The Dark Side of School Leadership: Implications For Administrator Preparation

Leadership and Policy in Schools
ISSN: 1570-0763 (Print) 1744-5043 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20
The Dark Side of School Leadership: Implications

for Administrator Preparation
Joseph Blase & Jo Blase
To cite this article: Joseph Blase & Jo Blase (2004) The Dark Side of School Leadership:
Implications for Administrator Preparation, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3:4, 245-273, DOI:
10.1080/15700760490503733
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503733
Published online: 16 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 484
Citing articles: 19 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nlps20
Leadership and Policy in Schools
2004, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 245–273
JOSEPH
THE
3
18 DARK
2004 & BLASE
Leadership
34Taylor
Taylor
NLPS SIDE&OFJOin
BLASE
SCHOOL
10.1080/15700760490503733
29469 &
Francis
and
FrancisTaylor
Policy
Ltd. Schools LEADERSHIP
and Francis 325 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphiaPA191061570-07630304-245
The Dark Side of School Leadership: Implications

for Administrator Preparation
Joseph Blase and Jo Blase

Program of Educational Leadership, College of Education, University of Georgia Athens,
GA, USA
ABSTRACT
In this article, we briefly review conceptual, theoretical, and empirical knowledge about a
rapidly developing topic of organizational research, workplace mistreatment (e.g., bullying,
mobbing, abuse, aggression) as well as our research about principal mistreatment of teachers.
Following this, we discuss the importance of preparing prospective and practicing school prin-
cipals to deal with personal and organizational factors that may interact to produce the kinds of
leadership that seriously damage teachers, teaching, and student learning.
When his novels were criticized for their portrayal of darkness and immo-
rality in human relations—in today’s parlance they would be called “nega-
tive”—Thomas Hardy replied that “to know the best, we must first regard
the worst.” It is that unwillingness to look at the dark side of the human
condition that prevents administrative science from dealing with the heart
of administrative problems and also from ascending to the height of human
possibility and accomplishment. (Thomas Greenfield, in Hodgkinson,
1991, Foreword, p. 7)
Historically, research in the areas of school leadership and university-based
and professional development programs have focused on the positive aspects
of school leadership; by and large, dark-side topics have been ignored. Conse-
quently, prospective and practicing administrators have been given little assis-
tance in dealing with dark-side issues. In this article, we specifically discuss the
Address correspondence to: Joseph Blase, Program of Educational Leadership & Co-Director,
ATLAS, College of Education, University of Georgia, 850 College Station Road, Athens, GA
30605, USA. Tel.: +1 706 613-8226. Fax: 706 549-2401. E-mail: blase@coe.uga.edu
1570-0763/04/0304-245$16.00 © Taylor & Francis Ltd.

246 JOSEPH BLASE & JO BLASE
critical importance of preparing school leaders to deal with one category of dark-
side issues, namely school principals’ misuse of power and, in particular, mis-
treatment of teachers. Because workplace mistreatment (e.g., bullying, mobbing,
abuse, aggression) is a new topic in the field of educational leadership, we also
share general conceptual, theoretical, and empirical knowledge about workplace
mistreatment as well as our research about principal mistreatment of teachers.
Following this, we also draw on several theoretical perspectives to discuss the
importance of preparing prospective and practicing school principals to deal with
personal and organizational factors that may interact to produce the kinds of
leadership that seriously damage teachers, teaching, and student learning.
During the last decade and a half, researchers have produced a strong stream
of “bright side” empirical studies in the field of educational administration
focusing on the considerable contribution of exemplary school principals to
schools in general (e.g., Blase & Blase, 2001; Blase & Kirby, 2000; Good &
Brophy, 1986; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Thomlinson, & Genge, 1996;
Murphy & Louis, 1994a, 1994b) and teacher development and student learning
in particular (e.g., Blase & Blase, 1999; Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990;
Heck & Marcoulides, 1993; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Sheppard, 1996). Notably,
this knowledge base provides ample theoretical and empirical evidence that
effective principal leadership can have important effects on student learning
(Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). Specifically, effective principals develop
positive relationships based on mutual trust, respect, openness, support, and
understanding (Blase & Blase, 1998, 2001; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-
Gordon, 2001; Lambert et al., 1995; Sergiovanni, 1996; Walton, 1990); develop
a learning communities of professionals and constituents able to openly com-
municate, make decisions, solve problems, and resolve conflicts (Schmuck &
Runkel, 1994; Wald & Castleberry, 2000); maintain a collaborative focus on
teaching and learning (Fullan, 1997; Joyce & Calhoun, 1996); and encourage
teacher reflection, peer coaching, and shared critique and inquiry (Blase &
Blase, 1998; Calhoun, 1994; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Schön, 1987). The import-
ance of related leadership skills and corresponding attitudes and values to the
development of strong, positive relationships between principals and teachers
cannot be overemphasized; indeed, respectful, constructive relationships between
principals and teachers are essential for school improvement (Boyer, 1995;
Cotton, 2001; Hoachlander, 2001; Schlechty, 1997; Senge, 2000).
In stark contrast, only one empirical study has systematically examined the
“dark side” of school leadership, in particular principal mistreatment/abuse of
teachers, and the extremely harmful consequences such forms of leadership
THE DARK SIDE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 247
have on life in schools (See Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of
Principal Mistreatment of Teachers [Blase & Blase, 2003] and recently pub-
lished articles in Educational Administration Quarterly and the Journal of
Educational Administration). Undoubtedly, the failure of both academic and
professional educators to study principal mistreatment of teachers, applying
the same rigorous research protocols we use to investigate other educational
problems, has resulted in incomplete, naïve, and even false understandings of
how some, perhaps a noteworthy percentage, of school leaders and teachers
experience their work (Hodgkinson, 1991). Moreover, this failure allows mis-
treatment to continue without challenge and without hope of improvement
(Ashforth, 1994; Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994; Robinson & Bennett, 1995;
Einarsen et al., 2003). As a first step, our study of principal mistreatment of
teachers provides an inductively derived knowledge base and initiates an area
of inquiry essential to developing a constructive approach for university prep-
aration and development of prospective and practicing school administrators.
WORKPLACE ABUSE: A BRIEF CONCEPTUAL, THEORETICAL,

AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW
Terms and Constructs

Internationally, systematic research on the problem of workplace abuse, nota-
bly nonphysical forms of abuse, has increased significantly during the last two
decades in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, Australia,
and Britain. Several of these countries have also enacted legislation against
workplace abuse and private organizations have been created to help victims
of abuse (Björkvist, Österman, & HjeltBäck, 1994; Davenport, Distler-
Schwartz, & Elliott, 1999; Keashly, 1998; Namie & Namie, 2000). For most
of this same period, organizational scholars in the United States have largely
ignored the problem of work abuse. In recent years, however, scholars have
begun to address the problem; indeed, the emerging national literature sug-
gests that workplace abuse may lead to serious deleterious consequences for
both employees and organizations (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Davenport et al.,
1999; Hornstein et al., 1995; Keashly, 1998; Keashly et al., 1994).
Organizational scholars have used a number of terms in the conceptual,
theoretical, and empirical literature to describe the workplace mistreatment/
abuse phenomenon, including incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), mobbing
(Davenport et al., 1999; Leymann, 1990), bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996;
Namie & Namie, 2000), harassment (Björkvist et al., 1994); petty tyranny
(Ashforth, 1994), abusive disrespect (Hornstein, 1996), interactional injustice
(Harlos & Pinder, 2000), emotional abuse (Keashly, 1998), mistreatment (Folger,
1993; Price Spratlen, 1995), abuse (Bassman, 1992), aggression (Neuman &
Baron, 1998), deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), and victimization (Swedish
National Board of Occupational Safety and Health, 1993).
In addition, researchers have developed a variety of empirically grounded
constructs to define the workplace mistreatment/abuse phenomenon. To illus-
trate, Leymann’s (1990) construct of mobbing (or psychical terror), the most
common term used in Europe, refers to “hostile and unethical communication
that is directed in a systematic way by one or a number of persons toward one
individual. . . . These actions take place often . . . and over a long period (at least
six months) and, because of this frequency and duration, result in consider-
able psychic, psychosomatic, and social misery” (p. 120). Mobbing consists
of humiliating, intimidating, and abusive communication, committed directly
or indirectly, to confuse, discredit, intimidate, and isolate an individual, to
force the individual into submission or out of the workplace (Davenport et al.,
1999). Einarsen and Skogstad’s (1996) concept of bullying, a term commonly
used in the United States and Europe, as “harassment, badgering, niggling,
freezing out, offending someone . . . repeatedly over a period of time, and the
person confronted . . . [has] difficulties defending him/herself. It is not bullying
if two parties of approximately equal strength are in conflict or the incident is
an isolated event” (p. 191). Ashforth’s (1994) measure of petty tyranny in
organizations identifies a petty tyrant as “an individual who lords his or her
power over others. . ., acts in an arbitrary and self-aggrandizing manner, belit-
tles subordinates, evidences lack of consideration, forces conflict resolution,
discourages initiative, and utilizes noncontingent punishment” (p. 772). Hornstein
et al. (1995) developed the notion of abusive disrespect, which refers to “trans-
gressions” by bosses that include deceit (i.e., lying), constraint (i.e., controlling
subordinates’ actions outside of work), coercion (i.e., threatening excessive
or inappropriate harm), selfishness (i.e., blaming and scapegoating subordi-
nates), inequity (i.e., favoritism), cruelty (i.e., harming subordinates through
name calling, personal attacks, disregard), disregard (i.e., being unfair and unkind,
displaying an obvious lack of consideration), and deification (i.e., conduct
that communicates a “master-servant” relationship to subordinates).
From a comprehensive review of the workplace mistreatment/abuse litera-
ture, Keashly (1998) developed the concept of emotional abuse, which sub-
sumes elements of the constructs defined above. Emotional abuse emphasizes
the “hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors . . . directed at gaining compliance

from others” (p. 85). Keashly identified emotional abuse with the following: a
pattern of abuse (not a single event), behaviors that are unwanted by the tar-
get, behaviors that violate norms for appropriate conduct or an individual’s
rights, behaviors that are intended to harm the target (as perceived by the target),
behaviors that result in harm to the target, and power differences between the
abuser and the target of abuse.
In addition, empirical research has generated a handful of models of mis-
treatment in the work setting. Baron and Neuman’s (1996) three-factor model
of workplace aggression includes expressions of hostility, obstructionism, and
overt aggression. Expressions of hostility include verbal and symbolic behav-
iors such as facial expressions, gestures, and verbal attacks like staring, dirty
looks, silent treatment, ridicule, unfair evaluations, and gossip. Obstruction-
ism refers to actions that are often passive-aggressive in nature, such as with-
holding a resource or behavior. Some examples are not returning phone calls,
refusing to provide needed resources or equipment, and failing to warn an
individual of imminent danger. Overt aggression, the third factor, refers to
threats or acts of physical violence and theft or destruction of an individual’s
work equipment. Ryan and Oestreich’s (1991) model of abrasive (i.e., less
harmful) and abusive (i.e., more harmful) categories of boss behavior includes
behaviors (listed from less to more harmful) such as silence, glaring eye con-
tact, abruptness, snubbing or ignoring, insults, blaming, discrediting and dis-
counting, controlling others aggressively, making threats about the job, yelling
and shouting, making angry outbursts, and threatening physical harm.
Theoretical Work
Recently, important theoretical work in the area of boss abuse had been pro-
duced. Hornstein et al. (1995) argue that people’s feelings of both self-worth
and -security are affected by how respectfully others treat them; and feelings
of self-worth and -security, in turn, affect one’s mental health and well-being.
Hornstein et al. established validity and reliability for the Boss Behavior
Questionnaire (BBQ), which uses measurable constructs of respect and dis-
respect to examine eight domains of supervisory disrespectful behavior.
Ashforth’s (1994) model contends that petty tyranny in organizations
results from an interaction between superordinates’ predispositions (i.e.,
beliefs about organizations, subordinates, and self, and preferences for action)
and situational facilitators (i.e., institutionalized values and norms, power, and
stressors). Ashforth argued that tyrannical management causes low leader
endorsement and high frustration, stress, and resistance; high helplessness and
work alienation; low self-esteem and poor work performance; and low work
unit cohesiveness.
Folger’s (1993) work, based on exchange theory and, in particular, referent
cognitive theory (RCT), explains how employees come to feel mistreated by
management. This theory conceptualizes employment as both economic and
social processes involving the exchange of material things (e.g., wages for
work) as well as the character of “relations” of people (e.g., how management
treats employees on interpersonal dimensions, such as politeness and respect).
Folger argues that in addition to fair treatment (i.e., in regard to wages and
salary) and implementation of policies and procedures (a means obligation),
management has a moral obligation to treat employees fairly and with suffi-
cient respect and dignity, and as ends in themselves. During an exchange,
respectful conduct by managers reinforces feelings of self-respect, dignity,
and worth that are essential to the belief that one has been treated as a person,
not a thing; in essence, employees will feel mistreated when they do not receive
fair and dignified treatment.
Leymann’s (1990) theory of mobbing is based on four phases, including
(1) a triggering incident; (2) mobbing and stigmatizing an individual over a
long period of time with the intention to “get” the person by manipulating the
victim’s reputation (e.g., via rumors, slandering, ridicule), social circum-
stances (e.g., victim is isolated), and ability of victim to perform his or her
job; (3) administration tends to take over the prejudices of the abuser so that
the targeted person becomes a “marked individual” and others assume that the
cause of the trouble lies with the victim; and (4) the targeted individual is
expelled from work, frequently resulting in social isolation, stigmatizing, loss
of coping resources, and feelings of desperation and total helplessness.
Studies of Workplace Mistreatment/Abuse

Studies disclose a wide range of nonverbal and verbal/behavioral forms of
workplace abuse. To illustrate, nonverbal behaviors include aggressive eye con-
tact (e.g., staring, “dirty looks,” snubbing or ignoring, “the silent treatment”)
and physical gestures (e.g., violations of physical space, finger pointing, slam-
ming objects, and throwing objects). Some examples of verbal behaviors are
sexual harassment, angry outbursts, yelling and screaming, put downs, lying,
public humiliation, threats of job loss, physical harm, name calling, excessive
or unfounded criticism of work abilities or personal life, unreasonable job
demands, stealing credit for another’s work, blaming, exclusion or isolation,
initiating malicious rumors and gossip, withholding resources or obstructing

opportunities, favoritism, dismissing an individual’s feelings or thoughts,
unfriendly behavior, not returning phone calls, and behavior that implies a
master-servant relationship (Björkvist et al., 1994; Davenport et al., 1999;
Einarsen et al., 2003; Harlos & Pinder, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly et al.,
1994; Leymann, 1990; Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Namie, 2000; Namie &
Namie, 2000; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002;
Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991).
Furthermore, according to the research, abuse in the workplace is asso-
ciated with a host of serious adverse effects on an individual’s physical well-
being, psychological/emotional well-being, work performance, and social
relationships. Examples of effects on physical well-being include sleep dis-
orders (e.g., nightmares or insufficient rest), headaches, backaches, fatigue/
exhaustion, illness, hyperactivity, weight changes (e.g., significant increases
or decreases), irritable bowel syndrome, heart arrhythmia, skin changes,
ulcers, substance abuse (first time use), and suicide. Some psychological/
emotional effects of abusive workplace behavior are depression, anger, rage,
helplessness, powerlessness, cynicism and distrust, self-doubt, guilt, shame,
embarrassment, insecurity, disillusionment, poor concentration, lowered self-
esteem, aggression or revenge, hypervigilance, panic attacks, and posttrau-
matic stress disorder (PTSD). Negative effects of abusive behavior on work
performance include reductions in job effort, extra effort, commitment, and
satisfaction and morale plus, increases in absenteeism, turnover, and attrition.
Social effects noted in the literature are isolation and loss of friendships
(Björkvist et al., 1994; Davenport et al., 1999; Einarsen et al., 2003; Harlos &
Pinder, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990;
Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; Pearson,
2000; NNLI, 1993; Rayner et al., 2002; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991).
Examination of the research on abusive bosses (versus coworker abuse, for
example) has revealed a number of disturbing findings. First, abusive conduct
by bosses is commonplace in a wide range of both profit and nonprofit organ-
izational settings. Second, studies indicate that bosses (e.g., superiors, managers)
are more frequently workplace abusers rather than an individual’s coworkers;
in various studies, bosses have been identified as engaging in abusive conduct
toward subordinates between 54% of the time and 90% of the time (Björkvist
et al., 1994; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly et al., 1994;
Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; NNLI, 1993; Pearson, 2000; Rayner,
1998). (Several scholars have persuasively argued that they expect abusive
conduct by superiors to increase given organizational changes such as the

growth in diversity, a decline in unionization [Yamada, 2000], and increases
in electronic monitoring [Hornstein, 1996]). Third, the research on abusive
bosses indicates that victims of this type of abuse seldom have viable opport-
unities for recourse. Studies emphasize that because of organizational culture
(e.g., a “macho culture”) and off-putting management practices (e.g., a cavalier
attitude about abuse, attempts to justify abusive conduct), victims’ complaints
about abusive bosses usually result in (a) no action (i.e., no response) from
upper-level management/administration and departments of human resources,
(b) efforts to protect an abusive boss, and/or (c) reprisals against the victim for
registering complaints (Bassman, 1992; Davenport et al., 1999; Hornstein, 1996;
Keashly, 1998; Keashly et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990; Namie, 2000; Namie &
Namie, 2000; Pearson, 2000; Rayner, 1998).
OUTLINE OF OUR FINDINGS ON PRINCIPAL MISTREATMENT

OF TEACHERS
From an interview-based study of 50 teachers located throughout the United

States who had been mistreataed by school principals over long periods of
time (six months to nine years), we found that abusive principals, like abusive
bosses in general, engage in similar behaviors. We have conceptualized
abusive conduct in terms of three levels of aggression: Level 1 principal mis-
treatment behaviors (indirect and moderate aggression) include discounting
teachers’ thoughts, needs, and feelings and isolating and abandoning them;
withholding or denying opportunities, resources, or credit; showing favorit-
ism toward other teachers; and offensive personal conduct. Level 2 principal
mistreatment behaviors (direct and escalating aggression) include spying,
sabotaging, stealing, destroying teacher instructional aids, making unreason-
able work demands, and both public and private criticism of teachers. Level 3
principal mistreatment behaviors (direct and severe aggression) include lying,
being explosive and nasty, threats, unwarranted reprimands, unfair evaluations,
mistreating students, forcing teachers out of their jobs, preventing teachers
from leaving/advancing, sexual harassment, and racism. Such behaviors and
related patterns of conduct are consistent with studies of abusive bosses
conducted throughout the world in both profit and nonprofit organizations
(Björkvist et al., 1994; Davenport et al., 1999; Einarsen et al., 2003; Harlos
& Pinder, 2000; Hornstein, 1996; Keashly et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990;
Lombardo & McCall, 1984; Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; Neuman &
Baron, 1998; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Rayner et al., 2002; Ryan & Oestreich,
1991). (Please refer to Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of
Principal Mistreatment of Teachers [Blase & Blase, 2003] for a full descrip-
tion of research method and findings.)
We also found that the effects of such mistreatment were extremely harmful
to teachers’ professional and personal lives; like many thousands of workers
represented in the extant literature—a number that has been extrapolated to be
multimillions of workers—abused teachers experienced the same devastating
effects. Beyond the teachers’ responses of shock and disorientation, humilia-
tion, loneliness, and injured self-esteem, principal mistreatment seriously
damaged in-school relationships, damaged classrooms, and frequently impaired
all-school decision-making. In addition, principals’ abuse of teachers resulted
in severe psychological/emotional problems, including chronic fear, anxiety,
anger, and depression; a range of physical/psysiological problems; and adverse
personal outcomes also discussed in the general empirical literature on boss
abuse (Björkvist et al., 1994; Davenport et al., 1999; Harlos & Pinder, 2000;
Hornstein, 1996; Keashly et al., 1994; Leymann, 1990; Lombardo & McCall,
1984; Namie, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; NNLI, 1993; Pearson, 2000;
Ryan & Oestreich, 1991).
Abuse of Power
It may have started as far back as the days of Adam and Eve and that infa-
mous tree of knowledge. A command was given by a powerful figure, a
direct order was violated, and insubordinates were duly punished. So began
the human struggle with power. We hunger for it, fear it, revel in it, and
abuse it. We learn the subtle dance done by two people occupying different
levels of it. Power pervades our thoughts, our ambitions, our social inter-
actions, and our society. Indeed, power pervades our lives.
With the enormity of its impact, however, it is curious how little we
know about it. Though there have been philosophical discussions, there
haven’t been many scientific studies directly devoted to power. How does
it color our thoughts and perceptions? How does it sway our emotions and
actions? How does it change the dynamics of interactions between individ-
uals and between groups? How do people use it, and what can we do to curb
the abuse of it? These are the questions that at long last deserve attention.
(Lee-Chai & Bargh, 2001, p. xiii)
The judicious use of power is crucial to creating common goals and giving
meaning to organizational life, but failure to recognize the dual nature of
power—that it can be used both constructively and destructively—can
affect one’s ability to stay in contact with reality. . . . [O]ften a person who
at first sight seems to be well-adjusted changes for the worse when put in a
position of power. . . . Little is needed for matters to get out of control.
(Kets de Vries, 1993, p. 180)
It is widely acknowledged that power is a fundamental aspect of all human

relationships (Muth, 1989; McClelland, 1987; Russell, 1938) and is especially
significant for understanding relationships between administrators and sub-
ordinates (Blase & Anderson, 1995; Burns, 1978; Gardner, 1990; Gibb, 1954;
Kets de Vries, 1989, 1993). It is also acknowledged that power in and of itself
is morally neutral; it can be exercised in constructive or destructive ways in
pursuit of self-serving or other-oriented purposes (Lee-Chai, Chen, & Chartrand,
2001; Chaleff, 1995; Sampson, 1965). McClelland (1975, 1987) and Winter
(1973), for instance, distinguished between the two faces of power: socialized
power refers to an orientation of concern for strengthening and inspiring sub-
ordinates—a “one with the world outlook” (McClelland, 1987), and personal-
ized power refers to the need for direct power over others and is associated
with a “me against the world outlook” (McClelland, 1975). Clearly, the con-
structive and destructive use of power has dramatic effects on individuals,
groups, and organizations (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Blase, 1991; Hornstein
et al., 1995; Keashly, 1998; Kreisberg, 1992; Lee-Chai & Bargh, 2001; Muth,
1989; Pfeffer, 1992; Emler & Cook, 2001).
The destructive use of power may be primarily related to individual factors
such as one’s stability of identity, capacity for reality testing (i.e., “the ability
to distinguish inner from outer reality, fact from fantasy” [Kets de Vries, 1993,
p. 179]) and, more concretely, tolerance for anxiety and impulse control. Indi-
viduals who lack “balance” in dealing with the vicissitudes of power are more
likely to abuse power and engage in pathological behavior (Kets de Vries,
1993). Lack of balance can lead to a mental and moral dualism and “power
intoxication” wherein administrators view themselves above precepts of right
and wrong, and good and evil (Sorokin & Lunden, 1959, p. 44).
More frequently, however, the use and abuse of power is a function of the
interaction between individual and organizational factors (Andersson & Pearson,
1999; Ashforth, 1994; Baron & Neuman, 1996; Folger, 1993; Hornstein, 1996;
Kipnis, 1972; Leymann, 1990). To wit, prominent power theorists have
demonstrated that the acquisition of power itself may have transforming or

“metamorphic” (i.e., corrupting) effects on powerholders and those over
whom power is exercised (Adams & Balfour, 1998; Baumeister, 1997; Lee-
Chai & Bargh, 2001; Kekes, 1990; Kets de Vries, 1989; Kipnis, 1972, 2001).
Lord Acton’s (1948) famous aphorism, “power tends to corrupt and absolute
power corrupts absolutely,” speaks directly to the problematic nature of power.
Indeed, some educational scholars have explicitly acknowledged the tempta-
tions of power and the “dark side” of school leadership (Hodgkinson, 1991;
Kimbrough, 1985; Kimbrough & Nunnery, 1988; Starratt, 1991).
Does elevation into high office make educational administrators more vul-
nerable to immoral conduct than average citizens? Probably—people in top
administrative positions are targets for those desiring favors and offering
advantages: free hunting trips from school equipment companies, gifts of
nice coats from athletic houses, and other offers bordering on bribery.
Also, there is a tendency for some people in high places to adopt an “above
the law” concept—power tends to corrupt. Thus educational administrators
have a special need to observe high moral standards in the face of multiple
temptations. (Kimbrough, 1985, p. 3)
Administration based on an ethic of caring will attend to the “underside” of
administration (Starratt, 1984), that is, to those motives that sometimes
intrude, even slightly, on an exchange with a teacher, student, or parent.
Sometimes those motives involve the desire to dominate, to intimidate, to
control. Sometimes those motives involve racial, sexual, ethnic, and age
stereotypes that block the possibility of honest communication. Sometimes
an administrator feels insecure in the face of a strong and assertive teacher
and feels the need to put that teacher in his or her place. Sometimes the
administrator is not even aware of the power he or she has in the eyes of
teachers and recklessly toys with the teacher’s insecurity by some light-
hearted ridicule of a classroom activity.
When these underside issues dominate an administrative exchange, they
block any possibility of open, trusting, professional communication. Mistrust,
manipulation, aggressive and controlling actions or language on the part of the
administrator or the teacher or both can lead to a relationship that is hypocriti-
cal, dishonest, disloyal, vicious, and dehumanizing. (Starratt, 1991, p. 196)
More directly, Kipnis’s (1972; 1976) research on the “metamorphic”

effects of power has shown that individuals can be significantly transformed
as a result of gaining power. Kipnis found that after acquiring power, individ-
uals typically increased their attempts to influence those who were less pow-
erful; devalued those who were less powerful; attributed the cause of a less
powerful persons’ efforts to themselves, rather than to the less powerful persons’
motivation to do well; viewed less powerful people as objects of manipulation;
and preferred maintaining psychological distance from less powerful people.
That is, Kipnis (1972) demonstrated that power affects a powerholder’s self-
perceptions; the powerholder tends to develop an inflated and vain view of
self that inhibits compassion for others. He also noted that many who hold
power value it above all else and pursue the acquisition of more power; power
often becomes an end in itself, results in abuse, and thus cannot be justified on
ethical or moral grounds.
Kipnis (1972) identified a host of external factors that may interact with
individual factors and cause administrators to misuse power and engage in
behavior that he labeled corruption. By implication, we suggest that abusive
principals may typically react to the following external influences by misusing
their power: standards, expectations of superiors, rules, policies, curriculum
requirements, a diversity of goals that fracture the principal’s work, assessment
and test scores, a bureaucratic hierarchy, lay control of schools, community
pressures, and parental pressures.
From studies of different types of corrupt "rulers," including monarchs as
well as democratically elected officials, Sorokin and Lunden (1959) concluded
that, regardless of how a person acts in private affairs, as a state official in a
position of power that person is likely to behave in Machiavellian and cynical
ways in matters of policy and politics. Stated differently, the private and pub-
lic behavior of elected leaders often reflects a clear contrast, as suggested by
the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde analogy; leaders will tend to use one set of princi-
ples to determine work-related conduct and another to determine conduct in their
private lives. Sorokin and Lunden (1959) identified two factors that corrupt
state officials and result in what they call “predatory” leadership: (1) paralyzing
elements, such as the incessant bombardment of contradictory interests of var-
ious groups and people—one’s moral integrity and mental sanity may become
fragmented, confused, and contradictory, and (2) the effect of having power,
that is, becoming intoxicated with power—this is based on the belief that one
is “chosen” or “anointed” and thus is above the “common herd,” possessing the
absolute moral and legal perception of right.
Needless to say, the famous Milgram (Hanney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1974)
and Stanford prison (Adams & Balfour, 1998) studies of social compliance
remind us of the incredible influence that social roles and social structures can
have in provoking ordinary people to engage in destructive actions and harm
toward others.
The Inadvertent Misuse of Power

Although much misuse of power is undoubtedly deliberate—“an internal,
strategic, and knowing act on the part of the abuser” (Bargh & Alvarez,
2001)—“the misuse of power by those who do not realize they are doing so,
who at the conscious level believe they are acting in an objective and fair-
minded manner and in the best interests of their subordinates” is considered a
more insidious and prevalent problem (Bargh & Alvarez, p.45). Along these
lines, stereotyping of individuals and, in particular, automatic negative evalu-
ations of subordinates have been found to frequently occur unintentionally
and in a split-second fashion (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). And, because individ-
uals are unaware of their automatic affective reactions, they attribute such
actions to sources they view as plausible and reasonable (Schwartz, 1990).
Furthermore, individuals are susceptible to automatic associations between
power and their goals—automatic activation of goals; in effect, a given power
context may cause an automatic triggering of behaviors to attain one’s goals.
The power-sex association for men with predispositions for sexual harass-
ment is one such example (Malamuth, 1989). “Situational power features
automatically activate those goals one has thought about and pursued in the
past in structures where one is in a position of power” (Bargh & Alvarez, 2001,
p. 49). This is not to suggest that power is universally corrupting (as some
scholars have argued); rather, it appears that some individuals take advantage
of power situations to pursue personal goals and in many cases do this uncon-
sciously; others, of course, become concerned with the responsible and benefi-
cent use of positional power (McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1973).
Self-deception theory also provides insight into why individuals (and groups
[Janis, 1982]), under certain circumstances, abuse power (Baumeister, 1997).
Self-deception is believing that which an individual is motivated to believe; it
entails maintaining a given idea in one’s consciousness while suppressing a
conflicting idea (Silver, 1989); in addition, self-deception processes tend to
occur unconsciously (Ford, 1996; Peck, 1983; Silver, 1989). The psychological
literature is filled with theoretical and empirical work on various ego mechan
isms used by individuals to create or preserve a state of self-deception including
denial, projection, distortion, dissociation, displacement, reaction formation,
and suppression (Ford); rationalization, evasion, and jamming (Bach, 1981);
and selective perception, biased reasoning, and isolation of incidents (Baumeister,

1993). Self-deception is also considered central to certain personality types
(e.g., controlling disposition and self-deceptive narcissism) and a range of
destructive forms of leadership (Kets de Vries, 1989).
Scholars have also discussed cognitive mechanisms that may prevent
awareness by individuals of why they engage in various types of conduct.
Kunda (1990), for instance, has theorized that motivation may affect reason-
ing through dependence on a biased set of cognitive processes for accessing,
constructing, and evaluating beliefs, particularly if “directional (desired)
goals” dominate an individual’s disposition. Thus, in making decisions, individ-
uals may unwittingly select only beliefs and rules that support a desired out-
come; they may also “creatively combine accessed knowledge to construct new
beliefs that could logically support the desired conclusion” (Kunda, p. 483).
Finally, the role of emotion should be examined with regard to the inad-
vertent use of power. Emotion is always present in work in organizations, and,
as such, is considered a catalyst to human motivation (Fineman, 1993, 2000);
furthermore, much emotion is unconscious and yet it has a profound influence
on human behavior (Goleman, 1995). According to Hochschild (1979), man-
aging emotion is central to work that includes face-to-face interaction. “Emo-
tion work helps keep the organization organized; when emotion management
fails, so can the organization” (Fineman, 2000, p.5). An awareness and under-
standing of emotions (even as they occur), the ability to manage one’s emotions,
and the ability to express emotion in appropriate ways, given the context, are
regarded as critical to effective school leadership (Beatty, 2000; Goleman,
1995). Loader (1997), author of The Inner Principal, discusses the emotionality
of school leadership:
Unfortunately there are no pills one can swallow, no education courses that
one can take to eliminate such despondency. . . . The feelings (of fear,
despair, etc.) will come and while they may not be pleasant, it is important
to be able to feel these emotions. It is not a matter of becoming masochistic
nor is it a matter of so inuring ourselves to the pain that we don’t feel it.
Indeed, the ability to feel, to read one’s heart, to see the omens in the envi-
ronment are important elements in leadership. To dull this ability to feel, to
be insensitive, is to reduce one’s potential for effectiveness as a leader. To
be aware of the emotional impact on yourself and others of events and
actions, allows you both to be empathic to others and also more able to
support them. (p. 78)
Despite the centrality of emotion to work in organizational settings and

despite the challenges of managing emotions in complex social organizations,
few studies of emotion in educational leadership have been completed (Beatty,
2000; Ginsberg & Davies, 2001; Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002;
Loader, 1997). Not surprisingly, these studies point out that powerful positive
emotions (e.g., passion, excitement, confidence, caring, relief) and negative
emotions (e.g., anger, resentment, fear, anxiety, frustration, discouragement,
grief, sadness, loss of control) are common to the work of school leaders.
These studies also demonstrate that growth as a school leader requires coura-
geous, disciplined, critical reflection on emotion. In point of fact, our findings
suggest that administrators’ inability to effectively manage anger was a signifi-
cant source of teacher mistreatment (Blase & Blase, 2003). Hodgkinson
(1991) states:
The leader has to . . . analyze and monitor his or her own affect, to “know
thyself.” If the leader is volatile, labile, impulsive…[it] can lead untold
organizational actors to uncalculated calamities. . . . It is especially important
to be aware of the dark side of personality, which acts so as to weaken will
and frustrate the commitment to values. (pp. 138–139)
Implications for Administrator Preparation and Professional

Development
Compelling theoretical and empirical work in the area of workplace mistreat-
ment in general and school principal mistreatment of teachers in particular
notwithstanding, preservice (e.g., university-based programs in educational
leadership) and inservice programs (e.g., those provided per school district
policy, by union contracts, and within staff development opportunities) sel-
dom directly address the "dark side" of school leadership. Consequently, such
programs fail to equip prospective and practicing administrators with an
understanding of and ability to deal with this incredibly destructive problem
(Blase, 1991; Blase & Blase, 2003; Blase & Anderson, 1995; Hodgkinson,
1991; Nyberg, 1981). This situation results, in part, from a lack of apprecia-
tion of the importance of wholistic, reality-based preparation of educational
administrators, a problem that has dominated the field of management as well.
Yukl (1998), for example, writes, “The research has neglected forms of influ-
ence behavior that involve deceptions such as lying, deliberate representation
of facts, exaggeration of favorable information and suppression of unfavor-
able information” (p. 218). More directly, Ashforth (1994) notes:
Most organizational research has focused on the factors associated with

effective leadership—with the implicit assumption that ineffective leader-
ship simply reflects the absence of those factors. I maintain that ineffective
leadership in general . . . may instead reflect the presence of certain indi-
vidual and situational factors which foster and sustain the leadership style.
Various forms of ineffective leadership, in short, may have their own charac-
teristic etiologies. (p. 756)
We believe our findings about principal mistreatment of teachers, as troubling

as they are, have special significance for prospective and practicing administra-
tors. To address this notion, we created a 2½ hour presentation and discussion of
our research findings about principal mistreatment for school administrators and
teachers taking graduate coursework in an educational leadership program at a
major research university. Following this, participants were given 30 minutes to
respond to an in-class questionnaire that included one open-ended question:
“What importance, if any, does knowledge about principal mistreatment (abuse)
of teachers have for your development as an educational leader?” We analyzed
responses collected from over four hundred administrators and teachers who
completed the questionnaire between 1999 and 2003. One wrote:
When people are mistreated at work, their focus of attention is diverted

from completing their work to trying to understand and manage the mis-
treatment . . . in other words, to surviving. A fearful and stressed teacher
will generally downshift to the lowest mode of functioning. Creativity and
innovation suffer. Paths of communication change in the school as teachers
either talk among themselves or shut down entirely. Mistreatment of teach-
ers is especially damaging because such mistreatment is often clearly visi-
ble to students. Even when mistreatment is more subtle, the subliminal
perception of it by students is certain to undermine teachers; in fact, in
some cases a mistreated teacher may become angry and the anger may be
directed back toward students. Students then resort to further aggressive
behavior as they internalize the hostility that has been directed toward
them. . . . Thus, not only do teachers suffer, but the bullying is passed down
the line. The implication for my development as an educational leader is
that . . . I must be very mindful of how I treat other people. What goes around
comes around in many destructive ways.
Without exception, teachers and administrators affirmed the merits of
studying the mistreatment problem. They typically used phrases such as “very
important,” “extremely useful,” “incredibly significant,” and “shocking but

extremely significant” to characterize the importance of the topic for their
professional development. They reported that knowledge of the “negatives,”
that is, “what not to do as an educational leader, is as important as just study-
ing the positive, effective things.” Specifically, participants reported that such
knowledge provoked in them a long-term commitment to a “truly reflective”
orientation to school leadership, based on an understanding of how personal
factors (e.g., one’s weaknesses, values, assumptions, attitudes, and behavior)
alone or in conjunction with organizational conditions (e.g., stress, account-
ability expectations, unreasonable expectations by superiors) can contribute to
destructive forms of leadership and abuse of teachers:
These materials make me take a serious look at my weaknesses, examine

myself, see if I say or do these things . . . things I am not aware of. I am bet-
ter able to watch myself and won’t be taken over by power and become a
bullying principal.
. . . I have some deep thoughts about abuse. I do feel that I have some char-
acteristics that some would take as abusive, such as sarcasm and intimidating
looks. I know that I am by no means abusive, but have bad days. I defi-
nitely worry about how others perceive me. The presentation today has
allowed me to see myself in a different light. I think back to some of my days
in the classroom and I know that there are things that I need to work on. . . . It
is important to study principals’ mistreatment of teachers. We need to know
the effects of our actions. In class, we have talked about communication
and trust. These two factors can be destroyed even by even a hint of abuse.
This information will help me be aware of my natural tendency to seize
power and control my surroundings. In my classroom, at one time, I was a
control monster. This happens to a lot of teachers.
This topic has made me do some real soul searching. I was an assistant to
an abusive principal. I will always remember what this did to teachers, their
families and students. We must continually think about our values and
never allow power to corrupt us.
Some respondents indicated that the “subtle cruelties” perpetrated by prin-

cipals discussed during the presentation were intriguing; most however, were
deeply moved by the gamut of “crippling effects” principal abuse has on teach-
ers and educational processes:
I have seen many teachers’ lives ruined by an abusive principal, but I never
before realized the magnitude of the negative experiences that abused teach-
ers can suffer at the hands of their principals.
Until you are a victim of that kind of abuse you can’t understand the chain
of fears that can result. They can stay with you forever.
My parents always taught me the importance of treating everyone with
respect. They had experienced the devastation mistreatment can bring to
others. Having lived through an abusive school regime, I saw the pitfalls yet I
never understood the effects, sometimes permanent, on teachers and stu-
dents, until I read this material. I now doubly see the importance of mutual
respect in the educational workplace. Anything else would be detrimental to
the educational cause: that of instructing students.
Our presentation had special significance for teachers and principals who
had been victimized by principals (and others) at some point in their careers:
During the presentation, I began to feel the exact same feelings I felt during
a 3 year period of emotional abuse by a principal. I compiled a journal dur-
ing our discussion to relieve my physical reactions. All of us must work to
understand this problem and take responsibility for it.
It is very powerful and affirming to hear Dr. Blase confirm some of the
emotions I have had when I have felt mistreated by a principal and assistant
principal. My principal is not an abusive boss, but by oversight or lack of
communication, I have felt offended by some of his actions. My first reac-
tion was, “What have I done?” or, “What’s wrong with me?” Then you feel
disoriented; this comes from erratic feedback. I have been used to praise,
recognition, compliments, and respect. When that was withdrawn, I had
reactions similar to abused teachers. If my reactions came after such small
actions by my principal, just think how devastating regular, consistent,
ongoing abuse would be! Awareness of these effects should help prepare
me to avoid acting in inappropriate ways as an administrator. I am commit-
ting to at least a yearly evaluation of myself as a leader that offers an opport-
unity for teachers to anonymously give me feedback so I can respond and
work on changing my behavior in a timely and public way.
The most important thing for me as I develop as an educational leader is to
guard against behaving in an abusive way. After seeing the video and partici-
pating in class discussion, I reflect back to two years ago when I feel I was
a victim of mistreatment by a varsity coach under whom I worked. I remem-

ber how vulnerable I was and how naïve I was going into the newly acquired,
sought after position. My boss consistently snubbed me, called me out in
front of the other players and made me feel inferior and foolish. I feel like I am
a very strong person but the effects of his position and his mistreatment had
me questioning myself on a daily basis. I felt I was “asking” for the treat-
ment I received; I constantly asked myself what on earth was I doing to upset
this man so much that he would treat me in this fashion.
Clearly, individuals derive meaning from direct experience with and reflec-
tion on the problematic aspects of life (Bandura, 1977, 1982; Blumer, 1969).
Vygotsky’s (1978) theories of verbal self-regulation and internalization and
Tharp and Gallimore’s (1998) application of these theories to teacher educa-
tion demonstrate that systematic and rigorous reflection (i.e., cognitive and
metacognitive as well as cycles of inter- and intra-psychological processes)
on social and linguistic life experiences contribute significantly to an individ-
ual’s professional development. Put differently, prospective and practicing
administrators can be expected to develop important insights about effective
school leadership through systematic reflection on both its positive and nega-
tive elements.
Lombardo and McCall (1984) studied successful executives who had been
victimized by abusive bosses earlier in their careers. These researchers found
that executives derived some of their most profound lessons about effective
leadership from reflection on abusive experiences. Blase and Blase (1998)
reported similar findings for teachers preparing for careers in educational
leadership, as did Ginsberg and Davies (2001) for administrators generally.
These studies strongly confirm the significance of knowledge of and reflection
on the dark dimensions of school leadership for professional growth (Butler,
1996). Without such reflection, administrators routinely fail to recognize and
confront personal values, attitudes, and behaviors that contradict their own
espoused theories of effective leadership, and this failure can produce sub-
stantial adverse outcomes for individuals and organizations (Argyris, 1990,
1994; Bass, 1981). This latter point is especially important in light of count-
less studies that demonstrate that some school principals typically employ
leadership approaches that adversely affect teachers as well as classroom
instruction (e.g., Blase et al., 1986; Blase, 1990; Blase & Blase, 1998; Diehl,
1993; Farber, 1991; Malen & Ogawa, 1988; McNeil, 1986); such studies have
revealed that, in many cases, principals may not be aware of the consequences
of their actions (Adams, 1988, Gunn & Holdaway, 1986; High & Achilles,
1986; Reitzug & Cross, 1994). Indeed, few people are without personality
characteristics that, in positions of leadership and under various organiza-
tional conditions, could result in the mistreatment of others (Ashforth, 1994;
Barreca, 1995; Kets de Vries, 1989, 1993). Thus, the role of reflection in vigi-
lantly safeguarding one’s leadership praxis from misuse of position and power
cannot be overemphasized (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002; Beatty,
2000; Baumeister, 1997; Blase & Blase, 2003; Ginsberg & Davies, 2001;
Hodgkinson, 1991; Kets de Vries, 1989, 1993; Kekes, 1990; Lee-Chai & Bargh,
2001; Loader, 1997; Schön, 1983).
Respondents to our questionnaire also commented that the topic of mis-
treatment should be directly addressed in administrator and teacher preparation
programs; in such programs, individuals should be equipped to deal with a vari-
ety of possible “work realities”:
Being forewarned is forearmed. Teachers who are aware of this study will
better understand what is happening and what to do in an abusive situation.
Leaders of the future should be educated to know the temptations of power
and that abusive behaviors only elicit aversive responses.
To this end, university-based programs and field-based professional devel-

opment programs can examine the phenomenon of principal mistreatment of
teachers and consider questions such as (a) What conduct by school principals
do teachers and administrators perceive as abusive? (b) What is it about a
school’s context, the principal’s role (e.g., negative role modeling by superiors,
conflicting role expectations, unreasonable district policies), and those who
occupy this role, that can result in abusive conduct? (c) What effect does such
conduct have on teachers (e.g., What are the emotional and physical conse-
quences for teachers, and how does such conduct affect teachers’ classroom
instruction and student learning?)? (d) What are the consequences of abusive
conduct by principals on school climate and school culture? (e) What coping
strategies are efficacious for mistreated teachers? (f) What actions can mis-
treated teachers take to deal with the problem? (g) What actions can school-
based administrators, school district office personnel, and school boards take
to help principals deal with this problem (e.g., providing opportunities for
principals to consider ways they encourage or discourage a respectful and
supportive climate in the school, ways to become more aware of the impact of
their behavior on teachers, and ways to deal with teachers’ concerns about
being mistreated)? (h) What policies and procedures can school personnel
develop to protect teachers and provide relief from mistreatment? and (i) At
what point should district office personnel move beyond counseling, guiding,
and providing performance reviews of principals who mistreat others, and
move to disciplinary action or discharge?
CONCLUSION
As professors of educational leadership, we have spent decades researching

and teaching about school leadership. We are aware that school principals are
confronted with what seem to be insurmountable challenges and pressures:
their work is characterized by long hours and inadequate compensation (Olson,
1999), and they now face an explosion of demands and pressures related to
school safety and violence, drugs, diversity, inclusion, site budgeting, aging
teaching staffs, and unresponsive bureaucracies (Rusch, 1999), as well as new
responsibilities linked to school reform including new power arrangements,
collaborative planning, evaluation, and accountability (Murphy & Louis, 1994a).
We are also aware that principals are confronted with unique challenges asso-
ciated with the retention of quality teachers, inadequate facilities and instruc-
tional materials, and discouraged, disillusioned faculties (Steinberg, 1999).
Moreover, we recognize that such challenges can result in dramatic emotional
experiences for principals (Ginsberg & Davies, 2001); feelings of anxiety, loss
of control, disempowerment, insecurity, anger, and frustration are not uncom-
mon (Beatty, 2000; Evans, 1996). Indeed, we cannot adequately express our
appreciation and respect for the women and men who meet such challenges
with professional integrity, courage, and ingenuity.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that all of us, professors and professional
educators, have failed to address the destructive problem of principal mistreat-
ment of teachers. We believe that university and public school settings are fre-
quently dominated by cultures in which conflict is strenuously avoided—a
predictable phenomenon in that “conditions of conflict and ambiguity . . . are
not merely irritating; in persistent and extreme form they are identity destroy-
ing” (Kahn, 1964, p.6). Further, avoiding a problem is a common way to ignore
the difficulty inherent in working toward a genuine solution (Argyris, 1990;
Owens, 2001); although such an approach consumes no time and energy, it
fails to solve the problem that led to the conflict. Unfortunately, even small,
avoided conflicts, derived, for example, from insensitivity in interpersonal
relationships or from mere misunderstandings, often escalate into huge, debili-

tating crises. Indeed, lingering, hidden, unresolved problems comprise “conflict
traps” that may ultimately elicit strong, explosive, negative reactions (Boulding,
1964). The study discussed in this article provides the first step necessary for
addressing and overcoming the mistreatment problem in constructive ways.
Now, more than ever before, school reform efforts require that principals
and teachers at the school level work together collaboratively to solve educa-
tional problems. Such collaboration is successful when school principals build
trust in their schools. Trust, in turn, serves as a foundation for open, honest,
and reflective professional dialogue; problem solving; innovative initiatives;
and, more directly, the development of the school as a powerful community of
learners willing to take responsibility for and capable of success. All princi-
pals need to work toward these ends, and all individuals and organizations
associated with public education should willingly confront the kinds of admin-
istrative mistreatment that, most assuredly, undermine such possibilities. In
his forward to Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of Principal
Mistreatment of Teachers (Blase & Blase, 2003), Don Saul, American Asso-
ciation of School Administrators (AASA) Superintendent of the Year 2000,
described the link between mistreatment and mistrust and urged educators to
seriously address the mistreatment problem:
Leaders who attempt to work with teachers and principals to promote

systemic change within this environment realize district efforts to create a
positive atmosphere and common purpose leading to improved student
achievement and well-being are hindered by behaviors which create a loss
of trust among school professionals. Funding difficulties, curricular nar-
rowing, high stakes testing of debatable utility, special interest advocacy
and other factors already conspire to evoke a feeling of powerlessness and
frustration among staff. When these elements are combined with a
teacher’s perception that “I will probably never truly trust an administrator
again,” it’s hard to imagine how the organizational gestalt essential for
reform and improvement can be generated and sustained in a district or
school. In this vein, [Blase and Blase] aptly quote Bok, whose statement
that “trust and integrity are precious resources, easily squandered, hard to
regain” illustrates what we all know about administrative-staff relations.
For all these reasons, this [study] should come with a warning. The chal-
lenges implicit in these findings reflect issues affecting the gamut of school
performance and the success of related initiatives to guide and improve
teaching and learning: abuse and denigration of staff members is seldom

dealt with easily or without creative, dedicated effort and courage. The . . . .
findings . . . must not be brushed aside as a natural outcome of human inter-
action in the form of so-called personality conflicts or as grousing from
poorly performing staff members. On the contrary, the complexity and depth
of change required to assure consistent progress in education demands that
the problem of mistreatment of teachers be taken very seriously and that
appropriate preventative and corrective action serve as one of the keystones
of growth and productivity in district and school cultures. (Blase & Blase,
2003, p. ix)
REFERENCES
Ackerman, R.H., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader: How real leadership
emerges in times of crisis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Acton, J.E.E. Dahlberg (Lord). (1948). Essays on freedom and power. Boston: Beacon Press.
Adams, B.P. (1988). Leader behavior of principals and its effect on teacher burnout. Unpub-
lished dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Adams, G.B., & Balfour, D.L. (1998). Unmasking administrative evil. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat?: The spirling effect of incivility in the
workforce. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Argyris, C. (1994). On organizational learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778.
Bach, K. (1981). An analysis of self-deception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,
41(3), 351–370.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122-147.
Bargh, J.A., & Alvarez, J. (2001). The road to hell: Good intentions in the face of nonconscious
tendencies to misuse power. In A.Y. Lee-Chai & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of
power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 41–56). Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Baron, R.A., & Neuman, J.H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22,161–173.
Barreca, R. (1995). Sweet revenge. New York: Harmony Books.
Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research.
New York: Free Press.
Bassman, E.S. (1992). Abuse in the workplace: Management remedies and bottom line impact.
New York: Quorum.
Baumeister, R.F. (1993). Lying to yourself: The enigma of self-deception. In M. Louis &
C. Saarni, (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 166–183). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R.F. (1997). Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Beatty, B.R. (2000). The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Leadership, 3, 331–357.
Björkvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994). Aggression among university employ-
ees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173–184.
Blase, J. (1990). Some negative effects of principals’ control-oriented and protective political
behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 725–753.
Blase, J. (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Blase, J., & Anderson, G.L. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control
to empowerment. London: Cassell.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good principals
promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). Empowering teachers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003). Breaking the silence: Overcoming the problem of principal mis-
treatment of teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P.C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., Strathe, M., & Dedrick, C. (1986). Leadership behavior of school principals in rela-
tion to teacher stress, satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Humanistic Education
and Development, 24, 159–171.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Boulding, E. (1964). Further reflections on conflict management. In R. Kahn & E. Boulding
(Eds.), Power and conflict in organizations (pp. 146–150). London: Tavistock.
Boyer, E. (1995). The basic school: A community of learning. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Butler, J. (1996). Professional development: Practice as text, reflection as process, and self as
locus. Australian Journal of Education, 40, 265–283.
Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Cotton, K. (2001). Principals of high-achieving schools: What the research says. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Davenport, N., Distler-Schwartz, R.D., & Elliott, G.P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in
the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and
private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5,
185–201.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the work-
place: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Emler, N., & Cook, T. (2001). Moral integrity in leadership: Why it matters and why it may be
difficult to achieve. In B. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the
workplace (pp. 277–298). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Farber, B.A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fineman, S. (Ed). (1993). Emotion in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fineman, S. (Ed.). (2000). Emotion in organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fiske, S.T., & Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-
based to individuating processing: Influences of information and motivation of attention
and interpretation. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology 23,
pp. 1–74. New York: Academic Press.
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murningham (Ed.), Social psy-
chology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161–183). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ford, C.V. (1996). Lies! Lies!! Lies!!!: The psychology of deceit. Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Press.
Fullan, M. (1997). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship? New York: Teachers College
Press.
Gardner, J.W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Gibb, C. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 877–920). Worchester, MA: University Press.
Ginsberg, R., & Davies, T. (2001). The emotional side of leadership. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April Seattle.
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2001). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1986). School effects. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research of teaching (3rd ed., pp. 570–602). New York: Macmillan.
Gunn, J.A., & Holdaway, E.A. (1986). Perceptions of effectiveness, influence, and satisfaction
of senior high school principals. Education Administration Quarterly, 22(2), 43–62.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review
of empirical research, 1980–1985. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
Hanney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbarado, P. (1974). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.
International Journal of Criminology and Penology 1, 69–97.
Harlos, K.P., & Pinder, C.C. (2000). Emotion and injustice in the workplace. In S. Fineman
(Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 255–276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heck, R.H., & Marcoulides, G.A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school achieve-
ment. NASSP Bulletin, 77(553), 20–28.
Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J., & Marcoulides, G.A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26,
94–125.
High, R., & Achilles, C. (1986). An analysis of influence-gaining behaviors of principals in
schools of varying levels of instructional effectiveness. Education Administration Quar-
terly, 22, 111–119.
Hoachlander, G. (2001). Leading school improvement: What research says. Atlanta: Southern
Regional Education Board.
Hochschild, A. (1979). Emotion work, teaching rules, and social structure. American Journal of
Sociology, 39, 551–575.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C.L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson,
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 14 (pp.
195–230). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York: Riverhead Books.
Hornstein, H.A., Michela, J.L., Van Eron, A.M., Cohen, L.W., Heckelman, W.L., Sachse-Skidd, M.,
& Spencer, J.L. (1995). Disrespectful supervisory behavior: Effects on some aspects of
subordinates’ mental health. Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia Uni-
versity.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (1996). Creating learning experiences: The role of instructional
theory and research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development (2nd ed).
New York: Longman.
Kahn, R.L. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York:
Wiley.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal
of Emotional Abuse, 1, 85–117.
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A pre-
liminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341–357.
Kekes, J. (1990). Facing evil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1989). Prisoners of leadership. New York: Wiley.
Kets de Vries, M. (1993). Leaders, fools, and imposters: Essays on the psychology of leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kimbrough, R.B. (1985). Ethics: A course of study for educational leaders. Arlington, VA: The
American Association of School Administrators.
Kimbrough, R.B., & Nunnery, M.Y. (1988). Educational administration (3rd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,
33–41.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D. (2001). Using power: Newton’s second law. In A.Y. Lee-Chai & J.A. Bargh (Eds.),
The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 3–18).
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Kreisberg, S. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D.P., Cooper, J.E., Lambert, M.D., Gardner, M.E., &
Slack, P.J.F. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee-Chai, A.Y., & Bargh, J.A. (2001). The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on
the causes of corruption. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Lee-Chai, A.Y., Chen, S., & Chartrand, T.L. (2001). From Moses to Marcos: Individual dif-
ferences in the use and abuse of power. In A.Y. Lee-Chai & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), The use
and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 57–74).
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Leithwood, K., Thomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In
K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International
handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 785–840). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5,
119–126.
Loader, D.N. (1997). The inner principal. London: The Falmer Press.
Lombardo, M.M., & McCall, Jr., M.W. (1984). The intolerable boss. Psychology Today, January,
44–48.
Malamuth, N.M. (1989). The attraction to sexual aggression scale: Part One. Journal of Sex
Research, 26, 26–49.
Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based goverance councils:
A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251–270.
McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Wiley.
McClelland, D.C. (1987). Human motivation. New York: Cambridge.
McNeil, L.M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. London:
Routledge.
Murphy, J., & Louis, K.S. (Eds.). (1994a). Reshaping the principalship: Insights from trans-
formational reform efforts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J., & Louis, K.S. (1994b). Transformational change and the evolving role of the
principal: Early empirical evidence. In J. Murphy & L. G. Beck (Eds.), Reshaping the
principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 20–53). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Muth, R. (1989). Toward an integrative theory of power and educational organizations. Educa-
tional Administration Quarterly, 20, 25–42.
Namie, G. (2000). U.S. hostile workplace survey 2000. Benicia, CA: Campaign Against Work-
place Bullying.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and
reclaim your dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Neuman, J.H., & Baron, R.A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management
24, 391–419.
NNLI (Northwestern National Life Insurance Company) (1993). Fear and violence in the
workplace. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
Nyberg, D. (1981). Power over power: What power means in ordinary life, how it is related to
acting freely, and what it can do to contribute to a renovated ethics of education. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Olson, L. (1999). Demands for principals growing but candidates aren’t applying. Education
Week, 18(20), March.
Owens, R.L. (2001). Organizational behavior in education: instructional leadership and
school reform (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Pearson, C. (2000). Workplace “incivility” study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Peck, M.S. (1983). People of the lie: The hope for healing human evil. New York: Simon &
Shuster.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Price Spratlen, L. (1995). Interpersonal conflict which includes mistreatment in a university
workplace. Violence and Victims, 10, 285–297.
Rayner, C. (1998). Bullying at work. Stoke-on-Kent, UK: Staffordshire University Business
School.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to
blame, and what can we do? New York: Taylor & Francis.
Reitzug, U.C., & Cross, B.E. (1994). A multi-site study of site-based management in urban
schools. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, April, New Orleans, LA.
Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-
dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Rusch, E.A. (1999). The experience of the piñata: Vexing problems. In F.K. Kochan,
B.L. Jackson, & D.L. Duke (Eds.), A thousand voices from the firing line: A study of
educational leaders, their jobs, their preparation, and the problems they face, (pp. 29–43).
(UCEA Monograph Series). Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Admin-
istration.
Russell, B. (1938). Power: A new social analysis. New York: Norton.
Ryan, K.D., & Oestreich, D.K. (1991). Driving fear out of the workplace: How to overcome the
invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sampson, R.V. (1965). The psychology of power. New York: Pantheon.
Schlechty, P. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schmuck, R., & Runkel, P. (1994). Handbook of organization development in schools (4th ed.).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of
affective states. In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and
cognition (vol. 2, pp. 527–561). New York: Guilford Press.
Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and
everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1996). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1997). How can we move toward a community theory of supervision? In
J. Glanz & R.F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and con-
troversies (pp. 264–280). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. The
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42, 325–344.
Silver, M. (1989). On knowing and self-deception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,
19(2), 213–237.
Sorokin, P., & Lunden, W. (1959). Power and morality: Who shall guard the guardians? Boston:
Porter Sargent.
Starratt, R.J. (1984). The underside of supervision. Impact 19, 5–16.
Starratt, R.J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 185–202.
Steinberg, J. (1999). Federal funds for teachers reveal surprising hurdles. New York Times,
November 14, p. 18.
Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health (1993). Statute Book, Ordinance
(AFS 1993: 17), Section 1 & 6.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wald, P., & Castleberry, M. (2000). Educators as learners: Creating a professional learning
community in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Walton, M. (1990). Deming management at work. New York: Perigee.
Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school
learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249–294.
Winter, D.G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
Yamada, D.C. (2000). The phenomenon of ‘workplace bullying’ and the need for status-blind
hostile work environment protection. The Georgetown Law Journal, 88, 475–536.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

The Dark Side of School Leadership: Implications For Administrator Preparation

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

The Dark Side of School Leadership: Implications For Administrator Preparation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership and Policy in Schools

ISSN: 1570-0763 (Print) 1744-5043 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20

The Dark Side of School Leadership: Implications

Joseph Blase & Jo Blase

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503733

Published online: 16 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 484

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The Dark Side of School Leadership: Implications

Joseph Blase and Jo Blase

1570-0763/04/0304-245$16.00 © Taylor & Francis Ltd.

WORKPLACE ABUSE: A BRIEF CONCEPTUAL, THEORETICAL,

Terms and Constructs

the “hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors . . . directed at gaining compliance

Studies of Workplace Mistreatment/Abuse

initiating malicious rumors and gossip, withholding resources or obstructing

conduct by superiors to increase given organizational changes such as the

OUTLINE OF OUR FINDINGS ON PRINCIPAL MISTREATMENT

From an interview-based study of 50 teachers located throughout the United

It is widely acknowledged that power is a fundamental aspect of all human

demonstrated that the acquisition of power itself may have transforming or

More directly, Kipnis’s (1972; 1976) research on the “metamorphic”

The Inadvertent Misuse of Power

and selective perception, biased reasoning, and isolation of incidents (Baumeister,

Despite the centrality of emotion to work in organizational settings and

Implications for Administrator Preparation and Professional

Most organizational research has focused on the factors associated with

We believe our findings about principal mistreatment of teachers, as troubling

When people are mistreated at work, their focus of attention is diverted

important,” “extremely useful,” “incredibly significant,” and “shocking but

These materials make me take a serious look at my weaknesses, examine

Some respondents indicated that the “subtle cruelties” perpetrated by prin-

a victim of mistreatment by a varsity coach under whom I worked. I remem-

To this end, university-based programs and field-based professional devel-

As professors of educational leadership, we have spent decades researching

relationships or from mere misunderstandings, often escalate into huge, debili-

Leaders who attempt to work with teachers and principals to promote

teaching and learning: abuse and denigration of staff members is seldom

You might also like