; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Kouzes &
Posner, 2007).
64
In the human resources frame, central to the successful implementation of change,

employees or followers must be highly involved, highly committed, and highly motivated
by the goals of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The other key component in the
implementation of effective change in the organization is the acknowledgment that,
unlike the structural frame that views the structure of the organization as the independent
variable to be manipulated in order to change behavior, the human resources frame
instead views the organization as the context in which behavior occurs as both the
independent and dependent variable (Shafritz et al., 2005). The organization shapes
behavior and employee behavior shapes the organization, and it is through these
interactions that decisions about work, the roles of the leaders, and the attainment of
goals and desired outcomes are made (Vroom & Yetton, 1973).
Essentially, the human resources frame works best when employee morale is a
high priority or consideration and when there is relatively little conflict in a shared
decision making process. Bolman and Deal (2003) concluded that the effective human
resources leader, through an open decision making process, is a leader who will promote
worker participation in the planning for the organization, maintain a balance between
human needs and the formal roles of the employees when reorganization is necessary,
keep people involved by establishing organization goals through open communication,
establish a process of evaluation that helps people grow and improve, and who will hold
informal meetings where feelings and involvement in the organization are the primary
focus. The effective human resources leader will also develop relationships to assist with
the resolution of conflict through a collaborative communication process where
information can be exchanged and the needs and feelings of all involved can be
65
discussed. The human resources leader becomes ineffective when he or she is a pushover
who leads by removing himself or herself of any responsibility in the final leadership
decision making process (Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Blake & Mouton, 1985; Bolman &
Deal, 2003).
The effective leader in the Political Frame is an advocate whose style is coalition
and consensus building. The political leader "sees organizations as arenas, contests, or
jungles where interest groups compete for power and scarce resources" (Bolman & Deal,
2003, p. 15). In addition, the political leader focuses on the political realities that exist
within and outside of the organization by clarifying what he or she wants and determining
what he or she can get. It is "simply the realistic process of making decisions and
allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent interests" (Bolman & Deal,
2003, p. 181). The political leader assesses the distribution of power and interests,
building linkages to other stakeholders and interest groups by using persuasion first, then
negotiation, and finally, coercionbut only if necessary.
Bolman and Deal (2003) identify the five assumptions of the political frame:
1. Organizations are coalitions of diverse individual and interest groups.
2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs,
information, interests and perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resourceswho gets what.
4. Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central to
organizational dynamics and underline power as the most important asset.
5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for
position among competing stakeholders, (p. 186)
66
The political leader as a change agent focuses on power, conflict, and coalition.
Unlike the structural frame leader whose leadership is guided by clearly delineated goals
and policies, or the human resources frame leader whose leadership is shared and guided
by decisions involving all of the members of the organization, the political leader
recognizes that "divergent interests, scarcity, and power relations" (Bolman & Deal,
2003, p. 185) inevitably will control the direction of the organization. The political frame
leader will create arenas for negotiating differences, developing compromises, and the
distribution of power and perceived power (Kanter, 1983; Kotter, 1988; Pfeffer, 1992).
Power and politics in organization theory date as far back as Aristotle (360 BC),
who asserted that the specific nature of executive powers and functions cannot be the
same for all organizations but must reflect their cultural environment (McKeon, 2001).
Machaivelli's (1532) work is an expose of leadership through power emphasizing
practical power instead of moral actions (Constantine, 2007).
French and Raven (1959/2005) conclude power and influence involve relations
between at least two agents, and theorize that the reaction of the recipient agent is the
more useful focus for explaining the phenomena of social influence and power. The core
of French and Raven's research on power is their identification of the five bases of social
power: reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power, and expert
power.
Kanter (1979) indicates that the political frame rejects the distribution of power
concepts found in the structural frame or human resources frame. Kanter (1979) further
notes that organizations are not rational systems nor do organizations advocate
collaborative communication that enables and empowers. Rather, organizations are
67
viewed as complex systems of individuals and coalitions, each having its own interests,
beliefs, values, preferences, perspectives, and perceptions. The coalitions compete for
scarce resources and attempt to gain influence with the sole goal of power attainment
through the creation of power dynamicsa process whereby goals, structure, and
policies emerge from continual bartering, bargaining, and negotiation among the special
interest groups.
According to Kanter (1983) and Kotter (1985, 1988), the political leader displays
four key skills: agenda settingstatements of interests and scenarios; mapping the
political terraindetermining channels of communication, identifying the principal
players with influence, analyzing internal and external organization movement, and
anticipating the strategies other players may use; networking and forming
coalitionsidentifying relevant relationships and assessing coalition resistance or
roadblocks; and bargaining and negotiatingnecessary to effect organizational change
(Kotter, 1985).
Mintzberg (1983) discusses organizational behavior as a power game. The
players are influencers with varying personal needs who attempt to control organizational
decisions and actions. His work focuses on who the power influencers in the political
frame are and where their power comes from. He identifies 11 groups of power
influencers: five external coalition power sources and six internal coalition sources.
Viewing an organization as a coalition contradicts traditionally accepted structure
and human resources framing. With no singular shared goals or outcomes the various
special interests groups must bargain with each other to eventually influence goals and
decisions (Kotter, 1985). Structural theorists emphasize legitimate authority and human
68
resources leaders place little emphasis on power, instead promoting empowerment. The
effective political leader uses authority as the stepping-stone to power and power as the
means to control conflict and influence change, creating an agenda for change with two
major elements: vision that balances the long-term interests of the parties involved, and a
strategy for achieving the vision that recognizes competing internal and external forces
(Kotter, 1988).
Recent political frame research focuses on the definition of power and the
distribution of power. Pfeffer (1981, 1992) explores the advantages and limitations of
defining power. Pfeffer (1992) points out, "Power is context or relationship specific. A
person is not 'powerful' or 'powerless' in general, but only with respect to other actors in
a specific social relationship" (p. 73).
Bolman and Deal (2003) conclude that the political frame works best when
resources are scarce or declining, where there is goal or value conflict, and where
diversity is high. The effective political leader, by exercising power in the decision
making process, is a leader who will plan and create arenas or opportunities to air conflict
and realign power. They then redistribute power and form new coalitions when
reorganization is necessary, and provide opportunities in the goal-setting process for
stakeholders and groups to make their interests known. They attempt to influence and
manipulate others, view any evaluation process as an opportunity to exercise power, and
who will view any meeting as a competitive opportunity to win points and gain power.
The effective political leader will also seek to resolve conflict by developing and
distributing power by first persuading, then negotiating or bargaining, before using
coercion to form new power coalitions. The political leader becomes ineffective when he
69
or she is viewed as a hustler who manipulates and forces others to succumb to his or her
wishes (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter, 1985; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981).
The effective leader in the Symbolic Frame is a prophet, whose leadership style is
vision and inspiration. The symbolic leader focuses on "social and cultural anthropology,
treats organizations as tribes, theaters, or carnivals, abandoning assumptions of rationality
more prominent in other frames" (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 15). As well, the symbolic
leader emphasizes the need for people to believe that their personal work and the work of
the organization is important and meaningful, emphasizing the importance of traditions,
ceremony, and rituals. The symbolic leader "seeks to interpret and illuminate basic
issues of meaning and belief that make symbols so powerful" (Bolman & Deal, 2003,
p. 242). Symbolic leadership is steeped in culture, meaning, and metaphor, and the
symbolic leader reinforces the importance of the symbols that represent the culture of the
organization to capture attention, to frame experiences, and to communicate the vision of
the organization.
Bolman and Deal (2003) identify the five assumptions of the symbolic frame:
1. What is most important is not what happens but what it means.
2. Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings
because people interpret experience differently.
3. In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to
resolve confusion, increase predictability, find direction, and anchor hope and
faith.
4. Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than
what is produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes, and
70
heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and
passion in their personal and work lives.
5. Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people
around shared values and beliefs, (p. 242)
Simply put, the symbolic frame is about understanding the culture of the organization.
To grasp and comprehend exactly what symbolic leadership is, first it must be clarified
what it is not.
The symbolic or cultural frame challenges a century of organizational theory.
Shafritrz et al. (2005) conclude that the "modern" structure of organizations based on
rational perspectives and formally structured systems with the primary purpose of
accomplishing goals does not fit with the non-linear symbolic approach to leadership. In
fact, the symbolic/cultural frame rejects the tenets of the structural and political frames.
Instead, this frame assumes that many behaviors and decisions in the organization are
pre-determined by the basic assumptions held by the members of the organization.
Additionally, Shafritz et al. explain, "From the organizational culture perspective,
systems of formal rules, authority and norms of rational behavior do not restrain the
personal preferences of organizational members" (p. 353). Rather, members of the
organization are instead controlled by the cultural norms, their values and beliefs
systems, and by their personal basic assumptionsthe vision of and for the organization.
The symbolic leader as a change agent focuses on the vision for the organization,
believing it to be critical to the sustained future of the organization. In the symbolic
frame, the leader acknowledges the fact that people will give loyalty to an organization
that has a unique identity and makes them feel that what they do is really important.
71
Purveying the right image, projecting the long-held rituals and beliefs, the symbolic
leader is visible and energetic, often relying on long-held beliefs and valued traditions to
build common vision that provides meaning (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Collins & Porras,
1994; Kotter & Heskett, 1992). Kilmann, Saxton, and Serpa (1985) conclude,
"Organizational culture is a social energy that moves people to act" (p. 52), also noting
"culture is to the organization what personality is to the individuala hidden, yet
unifying theme that provides meaning, direction, and mobilization" (p. 52).
Of the four frames created by Bolman and Deal (2003) the symbolic frame is the
newest or youngest to the field of leadership theory and organizational theory. With just
over 30 years of study, research, and discourse the symbolic frame first introduced by
Bolman and Deal in 1984 and formally labeled in the 1990s evolved from previous
studies into the culture of organizations (Shafritz et al., 2005). Early research by Schein
(1978, 1993), Peters and Waterman (1982), Deal and Kennedy (1982), Sathe (1985), and
Sergiovanni and Corbally (1984) produced the first comprehensive, theoretically based
writings on organizational culture.
Schein (1993) proposed a formal definition of culture that has gained wide
acceptance. He defined the culture of a group or organization as follows:
A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well
enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems, (p. 12)
Critical to his definition is the introduction of three elements: the problem of
socialization, the problem of behavior, and the question whether a large organization can
72
have one culture. Schein (1993) believed his definition of culture and three identified
elements would "provide meaning and explain some of the seemingly irrational and
incomprehensible aspects of groups and organizations" (p. 142).
Deal and Kennedy (1982) define culture as "the way we do things around here"
(p. 4), and Bolman and Deal (2003) add that "culture is both a product and process,
embodying the accumulated wisdom from those before us, constantly renewed and
re-created as newcomers learn the old ways and eventually become teachers themselves"
(p. 244).
Cook and Yanow (1993), cognizant of Schein's (1993) definition of culture in an
organization, explored the role of culture on organization learning, seeking to define and
clarify the role of culture in learning. They defined organizational learning as the
capacity of an organization to learn how to do what it does. Cook and Yanow further
concluded that the size of the organization has no bearing on learning, and regardless of
the size, the cultural subsetswith no one subset more dominant than the nextprepare
members to understand why they do things the way they do. In their study they also note
that cultural socialization is not a question of addressing how to teach a new member to
understand the symbols, rituals, and values important to the vision of the company.
Instead, the organization must determine how to renew and renourish itself with new
members without losing the continuity of its symbols, rituals, practices, and values.
Bolman and Deal (2003) note that the symbolic frame works best when goals and
information are unclear and ambiguous, where cause-effect relations are poorly
understood, and where there is high cultural diversity. The effective symbolic leader is a
comforting and supportive decision maker who will use rituals to signal responsibilities
73
when planning change, develop symbols and shared values in the goal-setting process,
and who will see the evaluation process as an opportunity to play roles in shared rituals to
determine the performance of the individual and the organization in the joint effort to
meet the vision goals. The effective symbolic leader will also develop shared values and
communicate these shared values through myths and stories to resolve conflict,
transforming meetings into theatrical productions designed to celebrate and transform the
company (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The symbolic leader becomes ineffective when his or
her symbols, rituals, myths, and stories become nothing more than smoke and mirrors, a
veiled attempt to hide the fact that the goals and vision for the company are not realistic,
are not attainable, and do not fit the historical cultural pattern for the organization
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Hofstede, 1984).
Perhaps the most significant perspective the symbolic frame provides in the
discussion and framing of leadership theory and organizational theory is the role and
value of vision in leaders and vision in organizations. A frame just under three decades
old, the symbolic or cultural frame will guide the discussion of organizational change
theory. The symbolic frame provided the opportunity to reframe the structural, human
resources, and political frames. Reframing leadership and reframing organizations
through vision and communication will guide the remaining review of literature:
organizational change theory.
Organizational Change Theory
Educational change is based on the presumption that schools want to accomplish
their goals more effectively by replacing some structure, programs, and practices with
better ones (Fullan, 2007, 2008). The same theory holds true for an educationally based
74
organization like the Minnesota State High School League. The goal of the organization
is to help schools better meet the goals they and their school communities have set for
their interscholastic programs. The process of making that happen, of helping schools
meet their goals, requires making changes in the current structure, replacing existing
programs and practices and implementing new programs and practices. Lencioni (2002)
contends the key to that process is not financial, nor is it a particular strategy or a specific
technology. "The key to change is teamworka mastery of a set of behaviors that are
theoretically uncomplicated but extremely difficult to put into practice" (p. 91).
Lencioni (2002) states teamwork is the key to implementing systemic change,
then a process must be identified that will allow the team to create change. However,
from a historical perspective, Lencioni's determination that the foundation of change is
teamwork based within a simple process contradicts systemic change patterns of the past
three decades. Systemic change has been event based not process based (Ellsworth,
1997, 2000; Fullan, 2006; Lencioni, 2002).
Over the past 30 years a pattern has developed across the nation in the business
world and in the educational environment whereby systemic change became an event
(Hall & Hord, 2001). Businesses and school districts would introduce a new program,
give it a year to grow roots, then immediately determine its effectiveness. If no
measurable change was found, if the desired outcomes weren't met, the upper
managementthe leaderswould throw it out and find a new "best practice" and create
a new event launching (Collins, 2001, 2005; Fullan, 2001, 2006, 2008; Hall & Hord,
2001). In the high schools, school leaders and teachers soon caught on to the annual
implementation cycle and rightfully so became skeptical of the "new, latest, and
75
greatest." Programs like A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in

Education, 1983), William Glasser's behavioral approach to working with kids, Bill
Clinton's Goals 2000 where students seek proficiency with no standards to hold them
accountable to, Bush's No Child Left Behind, Blue Ribbon Schools, cognitive coaching
of teachersassessing teacher performance in order to coach them on improvement
methods, differentiated instruction, professional learning communities, Response to
Intervention, and pyramid response to interventionare all examples of new programs
that were introduced under the newest "latest greatest" label.
Ellsworth (2000) noted that systemic change in the educational environment
needs a strategy; it needs a process. Hall and Hord (2001) also support the notion that
change is a process rather than an event. These are ideas that contradict the traditional
implementation of change in the business world and the educational environmentthe
very idea that change is not an event but rather is a process. To Fullan (2007) the
historical way to implement change did not make sense. Once the sources and purposes
of and for the change have been determined, then a carefully mapped process can be
implemented.
Ellsworth (2000) noted that systemic change in the educational environment
needs a strategy; it needs a process. Hall and Hord (2001) also support the notion that
change is a process rather than an event. These are ideas that contradict the traditional
implementation of change in the business world and the educational environmentthe
very idea that change is not an event but rather is a process. To Fullan (2007) the
historical implementation of change did not make sense. Fullan believed that to
implement systemic change the meaning of change must be addressed.
76
The meaning of change is one of those intriguing concepts that seems like so
much common sense, but eludes us when we pursue it on a large scale. The
reason that it is so difficult to pin down is that at the end of the day large-scale
reform is about shared meaning, which means that it involves simultaneously
individual and social change. (Fullan, 2007, p. 11)
Fullan (2007) further states, "Meaning is the key, but only if it is shared. And
shared meaning requires purposeful action on multiple fronts" (p. 19). Once purposeful
action is understood, a carefully mapped process for change that focuses on shared
meaningthe interconnect between individual and collective meaning and action carried
out in situations every daycan be implemented.
Collins' (2001, 2005) position regarding change theory affirms and supports the
theories of Lencioni (2002), Ellsworth (2000), Hall and Hord (2001), Fullan (2001, 2006,
2008), Kotter (1996), and Kotter and Rathgeber (2005) by offering a more refined
definition of teamwork and its importance in the process of systemic change. Collins
believes that building a great organization requires a four-stage process:
Stage 1Disciplined people, Stage 2Disciplined thought, Stage 3Disciplined action,
and Stage 4Building greatness to last. Collins' four stages can build an organization
and they too can be used to change an existing organization and transform it into a great
organization. Kotter and Rathgeber (2005) offer an Eight-Stage Process for Change and
Fullan (2008) provides the Six Secrets of Change. Regardless of the theorist, two critical
components essential to implementing systemic change are the recognition that change is
a process predicated on teamwork and the understanding that the process for change must
be deeply rooted in the prominent foundational change theories of the past 50 years.
77
So what do we now know about organizations and organizational change? We

know that contemporary change theorists believe change is not an event; it is a process.
We know that the fundamental element of the process is teamwork. We know that the
system must be simple and uncomplicated. We know that we must understand the
purposes for the change and the sources for the change. We know that Collins (2001)
provides a simplistic system that allows us to understand the four essential ingredients
necessary to build a great organization. Further, Bolman and Deal (2003) believe that
organizations are complex, surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous, making them difficult
to understand and manage. With that being said we now need to select a system to
identify the change path to travel. The conceptual process identified by Bolman and Deal
(2003) as Framing and Reframing will serve two purposes: (a) It will provide a process to
conceptualize and structure change and (b) it will allow for the grouping or categorizing
of contemporary change theorists.
Framing and Reframing
To properly categorize organizational change theory into the Bolman and Deal
four frames requires first an understanding and review of framing and reframing. To
Bolman and Deal (2003), framing and reframing is a process of clarity. They believe in a
simple premise:
The primary causes of managerial failure and organizational failure are faulty
thinking rooted in inadequate ideas and managers, and those who try to help them
too often rely on narrow models that capture only part of the realities of
organizational life. (p. 331)
78
Faulty thinking, inadequate ideas, and hopeless confusion in an organization can

be transformed into correct thinking with more than adequate ideas and clarity of purpose
if multiple frames of organizational development theory are first understood then
implemented. Through their decades of exploration and study of management,
leadership, and organizational development theories and practices, Bolman and Deal have
consolidated the major schools of thought in organizational development and change into
four perspectives or frames: Structural, Human Resources, Political, and
Symbolicframing structures that are rooted in managerial and social science research
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). The four frames serve as an "organized window to the world"
(p. 12) of leadership and management (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Essentially, the four
perspectives/frames are tools for understanding organizational change and development
theory as well as process. Beyond framing and reframing we must also understand
multiframing.
Historically, organizations have been presented in linear, ordered fashion; yet the
reality of organizations is that they are anything but rational, linear, or crisply ordered.
Organizations are frantic, reactive systems with chaotic, ongoing change (Bolman &
Deal, 2003; Kotter, 1982). Goal setting, strategic planning, decision making, vision, and
missionthe collective fiber of an organizationalso are in constant flux. And
depending on the view, or the frame, or the context, the outlook of members of an
organization can be strikingly different. Peters and Waterman (1982) point out that a
leader's ability to view a situation from multiple views or frames and the ability to
integrate multiple frames are essential to the success of the organization. Additionally,
Kotter (1996) supports Peters and Waterman, proposing that the balancing of views or the
79
application of multi-frame thinking is an imperative and essential component for leader

effectiveness. Luthans, Yodgetts, and Rosenkrantz (1988) also support these theories,
noting that the key characteristic in successful leaders is the ability to approach an issue
through the eyes of multiple frames.
To understand and grasp multiframing, the generalities of framing must be
revisited. Bolman and Deal (2003) indicate:
Each of the frames has its own image of reality.
An individual may be drawn to one or two frames and repelled by others.
Some frames may seem clear and straightforward, while others seem puzzling.
Learning to apply all four frames deepens an appreciation and understanding

of the organization.
Successful leaders frame and reframe until they understand the situation at hand.
They do this by using more than one frame, or perspective, to develop both a diagnosis of
what they are up against and to develop strategies for moving forward (Lynn, 1987).
Johnson (1998) concludes:
The basic message is simple and clear: clinging to old beliefs and habits when the
world around you has changed is self-defeating. Flexibility, experimentation, and
the willingness to try new beliefs are critical to success in a fast-changing world.
(P- 82)
Bolman and Deal (2003) further define reframing:
The essence of reframing is examining the same situation from multiple vantage
points. The effective leader changes lenses when things don't make sense or
aren't working. Reframing offers the promise of powerful new options, but it
80
cannot guarantee that every new strategy will be successful. Each frame offers
distinctive advantages, but each has its blind spots and shortcomings, (p. 331)
Bolman and Deal (2003) believe learning multiple perspectives, or frames, is a
"defense against cluelessness" (p. 6). Frames serve multiple functions: They are maps
that aid navigation and tools for solving problems and getting things done. Refraining
occurs when managers and leaders view the same situation from multiple
perspectivesmultiple frames. Essentially, multiframing is the ability to think about the
same thing in more than one way.
Communication Change Components
Ellsworth (2000) contends that multi-frame thinking must also work within the
context of the components of an organization. He believes seeking a single best approach
is an exercise in futility and failure. A leader of educational change should approach the
process of change first by understanding the components essential to a change process
then through a multi-framed view of change
To make sense of change and to conceptualize the framing of change,
assumptions regarding the change process must first be made. The first assumption, and
the cornerstone of the organizational change theory literature review, is simply this:
"Change can be understood and managed and when change is approached in this fashion
it is referred to as planned change" (Ellsworth, 2000, p. xvi). The next level of change
assumptions hinges on the cornerstone assumption that planned change can occur.
Rogers (1995) believes that planned change is a specific instance whereby the
communication model of organizational change is implemented. The communication
model of organizational change is founded on a simple premise: Change is the ability for
81
a leader or change agent to deliver a messagea vision or proposed innovation. The

innovation is received by an intended adopter and in this back and forth two-way process
the adopter or change agent, despite resistance from within the organization, is able to
accept and implement the change (Ellsworth, 2000). Additionally, Hall and Hord (1987)
contend that the application of multiple coordinated interventions or proposed changes is
more likely to produce the desired outcome than a single, uncoordinated proposal for
change.
Ellsworth (2000) identifies the components of planned change through the
communication change model:
1. Change Agent: the individual in the organization who communicates the
2. Innovationthe desired change to implement to the
3. Intended Adopterthe individual in the organization that must accept the
innovation and implement the innovation using a
4. Change Processthat establishes a channel, method or process through the
5. Change Environmentthe situation where the two communicantschange
agent and adopterare able to consider then implement the change while
recognizing and working through the
6. Resistanceany disrupters in the organization or the social context, that may
attempt to thwart or prevent the intended change in organizational
7. Environmentthe actual situation in which the innovation is presented and
into which the innovation will receive
8. Interferencethe disruption or distortion of the intended innovation and
message provided by the change agent.
82
The eight components listed previously represent a planned change communication

model.
Current research in the study of organizational change theory can find its roots in
two philosophical approaches or traditionsthe Diffusion of Innovations model or the
General Systems Theory. Shafritz et al. (2005) indicate the earliest studies in the
Diffusion of Innovations theory date back to the work of Ryan and Gross in the mid
1940s but really developed with the work of Rogers. Rogers' (1995) work through the
decades focuses on the attributes or characteristics of innovations and the effects each
characteristic has on the rate of adoption of the change. The diffusion approach to
change is a people-centric theory.
The early studies in organizational change using the General Systems tradition
began in the mid to late 1950s (Ellsworth, 2000). A systems approach to organizational
change is heavily based on scientific or management theory. Structural by nature, the
General Systems tradition approaches change by manipulating all of the components of
the communication change model without focusing on the traits and characteristics of the
innovations or the intended adopters.
Research in the past 30 years combines the components of diffusion theory and
the general systems theory. Ellsworth's (2000) eight components of an effective change
process continue to be implemented in this fused process of change. The
diffusion/general systems combined approach must:
Integrate the parts of the change communication model
Select and coordinate the types of changes one makes
Involve stakeholders and consider their needs and concerns

83
Ensure that the end result of these processes constitutes a viable system in the
context of its surrounding systems, (p. 29)
Simply put, multi-framed categorization of change theory is a blended approach that

allows for broad-based vision, providing the opportunity to view a situation from
multiple perspectives, and implementing change through the use of multiple systems and
processes.
Communication, vision, and innovation are the key components of change theory
and will serve as the foundation for the framing of organizational change theory (Collins,
2001; Collins & Porras, 1994; Fullan, 2006; Goleman et al., 2002). A variety of
approaches to categorization of change theory could be used. A chronological approach
beginning with the earliest known discourse on change theory could begin with Sun Tzu
(500 BC), who recognized the need for hierarchal organization, inter-organizational
communications, and staff planning (Clavell, 1983); followed by Socrates (400 BC), who
argued that management was an art unto itself (Xenophon, 1869/2005); and then perhaps
Machiavelli (1513) with his advice to all would-be leaders (Constantine, 2007); and then
focus on the research and studies of the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
Framing Change Theory
A literature review of change theory could organize the theorists into categories
based on the communication model. For example, Rogers' (1995) Diffusion of
Innovations could be identified as a discussion of the innovation component. Ely's
(1976) Conditions of Change could be used to describe and identify the change
environment. A review of research based on the idea that the stakeholder is the change
agent would involve Fullan and Stiegelbauer's (1991) research. Havelock and
84
Zlotolow's (1995) C-R-E-A-T-O-R model could serve as a reference for discussion on

the change process. The Concerns-Based adoption model of Hall and Hord (2001) could
serve as the foundational discussion of the role of the intended adopter in the
communication change model. Zaltman and Duncan's (1977) Strategies for Planned
Change could serve as the backdrop of categorizing change theory discourse focused on
resistance to change. Finally, the review could follow Reigeluth and Grarfinkle's (1994)
treatment of systemic change, accomplished through the understanding that change as a
system can occur if the change agent and adopter also understand and emphasize the
importance of the operation of the system's individual components.
Instead, the approach in the change theory literature review will travel a different
direction involving two steps: First, the review will sample a selection of the major
organizational change theorists of the past 30 years and categorize the theories using the
four Bolman and Deal (2003) frames; and the second step will present three
contemporary change theorists through a review of the individual theory tenets and then
placement into the Bolman and Deal frames. The literature review indicates there is no
one frame nor single organization change theory that is applicable for all situations.
Shafritz et al. (2005) articulate:
There is no such thing as a theory of organizations. Rather, there are many
theories that attempt to explain and predict how organizations and the people in
them will behave in varying organizational structures, cultures, and
circumstances, (p. 30)
To accomplish the first stepto organize change theories using the Bolman and Deal
frameswill involve three prongs. First, the theories will be grouped into the four
85
categories: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic; second, a brief review of
the frame will be presented; and third, the major theorists for the frame will be presented
in one of three categoriesclassical, transitory, or modern. Finally, change theorists will
be presented at length.
A Bolman and Deal (2003) structural leader is a social architect whose leadership
style is analysis and design. Structural leadership can be powerful and enduring when the
focus is on designing and building an effective organization (Collins & Porras, 1994).
Structural leaders do their homework; rethink the relationship of the structure, strategy,
and environment; focus on implementation; and also experiment, evaluate, and adapt
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). The following theorists can be framed as structural change
theorists:
Classic Structural Theorists: Fayol (1916/1949), Gulick and Urwick (1937);

Socrates (Xenophon, 1869/2005); Taylor (1911/2007); Weber (1964/2005).
Modern Structural Theorists: Goleman et al. (2002); Hargreaves and Fink

(2006); Helgesen (1995); Katzenbach and Smith (1993); Mintzberg (1979,
2004); Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh (2000); Shirley and Hargreaves (2006);
Welch (2001, 2005); Wilson (2007).
A human resources leader is a catalyst and servant whose leadership style is

support, advocation, openness, listening, coaching participation, and empowerment
(Argyris, 1957, 1962; House, 1977; Sergiovanni, 1992; Vroom & Yetton, 1973;
Waterman, 1994). Human resources leaders believe in people and communicate their
belief, they are visible and accessible, and they empower others by making it clear that
employees have an involved investment in the decision making process (Peters &
86
Waterman, 1982). The following theorists can be framed as human resources change
theorists:
Classic Human Resources Theorists: Follet (1926); Maslow (1943, 1954);

Mayo (1933); Roethlisberger (1941).
Transition Human Resources Theorists: Argyris (1957, 1964, 1970, 1990);

Lewin (1997); Lippitt, Watson, and Westley (1958); McGregor (1960);
Rogers (1995); Schein(1968, 1978).
Modern Human Resources Theorists: Anderson (2006); Burns (1978); Cohn

(2007); Deming (1986); De-Pree (1989); Elmore (2004); Goleman (1995);
Goleman et al. (2002); Handy (1993); Kanter (1983, 2004); Kotter and Cohen
(2002); Sisodia, Wolfe, and Sheth (2007).
A political leader is an advocate whose leadership style is coalition and building

(Bolman & Deal, 2003). Political leaders are realists who clarify what they want and
what they can get; they assess the distribution of power and the interests in the
organization to determine whose support is needed; they build connections to the
stakeholders and recognize power is essential to their effectiveness (Kanter, 1977, 1983;
Pfeffer, 1992, 2007). The following theorists can be framed as political change theorists:
Classic Political Change Theorists: Cyert and March (1963); French and
Raven (1959/2005); Machiavelli (Constantine, 2007).
Modern Political Change Theorists: Charan (2007); Fisher and Ury (1981);
Kanter (1979, 1983, 2004); Kotter (1988); Kotter and Rathgeber (2005);
Mintzberg (1983, 2004); Pfeffer (1992, 2007); Pfeffer and Sutton (2006).
87
The symbolic leader is a prophet whose leadership style is inspiration and who
leads through both action and words as he or she interprets and reinterprets experiences
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). Symbolic leaders view the organization as a theater or stage to
play certain roles and give impressions. They lead by example and demonstrate their
commitment by taking risks and holding nothing back to inspire others. They use
symbols to capture and provide meaning and they communicate and articulate a vision
then attempt to persuade others to accept the vision. As well, they use stories to embed
the vision by providing a sense of past and present to create the future (Bennis &
Nanus, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2007). The following theorists can be framed as
symbolic change theorists:
Blanchard, Britt, Hoekstra, and Zigarmi (2009); Charan (2007); Cook and
Yanow (1993); Coyle (2009); Deal and Kennedy (1982); Hofstede (1984);
Lencioni (2007); Luthans et al. (1988); Peters and Waterman (1982); Senge
(1990).
Viewed singularly, each frame provides a picture of how organizations may

operate. The key focus is on the word "may." Rarely do organizations operate in a
uni-dimensional frame; rather, they pull from multiple frames. A multi-frame analysis of
the change process with components from all four frames provides an organization a
greater chance to reach positive outcomes and create successful change. Leaders cannot
be tied to one or two frames. They must be willing to view the situation with multiple
lenses. Johnson (1998) provided a simple and clear message regarding multi-frame
change: Leaders cannot cling to old beliefs and habits when the social context of the
88
organization is rapidly changing. A leader must be flexible, capable of experimenting,

and willing to try new strategies aimed to create success for the organization.
Dunford and Palmer (1995) found that management courses teaching multiple
frames had significant positive effects over both the short and long run. Those who
master the ability to reframe report a liberating sense of choice and power. Managers are
imprisoned only to the extent that their palette of ides is impoverished. Multi-frame
thinking requires elastic movement beyond narrow and mechanical approaches for
understanding organizations. Effective leaders need multiple tools, the skill to use each
of them, and the wisdom to match frames to situations. The following theorists can be
framed as multi-framed change theorists:
Multi-Frame Change Theorists: Argyris and Schon (1996); Barber (2007);

Collins (2001, 2005, 2009); Collins and Porras (1994); Fullan (2001, 2006,
2007, 2008); Fullan, Hill, and Crevola (2006); Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991);
Havelock and Zlotolow (1995); Kotter (1996); Kotter and Heskett (1992);
Kotter and Rathgeber (2005); Lencioni (2002, 2007); Roberto (2005); Rogers
(1995); Peters and Waterman (1982); Sartain and Schumann (2006);
Sergiovanni (1992, 2000); Sisodia et al. (2007).
To accomplish the second stepthe review and framing of three contemporary

change theoristthree prongs will also be used. First, the underlying assumptions of the
theory will be presented; second, the key principles of the theory will be identified; and
third, the theory will be framed.
With the historical perspective of leadership theory and the framing of change
theorists complete, the focus can now be directed to implementing and sustaining
89
educational change and programming reform. What works today, what sustains
leadership is very simpledistributed leadership and planned leadership succession.
Hargreaves and Fink (2003) identify three foundational premises that support sustained
leadership:
1. The future of leadership must be embedded in the hearts and minds of the
many and not rest on the shoulders of the heroic few. School leadership is not
the sum of its individual leaders; it is a system, a culture where students,
parents, teachers and principals must see leadership as integrated and shared.
2. Education systems should see leadership as a vertical system that extends over
time. The efforts of previous leaders should be reflected in current leaders.
As well as understanding what is needed now to improve and change school
leaders must also know what knowledge will be needed to preserve, grow and
sustain the initiatives and successes in the future for new leaders.
3. The promise of sustainable success in education lies in creating cultures of
distributed leadership throughout the school community, not in training and
developing a tiny leadership elite. Essentially, teachers cannot see themselves
as the deliverers of the leadership theories of others. Rather, they must view
themselves as an integral part of the leadership team and they must be
encouraged to actively lead from the moment they begin their career.
(pp. 699-700)
Hargreaves and Fink (2006) believe it is the traditional view educational theorists
and educational change agents have taken in the past and continue to take that restricts
sustainable change and sustainable leadership. They identify long-standing practices like
90
"graded schools, compartmentalized secondary school, tracking students by ability and

teacher-centered instruction" (p. 47) as concepts that perpetuate the inability to sustain
changeto change culture in education reform. Tyack and Tobin (1994) refer to this
maintenance of long held practices and concepts as the "grammar of
schooling"practices that stifle truly sustained educational change. It is the grammar of
schooling that keeps education change and reform at the implementation phase instead of
growing it into the institutionalization phase. The institutionalization phase allows and
promotes the integration of new theories and practices for all the administration, coaches,
and students in a school; for all schools in a district; and for all districts in a statewith
sustained change the end result (Anderson, 2006; Anderson & Stiegelbauer, 1994;
Hargreaves & Fink, 2006).
Fullan (2008) is adamant that his new approach to change can produce deep,
lasting, and sustained change. His approach relies on the premise that understanding the
relationship between theory and action will increase the chances of bringing about deep
and lasting systemic educational change that will profoundly impact societal change. An
organization's ability to create effective change is really about understanding theory and
action, the difference between innovation and innovativeness, and the foundational belief
that there must be meaning in change if change is to be developed and sustained in the
culture.
Comprehending the difference between theory and action requires one to
understand how organizations like schools and educational systems work. To fully
understand how organizations grow and develop one must understand, as Fullan (2007)
contends, "the important distinction to be made between innovation and innovativeness.
91
The former concerns the content of a given new program, while the latter involves
capacities of an organization to engage in continuous improvement" (p. 11). One must
also come to terms with and be able to identify change that is meaningful (Fullan, 2007,
2008). Fullan's Six Secrets of Change provide a model to bring about meaningful change
that is sustainable.
Fullan's (2008) Six Secrets of Change have five underlying assumptions that must
first be reviewed:
1. The theory is meant to apply to large scale reform;
2. The set has to be understood as synergisticall six secrets feed off of each
other;
3. They are heavily nuancedit takes a lot of thought and application to
appreciate their use and meaning;
4. All six secrets are motivationally imbeddedthe theory works because the
secrets motivate the vast majority of people to invest the passion and energy
needed to get results;
5. Each of the secrets represents a tension or dilemma, (p. 10)
The six secrets of Fullan's (2008) model are as follows:
1. Love your employees: Fullan believes that investing in employees in the right
way can be enormously profitable and employees must be enabled to learn
continuously and to find meaning in their work and in their relationships with
their co-workers and the company.
92
2. Connect peers with purpose: Fullan indicates that large scale reform requires
leaders to embed strategies that foster continuous and purposeful peer
interaction.
3. Capacity building prevails: It is Fullan's belief that leaders must invest in the
development of individuals and the entire school to improve the whole system
where capacity consists of new competencies, resources and motivation.
4. Learning is the work: Fullan demonstrates the idea that effective organizations
see working and learning to work better as one and the same.
5. Transparency rules: Through a clear and continuous display of results, and
clear and continuous access to practice to show what is being done to get the
results, the gains outweigh the costs.
6. Systems learn: In this large scale reform model two dominant change forces
are unleashed and continuously cultivatedknowledge and commitment.
When this occurs people will continue to grow and learn and their sense of
meaning and motivation will be stimulated and deepened, (pp. 11-14)
Like Fullan, Kotter (1996) and Kotter and Rathgeber (2005) have created a large
scale reform process that is people-centric and focuses on distributed leadership. First
developed in the mid 1990s, and fueled by a global economy creating more opportunities
and more crisis for everyone, the 2005 evolution of the original theory creates a system
whereby organizations have a chance to create sustained positive change.
Kotter and Rathgeber's (2005) eight-step process of successful change follows:
1. Create a Sense of Urgency: Help others see the need for change and the
importance of acting immediately.
93
2. Pull Together the Guiding Team: Make sure there is a powerful group guiding
the changeone with leadership skills, credibility, communications ability,
authority, analytical skills, and a sense of urgency.
3. Develop the Change Vision and Strategy: Clarify how the future will be
different from the past, and how you can make that future a reality.
4. Communicate for Understanding and Buy In: Make sure as many others as
possible understand and accept the vision and the strategy.
5. Empower Others to Act: Remove as many barriers as possible so that those
who want to make the vision a reality can do so.
6. Produce Short-Term Wins: Create some visible, unambiguous successes as
soon as possible.
7. Don't Let Up: Press harder and faster after the first successes. Be relentless
with initiating change after change until the vision is a reality.
8. Create a New Culture: Hold on to the new ways of behaving, and make sure
they succeed, until they become strong enough to replace old traditions,
(pp. 130-131)
Kotter and Rathgeber (2005) believe that the successful implementation of the eight steps
requires understanding the role of thinking and feeling. Thinking differently can change
the behavior and lead to better results. Not only must the data be collected, it must be
properly analyzed and then presented logically to help change people's thinking.
Changed thinking is the first step toward changed behavior. Kotter and Rathgeber
indicate feeling differently about the situation has a profound impact on behavior and
leads to better results. They believe leaders should create "surprising, compelling and, if
94
possible, visual experiences" (p. 132). If those types of experiences are created, how
people feel about a situation will be changed and continued changes in feelings can lead
to sustained changes in behavior. Similar to Kotter and Rathgeber, Palmer (2000) also
approaches change with an emphasis on thinking, feeling, and self-study.
Palmer (2000) frames leadership into five shadows that, when applied correctly,
when one immerses himself or herself into the depths of these tenets, the leader/change
agent will be transformed and will "cast less shadow and more light" (p. 85). Below are
the five shadows common among leaders:
1. Insecurity about identity and worth: Most leaders project an extroverted
personality which makes this shadow sometimes impossible to see. However,
the extroverted personality is merely a screen that hides an overwhelming
sense of self-doubt and low self-esteem. When a leader is insecure about
identity and self-worth he or she will create an environment that robs those
around him or her of their identity just to enhance their own worth. When a
leader/change agent looks inward and removes this shadow the individual will
then possess the understanding and knowledge that identity is not dependent
on power or the role in the organization.
2. The belief the universe is a battleground, hostile to human interests: A
common held belief by leaders is the premise that if one is not competitive,
fiercely competitive, then as a leader/change agent he or she will fail because
the world is a battle zone. This inner shadow is really about an individual's
fear to lose a fight, so the leader/change agent tends to create conditions where
those around him or her feel as if they must compete, they must battle, and
95
they cannot lose. Leaders/change agents who have addressed this inner
shadow understand the world is not combative, rather all work together for the
common good. These leaders also understand that the nature of reality is to
create harmony.
3. Functional Atheismthe belief that ultimate responsibility for everything
rests with an individual: Leaders/change agents tend to think that if they are
going to have success, if something good is going to happen, then that
outcome is entirely up to the individual leader/change agent. When one leads
this way, when one believes this to be the truth, he or she will tend to impose
his or her will on others with devastating effects on the relationships. The
effective leader/change agent successfully addresses this inner shadow and
discoverseveryone contributes toward success. The leader/change agent
will empower others to help them reach the understanding that all are asked
by the community to only do what each individual is capable of doing, by
trusting that others will do what they can contribute toward the creation of a
complete community.
4. Fear, especially fear of the natural chaos of life: Leaders/change agents in the
depths of the fourth shadow make every attempt to remove chaos and
distraction from the world, insisting on organization to a level that and extent
where every part of life is orchestrated. When one leads this way it is usually
with rigid rules and procedures and those around the leader/change agent feel
restricted and constricted rather than empowered. The successful
96
leader/change agent knows and understands that chaos brings creativity and
empowerment, and flexibility brings vitality and growth to the social setting.
5. The denial of death itself: Leaders/change agents who fail to realize death can
bring growth, who fail to understand that all things run a course and who
demand that those around him or her must continue to provide life to the
dying, will never climb out of this shadow. Denial of death really is the fear
of failure and leaders/change agents who do not take riskschallenging the
living while at the same time accepting deathare destined themselves to no
longer live by actively participating in the social setting. The leader/change
agent who is willing to accept risk and welcome change will encourage and
reward those around him or herchallenging the status quo by demonstrating
the desire to take chanceseven if they fail. (pp. 85-91)
Recognizing these five shadows and immersing one's self into the depths of the shadows
to discover an inner self is the key to Palmer's (2000) leadership frame.
With clarity, Palmer (2000) has developed an approach to leadership and
organizational change that, when compared to other contemporary change theories,
approaches the concept of change from a perspective that is a complete polar opposite.
Most theories for organizational change require a search outward first, to determine the
climate and the culture prior to the implementation of a change strategy. Palmer, on the
other hand, promotes a search within to truly understand one's self before attempting to
impart change with others. Instead of seeking outward direction, leaders/change agents
need to reflect within to find direction. At the core of Palmer's five shadows is the belief
that if an individual is truly to become whole, if he or she is to become a contributing
97
member of this society, if he or she is going to impact the community and place a positive
thumbprint on it, then each individual must search within to discover who they really are.
Palmer believes "the inner work is as real as outer work and involves skills one can
develop, skills like journaling, reflective reading, spiritual friendship, meditation and
prayer" (p. 91).
The five shadows are used to help answer the questions "What am I meant to do?
Who am I meant to be?" (Palmer, 2000, p. 2). The shadows really are a vision to
vocation, a calling or summons to a course of action. If the five shadows are used
correctly to look within, I now believe my outer world will be as it should bewhere I
now will become myself. The shadows most certainly are a road map to change.
Summary
Chapter II provided a review of the literature related to the history of the MSHSL.
A literature review of leadership theory and change theory was also presented. The
MSHSL literature review provided a historical perspective of the development of the
MSHSL programming to demonstrate the value the programs provided and continue to
provide to the school communities. This should help answer the research question which
seeks to identify current programming valued by school communities. The leadership
theory literature review provided the historical evolution of leadership theory, which
should best prepare the researcher to reflect on the research question related to currently
practiced leadership styles used by athletic administrators. The literature review on
contemporary organizational theory and the Bolman and Deal theories was included to
help the researcher identify the process leaders should implement to create change.
98
Chapter III presents the procedures utilized in this study, including purpose of the study,
description of instruments, administration of surveys, and data analysis.
99
CHAPTER IE
PROCEDURES
Chapter III presents the procedures utilized in this study, including purpose of the
study, description and development of surveys, description of population, description of
data collection, and description of data analysis. The discussion in this chapter will focus
first on the MSHSL Evaluation of Leadership Resources, Services, and Programs
(MSHSL ELRSP) survey followed by the NIAAA Leadership Training Program
Leadership Survey: Perceptions of Leadership Traits (NIAAA LTPLS) instrument.
The purpose of the study was twofold:
school; and
directors.
needs of the school community and the leadership programming offered by the MSHSL
for its member schools may provide the insight needed to address the leadership direction
for the long-term future of the MSHSL. The importance member school administrators
place on currently available leadership programming, resources, and services, and the
100
identified programming needs for the future, may provide the MSHSL staff and Board of
Directors with the vision necessary to improve the MSHSL. Furthermore, identifying
and understanding the leadership styles and traits currently being used by interscholastic
athletic administrators across the nation, in relation to organizational change and
development theory, will allow the MSHSL staff and MSHSL Board of Directors to
develop strategies and programming to assist member schools to effectively implement
change in their school communities. Implementing change should positively impact the
school communities and, most importantly, the students who participate in MSHSL
sponsored activities, athletics, and fine arts programs.
The researcher presented the surveys to the dissertation committee and they
approved. The procedures and surveys for the study were approved by the University of
North Dakota Institutional Review Board (IRB), with approval #200912-140 granted on
December 4, 2009.
Development and Description of MSHSL ELRSP Survey
The MSHSL ELRSP survey instrument was developed by the executive staff of
the MSHSL in January 2008. The executive staff, which included the Executive
Director, four Associate Directors, and three Assistant Directors, developed the
instrument to fulfill a MSHSL Board of Directors request to gather specific information
from MSHSL member schools. The MSHSL Board of Directors requested data that
would indicate where the member schools wanted the MSHSL Board and MSHSL staff
to place their resources, time, and efforts; assist the Board with their short-term and longterm goal-setting process; and ultimately guide the Board through their next strategic
planning process.
101
The 2008 survey represents a revision and update of similar surveys previously
administered in 2004, 1999, and 1995. A review of the three previous surveys and a
complete review of the MSHSL strategic plan for 2008-2010 provided the foundation for
the creation of the 2008 survey. Once the final draft of the 2008 survey was approved by
the MSHSL executive staff, it was submitted to the MSHSL Board of Directors
Executive Committee for review. In February 2008 the MSHSL Board of Directors
Executive Committee concluded the instrument was adequate in form and content and did
not require any further revisions.
The MSHSL ELRSP survey instrument was comprised of 68 questions, which
included 54 Likert scale questions and 14 open-ended questions. The intent of the Likert
scale questions was to rate the impact/importance of each identified leadership program
or service as it relates to the leadership needs in each school community. The
open-ended questions were not used in this study.
The athletic director at each MSHSL member school (492 schools) received the
survey electronically. MSHSL member schools included public schools, private schools,
home schools, charter schools, and online schools. Respondents included
superintendents, principals, and athletic directors.
Description of MSHSL ELRSP Data Collection
On March 15, 2008, the survey was submitted electronically from the MSHSL
director of technology to each of the 492 member schools. The survey was emailed to
the athletic director or individual responsible for the administration of MSHSL sponsored
programs at the school, as designated by the school in their directory information on their
102
MSHSL web page. The athletic director was asked to complete the survey with the
assistance of the school's principal and the superintendent or the superintendent's
administrative designee. For each question the school representatives were asked to rate
the impact or importance of each MSHSL program as it relates to the needs of their
school community. Each question was to be jointly discussed by the school
representatives. The single answer for each question would reflect the consensus
decision of the school representatives. Each school was asked to complete the survey and
submit it electronically to the MSHSL no later than May 7, 2008.
Description of MSHSL ELRSP Data Analysis
Out of 492 MSHSL ELRSP surveys, 294 surveys (59.8%) were returned. Prior to
any data analysis, 5 surveys were dismissed for containing numerous incomplete
responses, leaving a total of 289 surveys (58.7%) for analysis by the May 7, 2008,
deadline. For the returned surveys a numerical value was applied to each of the five
responses available for the Likert scale questions: Very Important (5), Important (3),
Slightly Important (1), Not Important (-1), and Not Applicable (0). The average value of
perceived impact/importance for each of the 54 Likert scale questions was calculated
using the following formula:
Average Value of Perceived Impact/Importance =
[5(VI)+3(I)+l(SI)+(-l(NI))+0(NA)]/n N = (289)
The average values were then used to determine rank order value of the program or
service as it relates to the needs of the school community. Additionally, all of the
questions in the MSHSL ELRSP survey were placed into eight categories reflecting the
103
general themes of the leadership programming services offered by the MSHSL to the
member schools. The eight categories are identified below:
Category 1: Eligibility and Compliancesix Likert scale questions (5, 12, 17,
18, 28, and 29).
Category 2: Recognition and Awardseight Likert scale questions (2, 6, 10,

20, 22,40, 51, and 63).
Category 3: Tournamentsnine Likert scale questions (8, 26, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48, and 49).
Category 4: Education and Professional Developmenteight Likert scale

questions (7, 9, 11, 19, 23, 31, 38, and 50).
Category 5: Programmingthree Likert scale questions (1, 34, and 41).
Category 6: Student and School Servicestwelve Likert scale questions (14,

15, 16, 21, 24, 30, 32, 33, 39, 52, 53, and 54).
Category 7: Legislative and Rule Makingfour Likert scale questions (3, 27,
36, and 37).
Category 8: Sponsorship and Financial Supportfive Likert scale questions

(4, 13, 25, 35, and 42).
Development and Description of NIAAA LTPLS Instrument
The National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Leadership

Training Program Leadership Survey: Perceptions of Leadership Traits (NIAAA LTPLS)
was developed by members of the executive staff of the NIAAA, members of the NIAAA
Board of Directors, members of the NIAAA Leadership Training Program national
104
coordinating committee, and national course chairs from the NIAAA Leadership Training
Program. The development of the survey took place during the fall of 2004.
First, the executive director and the associate director of the NIAAA reviewed a
draft of the survey created by the Leadership Training Program director of curriculum.
Next, the sample survey was introduced to the NIAAA Board of Directors and the
members of the Leadership Training Program national coordinating committee for
review, revision, and approval. Finally, the national course chairs for the 30-course
Leadership Training Program were then provided the opportunity for review and revision.
After that final review the survey was approved for use by the NIAAA executive director.
The survey was first introduced at the NIAAA national athletic directors' conference in
December 2004.
The intent of the survey was to gather data from interscholastic athletic
administrators from across the nation to assist with the development of future Leadership
Training Courses curriculum as well as to guide the curriculum revision of existing
Leadership Training Courses. The questions were designed to gather data that would
demonstrate the views of the athletic administrators regarding leadership and the
application of their leadership style in moments of crisis or situations of change. The
survey consisted of two parts: (a) 6 demographics questions and (b) 20 leadership
questions. The demographic questions were designed to identify the level of education
and experience of each athletic administrator, as well as the number and type of
professional development opportunities each athletic administrator has participated in.
The 20 leadership questions were created to identify the leadership action most
characteristic of the athletic administrator's actions or attitude. Two answers (A or B) for
105
each question were provided and respondents were asked to select the response that was
most characteristic of his or her attitude or actions. Respondents were asked to distribute
a total of three points across the two alternatives in each question according to their
preference. If the respondent would always choose option A, three points would be
assigned to option A and zero points to option B. If the respondent would most often
select option A but sometimes select option B, two points would be assigned to A and
one point to B. The same logic would apply to selecting response B.
High school athletic directors attending workshops, seminars, and professional
development classes at state and national athletic directors' conferences held across the
nation were surveyed. The survey was administered in the following 14 states:
California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
Description of NIAAA LTPLS Data Collection
The NIAAA LTPLS instrument was administered from December 2004 through
December 2007 to high school athletic administrators who were participating as students
in the NIAAA Leadership Training Courses (NIAAA LTC). These courses were offered
by the NIAAA for athletic administrators attending workshops, seminars, and
professional development classes at state and national athletic directors conferences held
across the nation. The surveys were administered in the first 15 minutes of the four-hour
NIAAA Leadership Training Courses. The researcher was present each time the survey
was administered to ensure a consistent process was followed with each survey
administration.
106
Description of NIAAA LTPLS Data Analysis

An analysis of the leadership style of athletic directors is really a review of
behavior, focusing on what athletic directors do or how they act. Northouse (2007)
indicates a review of leadership style focuses on
two basic kinds of behaviors: task behavior and relationship behavior. Task
behaviors facilitate goal accomplishment: they help group members to achieve
their objectives. Relationship behaviors help subordinates feel comfortable with
themselves, with each other, and with the situation in which they find themselves,
(p. 69)
The goal of the examination of leadership styles in this studythe leadership behaviors
of athletic directorsis to explain how athletic directors combine their commitment to
task behavior and relationship behavior to ultimately get things done, to reach a specific
goal.
Northouse (2007) contends "the best known model of managerial behavior is the
Managerial Grid" (p. 72), developed by Blake and Mouton in the 1960s and subsequently
revised over the decades by Blake and Mouton and Blake and McCanse. The Managerial
Gridnow referred to as the Leadership Gridwas designed to explain how leaders help
organizations reach their goals through two factors: concern for production and concern
for people (Blake & Mouton, 1985; Blake & McCanse, 1991). Concern for production
concentrates on how a leader emphasizes achieving organizational goals, while concern
for people emphasizes how a leader attends to the people of the organization who are
attempting to achieve the goals. In this study, the leadership style of high school athletic
directors will be determined using the Blake and McCanse (1991) Leadership Grid.
107
Using the Leadership Grid, an athletic director's concern for completion of task and
concern for people will be determined.
The results of the NIAAA LTPLS instrument will be plotted onto the Leadership
Grid to answer the second purpose of this study, which is to identify the leadership styles
used by interscholastic athletic directors. Answers for each question in the NIAAA
LTPLS instrument correspond to a concern for task or a concern for people. The answers
will then be plotted onto the Leadership Grid. The Leadership Grid uses a nine-point
scale on each axis. The horizontal or X axis represents the athletic director's concern for
results, and the vertical or Y axis represents the athletic director's concern for people. By
plotting scores from the 20 questions in the NIAAA LTPLS instrument onto the
Leadership Grid, the leadership styles of athletic directors can be identified.
Respondents' answers for each of the 20 questions in Part 2 of the NIAAA
LTPLS instrument were placed into the seven leadership categories as defined by the
Blake and McCanse (1991) Leadership Grid. The Blake and McCanse Leadership Grid
identifies seven leadership styles based on the concern for people or concern for
production. The seven categories in this behavioral leadership model are outlined below:
1. Control and Dominate (Dictatorial or Authoritative9, 1 grid orientation):
the leader has a high concern for production and a low concern for people.
The leader concentrates almost exclusively on achieving results. People are
viewed as a commodity to be used to get the job done. Communication is
de-emphasized and conflict is resolved by suppressing it. Leadership is
controlling, demanding, and over-powering.
108
2. Yield and Support (Accommodating or Country Club1, 9 grid orientation):

the leader has a high concern for people and low concern for production. The
leader is attentive to his/her people's needs and has developed satisfying
relationships and work culturebut at the expense of achieving results. The
leader is defined as agreeable, eager to help, non-confrontational, comforting,
and uncontroversial.
3. Balance and Compromise (Status Quo or Middle of the Road5, 5 grid
orientation): the leader seeks balance and compromise between the
organization's goals and the followers' needs. This leader is a compromiser
who wants to maintain the status quo and avoid any problems. Is aware of
and wants a focus on productivity but not at the expense of the morale of
his/her team.
4. Evade and Elude (Indifferent or Impoverished1, 1 grid orientation): the
leader has low concern for both people and production. The leader exerts and
expects minimal effort and has little concern for either staff satisfaction or
work targets. This is a leader who is going through the motions, is indifferent,
non-committal, resigned, and apathetic.
5. Prescribe and Guide (Paternalistic1, 9 and 9, 1 grid orientation): the leaders
using this style praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking.
6. Exploit and Manipulate (Opportunisticall grid orientations): the leader does
not have a fixed position on the grid, instead applies the perceived best style
for each situation.
109
7. Contribute and Commit (Sound or Team9, 9 grid orientations): the leader

has high concern for both people and production. The leader achieves high
work performance through "leading" his/her people to become dedicated to
the organizational goals. There is a high degree of participation and
teamwork, which satisfies the basic need of people to be involved and
committed to their work. The leader may be characterized as open-minded,
flexible, and one who inspires involvement.
The numbers in parentheses indicate the score from the leadership survey plotted on the
X axis and Y axis. The Blake and McCanse Leadership Grrid can be viewed in Figure 1.
Hkjh
9
1,9
"j y
ThOttflfx&Bl att1&l to tft SaSKKJS o?
Team Massag^me^!;
W<MK accosiplishro^at is from
tesds to a<;eBrf<x&&Ss<< fifes?/
6
J-i
MfcfcB? o*tfcs R?>ad &teea$s3aefU;|
|5,5|
Adequate espn'fatt>a p&i&mmx te pos^&l* ttsoagh
bafaoemg tftfte3$s%to gJ wesfc OSA wftfe fttalsKsinirig
I 4
AWWWMMnWWVimiMMMIIMMMAMWWWWVVWV i|
1 I'
3
- #6rt&n ot fnfc&sism effort togst
required *** item Is appsgjBtete to
*u&tafo otgante^ttoft m*m&mrtfp
LOW
way t&a!fcistttgiA^Ws^stte inSgtereto#
9.1
1,1
4
Low
Concern for Rssmts
Figure 1. Blake and McCanse Leadership Grid.

110
High |
The NIAAA leadership survey scoring grid (Figure 2) demonstrates how the
responses to the survey questions are placed into the Blake and McCanse leadership
categories.
Of the 445 surveys distributed to Leadership Training Course students (392
individuals), 88.0% returned completed surveys. For those surveys not returned the
assumption was made that the student chose not to complete the survey or the student had
previously completed the survey. A total of 60 points was available for the 20 questions
with a distribution of three total points for each question (Figure 2). The total point value
of all answers for each category was determined. With an unequal distribution of 20
questions over seven categoriesthe total available points for each category was not
equalthe points for each category were converted to percentages. The highest
percentage by category represented the primary leadership style of the respondent. The
next highest percentage represented the secondary leadership style and the lowest
percentage indicated the least likely used leadership style for the respondent.
Data Analysis
Chapter IV presents the data by frequencies, highs and lows, and averages in both
surveys. Frequencies, highs and lows, and averages are used to investigate the
relationship between the leadership programming needs of the school community and the
leadership services offered by the MSHSL. Frequencies, highs and lows, and averages
are used to determine the primary and secondary leadership styles used by athletic
administrators. Additionally, the leadership styles are identified using the Blake and
McCanse Leadership Grid.
Ill
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Leadership Categories 1-7 and Grid Orientations

1
2
3
4
5
6
9,1(1)
1,9(2) 5,5(3)
1,1(4)
9+9(5) OPP (6)
7
9,9(7)
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
/15
/18
TOTALS
Max Points
/18
/18
/15
/18
/18
Leadership categories are identified with numbers 1-7. The orientation on the Blake and
McCanse Managerial Grid for each category is identified in row 2.
Figure 2. National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Leadership
Survey Scoring Grid.
112
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was twofold:
school; and
directors.
The data are presented in two sections. In the first section the MSHSL ELRSP
survey responses include a narrative description and table of the demographics and
categorized MSHSL leadership programming. The data were analyzed through
frequencies, highs and lows, and averages. The relationship between the leadership
programming needs of the school community and the leadership programming offered by
the MSHSL to the school community was analyzed.
In the second section the analysis of the NIAAA LTPLS instrument responses
includes a description of the demographics and categorized leadership styles. The
respondent information was analyzed through frequencies, highs and lows, and averages.
The relationship between the primary and secondary leadership styles implemented as
compared to the individual's concern for completion of the task or concern for people
was analyzed.
113

Out of 492 MSHSL ELRSP surveys, 294 surveys (59.8%) were returned. Prior to
any data analysis, 5 surveys were dismissed for containing numerous incomplete
responses, leaving a total of 289 surveys (58.7%) for analysis.
The following represents the narrative of the demographics. Superintendent
demographic information indicates male respondents numbered 244 (84.4%) compared to
45 females (15.6%). Principal demographic information indicates male respondents
numbered 234 (81.0%) compared to 55 females (19.0%). Athletic director male
respondents numbered 259 (89.6%) compared to 30 females (10.4%). The responses by
school type indicate 243 public schools (84.1%), 37 private schools (12.8%), 8 charter
schools (2.8%), and 1 home school (0.3%).
The survey respondents represent public, private, charter, and home school high
schools with grades 9-12. The student populations ranged from 2 to 3099, with the
single, responding home school having a student population of 2 and a responding public
metropolitan high school having the highest student population of 3099. The majority of
the sample (63.7%) representing 184 schools have less than 500 students in grades 9-12.
In addition, 258 of the responding schools (89.3%) have less than 1500 students in grades
9-12. The smallest sample indicated 6 of the responding schools (2.1%) have over 2500
students in grades 9-12. Respondent demographic information for this sample is
presented in Table 1.
114
Table 1. Minnesota State High School League Information on Gender, Leadership

Position, School Type, and School Size (N = 289).
Characteristics
School Type
Public
Private
Charter
Home
243
37
8
1
84.1
12.8
2.8
0.3
Superintendent Gender
Male
Female
244
45
84.4
15.6
Principal Gender
Male
Female
234
55
81.0
19.0
Athletic Director Gender

Male
Female
259
30
89.6
10.4
School Size: Grades 9-12

0-499
500-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000 +
184
44
30
14
11
4
2
63.7
15.2
10.4
4.8
3.8
1.4
.7
Results of MSHSL ELRSP Data Analysis

The average value of perceived impact/importance of each program or service
was calculated for each of the 54 Likert scale questions on the MSHSL ELRSP survey.
The average value for each question could range from 5 (the highest) to -1 (the lowest).
The highest average score identifies the MSHSL program or service valued most by the
115
administrators at each of the responding member schools as it relates to the needs of the
school community. The lowest average score indicates the program or service least
valued. The data in Table 2 demonstrate the numerical value for each Likert scale
response and the formula used with the Likert scale numerical values.
Table 2. Minnesota State High School League Available Responses and Response
Values (N = 289).
Available Answer
Very Important
Important
Slightly
Not Important
Not Applicable
Abbreviation
VI
I
SI
NI
NA
Value per Answer
5
3
1
-1
0
Perceived Impact/Importance = [5(VI)+3(I)+l(SI)+(-l(NI))+0(NA)]/n N = (289)
Scores from the frequency distributions averages for the MSHSL leadership
programming ranged from 4.42 to 0.38. The 54 questions were assigned to one of three
impact/importance categories with 18 questions in each category. The first level of
leadership programming importance (High) had a range score of 3.66 to 4.42 with
N = 18. The second level of leadership programming importance (Medium) had a range
score of 2.68 to 3.65 with N = 18. The third level of leadership programming importance
(Low) had a range score of 0.38 to 2.61 with N = 18. The data in Table 3 (High), Table 4
(Medium), and Table 5 (Low) demonstrate in descending order the perceived
impact/importance school administrators place on the programming and services
provided by the MSHSL.
116
Table 3. Minnesota State High School League Average Value High Importance in
Descending Order (N - 289).
Rank Question Program/Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
18
17
53
43
28
5
36
15
25
31
23
19
29
14
15
16
30
34
44
17
18
26
50
Eligibility Interpretations
Eligibility Bylaws
Web Site Communication
Tournaments
MSHSL Official Handbook
Area Meetings
Rules and Policies Manual
Directory of Member Schools
Insurance, Catastrophic
Officials' Rules Meetings
Head Coaches' Rules Meetings
Eligibility Workshops
NFHS Rulebooks, Casebooks,
etc.
Officials Directory
Regions and Region Committees
Tournament Venues - Being at
the Best
Insurance, Tournament
Training Clinics for Officials
VI
SI
NI NA
Avg
217
210
210
207
207
189
172
192
177
162
164
164
61
66
68
66
60
85
91
53
75
94
90
81
10
11
6
13
20
8
23
25
26
24
27
38
1
1
4
1
1
7
3
15
8
6
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
2
0
1
4.42
4.37
4.36
4.34
4.28
4.16
3.99
3.96
3.94
3.88
3.84
3.81
152
165
145
106
79
106
25
34
30
6
8
5
0
3
3
3.80
3.80
3.73
143
148
136
105
97
114
36
31
33
4
10
4
0
3
2
3.69
3.68
3.66
Each potential answer is defined, including the point value for that selection:
VI = Very Important (5), I = Important (3), SI = Slightly Important (1), NI = Not
Important (-1), NA = Not Applicable (0).
Results of Summating Ratings for Leadership
Programming Importance
Summated ratings were calculated for the eight leadership categories:
Category 1Eligibility and Compliance;
Category 2Recognition and Awards;
117
Table 4. Minnesota State High School League Average Value Medium Importance in
Descending Order (N = 289).
Rank Question
19
11
20
21
22
35
27
16
23
24
25
33
51
42
26
27
28
45
12
8
29
30
31
32
33
34
47
46
41
13
6
7
35
36
37
Program/Service
Coaches' Education and

Training
Revenue Share
Legislative Issues
Eligibility and Fine Arts
Brochures
Recruiting of Officials
Triple "A" Program
Ticket Prices - Keeping
them Down
Tournament Programs
Cooperative Sponsorship
Broadcast Presentation of
League Events
* Team Schedules/Records
* Team Photos
TeamUp Resources
Corporate Sponsorship
Awards
Be a Good Sport Program
(i.e. print ads, PSA's,
posters)
Athletic & Fine Arts
Advisory Committee
Meetings
Sanctioning
VI
SI
NI NA
Avg
135
129
125
115
110
120
32
40
35
5
5
8
1
1
1
3.65
3.56
3.51
133
123
129
92
111
105
55
43
40
8
9
14
1
2
1
3.43
3.43
3.42
116
109
105
106
112
113
57
57
57
8
7
8
1
1
5
3.30
3.27
3.23
102
96
97
104
89
72
114
124
115
103
117
150
55
53
61
59
63
59
15
13
11
16
13
7
3
1
1
4
4
1
3.12
3.12
3.10
3.09
3.00
2.99
74
128
65
19
2.80
59
66
131
114
80
89
9
11
7
6
2.72
2.68
VI = Very Important (5), I = Important (3), SI = Slightly Important (1), NI - Not
118
Table 5. Minnesota State High School League Average Value Low Importance in
Rank Question Program/Service
37
38
20
48
39
40
14
49
41
42
43
44
9
40
21
39
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
24
2
22
1
54
4
38
52
53
54
32
10
52
ExCEL Award Program

* Feature Articles, Records
and History
Desktop Calendar
* Quality: souvenir-style, size,
partial color, photos, etc.
Bulletin
Spotlight on Scholarship
Fine Arts Judges Directory
Sports Medicine Advisory
Committee
Hotels - Reserving Rooms
All-Tournament Teams
Hall of Fame
Adapted Athletics
Yearbook and Record Book
Annual Report
Speech "How-To"
Workshops
Pocket Calendar
Challenge Cup
Wallet Schedule of Events
VI
SI
NI NA
Avg
77
97
93
20
2.61
66
96
113
71
85
59
23
52
1
10
2.55
2.52
63
47
49
52
119
126
108
96
78
90
100
80
27
23
22
39
1
3
7
20
2.52
2.38
2.32
2.21
37
53
35
35
8
34
19
115
90
98
98
5
91
110
91
77
107
104
10
115
116
38
53
35
39
8
44
43
8
16
9
12
22
3
1
2.07
2.05
1.97
1.93
1.84
1.81
1.73
18
12
6
9
91
46
47
29
123
104
92
1.3
31
112
113
131
25
15
27
17
1.73
0.69
0.58
0.38
VI = Very Important (5), I = Important (3), SI = Slightly Important (1), NI = Not
Category 3Tournaments;
Category 4Education and Professional Development;
Category 5Programming;
Category 6Student and School Services;

119
Category 7Legislative and Rule Making; and
Category 8Sponsorship and Financial Support.
The data are presented in two formats. First, the data in Table 6 are sorted by all eight
leadership categories in descending order by average of importance. Secondly, the data
in Tables 7 through 14 include scores sorted by individual category in descending order.
Table 6. Minnesota State High School League Category in Descending Order (N = 289).
Question
Program/Service
Catg
VI
SI
NI
NA
Avg
217
210
61
66
10
11
1
1
0
0
4.42
4.37
207
189
60
85
20
8
1
7
0
0
4.28
4.16
152
105
106
113
25
57
6
8
0
5
3.80
3.23
12
Eligibility Bylaws
MSHSL Official
Handbook
Area Meetings
NFHS Rulebooks,
Casebooks, etc.
51
6
20
40
2
22
10
Triple "A" Program

Awards
ExCEL Award Program
Hall of Fame
Challenge Cup
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
129
72
77
49
35
35
6
105
150
97
108
98
98
47
40
59
93
100
107
104
92
14
7
20
22
35
39
113
1
1
1
7
9
12
27
3.42
2.99
2.61
2.32
1.97
1.93
0.58
43
44
Tournaments
Tournament Venues Being at the Best
Tournament Programs
Broadcast Presentation
of League Events
* Team
Schedules/Records
* Team Photos
207
66
13
4.34
3
3
3
143
148
109
105
97
112
36
31
57
4
10
7
0
3
1
3.69
3.68
3.27
102
114
55
15
3.12
3
3
96
97
124
115
53
61
13
11
1
1
3.12
3.10
18
17
28
5
29
26
45
8
47
46
120
Table 6. (cont.)
Question
48
49
31
23
19
50
11
7
9
38
34
41
1
53
15
30
16
33
14
21
39
Program/Service
* Feature Articles,
Records and History
* Quality: souvenir-style,
size, partial color, photos,
etc.
Head Coaches' Rules
Meetings
Training Clinics for
Officials
Training
(i.e. print ads, PSA's,
posters)
Bulletin
Speech "How-To"
Workshops
Regions and Region
Committees
TeamUp Resources
Adapted Athletics
Directory of Member
Schools
Officials Directory
Brochures
Desktop Calendar
Fine Arts Judges
Directory
Sports Medicine
Advisory Committee
Catg
VI
SI
NI
NA
Avg
66
113
85
23
2.55
63
119
78
27
2.52
162
94
24
3.88
4
4
164
164
90
81
27
38
8
5
0
1
3.84
3.81
136
114
33
3.66
135
115
32
3.65
4
4
74
47
128
126
65
90
19
23
2
3
2.80
2.38
18
91
123
31
25
1.73
5
5
5
145
104
8
106
103
5
30
59
10
5
16
8
3
4
22
3.73
3.09
1.84
210
68
4.36
6
6
192
165
53
79
25
34
15
8
3
3
3.96
3.80
6
6
6
133
123
96
92
111
71
55
43
59
8
9
52
1
2
10
3.43
3.43
2.52
52
96
80
39
20
2.21
37
115
91
38
2.07
121
Table 6. (cont.)
Question
24
54
32
52
36
27
3
37
25
35
42
13
4
Program/Service
Hotels - Reserving
Rooms
Yearbook and Record
Book
Pocket Calendar
Wallet Schedule of
Events
Rules and Policies
Manual
Legislative Issues
Athletic & Fine Arts
Advisory Committee
Meetings
Sanctioning
Insurance,
Catastrophic
Revenue Share
Ticket Prices Keeping them Down
Corporate
Sponsorship
Annual Report
Catg
VI
SI
NI
NA
Avg
53
90
77
53
16
2.05
6
6
34
12
91
46
115
104
44
112
3
15
1.81
0.69
29
13
131
17
0.38
7
7
172
125
91
120
23
35
3
8
0
1
3.99
3.51
7
7
59
66
131
114
80
89
9
11
7
6
2.72
2.68
8
8
177
129
75
110
26
40
8
5
1
1
3.94
3.56
116
106
57
3.30
8
8
89
19
117
110
63
116
13
43
4
1
3.00
1.73
VI = Very Important, I = Important, SI = Slightly Important, NI = Not Important,

NA = Not Applicable.
Category 1Eligibility and Compliance, which included 6 items, ranged from
3.23 to 4.42 with an average score of 4.04 (Table 7). The items addressed the importance
of the following eligibility and compliance programs: eligibility interpretations, eligibility
bylaws, MSHSL official handbook, area meetings, NFHS rule books, and cooperative
sponsorships.
122
Table 7. Minnesota State High School League Category 1: Eligibility and Compliance in
Question Program/Service
18
17
28
5
29
12
Catg VI
Eligibility Bylaws
Area Meetings
NFHS Rulebooks, Casebooks, etc.
]I
]1
][
]1
][
I
217
210
207
189
152
105
SI
NI
NA
Avg
61
66
60
85
106
113
10
11
20
8
25
57
1
1
1
7
6
8
0
0
0
0
0
5
4.42
4.37
4.28
4.16
3.80
3.23

Category 2Recognition and Awards, which included 7 events, ranged from 0.58
to 3.42 with an average score of 2.26 (Table 8). The items addressed the importance of
the following recognition and awards programs: Triple "A" program, awards, ExCEL
award program, Spotlight on Scholarship, all-tournament teams, hall of fame, and
Challenge Cup.
Category 3Tournaments, which included 9 items, ranged from 2.52 to 4.34 with
an average score of 3.27 (Table 9). The items addressed the importance of the following
tournament programming: state and section tournaments, venues, insurance, tournament
programs, television broadcasts, team photos in the program, schedules and records in the
program, feature articles including history and records, and quality of the program.
Category 4Education and Professional Development, which included 8 items,
ranged from 1.73 to 3.88 with an average score of 3.22 (Table 10). The items addressed
the importance of the following education and professional development programs,
officials rules meeting, head coaches' rules meetings, eligibility workshops, training
123
Table 8. Minnesota State High School League Category 2: Recognition and Awards in
Question
51
6
20
40
2
22
10
Program/Service
Triple "A" Program
Awards
ExCEL Award Program
Hall of Fame
Challenge Cup
Catg
VI
SI
NI
NA Avg
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
129
72
77
49
35
35
6
105
150
97
108
98
98
47
40
59
93
100
107
104
92
14
7
20
22
35
39
113
1
1
1
7
9
12
27
3.42
2.99
2.61
2.32
1.97
1.93
0.58

Table 9. Minnesota State High School League Category 3: Tournaments in Descending
Order (N = 289).
Question
Program/Service
43
48
Tournaments
Tournament Venues - Being at
the Best
Tournament Programs
Broadcast Presentation of
League Events
* Team Photos
* Feature Articles, Records
and History
49
* Quality: souvenir-style, size,

partial color, photos, etc.
44
26
45
8
47
46
Catg
VI
SI
207
66
13
3
3
3
143
148
109
105
97
112
3
3
3
102
96
97
3
3
NI
NA
Avg
4.34
36
31
57
4
10
7
0
3
1
3.69
3.68
3.27
114
124
115
55
53
61
15
13
11
3
1
1
3.12
3.12
3.10
66
113
85
23
2.55
63
119
78
27
2.52

124
Table 10. Minnesota State High School League Category 4: Education and Professional
Development in Descending Order (N = 289).
Question
31
23
19
50
11
7
9
38
Program/Service
Catg
VI
SI
NI NA

Head Coaches' Rules
Meetings
Training
(i.e. print ads, PSA's, posters)
Bulletin
Speech "How-To"
Workshops
162
94
24
3.88
164
90
27
3.84
4
4
164
136
81
114
38
33
5
4
1
2
3.81
3.66
135
115
32
3.65
74
128
65
19
2.80
47
126
90
23
2.38
18
91
123
31
25
1.73
Avg

clinics for officials, coaches' education and training, "Be a Good Sport" program,
MSHSL Bulletin, and speech "how-to" workshops.
Category 5Programming, which included 3 items, ranged from 1.84 to 3.73
with an average score of 2.89 (Table 11). The items addressed the importance of the
following programming: regions and region committees, TeamUp resources, and adapted
athletics.
Category 6Student and School Services, which included 12 items, ranged from
0.38 to 4.36 with an average score of 2.55 (Table 12). The items addressed the
importance of the following student and school services programs: directory of member
schools, officials directory, eligibility and fine arts brochures, recruiting of officials,
125
Table 11. Minnesota State High School League Category 5: Programming in Descending
Order (N = 289).
Question
34
41
1
Program/Service
Regions and Region

Committees
TeamUp Resources
Adapted Athletics
Catg
5
5
5
VI
145 106
104 103
8
5
SI
NI
NA
30
59
10
5
16
8
3
4
22
Avg
3.73
3.09
1.84

desktop calendars, fine arts judges directory, sports medicine advisory committee,
hotelsreserving rooms, yearbook and record book, pocket calendar, and wallet
schedules of events.
Category 7Legislative and Rule Making, which included 4 items, ranged from
2.68 to 3.99 with an average score of 3.23 (Table 13). The items addressed the
importance of the following legislative and rule making programs: rules and policies
manual, legislative issues, athletic and fine arts advisory committee meetings, and
sanctioning.
Category 8Sponsorship and Financial Support, which included 5 items, ranged
from 1.73 to 3.94 with an average score of 3.05 (Table 14). The items addressed the
importance of the following financial support programs: catastrophic insurance, revenue
share, ticket priceskeeping them down, corporate sponsorships, and the annual report.
Data were collected from the NIAAA Leadership Training Program Leadership
Survey: Perceptions of Leadership Traits (NIAAA LTPLS). Surveys were distributed to
126
Table 12. Minnesota State High School League Category 6: Student and School Services
in Descending Order (N = 289).
Question
Program/Service
Catg
VI
SI
NI
NA
Avg
53
15
30
16

Officials Directory
Brochures
Desktop Calendar
Sports Medicine Advisory
Committee
Pocket Calendar
6
6
6
6
210
192
165
68
53
79
6
25
34
4
15
8
0
3
3
4.36
3.96
3.80
6
6
6
133
123
96
52
92
111
71
96
55
43
59
80
8
9
52
39
1
2
10
20
3.43
3.43
2.52
2.21
37
53
34
12
9
115
90
91
46
29
91
77
115
104
13
38
53
44
112
131
8
16
3
15
17
2.07
2.05
1.81
0.69
0.38
33
14
21
39
24
54
32
52
6
6
6
6
6

Table 13. Minnesota State High School League Category 7: Legislative and Rule
Making in Descending Order (N = 289).
Question
Program/Service
Catg
VI
SI
36
27
3

Legislative Issues
Athletic & Fine Arts Advisory
Committee Meetings
Sanctioning
7
7
7
172
125
59
91
120
131
23
35
80
3
8
9
0
1
7
3.99
3.51
2.72
66
114
89
11
2.68
37
NI NA

127
Avg
Table 14. Minnesota State High School League Category 8: Sponsorship and Financial
Support in Descending Order (N = 289).
Question
25
35
42
13
4
Program/Service
Catg
VI
SI
NI NA
Revenue Share
Ticket Prices - Keeping them
Down
Annual Report
8
8
177
129
75
110
26
40
8
5
1
1
3.94
3.56
8
8
8
116
89
19
106
117
110
57
63
116
8
13
43
1
4
1
3.30
3.00
1.73
Avg

athletic directors by the researcher. Overall, 414 surveys out of 445 were returned
(93.0%). With 22 surveys dismissed the valid return response is 88.1% (392/445). Prior
to any data analysis, 22 surveys were dismissed for numerous incomplete responses,
leaving a total of 392 surveys for analysis to provide N = 392.
Respondent demographic information for this sample is presented in Table 15.
Male respondents numbered 312 (79.6%) compared to 80 females (20.4%). The majority
(77.0%) of the sample have a master's degree or higher. In addition, a majority (58.7%)
of the respondents have 10 years or less experience as a high school athletic director, with
157 (40.1%) indicating they have 5 years or less experience.
Results of NIAAA LTPLS Data Analysis
The researcher completed a content analysis of survey items. The numerical
responses for each of the 20 questions were placed into the seven leadership categories
identified below:
128
Category 1: Control and Dominate (Dictatorial)
9, 1 orientation
Category 2: Yield and Support (Accommodating)
1, 9 orientation
Category 3: Balance and Compromise (Status Quo)
5, 5 orientation
Category 4: Evade and Elude (Indifferent)
1, 1 orientation
Category 5: Prescribe and Guide (Paternalistic)
1,9 9, and 1 orientation
Category 6: Exploit and Manipulate (Opportunistic)
all orientations
Category 7: Contribute and Commit (Sound)
9, 9 orientations
Table 15. National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Information on

Gender, Education, Experience, and Professional Development Opportunities (N = 392).
Characteristics
312
80
79.6
20.4
Level of Education
Bachelors
Bachelors +
Masters
Masters +
Doctorate
28
59
115
176
11
7.2
15.2
29.6
45.2
2.8
Years of Experience
0-5
6-10
10-15
15-20
20+
157
73
75
46
41
40.1
18.6
19.1
11.7
10.5
Gender
Male
Female
Once all the resources were plotted, frequencies and percentages were used to
identify the primary leadership style and the secondary leadership style for the
respondents. Cumulative frequency and percentage analyses from all 392 surveys were
129
calculated to identify the primary leadership style. A frequency and percentage analysis
of the data in Table 16 indicates that 216 of the respondents (55.1%) use Category
2Yield and Support (Accommodating: 1, 9 grid orientation) as their primary leadership
style, 102 (26.0%) of the respondents use Category 7Contribute and Commit (Sound:
9, 9 orientation) as their primary leadership style, and 34 (8.7%) of the respondents use
Category 6Opportunistic (all points of the grid) as their primary leadership style.
Table 16. National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Primary
Leadership Style (N = 392).
Category
Orientation
9,1
16
4.1
1,9
216
55.1
5,5
19
4.8
1,1
0.3
1, 9 9, 1
1.0
Opportunistic
34
8.7
9,9
102
26.0
392
100.0
Total
McCanse Leadership Grid for each category is identified in column 2. The number of
respondents who selected a leadership category is represented by the frequency.
Category 6Opportunistic has no grid orientation. Category 6 leaders choose a
leadership style based on the situation.
Frequencies and percentages were used to identify the primary leadership style
and the secondary leadership style for the respondents. Cumulative frequency and
130
percentage analyses from all 392 surveys were calculated to identify the secondary
leadership style. A frequency and percentage analysis of the data in Table 17 indicates
149 respondents (38.0%) use Category 7Contribute and Commit (Sound: 9, 9
orientation) as their secondary leadership style, 80 respondents (20.4%) use
Category 2Yield and Support (Accommodating: 1, 9 grid orientation) as their
secondary leadership style, and 62 respondents (15.8%) use Category 6Opportunistic
(all points of the grid) as their secondary leadership style.
Table 17. National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Secondary
Leadership Style (N = 392).
Category
Orientation
Frequency
Percent
9,1
28
7.1
1,9
80
20.4
5,5
58
14.8
1,1
1,9 9,1
15
3.8
Opportunistic
62
15.8
9,9
149
38.0
392
100.0
McCanse Leadership Grid for each category is identified in column 2. The number of
respondents who selected a leadership category is represented by the frequency.
Category 6Opportunistic has no grid orientation. Category 6 leaders choose a
leadership style based on the situation.
131
Additionally, the data in Table 18 were collapsed to demonstrate the frequency

and percentage of athletic administrators who share the same primary and secondary
leadership style preferences.
A frequency and percentage analysis of the data in Table 18 indicates:
120 respondents (30.6%) use Category 2Yield and Support

(Accommodating: 1, 9 grid orientation) as their primary leadership style and
Category 7Contribute and Commit (Sound: 9, 9 orientation) as their
secondary leadership style;
57 respondents (14.5%) use Category 7Contribute and Commit (Sound: 9, 9

orientation) as their primary leadership style and Category 2Yield and
Support (Accommodating: 1, 9 grid orientation) as their secondary leadership
style; and
39 respondents (9.9%) use Category 2Yield and Support (Accommodating:

1, 9 grid orientation) as their primary leadership style and Category
6Opportunistic (all points on the grid) as their secondary leadership style.
Summary
This chapter presented the frequencies and percentages of the demographics. In

addition, results of frequencies and averages for the two surveys were conducted. For the
MSHSL ELSRP survey, the range scores were calculated to determine the importance of
the leadership programs in eight categories. For the NIAAA LTPLS instrument, the
range scores were calculated to determine primary and secondary leadership styles from
seven available leadership styles.
132
Table 18. National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Primary and

Secondary Leadership Styles (N = 392).
Frequency
4
5
1
6
12
35
10
39
120
6
5
8
3
12
4
1
14
12
57
13
3
17
392
Primary
Secondary
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
2
3
5
7
1
3
5
6
7
2
6
7
6
1
2
3
7
1
2
3
5
7
1
2
3
5
6
1.0
1.3
0.3
1.5
3.1
8.9
2.6
9.9
30.6
1.5
1.3
2.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
3.1
1.0
0.3
3.6
3.1
14.5
3.3
0.8
4.3
100.0
McCanse Leadership Grid for each category is identified in columns 1 and 2. The
number of respondents who selected a leadership category is represented by the
frequency.
133
Chapter V presents a summary of the study, conclusions drawn from the results,
and recommendations for educators and researchers.
134
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The final chapter presents a summary of the present study within the context of
previous related research and findings and conclusions drawn from the results. In
addition, recommendations for educators and for researchers are provided.
Summary
The researcher entered into this study hopeful the research data would support
what the knowledge gained from 22 years of experience in interscholastic extracurricular
programs and 5 years as an associate director for the MSHSL had continually
demonstrated. The researcher knows the MSHSL is a service based organization that
provides programming to member schools to help create positive participation
experiences. The researcher also understands the primary responsibility of athletic
directors at their schools is to serve the needs of the students and the coaches of the
programs offered by the school. The athletic directors must create a culture focusing on
shared leadership and personal growth in coaches and student athletes; and also ensure
the programs are provided with all that is deemed necessary to create successful
programs with services necessary to create positive participation experiences for students,
coaches, and for the school community. The NIAAA LTPLS instrument was applied in
this study to identify the leadership styles actually used by high school athletic directors.
135
The MSHSL ELRSP survey was applied in this study to determine the exact value
member schools place on the leadership programs offered by the MSHSL.
The decision to include a review of leadership literature was done to create an
understanding of the evolution of leadership theory and best prepare the researcher to
understand school leaders. Understanding leadership, and in particular school leaders,
would provide a deep knowledge base to help the researcher make sound
recommendations for the leadership programming future of the MSHSL. Change theory,
especially educational change theory, is relatively new, when compared to leadership
theory, and sustained change theory, that has proved to be successful, is perhaps the most
difficult to identify. The discovery from the literature reviews was simply thisthere is
no one best leadership style and there is not a single best theory of change. Multiple
styles of leadership need to be implemented and multiple theories of change must be
applied. Leadership theory and change theory are not easily understood so the decision
was made to frame both to help others more easily grasp or visualize how to approach
programming and change. Bolman and Deal were a natural choicetheir frames
simplified the complex and provided what the researcher felt was the best opportunity for
future applications of the findings.
Although the leadership theory, change theory, and MSHSL programming
services were reviewed separately the data from the two surveys really bind them all
together. With the knowledge of how leaders actually lead, framed through Bolman and
Deal, a change program based on the latest research and application could be created for
implementation by the MSHSL with its member schools. Simply put, the researcher
136
wanted to determine how to best create systemic change that is successful and sustained
with the leadership programming for the member schools of the MSHSL.
The data from the MSHSL member schools supported pre-study impressions
based on the researcher's experiences as an employee of the MSHSL. Member schools
want programming and services that can be received today and implemented tomorrow.
Athletic directors spend a significant portion of their time certifying eligibility and
ensuring the programs and services from the MSHSL are implemented. The highest rated
areas include the services that daily impact the administration of extracurricular
programs. From a leadership perspective, the pre-study belief of the researcher indicated
the primary leadership style of athletic directors would demonstrate they were committed
to serving the needs of the students and coaches. This commitment would be to people
first followed by a commitment to the task at handfirst who then what. Pre-study
perceptions from working with school administrators led the researcher to believe athletic
directors would primarily demonstrate people-centered leadership. As well, the
researcher believed there would be a significant proportion of more task centered
administrators. In fact, daily experiences with MSHSL school athletic directors indicate
there are a significant percentage of dictatorial administrators.
Conclusions and Discussion
Research Question 1: What perceived value do the MSHSL member schools'
athletic director, principal, and superintendent together place on the leadership resources,
services, and programs currently offered by the MSHSL as it relates to the needs of their
individual school community?
137
Sorting the responses to the 54 questions in descending order into high, medium,
and low groupings provides the following conclusions:
MSHSL school administrators placed the highest value on items in Category

1Eligibility and Compliance and Category 3Tournaments.
Six of the 54 questions in the survey were Category 1Eligibility and

Compliance questions. School administrators ranked 5 of the 6 Eligibility and
Compliance questions in the high grouping. In fact, 5 of the 6 questions in
Category 1 were ranked in the top 13 overall, with 4 of the top 6 overall
responses from Category 1.
Eight of the 54 questions in the survey were Category 3Tournaments

questions. School administrators ranked 4 of 8 Tournaments questions in the
top 18.
Responses indicate the MSHSL school administrators also place high value on
Category 7Legislative and Rule Making programs and services.
Eight of the 54 questions in the survey were Category 4-Education and

Professional Development questions. School administrators ranked 4 of the 8
questions in the high grouping.
In the medium grouping, MSHSL Category 8Sponsorship and Financial

Support and MSHSL Category 3Tournaments have the highest value.
In the low grouping, the responses indicate MSHSL Category 2-Recognition

and Awards and MSHSL Category 6Student and School Services have the
lowest value.
138
Overall, Category 1 questions have 5 of the 6 questions in the high grouping

and question 6 in the medium grouping, with all 6 in the top 27 of the services
offered.

and 4 of the 9 questions in the medium grouping, with 7 of the 9 in the top 30
of the services offered.

and 2 of the 8 in the medium grouping, with a total of 6 of the 8 questions in
the top 34.
Conversely, Category 6 questions have 7 of the 12 questions in the low

grouping, and Category 2 questions have 5 of the 7 questions also in the low
grouping.
Viewing the top five Very Important responses as a percentage provides the
following percentages:
Question 18: 217/289 or 75.1% of the respondents
Finally, looking at the total number of school administrators who indicated the
top five itemsquestions 18, 17, 53, 43, and 28were Very Important or
Important, the following percentages are derived:
o
Question 18: 278/289 or 96.2%

139
Question 17: 276/289 or 95.6%
Question 53: 278/289 or 96.2%
Question 43: 273/289 or 94.5%
Question 28: 267/289 or 92.4%
These findings indicate member school administrators value the Eligibility and
Compliance, Tournaments, and Education and Professional Development programs and
services greater than any other programs offered by the MSHSL to the member schools.
The findings also indicate the member school administrators believe the Recognition and
Awards and Student and School Services programs have the least value.
With these data the MSHSL Board of Directors may determine if the current
goals and long-term goals for the MSHSL, as outlined in the strategic plan, actually meet
the needs of the member schools. These data indicate a concentration of MSHSL funding
and personnel services should focus on eligibility, compliance, and school services. The
administrators at the member schools have prioritized education, professional
development, and overall assistance with the day-to-day and year-to-year management of
their extracurricular programs. Conversely, the school administrators have placed little
value on MSHSL programs which focus on athletic or academic achievement or on
publications.
Surprises to the researcher in these data include the low value for the Sports
Medicine Advisory Committee whose research knowledge assists member schools every
day with items like the sports qualifying pre-participation physical form, health-centric
information on the care and prevention of injuries and disease, and timely articles on
current trends like the over use of stimulant beverages or head injury and concussion
140
prevention education modules. A further surprise was the contradictory values placed on
financial and budget issues as compared to the desire to continue to host state
tournaments at the best venues available receiving a high value. Holding state
tournaments at the best venues means high expenses. Keeping tournament ticket prices
down was of medium importance. The balancing act from a budget perspective is simply
to attempt to keep tournament tickets low yet remain in the best and highest priced
venues.
With firsthand knowledge of all the MSHSL programs the researcher questions
the level of familiarity respondents have with the programs identified in the survey
questions. With a 25% annual turnover rate of athletic directors at the MSHSL member
schools, perhaps the respondents are under educated about or have minimal knowledge
about the services offered by the MSHSL.
A review of the average value of each of the eight categories also can be used to
indicate what MSHSL programs and services the school administrators believe have the
greatest value for their school and school communities.
MSHSL Category 1Eligibility and Compliance has the highest average

value of all categories with an average score of 4.04 out of 5.0 available
points.
The next highest category, MSHSL Category 3Tournaments, has an

average value of 3.27 out of 5.0 available points.
At the low end of the spectrum, the responses indicate MSHSL Category
2Recognition and Awards, with an average value of 2.26 out of 5.0, is the
141
least valued category of MSHSL programs and services offered to the member
schools and the member school communities.
Next to the bottom, MSHSL Category 6Student and School Services has an
average value of 2.55 out of 5.0.
The data from this analysis clearly illustrate the MSHSL programs and services the
member schools value with those programs and services the member schools believe
have little value. The value placed on the leadership programs and services offered by
the MSHSL could determine the programs to sustain, to revise, or to remove.
The researcher decided to take the 54 questions and distribute them into three
categories for data analysis of the value school administrators place on each of the
services. The three categoriesHigh, Medium, and Loweach had an equal distribution
of 18 questions. The decision to have three categories with an equal number of questions
was made prior to any analysis of data. After reviewing the data, it is plausible three
categories could have been created based on percentages. For example, the High
category could have identified any service where the percentage of respondents who
valued the service as Very Important or Important was 70.0% higher. Similarly, the
percentage of respondents who valued a service as Very Important or Important in a
percentage range from 50.0% to 69.9% could be the Medium category. Finally, any
services with a percentage of respondents for Very Important or Important less than
50.0% could be classified as the Low category.
The data from this survey do not surprise the researcher. Based on experience as
an athletic director for a school district and in my role with the MSHSL, I know athletic
directors place the highest priority on eligibility, tournaments, and rule making.
142
Specifically, I know when I create programs or services that support the athletic directors
with regard to eligibility to educate them or to make them more efficient they respond
positively. As a group, they are always looking for more information to help them do
what they do better. They spend a significant portion of their time spent certifying
eligibility.
Tournaments and competition rules are also very significant to athletic directors.
Participation in the post-season tournamentsespecially the state tournamentbecomes
a community-wide acknowledgment of excellence. Providing state tournaments in the
best facilities available is a service the MSHSL has long provided for its member schools.
Conversely, what does surprise me is the fact that education and professional
development, although ranked fairly high, do not have a more significant value. The
MSHSL has a history of creating education modules and professional development
programs for the students, coaches, and administrators of the member schools. In fact,
the MSHSL is regarded as a national leader in this area when compared to the other 49
state associations. Yet numbers do not demonstrate these programs are as valued at the
school level as they are by the MSHSL staff and the MSHSL Board of Directors.
Intuitively, this makes sense. The MSHSL staff knows these programs are state
of the art, of exceptional quality, and have delivery systems that are incredibly user
friendlyyet still the medium number. My only conclusion is the programs are valued,
yet implementation of the programs is difficult and, for some, impossible. The athletic
directors believe they have more than enough to do already and any additional programs
only may exacerbate the issue. I know athletic directors believe they are the gate keepers
of the schools' dumping grounds. More and more is asked of them so their list of
143
responsibilities continues to grow. Perhaps an education module that redefines the

plateremoving the idea that the plate is full and replacing it with the fact that a new
plate with new servings including education modulesis truly the focus.
Research Question 2: What leadership styles are athletic administrators using in
their high school athletic programs?
A review of the responses clearly demonstrates the primary and secondary
leadership styles used by interscholastic athletic administrators.
The primary leadership style 55.1% (215/392) of the respondents use is the
Blake and McCanse Category 2Yield and Support, or accommodating style
of leadership.
o
The Blake and McCanse Leadership Grid is a leadership comparison used

to determine an individual's concern for people or concern for completing
the task.
These results indicate a very high concern for the needs of the people
where the emphasis is placed on establishing a strong relationship, which
then leads to a friendly environment and a comfortable organization
atmosphere and work tempo (Blake & McCanse, 1991).
Category 7Contribute and Commit, or sound style of leadership was the

primary leadership style indicated by 26.0% (102/392) of the respondents.
o
Individuals who implement this style of leadership place a high emphasis

on concern for people as well as a high emphasis on completion of tasks.
This type of leader is an open minded leader who leads by positive

example with the focus on creating a team environment in which all
144
members of the organization have the opportunity to reach their highest

potential as a member of the team and as an individual (Blake &
McCanse, 1991).
Category 6Exploit and Manipulate, or opportunistic style of leadership, was

the primary leadership style indicated by 8.7% (34/392) of the respondents.
o
Individuals who use this style of leadership are opportunistic and use any
combination of the leadership styles they believe provides the best
opportunity to complete the task.
Combining Category 2Yield and Support with Category 7Contribute and

Commit styles of leadership indicates 81.1% (318/392) of the respondents will
use one of these categories as the primary leadership style.
At the low end of the spectrum the following three leadership styles are least
likely to be used as a primary leadership style:
o
Category 4Evade and Elude (Indifferent) 0.3% (1/392)
Category 5Prescribe and Guide (Paternalistic) 1.0% (4/392)
Category 1 Control and Dominate (Dictatorial) 4.1 % (19/3 92)
When it comes to using a secondary style of leadership the data indicate

respondents will most often turn to Category 7Contribute and Commit, Category
2Yield and Support, and Category 6Exploit and Manipulate.
38.0% (149/392) of the respondents indicated they use Category

7Contribute and Commit style of leadership as a secondary style.
Category 2Yield and Support was used as a secondary leadership by 20.4%

(80/392) of the respondents.
145
Category 6Exploit and Manipulate was used as a secondary leadership style

by 15.8% (62/392) of the respondents.
Essentially, 58.4% use Category 7 or Category 2 as a secondary leadership

style.
The data also indicate interscholastic athletic administers rarely use Category
4Evade and Elude (Indifferent) or Category 5Prescribe and Guide
(Paternalistic) as a primary or secondary leadership style.
Using the data from Table 18, further analysis of the primary and secondary styles
of leadership indicates:
Leaders whose primary style of leadership is Category 2 will use the Category
7 leadership style 30.6% of the time as a secondary leadership style.
Leaders who have indicated Category 7 is their primary leadership style turn
to Category 2 14.5% of the time as a secondary style of leadership.
Leaders who have indicated Category 6 is their primary leadership style will
use Category 2 3.1% or Category 7 3.6% of the time as a secondary style of
leadership.
Leaders will use a combination of Categories 7 and 2 or 2 and 7 45.1% of the

time as their primary and secondary styles of leadership.
Leaders will us a combination of Categories 2 and 6 or 6 and 2 13.0% of the

Leaders will use a combination of Categories 2 and 3 or 3 and 2 10.4% of the

146
Leaders will use some combination of Categories 2, 3, 6, and 7 as their

primary and secondary styles of leadership 68.5% of the time.
The data from this analysis make it apparent interscholastic athletic administrators across
the nation consistently implement primary and secondary styles of leadership, focusing
first on the concern for people and establishing relationships, before placing emphasis on
completion of the task at hand. The fact that 68.5% of the leaders use variations of
Categories 2, 3, 6, and 7 supports the notion leadership is truly a multi-framed endeavor.
These data indicate athletic directors will use people-centric leadership styles that best fit
the situation or moment. Completion of tasks is important but how the task is completed
is more important to athletic directors. The context of the situation determines what
style, and 58.1% of the time the athletic director as leader focuses first on the whothe
people of the situationto determine how to complete the task.
Based on my experiences, the data truly support the styles of leadership practiced
on a daily basis by the athletic directors at the member schools. In my position with the
MSHSL, I have daily contact through email or telephone conversations with school
administrators that average anywhere from 20 to 40 different schools a day. I gain
firsthand knowledge of the leadership styles athletic directors practice through the
questions they ask and the processes they use when they work with their students,
coaches, and school communities. It is not surprising to me to see so many athletic
directors committed to establishing strong relationships as the first step toward
completing goals and tasks. Sharing responsibility and sharing leadership, a commitment
to serving others, and a determined effort to support and empower coaches are leadership
styles I see every day.
147
I am surprised the data did not show a more significant percentage of dictatorial
leaders. Just as I have discovered the athletic directors who are people-centric who share
leadership and empower others, I also see a strong number of athletic directors who chose
to take the dictatorial approach. These individuals decide, without any real focus on the
best needs of the coaches or students, exactly what services will be provided and how
they will be provided. Many of these athletic directors believe themselves to be
accommodating and supporting Category 2 or Category 7 leaders. Yet, how they perform
in their job and how they interact with the overall school community clearly indicates
they make choices focused first on the task and then sometimes on the people.
Although the survey data do not provide the specific information, it would be
interesting to determine if individuals who are solely athletic directors use different
primary and secondary leadership styles than individuals who are athletic directors with
other administrative roles including the principal or superintendent. As well, some
athletic directors have other school responsibilities that require them to teach or serve as
the transportation director or the director of buildings and grounds. With multiple hats to
wear, it would be interesting to discover if the primary and secondary leadership styles
differ.
Further, a study into the years of experience as a factor to determine leadership
styles. Based on my experiences, new athletic directors with less than three years of
experience will go to one of two extremes: dramatically focused on the completion of
tasks to indicate he or she gets things done, or a dramatic focus on people that does not
necessarily include leadership but instead focuses on keeping everyone happy. In both
cases time helps persuade the individual to become a leader with an identifiable primary
148
and secondary leadership style that allows them to operate sufficiently in the position of
athletic director.
The results of this study, as supported by the literature, suggest multi-framed
leadership is a necessary approach to organizational success. Clearly, it is rare that an
organization like the MSHSL, or an administrator at a high school, could operate in a
uni-dimensional frame. Leaders must be willing to view the situation with multiple
lenses and adapt their approach as necessary. The multi-framed approach most often
implemented by interscholastic athletic administrators relies on a human resources
foundation that incorporates structural, political, and symbolic tenets. But there are
problems with the implementation of change that mirror the issues central to educational
change.
Hargreaves and Fink (2003) succinctly present the core of the problem with
leadership and education change:
Educational change is rarely easy, always hard to justify, and almost impossible to
sustain. Educational change that enhances deep learning among students is
particularly problematic, and sustaining such change over time has presented
severe challenges for education reformers. Discussions of the sustainability of
educational change try to address these challenges, but they often trivialize the
idea of sustainability by equating it with maintainabilitywith how to make
change last. (p. 693)
The change process and the programming offered by the MSHSL to its member schools
and the school communities face the challenges addressed by Hargreaves and Fink
(Stead, 2009).
149
So what does this mean to the MSHSL? The data support the leadership literature
and the change theory literature indicating athletic directors are human resources leaders
who value teamwork through the development of relationships and through the creation
of positive work cultures. They also are open to new ideas, and they inspire shared
leadership and ownership. Knowing how athletic directors lead certainly will help the
MSHSL staff and Board of Directors. Future programming for member schools, whether
it sustains current programs or introduces new programs, should be implemented using
people-centric implementation strategies like Fullan's Six Secrets, Kotter's Eight Steps,
or Palmers Five Secrets. In fact, multi-framed programming focusing first on the "who,"
then on the "what," would be most successful.
High school extracurricular programs are best defined as educational athletics and
extracurricular programs are the most public display of educational and social growth.
Educational athletics are the extension of the academic classroom to the athletic
classroomthe center ice, center field, and center court classrooms. It is in these
classrooms that life's lessons of triumph and hardship are best learned. It is in these
classrooms where tomorrow's leaders are nurtured today.
Just like the ongoing attempts to create educational change in the classroom that
is sustainable, the MSHSL is faced with similar challenges as it continues to create
positive programming that can produce and sustain cultural change in the extracurricular
programs. If the MSHSL is going to meet the needs of the member schools with
programming, then change is a necessity. As indicated by Hargreaves and Fink (2009)
change is difficult to implement, and in most cases is barely maintained, never mind
sustained.
150
A recurring theme or statement made by athletic directors is simply this: Our

plates are full; we cannot take on any new programs or changes. The response from the
MSHSL to the school administrators should simply be this: You have indicated you want
new services, you want new leadership programming, and you definitely want change.
We, the MSHSL staff, can provide that change if you will accept one simple premise:
You are holding the wrong plate, and we have the new plate, the correct plate.
Change requires a commitment from the school and the school community to
create capacity building and in turn evolve the culture. Leadership is really about vision,
and vision is the ability to see a desired change come to fruition. Sustained leadership,
with a multi-frame lens, is inherent to accomplishing the task of meeting the leadership
needs of the member schools of the MSHSL. Schools must review the way in which they
are structured and leaders must review the way in which they lead and the methods used
to impart change. Perhaps Mintzberg (2004) sums it up best:
Leadership is not about making clever decisions and doing bigger deals, least of
all for personal gain. It is about energizing other people to make good decisions
and do other things. In other words, it is about helping release the positive energy
that exists naturally within people. Effective leadership inspires more than
empowers; it connects more than controls; it demonstrates more than it decides. It
does all this by engagingitself above all and consequently others, (p. 143)
To accomplish the task of implementing multi-framed human resources or people-centric
organizational change, all of the change models or parts of the change models offer the
best opportunity to create a road map for leadership driven systemic change in
interscholastic athletic programs.
151
Limitations
For both surveys this was a primary analysis of data. The results were limited in
the MSHSL survey to 54 leadership programs and services identified in the survey.
Those 54 questions were distributed into eight leadership categories by the researcher.
There was an unequal distribution of questions in each of the eight categories with the
lowest number of questions in a category (N = 3) and the highest number of questions in
a category (N = 13). Additionally, although the instructions for completion of the survey
asked that the athletic director, principal, and superintendent complete the survey jointly
there is no way to determine if those instructions were actually followed.
With the NIAAA survey, the results were limited to 20 questions used to
determine leadership styles. The NIAAA survey is a modified version of the Blake and
McCanse survey using 20 of the 44 questions from their survey. The 20 questions in the
NIAAA survey were distributed into seven leadership style categories which led to an
unequal distribution of questions. Five of the categories had six possible responses and
two of the categories had five possible responses. Because the responses were a
distribution of up to three points for each question, with those points placed into the
appropriate leadership category the total available points for each category was not the
same. This required a switch to percentages to best determine the primary and secondary
leadership styles.
Furthermore, little time was spent evaluating and disseminating the demographic
information other than to paint a picture of the respondents for both surveys. Had the
demographic information for both surveys been identical further leadership analysis may
have been possible.
152
Recommendations
The following recommendations emerge from the analysis of the data and review
of the literature for this study.
Recommendations for Educators
In this day and age of economic concern and under-funded education budgets it is
apparent the MSHSL Board of Directors should review the findings of this study as a
guide for future leadership programming and services. The data conclusively delineate
the importance the school administrators place on the current leadership services offered
by the MSHLS to the member schools. There are a number of approaches the Board of
Directors could take if their goal is to create change based on the value of the programs.
Those programs with a low average value could be reviewed and a determination to
remove or revise the programs could be the outcome. Or, the programs could be
reviewed by category and those programs with the lowest values in each of the eight
leadership categories could be reviewed for revision or removal.
Similarly, if the Board of Directors has a goal to continue to support and enhance
current programs and look to add new programs, the data should be used to indicate the
programs that should be emphasizedbe it by category or by the highest valued
programs as shown by the data set.
The research data and the literature also identify several options for creating
sustained leadership and sustained change. The national sampling of leadership styles of
interscholastic athletic administrators demonstrates the primary and secondary leadership
styles. The literature identifies multi-framed leadership and organizational change theory
as the key to developing sustained change. With that knowledge an organization like the
153
MSHSL can maintain sustained leadership and sustained change to address not only the
current needs of the member schools and the member school communities but also the
future needs of the member schools and the member school communities. In the plainest
of terms, the MSHSL Board of Directors has two major points of emphasis in their role
as leaders and change agents for the organization:
1. to identify leadership programs, resources, and services the MSHSL member
schools believe should be available for the long-term future of the MSHSL;
and
2. to develop a process MSHSL member schools can implement to create
successful systemic change.
To accomplish the task of implementing change to positively impact the school
communities, and most importantly, the students who participate in MSHSL sponsored
activities, athletics and fine arts programs, future decisions regarding the leadership
programming and services for member schools should look to answer the preceding two
questions. Doing so may provide the Board of Directors with the vision necessary to
implement ongoing and sustained development of programs for the member school
communities.
The hard data from this study could certainly provide the MSHSL Board of
Directors with information to help them determine the kinds of changes to be made.
However, creating change solely from the hard data may not be the proper path to travel.
The Board must also account for moral and ethical reasons services are currently
provided for the member schools. Stepping outside of the numbers, Board members may
154
have to continue to make decisions that best serve the ethical and moral purposes of the
MSHSL regardless of what information the data provide.
For example, the MSHSL offers adapted programming for the cognitively and
physically challenged students at MSHSL member schools. The data set in the MSHSL
survey indicate the adapted programs are not valued by the school administrators. Only
53 of 289 schools responded to the question and of these that did respond 22 indicated the
question was not applicable. However, a small percentage of the 492 member schools
actually sponsor adapted programs. School administrators across the membership
understand the merits of offering adapted programs, yet many schools do not offer the
programming. The Board could continue to support this program despite what the survey
numbers indicate.
Finally, there is overwhelming evidence as cited by Autry (2001), Bolman and
Deal (2003), Collins (2005), Fullan (2008), Hargreaves and Fink (2003, 2006), Kotter
(1996), Kotter and Rathgeber (2005), Lencioni (2002), Mintzberg (2004), and
Sergiovanni (2000) that sustained leadership and sustained change can only take place
through multiframing the leadership styles to be practiced and the organizational change
theories to be implemented. Thus, this research indicates teaching multi-framed
leadership to school administrators would enhance the culture of the school.
Recommendations for Further Study
Since the literature explicitly refers to the need for multi-framed leadership and
multi-framed change theories if change or reform is to be sustained, further study of
multi-framed change programs that have been successfully implemented and sustained in
the high school setting is recommended. Such a study would help identify the factors
155
inherent to educational change that could be carried over to athletic, academic, and fine
arts programming changes.
Another recommendation for further research would be to study the responses to
the open-ended questions from the MSHSL survey. Themes and patterns will emerge
from the study of those responses and may provide additional insight into the value the
administrators from MSHSL member schools place on the existing leadership programs
and services of the MSHSL and may identify additional leadership programs and services
desired for the future.
A final recommendation for further study is to look further into the demographic
information for both surveys and determine if the athletic director's level of education,
years of experience, and professional development opportunities impact the leadership
styles used by high school administrators. Or, perhaps further study of the demographic
information could focus on gender and leadership styles. The leadership styles of male
school administrators could be compared to the leadership styles of female school
administrators. It would be interesting to know if the primary and secondary leadership
styles are the same or differ by gender.
Additionally, with slight modifications the MSHSL survey could be administered
to the member schools of the other 49 state associations. The results of those surveys
would provide data to the Board of Directors of those 49 states to help them create data
driven strategic plans. These data would provide a broad stroke that paints a very vivid
picture of the services that are valued by all of the member schools of the 50 state
associations. With information like that, with knowledge and data that are driven by the
school communities, the National Federation of High Schoolsthe governing body
156
serving the 50 state associationswould have a definitive idea of how best to serve all
associations across the nation.
In closing, leadership theory, change theory, and multi-framed leadership theories
are the foundation of educational growth and development that, when properly
understood and implemented, most certainly provide positive experiences for students
and for the entire school community as they participate in extracurricular programming.
This is really about theory and action. By having a better understanding of leadership
theory and change theory school administrators and state board members can better lead
by making knowledgeable action decisions. School leaders and state leaders can create
and sustain exceptional extracurricular programs that best prepare tomorrow's leaders
today through an understanding of leadership and positive sustained change. In the
simplest sense, this is really about fulfilling a mission to positively serve students to
become tomorrow's leadersa lofty goal which communities, leaders, and an association
like the MSHSL can certainly achieve.
157
APPENDICES
Appendix A
MSHSL Survey Evaluation of Programs and Services of the
(March 2008)
Directions: Rate the impact/importance of each program as it relates to the needs in your school
community.
VI-Very Important I-Important Sl-Slightly Important NI-Not Important NA-Not Applicable
Program/Service
Athletic & Fine Arts Advisory Committee
Meetings
Annual Report
Area Meetings
Awards
Be a Good Sport Program (i.e. print ads,
PSA's, posters)
Broadcast Presentation of League Events
Bulletin
Challenge Cup
Coaches' Education and Training
Desktop Calendar
Eligibility and Fine Arts Brochures
Eligibility Bylaws
ExCEL Award Program
Hall of Fame
Head Coaches' Rules Meetings
Legislative Issues
NFHS Rulebooks, Casebooks, etc.
Officials Directory
Officials Rules Meetings
Pocket Calendar
Regions and Region Committees
Revenue Share
VI
35
59
19
189
72
74
102
47
6
135
105
89
96
192
133
210
217
164
77
52
35
164
53
177
148
125
207
152
165
162
12
123
145
129
159
I
98
131
SI
107
80
NI
35
9
NA
9
7
AVERAGE
1.97
2.72
110
85
150
128
116
8
59
65
43
7
7
19
1.73
4.16
2.99
2.8
114
126
47
115
113
117
71
53
92
66
61
81
97
96
98
90
90
75
97
120
60
106
79
94
46
111
106
110
55
90
92
32
57
63
59
25
55
11
10
38
93
80
104
27
77
26
31
35
20
25
34
24
104
43
30
40
15
23
113
5
8
13
52
15
8
1
1
5
20
39
39
8
53
8
10
8
1
6
8
6
112
9
5
5
1
2
3
3
27
1
5
4
10
3
1
1
1
20
12
16
1
3
1
3
2
15
2
3
1
3.12
2.38
0.58
3.65
3.23
3
2.52
3.96
3.43
4.37
4.42
3.81
2.61
2.21
1.93
3.84
2.05
3.94
3.68
3.51
4.28
3.80
3.80
3.88
0.69
3.43
3.73
3.56
Program/Service
Sanctioning
Speech "How-To" Workshops
Sports Medicine Advisory Committee
Team Up Resources
Ticket Prices - Keeping them Down
Tournaments
Tournament Venues - Being at the Best
Tournament Programs
* Team Photos
* Feature Articles, Records and
History
* Quality: souvenir-style, size, partial
color, photos, etc.
Triple "A" Program
VI
172
66
18
37
49
104
116
207
143
109
97
96
66
I
91
114
91
115
108
103
106
66
105
112
115
124
113
SI
23
89
123
91
100
59
57
13
36
57
61
53
85
NI
3
11
31
38
22
16
8
1
4
7
11
13
23
NA
1
1
1
1
AVERAGE
3.99
2.68
1.73
2.07
2.32
3.09
3.3
4.34
3.69
3.27
3.1
3.12
2.55
63
119
78
27
2.52
136
129
9
210
34
114
105
29
68
91
33
40
13
6
115
4
14
131
4
44
2
1
17
3.66
3.42
0.38
4.36
1.81
160
6
25
8
7
4
1
Appendix B
NIAAA Leadership Training Program Leadership Survey:
Perceptions of Leadership Traits
The NIAAA is interested in determining your views about leadership traits. Your
answers to the questions in this survey will be used by the NIAAA Leadership Training
Program to guide the revision process for existing leadership courses as well as to direct
the creation of new courses.
Please complete the NIAAA Leadership survey below. For this survey the terms
"Leader" and "Follower" are used for each question or situation. It is understood that,
depending upon the situation, athletic directors, coaches and student athletes can be either
leaders or followers.
This tool was created referencing models by Blake and Mouton, Calabrese, and Hersey
and Blanchard.
Part 1 Demographics
Please circle the answer that best fits your situation
1. Gender
Male
2. Level of education
Female
Bachelors Bachelors+ Masters Masters+ Doctorate
3. Years of athletic administrator experience

0-5, 6-10, 10-15, 15-20, 20+
4. Number of NFHS National Athletic Directors Conferences attended
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10+
5. Number of annual professional development opportunities completed
a. National level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
b. State or local level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
161
6. Number of Leadership Training Courses completed at

a. National meetings or conferences
1234567891010+
b. State or local meetings or conferences
1234567891010+
Part II Leadership Traits

For each of the statements below select the alternative (A or B) that is more characteristic
of your attitude or actions. You are to distribute a total of 3 points across the two
alternatives in each question according to your preference. If you would always choose
A your would assign A, 3 points and B, 0 points. If you would most often select A but
sometimes select B you would assign A, 2 points and B, 1 point. This same logic applies
to selecting B. Indicate your answers in the spaces provided. Remember the responses to
each questions should total 3.
1. When a follower disagrees, the leader should
A. maintain cooperation by shifting to a different position.
B. demand that the follower agree.
2. When a follower has difficulty completing a required task, the leader should
A. support and encourage the follower to determine the right completion
method.
B. show the follower how to complete the task to eliminate future errors.
3. When a follower presents a view that contradicts the leader's views, the leader
should
A. listen to the follower then re-establish his or her own beliefs.
B. let the follower know that different views will be asked for when needed.
4. When planning a new project not previously undertaken, a leader should
A. listen to input from others then proceed with the original plan.
B. gather input from others then proceed with a plan that that is likely to be
supported by others and showcases the leaders executive expertise.
5. The leader who gets best results is one who tells followers what is expected
A. and does not waver.
B. and recognizes that expectations may not be met.
6. When a leader and a follower disagree, the leader should
A. ignore the disagreement until it becomes a problem.
B. discuss the problem and seek to resolve it.
162
7. A leader who really understands people will plan a project by

A. providing the overview of the project then encourage the followers to
complete the project choosing their preferred method.
B. seeking the opinion of everyone then construct the plan to be followed.
8. Where there is conflict, a leader should
A. offer to help resolve the conflict.
B. ignore it and not get involved.
9. When faced with decisions that others might resist, the leader should
A. visit with those who will be affected, listen to their opinions and adjust the
decision to include their input.
B. let then know that they will support the decision and they will be rewarded
for their support on a future issue.
10. Leaders should exercise control in such a way that
A. followers are encouraged to operate independently and will be helped
when a problem arises.
B. followers will be rewarded for providing detailed daily reports of all
actions.
11. When a follower disagrees with the leader, the leader should listen to understand
A. why they disagree then find resolution so both can achieve the common
goals.
B. why they disagree, then convince the follower to accept the leaders
approach.
12. When people try to do as little as possible a leader should
A. push them hard, even if they become dissatisfied.
B. just live with it, there is not much that can be done to change them.
13. When a dealing with a difficult colleague in a situation that might provoke
conflict it is
A. best to avoid the colleague and ignore the conflict.
B. better to back off rather than to run the risk of creating hostile feelings.
14. When exercising authority, the leader should
A. be direct but gracious, persuading doubters that those in higher positions
have thought it through and know what is best for the organization.
B. reach decisions by gaining the involvement of others to determine the
outcome.
15. One way to increase the performance of followers is to
A. encourage competition among them to increase the effort of all.
B. pressure individuals to put forth maximum effort.
163
16. When evaluating performance it is necessary for the leader to

A. constantly watch followers to help them avoid repeating mistakes and
errors.
B. offer praise for positive performance while withholding demoralizing
criticism.
17. When dealing with the leader on a high stakes issue
A. a follower should work with the leader and provide input to help
accomplish the task.
B. a follower should get out of the way and let the leader make the final
decisions.
18. To promote best effort, important decisions should be developed
A. in a team made up of both the leaders and followers to ensure coordination
of effort.
B. on a one-to-one basis between leaders and followers to ensure efficiency
and accountability.
19. In reviewing a follower's performance, a leader should realize
A. that it is important for the follower to understand how he or she is
performing.
B. that since most formal appraisals are touchy and can lead to hard feelings,
experience on the job is the best teacher for correcting poor performance.
20. When promoting new ideas or procedures it is important to
A. gain in advance the support of those likely to embrace the ideas and
circumvent those who might offer opposition.
B. help people accept that these ideas have been carefully thought through by
those responsible to act in the best interests of the department.
164
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. (2006). Growing great employees: Turning ordinary people into
extraordinary performers. New York: Portfolio.
Anderson, S., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1994). Institutionalization and renewal in a
restructured secondary school. School Organization, 14, 279-293.
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Leadership: Past, present,
future. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of
leadership (pp. 3-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper & Bros.
Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.
Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational
learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Argyris, C , & Schon, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
165
Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great
morale, and improve bottom-line performance. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Barber, M. (2007). Instruction to deliver. London: Politico.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and
research. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M , & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M , & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bell, H. C. (Ed.). (1923). Minnesota State High School League annual handbook.
Alexandria, MN: MSHSL.
Bennis, W. G. (2000). Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper and Row.
Bies, O. J. (Ed.). (1987). Minnesota State High School League yearbook. Anoka, MN:
MSHSL.
Blake, R. R., & McCanse, A. A. (1991). Leadership dilemmas: Grid solutions.
Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.
166
Blanchard, K., Britt, J., Hoekstra, J., & Zigarmi, P. (2009). Who killed change? New
York: HarperCollins.
Blau, P. M , & Scott, R. G. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach.
San Francisco: Chandler.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: HarperCollins.
Charan, R. (2007). Know-how: The eight skills that separate people who perform from
those that don't. New York: Crown.
Clavell,J. (Ed.). (1983). The art of war. New York: Dell Publishing.
Conn, C. (2007). Empowering those at the bottom beats punishing them from the top.
Education Week, 26(34), 32-33.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't.
New York: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors. New York: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. (2009). How the mighty fall: And why some companies never give in. New
York: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. C , & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary
companies. New York: HarperBusiness.
Constantine, P. (Trans.). (2007). The prince. New York: The Modern Library.
167
Cook, D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 4(2), 373-390.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in
personal change. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Fireside.
Coyle, D. (2009). The talent code. New York: Bantam Dell.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De-Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.
De-Pree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Doubleday.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press Books.
Dunford, R. W., & Palmer, I. C. (1995). Claims about frames: Practitioners' assessment
of the utility of refraining. Journal of Management Education, 19, 96-105.
Ellsworth, J. B. (1997). Factors affecting participant reactions to new training devices.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (08), 293 8A.
Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change model.
Syracuse, NY: Information Resources Publications.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
168
Ely, D. (1976). Creating conditions for change. In S. F. Aibisoff & B. Bonn (Eds.),
Changing times: Changing libraries (pp. 150-162). Champaign: University of
Illinois Graduate School of Library Science.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Pitman. (Original
work published 1916)
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 149-190). New York:
Academic Press.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K.Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein,
M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A
synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287.
Follett, M. P. (2005). The giving of orders. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, & Y. S. Jang
(Eds.), Classics of organization theory (6th ed., pp. 152-157). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth. (Reprinted from Scientific foundations of business
administration by H. D. Metcalf, Ed., 1926, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins)
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (2005). The bases of social power. In J. M. Shafritz, J.
S. Ott, & Y. S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (6th ed., pp. 311-320).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. (Reprinted from Studies in social power,
pp. 150-167, by D. P. Cartwright, Ed., 1959, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social
Research, University of Michigan)
Freng, M. N. (Ed.). (1971). Minnesota State High School League bulletin. Edina, MN:
MSHSL.
169
Freng, M. N. (Ed.). (1974). Minnesota State High School League bulletin. Edina, MN:
MSHSL.
Freng, M.N. (Ed.). (1975). Minnesota State High School League bulletin. Anoka., MN:
MSHSL.
Freng, M. N. (Ed.). (1982). Minnesota State High School League bulletin. Anoka, MN:
MSHSL.
Freng, M. N. (2005). The complete history of the Minnesota State High School League.
Brooklyn Center, MN: Gopher Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, C A: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gardner, J. W. (1989). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1973). Organizations: Structure,
processes, behavior. Dallas: Business Publications.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
170
Goleman, D., McKee, A., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the
power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Green, R. L. (2001). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to
implementing the ISLLC standards. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administration. New
York: Institute of Public Administration.
Hall, B., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Hall, B., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9),
693-700.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Havelock, R., & Zlotolow, S. (1995). The change agent's guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Helgesen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion: A new architecture for building great
organizations. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Heller, T., & Van Till, J. (1983). Leadership and followership: Some summary
propositions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 75,405-414.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and
Development Journal, 23, 26-34.
171
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior:

Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training and
Development Journal, 50(1), 42-47.
Hickman, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hill, B. H. (Ed.). (1950). Minnesota State High School League bulletin.
Minneapolis, MN: MSHSL.
172

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective
relationships. New York: The Free Press.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission
or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43-54.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and
practice (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jago, A. B. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management
Science, 28(3), 315-336.
173
Johnson, S. (1998). Who moved my cheese? An a-mazing way to deal with change in
your work and your life. New York: Putnam.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic.
Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review,
57, 65-75.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovations for productivity in the American
corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. (2004). Confidence: How winning and losing streaks begin and end.
New York: Crown Business.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. (1950). Productivity, supervision and morale in
an office situation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the
high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985). Gaining control of the corporate
culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1985). Power and influence: Beyondformal authority. New York: Free
Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management.
New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
174
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real life stories of how
people change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York:
Free Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Rathgeber, H. (2005). Our iceberg is melting. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Krantz, J., & Gilmore, T. N. (1990). The splitting of leadership and management as a
social defense. Human Relations, 43(2), 183-204.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. (2007). The three signs of a miserable job. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts: Field theory in social science. New York:
American Psychological Association.
Likert, R. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Luthans, F., Yodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Lynn, L. E. (1987). Managing public policy. New York: Little, Brown.
175
Manske, F. A. (1990). Secrets of effective leadership. Columbia, TN: Leadership

Education and Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(A),
370-396.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: HarperCollins.
Mayo, G. E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School, Division of Research.
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKeon, R. (Ed.). (2001). The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Penguin.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Palmer, P. J. (2000). Let your life speak. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
176
Pande, P. S., Neuman, R. P., & Cavanagh, R. R. (2000). The six sigma way: How GE,
Motorola and other top companies are honing their performance. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York:
HarperCollins.
Peterson, H. R. (Ed.). (1944). Minnesota State High School League bulletin.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J. (2007). What were they thinking? Unconventional wisdom about
management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hardfacts, dangerous half-truths and total nonsense:
Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
177
Roberto, M. (2005). Why great leaders don't take yes for an answer. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). Management and morale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.
Sartain, L., & Schumann, M. (2006). Brandfrom the inside: Eight essentials to
emotionally connect your employees to your business. New York: Wiley.
Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (2003). Leadership that matters: The critical factors for
making a difference in people's lives and organizations' success. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin.
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management.
Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-15.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1993). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational
Leadership, 41(5), 4-13.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
178
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Corbally, J. E. (Eds.). (1984). Leadership and organizational
culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2005). Classics of organization theory (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Shirley, D., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). Data-driven to distraction. Education Week,
26(6), 32-33.
Sisodia, R., Wolfe, D., & Sheth, J. (2007). Firms of endearment: How world-class
companies profit from passion and purpose. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton
School Publishing.
Smith, O. E. (Ed.). (1932). Minnesota State High School League bulletin. Anoka, MN:
MSHSL.
MSHSL.
MSHSL.
MSHSL.
Stead, D. V. (Ed.). (1998). Minnesota State High School League bulletin. Brooklyn
Center, MN: MSHSL.
Center, MN: MSHSL.
179
Center, MN: MSHSL.
Center, MN: MSHSL.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York: Free Press.
Taylor, F. W. (2007). The principles of scientific management. Charleston, SC: Biblio
Bazaar. (Original work published 1911)
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard
to change? American Education Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
Voigt,H. (2008). MSHSL 2008-2009 official handbook. Brooklyn Center, MN:
MSHSL.
Voigt,H. (2009). MSHSL 2009-2010 official handbook. Brooklyn Center, MN:
MSHSL.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Waterman, R. H. (1994). What America does right: Learning from companies that put
people first. New York: Norton.
180
Weber, M. (2005). Bureaucracy. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, & Y. S. Jang (Eds.),

Classics of organization theory (6th ed., pp. 73-78). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth. (Reprinted from Max Weber: Essays in sociology, by H. H. Gerth &
C. W. Mills, Eds. and Trans., 1964, New York: Oxford University Press)
Welch, J. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner Business Books.
Welch, J. (2005). Winning. New York: HarperCollins.
Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolution for everyone. New York: Delacorte Press.
Xenophon. (2005). Socrates discovers generic management. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S.
Ott, & Y. S. Jang (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (6th ed., pp. 35-36).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. (Reprinted from The anabasis or expedition
of Cyrus and the memorabilia of Socrates, pp. 430-433, by J. S. Watson, Trans.,
1869, New York: Harper & Row)
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York: Wiley
Interscience.
181

A Roadmap For Leadership PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Roadmap For Leadership PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A ROAD MAP FOR LEADERSHIP DRIVEN SYSTEMIC CHANGE IN

INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC PROGRAMS

Thomas Craig Perry

for the degree of

Grand Forks, North Dakota

UMI Number: 3455232

All rights reserved

This dissertation, submitted by Thomas Craig Perry in partial fulfillment of the

Dean of the Graduate School

A Road Map for Leadership Driven Systemic Change in

MSHSL Leadership Services

Leadership Theory and Organizational Change Theory

Purpose of the Study

Significance of the Study

Abbreviations and Acronyms

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Minnesota State High School League

Universal Components of Leadership

Transformational Leaders and Change Agents

Organizational Change Theory

Framing and Refraining

Communication Change Components

Framing Change Theory

Purpose of the Study

Development and Description of MSHSL ELRSP Survey

Description of MSHSL ELRSP Population

Description of MSHSL ELRSP Data Collection

Description of MSHSL ELRSP Data Analysis

Development and Description of NIAAA LTPLS Instrument

Description of NIAAA LTPLS Population

Description of NIAAA LTPLS Data Collection

Description of NIAAA LTPLS Data Analysis

Description of MSHSL ELRSP Population

Results of MSHSL ELRSP Data Analysis

Results of Summating Ratings for Leadership Programming

Description of NIAAA LTPLS Population

Results of NIAAA LTPLS Data Analysis

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION, AND

Conclusions and Discussion

Recommendations for Educators

Recommendations for Further Study

Appendix A: MSHSL Survey Evaluation of Programs and Services of the

1. Blake and McCanse Leadership Grid

National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association

Minnesota State High School League Available Responses and

Minnesota State High School League Average Value High Importance

Minnesota State High School League Average Value Medium Importance

Minnesota State High School League Average Value Low Importance

Minnesota State High School League Category in Descending

Minnesota State High School League Category 1: Eligibility and

Minnesota State High School League Category 2: Recognition and Awards

Minnesota State High School League Category 3: Tournaments in

Minnesota State High School League Category 4: Education and

Minnesota State High School League Category 5: Programming in

Minnesota State High School League Category 6: Student and School

Minnesota State High School League Category 7: Legislative and Rule

Minnesota State High School League Category 8: Sponsorship and Financial

National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Information

National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Primary

National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Secondary

National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association Primary and

This above all: to thine own self be true,

directors attending professional development classes at state and national athletic