Superintendent Decision-making Process as It Impacts Primary and Ancillary

Stakeholders

A Dissertation

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY

Kristine J. Wehrkamp

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Advisers: Dr. M. Khalifa and Dr. G. Prest

February, 2020

© Kristine J Wehrkamp 2020

i

Acknowledgements

My experience in this doctoral program has been more rewarding than I could

have imagined. Most importantly, my personal and professional growth has been

significant. I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Muhammad Khalifa and Dr. Gary

Prest; your help and guidance has been invaluable. I would also like to thank my

committee members Dr. Muhammad Khalifa, Dr. Gary Prest, Dr. Peter Demerath and Dr.

Kyla Wahlstrom for giving your time to this process.

I want to acknowledge the superintendents who gave their time to be interviewed.

Their vast knowledge and experience is truly remarkable. The decision-making theory

that rose from their experiences and the literature is worthy.

I want to most especially acknowledge Dr. Frank Herman, the most important

person in my life. You have been my chief supporter, and I cannot thank you enough. I

could not have reached the finish line without you.

ii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to all female aspiring superintendents. I hope that with

perseverance you achieve the superintendency because you deserve it.

iii

Abstract

This study investigates how superintendents consider and/or prioritize stakeholders in

their decision-making process. The review of the literature included common decision-

making theories, Responsible Leadership Theory and Trust as they apply to the decision-

making process for superintendents. Grounded Theory methodology was employed to

construct a theory for superintendent decision making as it relates to stakeholders. Eight

superintendents were interviewed and responses were recorded and then coded according

to the accepted coding processes of grounded theory research. A formative theory was

developed that categorizes stakeholders as either primary or ancillary stakeholders. The

theory describes the placement of stakeholders as considered by superintendents in their

decision-making process.

Key words: Decision-making theories, Responsible Leadership Theory, trust,

primary stakeholders, ancillary stakeholders

iv

Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...i

Dedications……………………………………………………………………………...ii

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….iii

List of Tables.……………………………………………………………………………v

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………....vi

Chapter 1: Purpose and Significance.……………………………………………………1

Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………….……10

Chapter 3: Research Methods and Design……………………………………………….42

Chapter 4: Findings………………………………………………………………………52

Chapter 5: Wehrkamp’s Decision-making Theory………………………………………95

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implications………………………………………………108

References………………………………………………………………………………118

v

List of Tables

Page

Table 1: Interview Questions………………………….…………………………………44

Table 2: Superintendent Background Information………………………………………47

Table 3: Superintendent Work Experience………………………………………………47

vi

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework.……………………………………………………….41

Figure 2: Primary Stakeholders/Students…………………………………………….….99

Figure 3: Primary Stakeholders/Collective Organization…………...………………….100

Figure 4: Primary Stakeholders/Individual Staff……………………………………….101

Figure 5: Ancillary Stakeholders/Parents……………………………………...……….102

Figure 6: Ancillary Stakeholders/Community………………………………………….103

Figure 7: Ancillary Stakeholders/School Board…………………………………….….104

Figure 8: Primary Stakeholders/Superintendent.……………………………………….105

Figure 9: Wehrkamp’s Decision-making Theory…………………………………...….106

1

CHAPTER I

Purpose and Significance

Introduction

Superintendents, as organizational leaders, face difficult decisions on a

consistent basis (Kidder, 1995; Noppe, Yager, Webb & Sheng, 2013). As compared to

routine decisions, superintendents face complex decisions, which affect people across the

organization (Comstock, 1980; Langlois, 2004). For example, Langlois (2004) identified

sexual harassment of students, termination of principals, and dealing with grievances (p.

82) as the most complex situations superintendents are required to resolve.

As superintendents oversee the entire organization, they are tasked with solving

complex problems. Complex decisions can be defined as those requiring more thought

and are decisions made between multiple potentially correct alternatives (Kidder 1995;

Leithwood & Steinbach 1995; Snowden & Boone 2007). According to Kidder (1995),

“The really tough choices, then, don’t center on right versus wrong. They involve right

versus right” (p.6). According to Langlois (2004), “This complexity emerges from a

series of constraints, a clash of values or negative elements which cloud the decision-

maker’s understanding of what constitutes ‘Good’” (p. 88). Maak and Pless (2006a) echo

this explanation of complexity by noting most decision makers are faced with problems

that consist of two or more conflicting values. Snowden & Boone (2007) further define

complex problems as those that have “unknown unknowns” (p. 5).

Leithwood & Steinbach (1995) describe complex problems as those which are ill-

structured and non-routine. In the research conducted by Leithwood & Steinbach (1995),

superintendents viewed problems as complex when they involved many different people

2

with high emotional content and no evidence of an immediate solution, thus indicating

the complexity stakeholders may bring to the decision-making process.

Complex decisions are often described as dilemmas by scholars. Dilemmas are

described as problems needing to be solved despite having unsatisfactory or contradictory

choices (Noppe et al., 2013; Langlois, 2004), or “…two propositions in apparent conflict”

(Schraa-Liu & Trompenaars, 2006, p. 138). Cranston, Ehrich & Kimber (2003), state

“…an ethical dilemma can be described as a circumstance that requires a choice between

competing sets of principles in a given, usually undesirable or perplexing, situation” (p.

137). Noppe et al., (2013) further state “Leadership dilemmas are obstacles or

predicaments that require decisions which will move the organization forward with as

little distress to the system as possible” (p. 105). However, Noppe et al., (2013) miss the

fact that when misguided decisions are made, dilemmas can cause the organization to

move backward.

Managing dilemmas is a key component of the superintendency (Noppe et al.,

2013). Dilemmas become more complex when they involve a variety of diverse students,

parents and communities (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). Therefore, stakeholders can add

to the complexity of dilemmas.

This complexity is further magnified when stakeholders have conflicting motives,

values or solutions to dilemmas. Conflict between stakeholder groups is natural;

however, when it is not managed effectively, damage to the organization may be

substantial (Lampe, 2001). Superintendents function similarly to that of the Chief

Executive Officer of a corporation (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995); therefore,

3

superintendent as leader must work to ensure decisions are made that mitigate damage to

the organization. This necessitates effective relationship building with stakeholders.

When faced with difficult decisions, superintendents assert their role through

justifiable action, while anticipating potential consequences for the decision (Langlois,

2004). Superintendents are generally cautious and typically have an awareness of how

their decisions affect those involved in the dilemma and others in the community

(Langlois, 2004; Jenkins, 2007).

While stakeholder groups differ in their makeup, motives and advocacy skills,

superintendents must know their stakeholders in order to make decisions that have the

best possible outcomes. This knowledge of stakeholders includes those stakeholders who

may not voice their concerns or needs as readily as others; thereby having consideration

for the voiceless (Maak & Pless 2006b).

Statement of the Problem

The decisions superintendents make impact stakeholders. Savage, Nix,

Whitehead, and Blair (1991) define stakeholders as individuals, groups or other

organizations who have an interest in (and the ability to influence) the organization (p.

61). Stakeholders consist of people at the building, district and community levels (Stone-

Johnson, 2014). When the interests of stakeholders align with the decision-making

process used by superintendents, the role of the stakeholder lessens (Lampe, 2001,

p.165). However, according to Lampe (2001), “When conflict arises between an

organization and one or more of its stakeholders, the possibility of damage to the

organization may be substantial” (p. 165). Although conflict is a natural occurrence in an

organization, it can be further complicated by the varying interests of stakeholders.

4

Since the decisions superintendents face affect stakeholders, trust between the

superintendent and stakeholders is significant to ensure stakeholder support.

Demonstrating care is a key component of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Smylie,

Murphy, & Seashore Louis, 2016); consequently, it can be stated that leaders, through the

act of caring, will likely build trust with stakeholders. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016)

posit that leaders who demonstrate the ethic of care must consider multiple voices in the

decision-making process (p. 17). Therefore, understanding how superintendents consider

and/or prioritize stakeholders in their decision-making process is important. Yet, there is

limited information about the priority superintendents give to different stakeholder

groups when making complex decisions.

Conceptual Framework for the Study

Decision making occurs in all organizations (Tarter & Hoy 1998), and is a

regular occurrence for school leaders (Lunenburg, 2010; Noppe, Yager, Webb & Sheng,

2013). There are many decision-making theories used by superintendents when facing

complex problems. The contemporary decision-making theories reviewed for this study

were: classical, administrative, incremental, mixed-scanning, garbage can, political,

shared decision-making (Tarter & Hoy 1998; Noppe et al., 2013), rational, and bounded

rationality (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki 1992; Lunenburg, 2010). Research suggests none of

the models can be used universally; rather, each must be selected contingent on the

situation (Tarter & Hoy, 1998; Hoy & Tarter, 2008, Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992,

Lunenburg, 2010).

5

In addition, the theories of Responsible Leadership and Trust were further

investigated to help determine the role stakeholders should play in the decision-making

process. Figure 1 demonstrates how the three concepts relate to each other.

A theoretical framework can both reveal and conceal meaning and understanding

of a concept (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The contemporary decision-making theories

explored revealed which of the contemporary decision-making theories superintendents

employ. Yet, those theories do not indicate how stakeholders, especially those with

conflicting interests, are considered and/or prioritized when making complex decisions.

Moreover, the concepts of Responsible Leadership and Trust did not indicate the

prioritization of various stakeholders with incongruent interests when making decisions.

This research seeks to add to the literature regarding how superintendents consider or

prioritize stakeholders with conflicting interests when making complex decisions.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate how superintendents consider

stakeholders when making complex decisions. As superintendents oversee the entire

organization, they are tasked with solving complex problems. Superintendents face

complex decisions that have an impact on people across the organization (Comstock,

6

1980, Langlois, 2004). Those affected by the decision-making process of the

superintendents are termed as stakeholders, and these stakeholders add to the complexity

of the decision-making process.

Superintendent decisions affect stakeholders both internal and external to the

school district. Understanding how superintendents consider stakeholders when making

complex decisions is important to ensure the best possible outcome from those decisions.

Research Questions

The following are three questions for this study:

1) To what extent do superintendents consider the influence of varying stakeholders when

making complex decisions?

2) How does the superintendent’s perception of trust by stakeholders influence his or her

decision-making process?

3) How do superintendents, as responsible leaders, prioritize varying stakeholders' needs

when making complex decisions?

Definition of Terms

Based on current research, I have defined the following key terms for this paper.

• Complex Decisions – consist of no clear or immediately discernible right answer.

• Dilemmas – complex problems that involve various stakeholders who have

competing or conflicting beliefs, ideologies or interests.

• Influence – the actions of individuals, groups or organizations who may directly

or indirectly affect or sway a decision.

• Priority – the act of giving an individual or group importance over other

individuals or groups.

7

• Responsible Leadership – the awareness and consideration of the consequences of

decisions on all stakeholders.

• Stakeholders – individuals, groups or organizations who receive a benefit from or

have influence on or over a decision.

• Trust – exhibiting benevolence, honesty, openness, reliability and competence so

one is willing to be vulnerable to others.

Procedures

Grounded Theory Research methodology will be employed for this dissertation.

According to Charmaz (2014), “…grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet

flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories from

the data themselves” (p.1). The intent of grounded theory is to move beyond description

to discover a theory (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

The intent of this study is to formulate a theory at the substantive level (Glaser &

Strauss, 2008) based on data collected concerning decision making of superintendents as

it relates to the consideration of stakeholders when making complex decisions. My

research will follow the lines of Charmaz denoting the theory that develops “…is gained

through the theorist’s interpretation of the studied phenomenon” (Charmaz, 2014, p.

230). “The researcher makes decisions about the categories throughout the process,

brings questions to the data, and advances personal values, experiences, and priorities”

(Creswell & Poth, 2018, p.86). Interviews with superintendents were utilized to gather

data and then coded to lead to a decision-making theory.

8

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study stems from the potential for current and aspiring

superintendents to have access to knowledge regarding how to make complex decisions

that benefit all stakeholders who may in turn have conflicting interests. As stated

formerly, superintendents make difficult decisions every day. The goal of this research is

to generate a theory describing how superintendents may consider and/or prioritize

stakeholders when making complex decisions for the benefit of all stakeholders.

In addition, the findings indicate stakeholders fall into two categories, primary

stakeholders and ancillary stakeholders. The purpose of decisions made by

superintendents affects the outcomes for the primary stakeholders, while the ancillary

stakeholders support the work or the decisions made by superintendents. The decision

may have an impact on ancillary stakeholders, but they are not a primary focus for the

decision being made.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that Responsible Leadership Theory may be

missing the tenet of advocate in its descriptions of Responsible Leadership Theory. The

research indicated that superintendents give voice to the voiceless stakeholder by

ensuring their needs are considered in the decision-making process. This can be described

as acting as an advocate.

Limitations of the Study

Participation in the study is voluntary, thus posing a limitation to the study. It may

be that those willing to participate have more time in their schedule to be interviewed as

compared to those who do not participate. In addition, a limitation may be that

participants may be willing to participate based on the nature of our relationship.

9

Delimitations of the Study

A delimitation is that only superintendents from the state of Minnesota will be

interviewed for this study. Additionally, superintendents who do not participate in

Association of Metro School Districts (AMSD), Minnesota Association of School

Administrators (MASA), the Aspiring Superintendent Academy, or those who I have no

connection to will not be invited to interview for this study. A geographical sample of

Minnesota is not represented in this study. Finally, gender, age and race of the

superintendents interviewed are not factors in who is asked to participate in this study.

Organization of the Study

This dissertation is composed of six chapters. Chapter One comprises an

introduction, statement of the problem, conceptual framework for the study, purpose of

the study, research questions, definition of terms, significance of the study, limitations of

the study, and delimitations of the study. The relevant literature is reviewed in Chapter

Two. The research methodology and design are described in Chapter Three, while the

Findings from the data are discussed in Chapter Four. Chapter Five presents a formative

theory for decision making, and Chapter Six concludes the study with implications for

further research.

10

CHAPTER II

Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is to investigate how superintendents

consider stakeholders when making complex decisions. The following three bodies of

literature and their relationship to the superintendency will be explored 1) Decision-

making Theories, 2) Responsible Leadership, and 3) Trust. No leader is born with all the

skills and abilities necessary to lead in a complex environment with multiple

stakeholders; however, one can learn how to be an effective and responsible leader (Maak

& Pless, 2006a, p. 48-49). Additional scholarly research on the decision-making process

of superintendents is necessary to help encourage superintendents to use a process that

may yield positive outcomes for all stakeholders. The review of common decision-

making theories used by superintendents, along with the review of Responsible

Leadership Theory and Trust as it relates to these decision-making theories will inform

the field as to effective decision making.

Decision-making Theories and the Superintendency

Contemporary Decision-making Theories Used in Education

The first body of literature focuses on decision-making theories and how they are

implemented in educational contexts when addressing complex problems as related to

stakeholders. Tarter & Hoy (1998) define decision making as “… rational, deliberate,

purposeful action, beginning with the development of a decision strategy and moving

through implementation and appraisal of results” (p.212). Eisenfuhr (2011) states,

“Decision making is a process of making a choice from a number of alternatives to

achieve a desired result” (as cited by Lunenburg, 2010, p. 2). Decision making occurs in

11

all organizations (Tarter & Hoy 1998), and is a regular occurrence for school leaders

(Lunenburg, 2010; Noppe, Yager, Webb & Sheng, 2013).

Tarter and Hoy (1998) found a similar process of decision making is used by

leaders regardless of the type of organization. Wayne K. Hoy from The Ohio State

University and C. John Hoy from the University of Alabama examined decision-making

theories in the context of school leadership. Their seminal work is cited in the description

of the models along with the work of Fred C. Lunenburg from Sam Houston State

University and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Mark J. Zbaracki from Stanford University.

The contemporary decision-making theories reviewed are: classical,

administrative, incremental, mixed-scanning, garbage can, political, shared decision-

making (Tarter & Hoy 1998; Noppe et al., 2013), rational, and the bounded rationality

theory (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki 1992; Lunenburg, 2010). Research suggests none of the

models can be used universally; rather, each must be selected contingent on the situation

(Tarter & Hoy, 1998; Hoy & Tarter, 2008, Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992, Lunenburg,

2010). The following paragraphs describe the models in more detail with a subsequent

critique of each model.

The classical model. The classical model consists of a six-step process: Identify

the problem, Diagnose the problem, Define the alternatives, Examine the consequences,

Make the decision, Do it (Tarter & Hoy, 1998 p. 212). This model assumes the decision

maker has all of the information necessary to make the right decision. However, when

dealing with complex problems, the likelihood of a leader processing the totality of the

information is virtually zero (Tarter & Hoy, 1998). Decision makers not only rarely have

12

all of the information, they are typically unable to produce all possible alternatives and

consequences (Hoy & Tarter, 2008; Tarter & Hoy, 1998).

The administrative model. According to Simon (1965), who is credited for

identifying the administrative model, rarely do individuals have all the necessary

information to make a purely rational decision in an extremely complex world. Since

individuals struggle with making rational decisions in complex situations, the

administrative model allows for a realistic version of the classical model (Tarter & Hoy,

1998). As decision makers face complex problems with many alternatives, the

administrative model seeks to find the choice that solves the dilemma among the many

potentially correct choices. Tarter and Hoy (1998) describe the administrative model as a

satisficing strategy in decision making. It uses the same steps as the classical model, but

the solution is one that is merely satisfactory, not necessarily the optimal (Tarter & Hoy,

1998).

The incremental model. The incremental model is used when alternatives are

difficult to discern (Hoy & Tarter, 2008; Tarter & Hoy, 1998). In the incremental model,

attributed to Charles Lindblom, the decision-making authority makes small incremental

changes, assesses the outcomes of the changes, and then makes a choice (Tarter & Hoy,

1998; Lindblom, 1959). Hoy & Tarter (2008) using the term coined by Lindblom, also

describe this as “muddling through” (p. 43). While the classical and administrative

models use a step-by-step process in finding the best decision or one that satisfies the

situation, the incremental model allows for processes to happen simultaneously. “Setting

objectives and generating alternatives are not separate” (Tarter & Hoy, 1998, p. 215). An

additional difference between the incremental model relative to the classical and

13

administrative models is the decision maker attempts to simplify the problem by only

considering alternatives that closely align to the current situation (Tarter & Hoy, 1998).

The mixed scanning model. The mixed scanning model is attributed to Amatai

Etzioni. Viewing the rational and incremental approaches as limiting decision-making

options, Etzioni determined that the mixed scanning method provides for a strategy for

the decision maker to follow, albeit taking different elements of both rational and

incremental approaches for the decision-making process (Etzioni, 1967). Tarter and Hoy

(1998) describe the mixed scanning model as an adaptive strategy because it uses a

combination of the administrative and incremental models in decision making. The mixed

scanning model dictates that the decision maker use policy as his or her guide in decision

making. “In other words, basic policy should guide even the smallest of decisions in an

adaptive strategy” (Tarter & Hoy, 1998, p. 216). Hoy & Tarter (2008), consider two

questions that guide the mixed scanning model (1) What is the basic mission of the

organization? and (2) What incremental decisions will move the organization in that

direction? (p. 49).

The garbage can model. Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) developed the garbage

can model for organizations that exist in chaos, citing educational organizations as an

example. They go on to state, “In the garbage can model, on the other hand, a decision is

an outcome or interpretation of several relatively independent streams within an

organization” (Cohen, et al., 1972, p. 2-3). It was further described as a model used to

understand what seems to be irrational behavior based on organizations dealing with high

levels of uncertainty (Hoy & Tarter 2008, Tarter & Hoy, 1998). The garbage can model is

not a strategy, but a description of how things often happen (Tarter & Hoy, 1998).

14

In the garbage can model, the organizational objectives emerge spontaneously; they

are not set prior to generating alternatives. The means and ends exist independently of

each other; it is happenstance that connects the two. A good decision occurs when an

existing solution matches a problem, and chance rather than rationality provides the

solution. (Tarter & Hoy 1998, p. 218-219).

The political model. The political model is used to describe decision making in an

organization that is not focused on a goal, but on power and politics. In fact, goals play

no role in the decision using this model (Tarter & Hoy, 1998). Decision making is based

on individual purposes, rather than on an organizational process (Tarter & Hoy, 1998, p.

220). Otherwise stated, personal politics replace legitimate organizational aims (Hoy &

Tarter, 2008). This is a personal model that is used in an organization that has become

politicized (Tarter & Hoy, 1998, p. 66).

The shared decision-making model. Shared decision making is the involvement

of subordinates in the decision-making process (Hoy & Tarter, 2008). The decision-

making process is a seven-stage cycle that includes defining the problem, diagnosing the

problem, developing alternatives, considering the consequences, evaluating the

alternatives, selecting an action strategy, and implementing the strategy (Hoy & Tarter

2008, p. 145). Shared decision making means subordinates are involved at any or all of

these stages (Hoy & Tarter, 2008).

Hoy and Tarter (2008) go on to state the zone of acceptance drives shared

decision making; this zone is entered when an individual accepts a decision without

questioning authority (p. 142). Understanding the zone of acceptance allows one to know

the best level of involvement of others in the decision-making process when decisions

15

fall outside of the zone of acceptance (Hoy & Tarter, 2008). The following five situations

are those that must be considered to most effectively involve subordinates in the

decision-making process: 1) a democratic situation falls outside the zone of acceptance,

and the participants have both interest and expertise; 2) a conflictual situation occurs

when the decision is outside the zone of acceptance, but the participants’ personal

agendas are different from the organization’s goals; 3) a stakeholder situation is when the

participant has a personal stake in the outcome but no expertise to contribute; 4) an expert

situation is when participants have expertise with no special interest; and 5) a non-

collaborative situation is in the participants’ zone of acceptance and the participant has no

inclination or the skill to inform the decision (Hoy & Tarter, 2008, p. 146).

The rational model. The rational model is comprised of six steps; identifying the

problem, generating alternatives, evaluating alternatives, choosing an alternative,

implementing the decision, and evaluating decision effectiveness (Schoenfeld, 2011;

Lunenburg, 2010). The rational model resembles the classical decision-making model

because it assumes the decision maker has the entirety of the information needed to make

an appropriate decision. In addition, the steps taken to make a decision are similar

between the two models; however, an important exception is the rational model adds the

step of evaluation of the decision. This step is missing from the classical model.

The bounded rationality model. The term bounded rationality was coined by

Herbert A. Simon to describe the decision maker who does not have all of the

information necessary for the best decision, so settles for a decision based on the

information available. (Lunenburg, 2010, p.8). According to Lunenburg (2010), the

bounded rationality model is comprised of the administrative model, the incremental

16

model, the mixed scanning model and the garbage can model. Eisenhardt and Zbaracki

(1992) opined rationality is multidimensional, and argued the bounded rationality model

is a strategy for decision making that includes acting on incomplete information, while

still using rational strategies such as contingency planning.

Concerns with the decision-making models. The research conducted by Lyse

Langlois (2004) on superintendents in Quebec determined the ethics of care and justice

were a part of the process of decision making employed by the superintendents

interviewed when dealing with complex situations. The ethics of care and justice are

important factors of trust (Tschannen-Moran 2014, Mayer, et al. 1995). The above

decision-making models, though, do not incorporate the aspect of trust as a component of

their processes. If the factor of trust is indeed missing from the models, the various

decision-making models may not yield the most effective solution.

In addition, Langlois (2004) found superintendents devoted a time of reflection

and consultation with other trusted colleagues when faced with difficult dilemmas.

Although evaluation of the choices for a decision is a step in the classical, administrative,

incremental, rational and bounded rationality models, no reflective process of the entire

situation is explicitly expressed in any of the models as executed by the superintendents

from the research conducted by Langlois (2004).

Nitzan and Paroush (1994), analyzed the link between decision procedure and the

preferences of the decision maker along with their consultants. Their research

acknowledges the decision maker seeks input from others, deemed as experts, and the

level of expertise of those consulted can affect whether the correct decision is made.

Although the shared decision-making model includes experts as part of the process, the

17

experts are actually deciders, rather than consultants. None of the models include

consulting others who are possibly outside the building or organization as the research by

Langlois (2004) and Nitzan and Paroush (1994) state is a part of decision making; rather

the decision maker gets opinions from subordinates that may or may not be reflected in

the decision. Consulting others who are in similar positions in other organizations can

prove very helpful for leaders and is often encouraged through professional organizations

such as the American Association of School Administrators (AASA).

Furthermore, in the shared decision-making model, the inclusion of subordinates

is referenced throughout; however, other non-subordinate stakeholders, such as parents

and community members, are not taken into consideration. It is important to involve

parents in the decision-making process to ensure maximization of the implementation of

initiatives and improved school outcomes (Khalifa, Arnold and Newcomb, 2015). The

involvement of parents and other stakeholders in decision making will require the

building of trust between the school district and parents. Furthermore, trust relations with

stakeholders culminate in better decision making (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p.22).

An additional concern with the decision-making models is the lack of explicit

acknowledgment of emotions both through the process of decision making and the results

from the decision. According to Maitlis and Ozcelik (2004), rational decision making

models imply the possible role of emotions, but they do not discuss the possible influence

of emotions on the decision process (p. 391). Emotions can play a considerable role in the

decision making process, especially in the consideration of stakeholders. How one feels

about another individual can influence his or her decision.

18

Studies of Superintendents’ Use of the Decision-Making Models.

Superintendents make complex decisions daily (Kidder, 1995; Noppe et al., 2013). Their

decisions include setting goals, strategies and the vision for the district (Lunenburg, 2010,

Bolman & Deal, 2008). In addition, they make difficult decisions that involve employees

and students (Langlois, 2004).

In a study conducted by Polka, Litchka, Calzi, Denig and Mete (2011) of

superintendents from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania,

259 responded (of which 64% were male and 36% were female) and it was determined

that they used the incremental and classical models most often when making decisions.

Following closely behind the incremental and classical models in frequency of use are the

shared decision-making model and the mixed scanning model (Polka et al., 2011, p. 106).

Superintendents also applied the garbage can model and the satisficing models but not to

the degree of the previously mentioned models (Polka et al., 2011). According to

superintendents’ feedback, the least used decision-making approach was the political

model (Polka et al., 2011).

Their research also found that superintendents in rural districts or those with small

student populations used all of the decision-making theories more often than

superintendents in suburban districts or those districts with larger student populations

(Polka et al., 2011). In addition, the context of the school district dictated which approach

the superintendent used in making a decision, rather than the background and experiences

of the superintendent (Polka et al., 2011, p. 106). Furthermore, superintendents with ten

or fewer administrators on staff utilized various decision-making models more often than

their counterparts with eleven or more administrators (Polka et al., 2011).

19

Noppe et al. (2013) employed the same survey method as Polka et al. (2011) to

study superintendents from Illinois and Iowa, and received 281 responses, 79% of which

were male and 24% of which were female (p. 109). Noppe et al. (2013) found the same

order of decision-making models used by the superintendents surveyed as Polka et al.

(2011). However, contrary to the findings of Polka et al., (2011), Noppe et al. (2013)

found the mixed scanning method was used less by superintendents in rural districts and

districts with small numbers of students enrolled (p. 116). In addition, Noppe et al. (2013)

found the garbage can approach was used more in rural districts than in urban districts,

which was not the case in the findings of Polka et al. (2011).

Also contrary to the findings of Polka et al. (2011), Noppe et al. (2013) found

female superintendents used the satisficing approach more often than male

superintendents. “Women tend to be more collaborative, communicative, and

relationship-oriented. These traits obviously align to decision-making models that favor

those skills” (Noppe et al., 2013). Polka et al. (2011) did not note any difference in the

use of decision-making models between female and male superintendents.

In addition to understanding which decision-making models superintendents use,

both surveys also examined which of the commonly faced dilemmas superintendents

most often face. The common dilemmas surveyed were: Leadership vs. Management;

Motivation vs. Manipulation; Creativity vs. Discipline of Thought; Commitment vs.

Compliance; Conflict vs. Consensus; Independence vs. Dependence; Personal vs.

Professional; Trust vs. Change; Centralized vs. Decentralized; Problems vs.

Predicaments; Long-term Goals vs. Short-term Results; Truth vs. Varnished Truth (Polka

et al., 2011; Noppe et al., 2013). Some noteworthy findings from both studies relate to the

20

dilemmas superintendents most frequently face. Both studies had the same rank order of

dilemmas faced by superintendents, yet Polka et al. (2011) found female superintendents

faced the motivation vs. manipulation dilemma more often than male superintendents,

while Noppe et al. (2013) found male superintendents faced the conflict vs. consensus

dilemma more frequently than female superintendents.

Additionally, Noppe et al. (2013) noted that superintendents in their first

superintendency dealt with motivation vs. manipulation less than those with multiple

superintendent experience. Noppe et al. (2013) attribute this to the need for building trust

with stakeholders by superintendents. Without trust, stakeholders may view the

superintendent as manipulative rather than motivating (Noppe et al., 2013, p. 117). In

addition, Noppe et al. (2013) found superintendents with fewer years of service faced the

trust versus change dilemma more often than those with more years of service (p. 117).

This finding was also attributed to the lack of trust building with stakeholders. Trust

across a school community is critical for leaders as they attempt to implement change

(Bryk & Schneider, 2002). One might contend trust being a missing component in these

decision-making processes demonstrates potential weakness for their use as an effective

model. In addition to the importance of trust as part of decision making is the importance

of stakeholders in general. The consideration of various stakeholders as part of the

decision-making process appears to be missing from these models.

Langlois’ (2004) research of six superintendents from the Quebec provincial

school system found a method of decision making used by the superintendents that

consisted of the following components: responding to and acting on a given situation;

checking rules, standards and district policies; becoming ethically aware of the dilemma;

21

the ethical analysis stage; personal and professional values; the moral judgment and

decision; validation and support from the political authorities; assertiveness, preserving

dignity and maintaining a climate of respect and transparency; concluding the decision-

making process; and assessing the consequences and effects on the organization. This

model is similar to the steps in the classical model, with the exceptions of becoming

ethically aware of the dilemma stage, the ethical analysis stage, and the personal and

professional values stage.

The stage of becoming ethically aware of the dilemma and the stage of ethical

analysis occur when the individual decision maker reflects and analyzes the decision

from a moral perspective and weighs alternatives, not only from a legal perspective, but

with values and principles that guide the decision (Langlois, 2004). This decision-making

process is ethical because it incorporates reflection and personal and professional values

that influence the final choice (Langlois, 2004). In addition, the characteristics of caring

and justice will guide the ethical analysis of the decision (Langlois, 2004). Caring is a

key component of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Smylie, Murphy, & Louis, 2016).

Since caring and justice guide ethical analysis of a decision, trust is an important factor in

decision making. This model, like the classical model, does not explicitly describe what

the decision maker is to do when stakeholders with conflicting interests are pressing for

outcomes that are in opposition of one another.

Superintendents and their Decisions as Related to Stakeholders

The decisions superintendents make often impact multiple stakeholders inside and

outside the organization. When faced with difficult decisions, superintendents assert their

role through justifiable action, while anticipating potential consequences for the decision

22

(Langlois, 2004). Superintendents are generally cautious and typically have an awareness

of how their decisions affect those involved in the dilemma and others in the community

(Langlois, 2004; Jenkins, 2007).

This awareness is pertinent in building and maintaining trust. According to Bryk

and Schneider (2002), relational trust diminishes when one is perceived as not taking into

consideration the needs and feelings of others. In support of this assertion, Langlois

(2004), states that superintendents analyze problems, while considering the individuals

involved and how they will be affected by the decision. The awareness of the

consequences of a decision on both the organization and the stakeholders is an important

skill for a superintendent to possess.

According to Jenkins (2007), the community as a stakeholder is always in

consideration when the superintendent makes a decision. Consideration of the

community, as well as society and culture, is expected by school administrators (Begley,

2001). The degree of consideration a superintendent gives to the community when

making decisions may or may not build trust and acceptance of a decision. If a

superintendent gives little consideration to the community when making a decision, trust

may be lost and the community may push back on the decision.

Khalifa (2012) acknowledges stakeholders in a community may have divergent

views from one another, and it is important for a school leader to be a participant in the

community to understand these views. Consequently, not only do superintendents need to

consider how their community will be affected by their decisions, they need to know who

comprises their community (and what its beliefs are) in order to make appropriate and

23

supported decisions. Stakeholders, including the community, should be an important

consideration in the decision-making process of superintendents.

Responsible Leadership and the Superintendency

Organizations are complex and ambiguous (Bolman & Deal 2008). Therefore, the

role of superintendent, as the leader of the organization, is challenging and complex due

to the difficult decisions they, as leaders, must make (Kidder, 1995; Noppe et al., 2013;

Maak & Pless, 2006a; Heifetz 2006; Kowalski, 1993). Consequently, effective leadership

is demonstrated through decision making. There are many descriptors of leadership such

as, “transformational, charismatic, authentic, ethical, participative, servant, shared, and

even spiritual” (Waldman & Galvin, 2008, p. 327); however, the concept of responsibility

is missing from these and may be the most important factor related to effective leadership

(Waldman & Galvin, 2008). Therefore, Responsible Leadership Theory was developed to

provide for the missing factor of responsibility.

“Responsible leadership is a specific frame of mind promoting a shift from a

purely economistic, positivist and self-centered mindset to a frame of thinking that has all

constituents and thus the common good in mind too” (Maak & Pless, 2006a, p.1-2).

Thomas Maak, the Research Director at the Institute for Business Ethics and Senior

Lecturer in Corporate Responsibility at the University of St Gallen, Switzerland and

Nicola M. Pless the Research Director of Responsible Leadership at the Center for Public

Leadership and Senior Lecturer in Organizational Behavior at the University of St Gallen

(HSG), Switzerland are leaders in the development of Responsible Leadership Theory.

They define responsible leadership “…as the art of building and sustaining morally sound

24

relationships with all relevant stakeholders of an organization” (Maak & Pless, 2006a, p.

5).

Responsible leadership has been further defined as “… a relational and ethical

phenomenon, which occurs in social processes of interaction with those who affect or are

affected by leadership and have a stake in the purpose and vision of the leadership

relationship” (Freeman et al., as cited in Maak & Pless, 2006b, p. 103). Pless (2007) goes

on to describe responsible leadership as a social and moral phenomenon, as leaders have

the potential to contribute to the betterment of the world (p. 438). Therefore, responsible

leadership includes responsibility, accountability, legitimacy and trust (Pless & Maak,

2011, p.6).

Responsible leadership has also been defined as “…an awareness and

consideration of the consequences of one’s actions for all stakeholders, as well as the

exertion of influence by enabling the involvement of the affected stakeholders and by

engaging in an active stakeholder dialogue” (Voegtlin, Patzer & Scherer, 2012, p. 4). The

consideration of stakeholders and their involvement in the decision-making process are at

the center of responsible leadership. Therefore, trust between stakeholders and the leader

is an important part of responsible leadership.

As noted throughout the various definitions of responsible leadership listed above,

Oplatka (2017) posits there is no consistent definition of responsible leadership. Oplatka

(2017) adds to the definition of responsible leadership by including virtuousness as a part

of responsible leadership; educational leaders must serve the community as a whole,

focusing on virtuous outcomes that meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders (p. 518).

25

One cannot consider responsible leadership without recognizing the need for

introspection, which requires ethics to be at the core of responsible leadership (Maak &

Pless, 2006a). Introspection requires one to self-examine his or her own ethical

consideration of decisions that affect stakeholders. Yet, responsible leadership goes

beyond ethics (Waldman and Galvin, 2008). Responsible leadership directs attention to

others for whom the leader is responsible (Waldman & Galvin, 2008). According to

Waldman and Galvin (2008), responsible leadership requires being responsible to others

for the consequences of their own actions as they affect others. Maak and Pless (2006b)

go on to state responsible leadership moves from the leader subordinate relationship to

the leader stakeholder relationship. Therefore, responsible leadership requires a leader to

consider stakeholders in his or her work. In other words, stakeholders are at the center of

Responsible Leadership Theory.

Additionally, the leader must balance competing interests of stakeholders to

ensure effective outcomes for the whole (Maak & Pless, 2006a). Balancing the competing

interests of stakeholders is the complexity that leaders face when making decisions. The

purpose of responsible leadership is to lead for the benefit of the whole, rather than for a

select few. Because trust is an important factor in responsible leadership, superintendents

can create trust by listening to stakeholder concerns. Therefore, once a trusting

relationship is established, a stakeholder group may more readily accept a decision that is

inconsistent with their own interests and limit pushback on the decision.

Responsible leadership is made up of eight roles that are a part of a whole and are

not isolated from each other (Maak & Pless 2006a, Maak & Pless 2006b). Maak and

Pless (2006a) state the roles of the leader are servant, steward, coach, architect, storyteller

26

and change agent, then in Maak & Pless (2006b), citizen and visionary are added to the

list. A responsible leader is not one or a few of these but all of these at different times

(Maak & Pless 2006a; Maak & Pless 2006b).

Description of responsible leadership roles. The leader as servant is the idea that

leadership is not about the leader but about the leader serving others (Maak & Pless,

2006a; Maak & Pless, 2006b). An important component of leader as servant is the “ethics

of care” (Gilligan 1983 as cited in Maak & Pless 2006a, p.45). The leader as servant

considers the needs of all stakeholders, including external stakeholders as well as the

community (Maak & Pless 2006a; Maak & Pless 2006b; Stone-Johnson, 2013).

The leader as steward is best described as “…a custodian of social, moral and

environmental values and resources” (Maak & Pless 2006a, p. 46). In addition, the

steward considers the future of the voiceless stakeholder (Maak & Pless 2006b).

The leader as coach facilitates the development of others, enables learning and

supports individuals and teams in meeting their objectives (Maak & Pless 2006a; Maak &

Pless 2006b). In addition, the leader as coach motivates people from different

backgrounds and cultures to work together to achieve a common vision (Maak & Pless

2006a; Maak & Pless 2006b).

The leader as architect creates an environment in which people find meaning, feel

respected, recognized and included (Maak & Pless, 2006a, p. 47; Maak & Pless 2006b, p.

111). In addition, the architect needs to dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, ensuring

they are a partner in achieving common objectives (Maak & Pless, 2006a; Maak & Pless,

2006b).

27

The leader as storyteller uses stories to create shared meaning (Maak & Pless

2006a; Maak & Pless 2006b). The use of stories helps bring meaning to abstract concepts

(Maak & Pless 2006a).

The leader as change agent is responsible for mobilizing stakeholders to build

commitment, while keeping forward movement when change causes insecurity (Maak &

Pless, 2006a, p. 48; Maak & Pless, 2006b, p.112). In addition, a leader as change agent

implements change in a caring and responsible manner (Maak & Pless 2006a; Maak &

Pless 2006b).

The leader as citizen is a part of the community and committed to civic matters

(Maak & Pless 2006b; Stone-Johnson, 2014). The leader recognizes the organization and

community are connected to each other (Maak & Pless 2006b).

The leader as visionary includes stakeholders in thinking of the future, and the

development of the direction of the organization (Maak & Pless 2006b; Stone-Johnson,

2014). A vision turns an organization’s purpose into an image or mental picture for the

future (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

Studies of responsible leadership. Witt and Stahl (2016) compared responsible

leadership orientation between two western countries (United States and Germany) and

three Asian countries (Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea). They found more similarity

between those countries that have liberal market economies (LMEs) and those countries

with coordinated market economies (CMEs). A LME is relatively a free-market economy

that embraces “shareholder value” with performance measured by market value and

limited government involvement (Witt & Stahl, 2016, p. 626). A CME is characterized

as a “stakeholder capitalism” model where stakeholders are a part of the context in which

28

decisions are made and performance is evaluated (Witt & Stahl, 2016, p. 626). Hong

Kong and the United States (U.S.) are LMEs; Germany, Japan and South Korea are

CMEs. Although all five countries value stakeholders in the decision-making process,

there was a difference between the types of economies as to “how” and “why” firms

contribute to society and the meaning of responsibility (Witt & Stahl, 2016, p. 634).

The difference between the view of stakeholders, as an example, is the countries

functioning in an LME economy looked at employees as important, but as an expense or

problem, while those countries in CME economy “… identified employees’ well-being as

a firm’s key objective…” (Witt & Stahl, 2016, p. 634). These different opinions of the

level of importance of stakeholders was attributed to cultural and societal values of the

countries themselves (Witt & Stahl, 2016). It may be interesting to learn if

superintendents in the U.S. view stakeholders, such as employees, in a similar way as the

business leaders interviewed in the Witt and Stahl (2016) study. If superintendents view

employees as an expense or problem, rather than subscribing to the importance of the

employee’s well-being, the ability to build trust with staff would be a challenging

prospect. Therefore, decisions and implementation of initiatives may be adversely

affected.

Although research regarding responsible leadership has been focused on business

leaders (Maak & Pless, 2006b; Maak, 2007; Pless, 2007; Waldman & Galvin, 2008),

Stone-Johnson (2014) researched responsible leadership in the context of three schools in

a school district in the United Kingdom. Stone-Johnson (2014) learned when school

leaders demonstrated four of the eight values-based roles linked to responsible leadership

of visionary, steward, servant and citizen, schools showed gains in student achievement

29

(p. 668). Although additional research of responsible leadership, as it applies to leaders of

schools, is needed to learn more of its value in this arena, Stone-Johnson’s (2014)

research yielded positive results as to the effectiveness of responsible leadership and its

impact on school improvement.

Oplatka (2017) reviewed responsible leadership as it relates to schools and

determined it is made up of five elements: “a resistance to conceptualizing the schooling

process in terms of narrow outcomes, a holistic perspective of school–stakeholders

relationships, creation of benefits for the whole society, ethics of care and empathy, and

responsible decision-making processes” (p. 521). Oplatka (2017) goes on to state, “…

responsible educational leaders highlight our commitment to the development of young

people and to the common good” (p.521), and it is important for responsible leaders to

build relationships with stakeholders that will improve the image of schools (Oplatka,

2017, p. 521). As superintendents face the effects of open enrollment, the image of the

district is important for retaining in-district students and attracting students from other

districts. Exercising responsible leadership that highlights the commitment to both

students and the greater community may increase student enrollment.

Responsible Leadership Theory has been primarily studied in the business setting

with positive responses, while limited research has been conducted in the education

arena. According to Leithwood and Steinbach (1995), superintendents approach problem

solving similar to senior executives rather than the approach by principals (p. 68). Since

superintendents’ function similarly to business executives, the components and roles of

responsible leadership may be attributed to and utilized, in whole or in part, by

superintendents. Therefore, additional studies of Responsible Leadership Theory in

30

education are warranted.

Responsible leadership as It Relates to Decision Making

Responsible leadership, like ethical leadership, subscribes to a leader’s

responsibility of implementing moral reasoning in the decision-making process (Pless &

Maak, 2011). Paine (2006) suggests four modes of analysis that a responsible leader

should consider when making decisions: purpose, principle, people and power. The mode

of purpose focuses on both the ends and means of a decision (Paine 2006). The mode of

principle focuses on ensuring the decision aligns to best practices and standards (Paine,

2006). The mode of people focuses on ensuring the decision benefits stakeholders and

does not violate, injure or infringe on them (Paine, 2006). The mode of power focuses on

whether the decision maker has the authority, ability, resources, clout and energy to carry

out the decision (Paine, 2006, p. 59).

A responsible leader takes into account the needs and ideas of multiple

stakeholders (Waldman & Galvin, 2008). In fact, Waldman and Galvin (2008) further

state that all affected stakeholders should be included in a fair and balanced manner.

Conversely, in the context of education, it is a moral imperative that leaders serve the

“best interest of the students” first, and that all decision making ensures the education and

well-being of students are at the core (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016, p. 25). The idea of

keeping students at the core of all decision making could be construed as not being

equitable as this type of decision making may be incongruent with the goals of other

stakeholders. The differing goals of stakeholders demonstrates the challenge of decision

making by leaders and the need for trust between the leader and stakeholders.

31

Voegtlin, et al., (2012) go on to state if leaders are to consider stakeholders in an

equitable way, communication with the various stakeholders is key to gaining support of

the decision. This is most pertinent if students are to be at the core of the decision-making

process for superintendents. I suggest it is not only important to communicate with

stakeholders, but it is imperative that superintendents build trust with various

stakeholders in order for all stakeholders to support the philosophy of keeping the student

at the center. The decisions that keep student needs ahead of others’ needs could

potentially lead to non-student stakeholders getting less than what they believe is best for

themselves. Conflicts may arise among stakeholders, yet advancing the best interests of

children must be understood by all stakeholders (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p. 26).

Oplatka (2017) states that “…responsible educational leaders should weave

trusting and ethical relationships with their stakeholders (e.g. teachers, parents, city

counsellors, supervisors) for the sake of school success and the common good of the local

community” (p. 518). Responsible leadership builds and sustains trustful relationships

with different stakeholders to achieve a commonly shared vision (Maak, 2007, p. 334).

Trust between leaders and stakeholders is referenced often when describing responsible

leadership.

Responsible leaders mobilize stakeholders to engage in and support objectives

tied to a higher social purpose (Pless & Maak, 2011, p. 8). Because responsible

leadership focuses on the leader stakeholder relationship rather than the leader

subordinate relationship, one can posit that stakeholders must be a part of the decision-

making process. However, the extent to which leaders respond to stakeholder concerns is

relative to the context of the issue and other factors (Pless & Maak, 2011). This variance,

32

in response to the concerns of stakeholders, implies the need for trust in the leader

stakeholder relationship. Stakeholders must trust the leader to make the appropriate

decision, even if their immediate concerns are not given priority by the decision.

It is important to note Pless and Maak (2011) acknowledge the level of

involvement of stakeholders may differ depending on the context of the situation, but

they do not propose that all stakeholders not be considered in the process. Rather, all

stakeholders are to be considered in the decision-making process. According to Waldman

& Galvin (2008), balancing the needs and desires of stakeholders is an important part of

responsible leadership. There is overlap between stakeholder needs and the shared

decision-making model; however, Hoy’s and Tarter’s (2008) description of the shared

decision-making model only considers subordinates, and no other stakeholders, in its

decision-making process.

According to Jenkins’ (2007) case study, the community as a stakeholder is

always considered in the decision-making process by the superintendent. However, the

superintendent may need to make decisions that some stakeholders disagree with;

nevertheless, the decisions may be better for other stakeholders (Jenkins, 2007). As

superintendents strive to keep what is best for students at the core of their decision-

making process, building trust with the community will be an important factor in gaining

support from the community for decisions that may be perceived as conflicting with their

needs.

Responsible Leadership as It Relates to Stakeholders

Leaders must consider stakeholders when leading as stakeholders significantly

affect organizations (Savage, Nix, Whitehead & Blair, 1991; Waldman & Galvin, 2008).

33

Because society is comprised of stakeholders, a leader must be a cultivator of

relationships (Maak & Pless, 2006b; Stone-Johnson, 2014; Oplatka, 2017). Maak (2007)

contends that positive stakeholder relationships are beneficial to organizational success.

Responsible leadership builds and sustains an organization that is a benefit to multiple

stakeholders, both inside and outside the organization (Maak, 2007; Maak & Pless,

2006b). Maak (2007) includes the descriptor of trust when building and sustaining

relationships with stakeholders. Therefore, building meaningful stakeholder relationships

must include trust between the leader and stakeholder.

According to Pless and Maak (2011), “By definition then, responsible leadership

is geared toward the concerns of others and asks for what and to whom leaders are

responsible” (p. 4). Heifetz (2006) contends that superintendents must focus on teachers,

parents and peers as their priority stakeholders. However, Heifetz (2006) does not

mention the community as a stakeholder, which is contrary to the research of Khalifa et

al. (2015) noting that the trust of the community was necessary for support of school

reform. Therefore, the community should be a stakeholder superintendents consider.

Since stakeholders often have competing or conflicting needs and interests, responsible

leaders who have the concerns of others at the heart of their leadership are in a

challenging and complex position.

Maak (2007) contends that when stakeholders’ thinking differs from the leader,

“bridging” needs to happen (p. 335). When the leader is central to the leader stakeholder

relationship, he or she is more likely to move stakeholders to share in the vision, thereby

bridging potential gaps in agreement (Maak, 2007). In addition, bridging builds trust

between the stakeholders and the leader (Maak, 2007). However, Maak does not give any

34

concrete direction or explanation of how a leader builds the bridge to move the

stakeholder to share in the vision. In addition, there is not an explicit explanation of what

it means for a leader to be the center in the leader stakeholder relationship. The

applicability in practice of this portion of responsible leadership is lacking.

Trust and the Superintendency

Trustworthy leadership is crucial for successful schools (Tschannen-Moran,

2014). Tschannen-Moran (2014) posits that trust matters most in situations of

interdependence where the interests of one group are reliant on another (p. 20). Frowe

(2005) states that in professional trust, one trusts the expertise of the professional with

something he or she trusts such as health or the education of his or her child. This

dependency on trust makes the non-professional vulnerable, which in-turn reinforces the

need for the professional to act in the best interest of the non-professional. The deliberate

action of reducing vulnerability or in other words, make one feel secure, builds trust

(Bryk & Schneider, 2003).

Trust can be defined as one’s willingness to be vulnerable to another (Tschannen-

Moran, 2014; Davis, Schoorman, Mayer & Tan, 2000; Pirson & Malhotra, 2011, Mayer,

Davis & Schoorman, 1995; Bryk & Schneider, 2003). Tschannen-Moran, (2014) lists five

factors one must possess for others to trust him or her: benevolence; honesty; openness;

reliability; and competence. However, Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, (1995) state that

trust is comprised of only three factors: ability; benevolence; and integrity.

Benevolence, as described by Tschannen-Moran (2014), is the assurance that one

in whom trust has been placed cares about the other and will act in a way that does not

cause harm. Similar to Tschannen-Moran (2014), Mayer, et al. (1995) describe

35

benevolence as the willingness of the trustee to put egocentric motives aside and do good

to the trustor implying a specific attachment between the trustee and trustor (p. 718).

Benevolence is depicted as an important basis of trust (Mayer, et al., 1995; Tschannen-

Moran, 2014). School leaders can increase trust through demonstrating caring between

school leaders and stakeholders (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Smylie, Murphy, & Seashore

Louis, 2016). Moreover, trust enables caring (Seashore Louis, Murphy, & Smylie, 2016).

Furthermore, students have better success when caring is cultivated by leadership (Smylie

et al., 2016). The responsibility for demonstrating benevolence and/or cultivating a caring

environment belongs to the superintendent as he or she oversees school leadership.

A second component of trust is honesty (Tschannen-Moran 2014). Tschannen-

Moran (2014) describes honesty as being comprised of one’s character, integrity and

authenticity. The honest person is truthful with information and will keep commitments

about actions (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). The third component of trust is openness and

can be described as a willingness to freely share information with others and allow for

others to be equally open (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Openness also allows for better

problem solving, as open communication can prevent compounding the issue

(Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Bryk and Schneider (2003) describe personal regard as a

component of trust that aligns to openness in that through open communication and

through reaching out to stakeholders, a positive, supportive, trusting culture is built.

Mayer, et al. (1995) describe integrity as a factor of trust. “The relationship

between integrity and trust involves the perception that the trustee adheres to a set of

principles that the trustor finds acceptable” (Mayer, et al., 1995, p. 719). Bryk and

Schneider (2003) also describe integrity as an integral component to relational trust.

36

While honesty is a part of integrity, integrity goes beyond honesty according to the

definition by Mayer, et al. (1995). Integrity includes the trustee as having a strong sense

of justice, actions that are consistent with his or her words, and a credible reputation with

others (Mayer, et al., 1995, p. 719).

A fourth component of trust is reliability, which may be defined as one person

who can depend on the other consistently. Reliability combines predictability with caring

and competence (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Although predictability, in and of itself, is

not enough to build trust, it is necessary in combination with caring and competence

(Tschannen-Moran, 2014). However, Mayer, et al. (1995) posit that trusts goes beyond

predictability; rather, predictability is an influencing cooperation (p. 714). As such, if one

predictably responds in a positive manner, trust may be built, but predictability alone is

insufficient for building trust (Mayer, et al., 1995). In contrast to Tschannen-Moran

(2014), Mayer, et al. (1995) do not include reliability as a major factor of trust.

Competence is described as having the skills and abilities necessary to perform

the functions of the position (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Bryk & Schneider, 2003). Mayer

et al. (1995) refer to this as ability, and defines ability as “…that group of skills,

competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some

specific domain” (p. 717). Leaders need to demonstrate competency or ability to build

trust.

Mayer, et al. (1995) state that trust is on a continuum, and the three factors of

trust, (ability, benevolence, and integrity) fall along the continuum of trust. Therefore, a

lack of any of the three factors can weaken trust (Mayer, et al., 1995). The three aspects

of trust are related to each other, but they are separable (Mayer, et al., 1995, p. 720).

37

According to Pirson and Malhotra (2011), some researchers put integrity and

benevolence in the same category as character, but Pirson and Malhotra (2011) found

integrity and benevolence to be distinct aspects of trust; therefore, these factors differ

from character. Pirson and Malhotra (2011) go on to state that stakeholders with a

shallow relationship to the organization based their trust on perceived integrity of the

organization, while those stakeholders with deep relationships with the organization

based their trust on their perceived benevolence of the organization (p. 1099). This

distinction between integrity and benevolence is important as leaders consider how to

build trust with various stakeholders.

Tschannen-Moran (2014) contends that each of the five aspects of trust may not

have to be at high levels; however, it will be required where there is critical

interdependence (p. 39). One aspect of trust may be more important than another, or it

may actually be dependent on its relationship to the other, in order for trust to be built.

For example, a leader who demonstrates benevolence but lacks competency may not be

able to build trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014).

As superintendents work with various stakeholders, the capacity to be trustworthy

is imperative. Superintendents must demonstrate benevolence, honesty, openness,

reliability, and competence as they build trust with stakeholders.

Trust as It Relates to Decision Making

A component of trustworthy behavior is sharing control through inclusion in

decision making (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard & Werner, 1998). Lipham (1983) states

that involvement in decision making must be influential and not superficial. Khalifa et al.,

(2015) state that including parents’ input is integral in building trust in schools. The

38

inclusion of stakeholders in decision making is important as superintendents work to

build trust with stakeholders.

Hoy and Tarter (2008) assert the trust of subordinates may depend on the level of

involvement in decision making. If the motivations of a subordinate do not align to the

goals of the organization, then “…it is ill-advised to delegate the decision to them” (Hoy

& Tarter, 2008, p. 144). They go on to state the level of participation in the decision-

making process varies depending on the situation. However, it is noted that the earlier in

the process subordinates are included will maximize their involvement (Hoy & Tarter,

2008).

The determination of when, who and how to include subordinates in a decision is

expressed in the shared decision-making model by Hoy and Tarter (2008); however, it

does not discuss how to include other stakeholders, such as parents, business leaders and

other community members. Yet, Bryk, Gomez, Grunow and LeMahieu (2015, p. 7)

discuss the use of “networked improvement communities” as a way to involve different

stakeholders in the decision-making and problem-solving process. The use of networked

improvement communities has been a beneficial process in educational contexts (Bryk et

al., 2015). As superintendents work with all of these stakeholders, having an

understanding of when, who and how to include various stakeholders in decision making

is imperative for effective outcomes.

Trust as It Relates to Stakeholders

Trust among stakeholders affects school performance (Adams & Forsyth, 2013;

Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Seashore Louis and Wahlstrom (2011) note that when teachers

and parents were included in generating ideas and then were also included in the

39

responsibility of executing them, schools demonstrated higher student achievement.

Furthermore, decision-making processes and outcomes affect trust in an organization

(Driscoll, 1978; Tschannen-Moran, 2014), and stakeholders who do not have power rely

on organizations acting in a trustworthy manner (Greenwood & Van Buren III, 2010).

Trust focuses on the outcomes of decisions (Gamson as cited by Driscoll, 1978). As

noted previously, superintendents use shared decision making often in their work. The

use of this model may help build trust and acceptance of decisions by stakeholders, as

well as, motivate them to help with the implementation of decisions.

Khalifa et al., (2015) state that before schools can initiate reform that requires

parent support, building trust with the community is necessary. Pirson and Malhotra

(2011) state it is beneficial to have an understanding of the type of relationship one has

with the stakeholder in order to determine what area of trust needs to be built. Once trust

is built with the community, schools can push for rigorous reform (Khalifa et al., 2015).

In addition, Khalifa (2012) found when principals advocated for the community and

invited the community into the school as a respected stakeholder, the community trusted

the principal. It would be analogous to presume the superintendent to advocate for and

invite the community into District-level issues as a respected stakeholder in order to build

trust with the community.

Superintendents who include stakeholders in the decision-making process could

potentially build trust. Once trust is built, it is expected that stakeholders will support the

decisions superintendents make allowing for more effective outcomes.

40

Conclusion

The purpose of this literature review was to explore how superintendents consider

stakeholders when making complex decisions. Research in the areas of decision-making

theories, responsible leadership and trust were considered. The three areas of research

together may inform how superintendents make decisions through developing trust and

considering stakeholders in the process of decision making.

Research in the area of decision making provides insight into the decision-making

theories used most by superintendents. Shared decision making was one type of decision-

making theory that superintendents chose to use. As noted earlier, shared decision

making is the inclusion of stakeholders in the decision-making process linking this type

of decision making to responsible leadership theory. In addition, shared decision making

helps build trust between stakeholders and leaders and leads to better student outcomes

(Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Adams & Forsyth, 2013; Seashore Lewis & Wahlstrom 2011).

Responsible leadership is centered on accountability, appropriate moral decision

making, and trust (Pless & Maak, 2011, p. 4). The components of trust as described by

Tschannen-Moran (2014) and Mayer, et al., (1995) are represented in the multiple

definitions of responsible leadership. Responsible leadership focuses on stakeholders,

both internal and external, and the relationships leaders have with stakeholder groups

(Pless & Maak, 2011). The research on responsible leadership indicates positive

outcomes for student results when utilized by school leaders.

The research on trust illustrates the importance of inclusion of stakeholders in the

decision-making process increasing the likelihood that school initiatives can move

forward with the support of stakeholders. Without building relationships with

41

stakeholders, it is difficult to build trust. Care is a major factor in building trust, and it is

also an important factor in responsible leadership as the concerns of and for stakeholders

is a major tenet in responsible leadership. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the Decision-

making Theories and Responsible Leadership Theory overlap in the consideration of

stakeholders, while Trust is woven throughout both theories.

This research is significant as superintendents are required to make complex

decisions that can positively or negatively impact stakeholders. Developing a decision-

making theory that can help superintendents make decisions that result in positive

impacts for stakeholders is important.

42

CHAPTER III

Research Methods and Design

Introduction

As discussed in chapter one, the purpose of this study is to investigate how

superintendents consider stakeholders when making complex decisions. As

superintendents oversee the entire organization, they are tasked with solving complex

problems. Superintendents face complex decisions, which have an impact on people

across the organization (Comstock, 1980, Langlois, 2004). Those affected by the

decision-making process of the superintendents are termed as stakeholders, and these

stakeholders add to the complexity of the decision-making process. This chapter focuses

on the research design and methods used to address the research questions. Grounded

Theory research was the method chosen for this study.

Research Design

A grounded theory study. According to Charmaz (2014), “…grounded theory

methods consist of systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing

qualitative data to construct theories from the data themselves” (p.1). The intent of

grounded theory is to move beyond description and to discover a theory (Creswell &

Poth, 2018). According to Glesne (2011), “Grounded theory is not a theory in itself, but a

methodology for developing theory that is “grounded” in data” (p. 21). Similarly, Glaser

and Strauss (1999), define grounded theory as the discovery of theory from data (p. 1);

the development of the theory may help “…explain practice or provide a framework for

further research” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 82).

43

The seminal researchers that developed grounded theory were Barney Glaser and

Anselm Strauss. They developed systematic procedures for theory development from

data. The approach by Glaser and Strauss “…seeks to systematically develop a theory

that explains process, action, or interaction on a topic” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 84). A

departure from the work of Glaser and Strauss, Kathy Charmaz took a constructivist

approach to grounded theory research (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The approach by

Charmaz is a social constructivist perspective taking into consideration hierarchies of

power and opportunity with emphasis placed on “…views, values, beliefs, feelings,

assumptions, and ideologies of individuals than on methods of research…” (Creswell &

Poth, 2018, p. 86).

The intent of this study is to formulate a theory at the substantive level (Glaser &

Strauss, 2008) based on data collected concerning decision making of superintendents as

it relates to the consideration of stakeholders when making complex decisions. My

research will follow the lines of Charmaz. “The researcher makes decisions about the

categories throughout the process, brings questions to the data, and advances personal

values, experiences, and priorities” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p.86). It is important to note

the theory formulation will not be a formal theory, rather a substantive theory will

emerge. Greater analysis of this substantive theory and other material from other studies

would have to be generated in order to raise the formative theory to a formal theory

(Glaser & Strauss, 2008).

Research Questions

The research questions guiding this study are:

44

1) To what extent do superintendents consider the influence of varying

stakeholders when making complex decisions?

2) How does the superintendent’s perception of trust by stakeholders influence his

or her decision-making process?

3) How do superintendents, as responsible leaders, prioritize varying stakeholders'

needs when making complex decisions?

Interview questions

The literature reviewed in chapter two concentrated on various decision-making

theories, Responsible Leadership Theory and Trust. The literature reviewed led to the

theoretical framework shown in Figure 1.

The interview questions supported the theoretical framework derived from the literature

review. The following questions were posed to each of the eight superintendents.

Background -- Please tell me a little about your professional background.

Include elements such as:

Prior work as a teacher and/or a school principal or administrator.

How long have you been a superintendent?

45

Would you consider the majority of your experience to be in rural, suburban, or

urban?

To what extent do you study or explore research when making decisions? Or, in

other words, how does research guide your decision-making process?

Decisions are often based on who the stakeholders are and how the

decision might affect them.

In your role as superintendent, whom do you consider to be stakeholders?

How do you find out who the stakeholders are?

How do you learn about what the interests of stakeholders are?

To what extent do you consider the influence of various stakeholders in your

decision-making process?

Complex vs. Simple Decisions – Some decisions you need to make are more

complicated or more complex than others. Complex decisions usually involve

the needs and interests of the many stakeholders we just talked about.

Can you tell me some examples of complex decisions as opposed to routine or

simple decisions that you’ve had to make?

How often are you required to make complex decisions?

Actual Examples –

Tell me about a time you had to make a complex decision and describe the

process you went through in making it.

Tell me how or if you involved various stakeholders.

46

How do you factor stakeholders’ distinct or conflicting interests into your

decision-making process?

Tell me about a time when you had to make a complex decision that affected

stakeholders with conflicting interests.

Trust –

In your role as superintendent, how do you see trust as a part of the decision

process?

To what extent does the actual or perceived trust or lack of trust that

stakeholders have in you, influence your decision-making process?

Conflict with the Board –

Tell me about a time when you anticipated your Board would not support your

decision.

How did you handle that situation?

What happened/what was the outcome when you went against the Board with a

decision you made?

Table 1

Participants

In order to gain an understanding of how superintendents consider stakeholders in

their decision-making process, I interviewed superintendents from the metro area and

superintendents from districts surrounding the metro. Superintendents invited to

participate came from urban, suburban and rural school districts. The school districts

varied in size from very large student populations to those with small student populations.

47

I interviewed eight superintendents. Table 1 describes the background of the

superintendents interviewed.

Will Stan Hank Andy Cara Nora Ryan Seth

Superintendent

Experience in

Years

11

years

6

years

6

years

12

years

12

years

17

years

6

years

Rural

Experience

X X X

Suburban

Experience

X X X X X X

Urban/

Suburban

Experience

X X

Urban

Experience

X X X

Principal

Experience

X X X X X X X

Teaching

Experience

X X X X X X X X

Experience

Outside of

Education

X X X X X X

Table 2

Description of Outside Experiences

Will None

Stan Experience in the casino business

Hank Started in Community Education

Andy 35 Years in Community Education

Cara None

Nora Stay-at-home mother

Ryan Worked as custodian in school system

Seth Started as an Educational Assistant

Table 3

The superintendents interviewed had varying lengths of time in the

superintendency and had different paths to the superintendency. Table 2 describes their

48

work experience outside of teaching or administration in education. Nevertheless, all

superintendents had some time in the role of teacher prior to the superintendency.

Those interviewed were either currently working as a superintendent or retired

from the superintendency. According to Glaser and Strauss (2008), as the theory

develops, those chosen to be interviewed may change in order to not hinder the

development of the theory. In this study, seven of the eight initially asked to participate in

the study accepted, while one superintendent did not respond to the inquiry. One

additional superintendent was asked to participate and accepted. According to Merriam

and Tisdell (2016), convenience sampling is “…based on time, money, location,

availability of respondents” (p. 98). The superintendents interviewed were from various

parts of MN, from different district population sizes, and had various demographic

makeup, which may imply maximum variation sampling. However, the sampling is still

considered convenience sampling since it is limited to the state of MN and through

contacts I have already made with different organizations at work and through personal

relationships.

I gained access to superintendents based on relationships I have built through my

membership with Minnesota Association of School Administrators (MASA), my

participation in the Aspiring Superintendents Academy, and my membership with the

Association of Metropolitan School Districts (AMSD). Additionally, I have developed

relationships with superintendents I work with currently and have worked with in the

past.

Data Collection and Analysis

49

Eight superintendents were interviewed to collect data. Voice recordings of face-

to-face interviews of superintendents were transcribed and then coded to discover

emerging themes. Six of the eight interviews were conducted in the offices of the

superintendents, while two interviews occurred in coffee shops. Initial interviews were

approximately 45 minutes to one hour in length, while one was one and a half hours long.

The data analysis that was employed is the constant comparison method. Glaser

and Strauss (1999), describe this method as a joint method of coding and analysis to

generate a theory, or also stated as explicit coding and analytic procedures (p.102).

Strauss and Corbin (1998) define coding as, “The analytic processes through which data

are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory” (p. 3). The constant

comparative method is designed to develop a theory that is consistent, plausible and close

to the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). They further state “the constant comparative method

is not designed (as methods of quantitative analysis are) to guarantee that two analysts

working independently with the same data will achieve the same results” (Glaser &

Straus, 1999, p. 103). Rather, the constant comparative method allows for flexibility and

vagueness (Glaser & Strauss, 1999, p.103). Creswell and Poth (2018), state the analysis

will “…develop a theory that explains process, action, or interaction on a topic” (p. 84).

The constant comparison method is comprised of four stages (Glaser & Strauss,

1999). The first is coding data into categories for analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1999).

Coding is the link between collecting data and theory formation; the process of coding

defines what is happening in the data (Charmaz, 2014, p. 113). Charmaz (2014) describes

this phase as the initial coding phase. It is an active process that brings the researcher into

50

the data. In addition, the process of initial coding “…spurs making comparisons between

data” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 121).

The second stage is integrating categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1999, Creswell &

Poth, 2018). In this stage “…the constant comparative units change from comparison of

incident with incident to comparison of incident with properties of the category that

resulted from initial comparisons of incidents” (Glaser & Strauss, 1999, p. 108). Charmaz

(2014) describes this phase of coding as focused coding. Focused coding delineates those

codes that appear more frequently throughout the data and require analysis and decisions

about which codes make the most sense (p.138). Glaser and Strauss (1999) describe the

integration of the focused codes in this phase. Moreover, a theory emerges through the

integration of categories and their properties (Glaser & Strauss, 1999).

Additionally, Charmaz (2014) describes abductive reasoning as a part of

grounded theory research. Abductive reasoning “…is a mode of imaginative reasoning

researchers invoke when they cannot account for a surprising or puzzling finding”

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 200). If a surprising or puzzling finding emerges, it is anticipated

abductive reasoning will be utilized in the overall coding process.

The third stage is delimiting the theory, which occurs through reduction (Glaser &

Strauss, 1999). A smaller set of higher-level concepts formulates the theory, clarifying

logic and removing non-relevant properties (Glaser & Strauss, 1999, p. 110). The final

stage is writing the theory. During this stage, the analyst is confident his or her

framework forms a substantive theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1999).

In addition, the term influence for this study means the ability of a person or

persons to either directly or indirectly sway a decision. Through the constant comparative

51

method, analysis of the types of responses from participants that indicate the degree of

influence on the decision-making process of superintendents will be coded as low,

medium or high.

Furthermore, the term priority for this study is defined as the act of giving an

individual or group importance over other individuals or groups. The constant

comparative method of analyzing responses from participants will be coded to signify

priority as low, medium or high.

Positionality of the researcher. Grounded theory research is in contrast to

positivism, as positivists attempt to keep personal values out of the research in order not

to contaminate results. It must be noted in grounded theory research, the theory that

develops “…is gained through the theorist’s interpretation of the studied phenomenon”

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 230). “Thus these theories bring in the subjectivity of the actor and

may recognize the subjectivity of the researcher. Interpretive theory calls for the

imaginative understanding of the studied phenomenon” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 231).

In my current professional position, I work closely with superintendents. This

proximity allows me to observe and be affected by the decisions superintendents make.

The effect of these working relationships may unconsciously influence how the data is

analyzed. Since this study is utilizing grounded theory method, it is anticipated the

subjectivity of those interviewed and my own subjectivity will be an intrinsic part of the

resulting formative theory.

Summary

The purpose of this study is to investigate how superintendents consider

stakeholders when making complex decisions. Using Grounded Theory research, it is

52

expected that a formative theory will be developed from the research. The data analysis

and theory formation will be the focus of chapters four and five.

CHAPTER IV

Statement of the Problem

The decisions superintendents make impact stakeholders. Savage, Nix,

Whitehead, and Blair (1991) define stakeholders as individuals, groups or other

organizations who have an interest in (and the ability to influence) the organization (p.

61). Stakeholders consist of people at the building, district and community levels (Stone-

Johnson, 2014). When the interests of stakeholders align with the decision-making

process used by superintendents, the role of the stakeholder lessens (Lampe, 2001,

p.165). However, according to Lampe (2001), “When conflict arises between an

organization and one or more of its stakeholders, the possibility of damage to the

organization may be substantial” (p. 165). Although conflict is a natural occurrence in an

organization, it can be further complicated by the varying interests of stakeholders.

Since the decisions superintendents face affect stakeholders, trust between the

superintendent and stakeholders is significant to ensure stakeholder support.

Demonstrating care is a key component of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Smylie,

Murphy, & Louis, 2016); consequently, it can be stated that leaders, through the act of

caring, will likely build trust with stakeholders. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016) posit that

leaders who demonstrate the ethic of care must consider multiple voices in the decision-

53

making process (p. 17). Therefore, understanding how superintendents consider and/or

prioritize stakeholders in their decision-making process is important. Yet, there is limited

information about the priority superintendents give to different stakeholder groups when

making complex decisions.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate how superintendents consider

stakeholders when making complex decisions. As superintendents oversee the entire

organization, they are tasked with solving complex problems. Superintendents face

complex decisions that have an impact on people across the organization (Comstock,

1980, Langlois, 2004). Those affected by the decision-making process of the

superintendents are termed as stakeholders, and these stakeholders add to the complexity

of the decision-making process.

Superintendent decisions affect stakeholders both internal and external to the

school district. Understanding how superintendents consider stakeholders when making

complex decisions is important to ensure the best possible outcome from those decisions.

Research Questions

The research questions guiding this study are:

1) To what extent do superintendents consider the influence of varying

stakeholders when making complex decisions?

2) How does the superintendent’s perception of trust by stakeholders influence his

or her decision-making process?

54

3) How do superintendents, as responsible leaders, prioritize varying stakeholders'

needs when making complex decisions?

Findings

The following presents data collected from interviews with eight superintendents.

Pseudonyms are used for the participants in order to keep their identities confidential.

The data was analyzed through the lens of Responsible Leadership Theory and the

evidence of the significance of stakeholders as they relate to superintendent decision

making. Themes emerged from the data exhibiting stakeholder priority as a consideration

of superintendents. For example, students were recorded as a stakeholder that took

priority over others.

In addition, the idea of stakeholders positioning as primary and ancillary

stakeholders emerged from the research. The findings from those interviewed in concert

with the literature lead to a decision-making theory, albeit in a formative state, it may be

useful for superintendents in their decision-making process as it relates to stakeholders.

Responsible Leadership Theory

Maak and Pless (2006a) “…define responsible leadership as the art of building

and sustaining morally sound relationships with all relevant stakeholders of an

organization” (p. 5). Stakeholders are the key to Responsible Leadership Theory. The

tenets comprising responsible leadership are servant, steward, coach, architect,

storyteller, change agent, citizen and visionary. The findings from this research support

that superintendents act in the role of servant, steward, architect, change agent, and

citizen when working with or considering stakeholders in their decision-making process.

The following sections will describe these attributes as discovered from this research.

55

Superintendent as Servant a Tenet of Responsible Leadership Theory

Maak and Pless (2006b) attribute humility and attentiveness on the part of the

leader, also supporting and caring for the needs and interests of others, as distinct

elements of servant leadership, while incorporating multiple perspectives in decision

making (p.110). Caring as a tenet of servant leadership aligns to the research on trust.

School leaders can increase trust through the demonstration of caring between school

leaders and stakeholders (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Smylie, Murphy, & Seashore Louis,

2016). The responses from superintendents interviewed indicated they served in this role

by gaining an understanding of the interests of the stakeholders. However, the findings

suggest since stakeholders have different interests that may or may not be in alignment

with each other or the core values of the superintendent; subsequently, the

superintendents made decisions with which some stakeholders disagreed. Those

stakeholders who felt their particular needs were not met would perhaps disagree that the

superintendent was acting as a responsible servant. An example from the data follows:

We had a recent curriculum decision with our mathematics program. …our

Teaching and Learning Department felt curriculum was the best. And our

mathematics department, at least at our high school, felt that it would be best to

stay the course with the current math program. …They both had a good rationale.

I mean I kind of get it, but we have to take a look at the collective of all kids.

…So it did really kind of boil down to me and I had to take all that I had heard in

recent times during the curriculum review process, as well as the many years of

concerns complaints, …about our existing math program mostly from parents,

56

although some from kids. …I just finally had to make a decision, and sided with

our curriculum team. (Will)

Because the math teachers were not supported in the curriculum decision, it is likely the

math teachers did not consider the superintendent to be acting as a responsible servant as

Maak and Pless (2006b) indicated that superintendent as servant cares for the interests of

others. Yet, the curriculum team, board members and parents did get their interests met,

thus upholding the servant as a principle of Responsible Leadership Theory.

However, the superintendent suggested the decision was best for all students. This

finding suggests students, as a stakeholder group, rank ahead of the individual math

teachers. The concept of servant as a tenet of responsible leadership is exhibited in this

situation because the students, who were not a part of the deciding group, had their voices

heard through the superintendent. Though the research indicates the math teachers, as a

stakeholder group, may disagree the superintendent is acting in accordance to the theory

of Responsible Leadership.

According to Andy, “the district policy was teachers were not to advocate for the

gay lifestyle and that was the basis of the lawsuit against our school district by six

students, most of whom were gay”. Obviously, a lawsuit of this nature indicates that a

particular stakeholder group is not feeling cared for nor that the district is demonstrating

servant leadership. Navigating this situation and getting the board to change its policy

indicates the superintendent as servant toward the students who were bringing forward

the lawsuit but not without discontent.

There were strong feelings on both sides of the issue and among our school board

members as well. The conservative side of our communities (and some religious

57

groups) thought we were moving way too fast and the liberal side (teachers,

activists, the gay community) all thought we were moving way too slow. (Andy)

Putting these particular students’ needs and interests ahead of other community members’

beliefs, supports students as a priority stakeholder. I found that superintendent as servant

requires the understanding of the various stakeholder interests, and then making a

decision that will best serve all stakeholders, while keeping students as the focus.

However, it could be argued that from the above findings, superintendents go

beyond the tenet of servant to a role of advocate. In these examples, superintendents were

the voice of students who were not a part of the decision-making process or whose needs

were not getting met. I assert the superintendent acts as an advocate more than a servant.

Understanding stakeholder interests. Understanding the interests of stakeholders

and using that in decision making supports the concept of superintendent as servant.

Voegtlin, et al., (2012), state that communication with stakeholders is important. The

findings suggest that listening is key to learning about the interests of stakeholders. “My

biggest thing is listening. They're going to tell you these are the hot topics; these are

things you don't pay any attention to. It comes out just in listening” (Stan). Furthermore,

it was stated, “Engage in conversation, learn more about the work that they’re doing. Ask

them what we can do to be a greater assistance and to better prepare our future

workforce” (Will).

The research indicated understanding the “why” behind stakeholders’ needs and

wants, along with hidden agendas of stakeholders, was an important insight. According to

one respondent,

58

People will tell you what their thoughts are and what their opinions are. That may

be different than what their agenda is because their agenda might be a public or

open agenda, or it might be a hidden agenda. And so you have to kind of sort out

what is the motivation of why this person is interfacing with you as a

superintendent or you as a school person. (Ryan)

The findings support that listening for understanding helps to ensure superintendents act

as servants in their leadership, while it also provides them with knowledge to ensure the

decisions they make are in the best interest of students. The recognition that through

listening to others one may gain knowledge necessitates the superintendent to possess

humility.

Superintendent humility. A subtheme from the research that supports

superintendent as servant is the concept of humility. The concept of humility aligns to

benevolence, a tenet of trust. Mayer, et al. (1995) describe benevolence as the willingness

of the trustee to put egocentric motives aside and do good to the trustor implying a

specific attachment between the trustee and trustor (p. 718). Benevolence is depicted as

an important basis of trust (Mayer, et al., 1995; Tschannen-Moran, 2014).

Superintendents demonstrate humility when they allow others to lead; furthermore, they

do not act for their own self-interest but for the good of others supporting Tschannen-

Moran, (2014) research that shared decision-making builds trust. According to Nora,

You know but I try to have the right people at the table. …try to remove your ego

from it and say who can best carry the water on this. …somebody knows

somebody better than me or has a better relationship, or the community is mad at

me about something then let them carry the water.

59

According to Ryan, “You’re not doing things for your personal gain, but you’re doing it

for a higher purpose. You have to be able to explain that, and you have to be able to show

that”. Additionally, Ryan stated:

Because I don’t have to be the only one that’s moving it forward. Maybe there’s a

board member that has a better relationship, maybe there’s a principal, maybe

there is one of our administrative team that’s got a better relationship. Sometimes

it’s the ability to empower people to move the agenda ahead and not having me

have to be the one that does it all the time.

Seth stated:

I think humility is one of the greatest ways to earn trust. With a group this

morning, and one of the first things I said to them is I’m not here because I have

all the answers. If you ever hear me tell you I have all the answers, you should

run.

Cara stated:

…we had the big recession where there was no money and I had always said

we're a family. …We're not going to have any elected groups who are just getting

significant raises beyond everybody else. So when we didn't have the money,

…the budget was not going well. …I had to go in and ask everybody, is it

possible that we could go for zero increases in the next contract. And they said

well your contract is settled. Does that mean you are going to take a zero increase

too? And I said I will reopen my contract and take a freeze if everybody else will.

And so in order to establish that trust, I went in and asked the board to reopen my

60

contract, and I took the freeze. Then everybody else says well she's doing it.

…We'll do it, and they did.

These findings suggest putting self-interests aside, letting others lead, putting the greater

needs of the organization ahead of the superintendent demonstrates humility showing that

the needs of others and their well-being come ahead of those of the superintendent. This

research supports the idea that the needs of the superintendent do not come before other

stakeholders’ needs. Humility is also depicted through involvement of others in the

decision-making process.

Stakeholder involvement in decision making. The respondents indicated the

importance of stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process. Stakeholder

involvement in decision making helps create a clear rationale for the decision and

mitigate conflict. Hank stated:

We just changed boundaries at 17 school sites a year ago after we did our bond

and levy, and we heard all about those pressures. First we had elementary

principals share the new boundaries. …So then we gathered input from about six

thousand people. We met with probably 2000 people. We had dozens of

community meetings, and then we put all of that information back visually for the

whole community to see.

Andy stated:

I mean the one thing that when I came in as superintendent, …we started pretty

elaborate planning processes and used task forces and focus groups. So I think

every situation is different, but every one should be well-planned, every kind of

61

decision you can see coming. …like school closings, budget cuts …all that should

be a relatively elaborate process.

According to Stan,

We had a history of not passing referendums. So now I get all the different,

various stakeholder groups, the power brokers that can help you. …I get parents

and business folks, and secondary education folks, and teachers, and you name it

and get everybody on the same page or at least be able to hear them through

listening sessions. …to do something that's budgetary and it has an impact on the

entire district, you better have all the different stakeholder groups coming in to

make that kind of decision or at least to be able to get their feedback.

Will described a situation where they involved a variety of stakeholders:

…coming back to that same [school] start time decision …we did a lot of

meetings with our district, parent leadership, our district administrative

leadership. We did board workshops. We did surveys of the community, so we

worked with the private vendor to collect additional feedback from our

stakeholders. So there were a lot of preliminary steps to collect information and

develop impressions and understand what the impact would be if we do a, b, or c.

We created multiple scenarios. We put those out for community members to

provide feedback.

These findings support the superintendent as servant through stakeholder involvement in

the decision-making process. By ascertaining multiple perspectives of stakeholder

groups, the tenet of superintendent as servant upholds the research of Maak and Pless

(2006b).

62

Regarding complex decision making with stakeholder involvement, Seth

described a situation involving negotiations:

I would say a complex decision came in the face of the week leading up to a

teacher strike. …We made the decision to have me attend mediation sessions. …I

met immediately with our federation president to start the day. We met alone.

…From there …I came to meet with the entire team, we had a team of 20 people,

25 people, various staff and we had three board members that were here as well.

And we were bargaining with three different groups. …So that was really

complex because it was far more than data or numbers that we're used to. It was

all about relationships.

I found these data suggest that stakeholder involvement is important to arrive at a

constructive solution or to create buy-in to a direction the superintendent intends to go.

As relating to referendums, for example, stakeholder input can help guide strategy.

Of noteworthy consideration, the findings do suggest, as implied from the

boundary changes and school start time decisions, feedback, input and listening is

sometimes exercised to explain a decision the superintendent would like to implement,

rather than gaining input for a solution. What may seem to be shared decision making

may in fact be illusionary. In reality the superintendent is looking to convince the

stakeholders why the decision is satisfactory in order to alleviate pushback from

stakeholders when the decision is implemented.

Superintendent as Steward a Tenet of Responsible Leadership Theory

The leader as steward is best described as “…a custodian of social, moral and

environmental values and resources” (Maak & Pless 2006a, p. 46). Maak and Pless

63

(2006b) further state, “the metaphor of the leader as steward makes reference to being a

guardian of values, a stronghold to protect personal and professional integrity, and

steering a business responsibly and respectfully, even through troubled (global) waters,

thus protecting and preserving what one is entrusted with” (p. 108). Although Maak and

Pless (2006b) refer to a business setting, this transfers easily to school districts. As

publicly funded entities the concept of stewardship is imperative for superintendents. In

addition, the steward considers the future of the voiceless stakeholder (Maak & Pless

2006b). The consideration of varying stakeholders, including those who are not voicing

their needs or wants, leads to the notion of stakeholder influence.

Stakeholder influence in the decision-making process. The findings suggest a

major impact on the decision-making process for superintendents was the influence of

stakeholders. The superintendents identified the school board as an important

stakeholder:

So obviously the school board is definitely something that I consider thoroughly.

What might they be thinking? I cut thirty-seven positions, and that's a ton for a

district my size. And so I thought about them immensely because I needed them

to approve my recommendation, my budget recommendation. (Nora)

According to Ryan:

…as a superintendent one of your key groups that you are responsible to is the

Board of Education. And I think that some people will say, well you know, you

have a rubber stamp board. That's what the superintendent’s trying to get to is

have a board where there is a relationship. That's the biggest compliment in the

world is that you have a rubber stamp board because it means you've worked

64

behind the scenes to do everything that you can. They have good information, so

that they can make an informed decision. If you've got split votes and people are

always angry with each other, then as a superintendent you're probably not, you're

not achieving at the level that you probably want to achieve.

Andy acknowledged boards can be reluctant, he described:

…if you can get a lot of data and a lot of knowledge, survey or otherwise, you use

that in an argument with a reluctant board. You know you, you become the

advocate for those stakeholders. With the gay students, I clearly became an

advocate for them, and my 13 meetings with the Federal Government and the

Office of Civil Rights because I can remember saying to our attorneys I like their

position better than our position.

In discussion of the board approving decisions, Will stated:

They've had opportunities along the way to vet things out, so they're not by any

means micro managers, but they are involved in gaining understanding and clarity

about the operations. So they don't have to question that at the actual board

meeting or the decisions being made.

The findings suggest the school board as an important stakeholder with influence but who

can also be influenced. The data suggest influencing the school board occurs through

many meetings where issues and proposed resolutions are explained. I found that

working with and influencing the board for the good of the voiceless stakeholders and for

the best interests of students is the responsibility of the superintendent.

The voiceless stakeholders and doing what is best for students. Seth talked about

vocal and powerful groups admitting decisions are not always made for the betterment of

65

students or for the organization, but rather for those who have power, and those who have

advocacy skills.

I think it'd be easy to say that we make the best decisions for the District and for

our mission, and that's not always true. We know that there are groups out there

who are very loud who are very organized. …sometimes decisions are made to

quiet them and that's just the truth. (Seth)

Supporting the role of steward as a responsible leader by giving voice to the voiceless,

Seth stated:

But I often think, why is this group getting more priority than others? And the

groups that are quiet and aren't coming forward need us and need decisions and

advocacy, just as much. …We have to advocate for the voiceless, and it can make

this work really challenging in that way. (Seth)

Cara supported the idea of doing what is best for students and other stakeholders:

…for me personally, it's like when you finally made the decision that you're going

to own, and you look yourself in the mirror and say I've done my authentic best to

do what's right for kids, or for staff, or for community.

This research suggests uniformity in further explanation that superintendents must do

what is best for students and stay true to their core values, aligning to the Langlois’

(2004) research that principles and values guide decisions. This, too, supports the

research on trust. Mayer, et al. (1995) posit that integrity is a part of trust, and it

manifests itself when the leader’s actions are consistent with their words. Reinforcing the

research on trust that includes reliability and competence posited by Tschannen-Moran

(2014), a shared premise arose stating actions, not words, lead to trust.

66

According to Stan, “If I talk it, I have to walk”. In concurrence with this

statement, “Well first of all I try to always walk my talk. So if I tell you I'm going to do

something, I'm going to do it” (Cara). She went on to say:

And if it's staff that are having an issue, what's in the best interests of students

through my lens? I will listen and they might have influence, or I will listen and I

may not take that recommendation.

Additionally:

I think sometimes people have a sense that if they have a personal relationship

with you, they have influence. So that they can get what they want when it may be

against what you have in your core values or what you have as a job

responsibility. That's probably one of the things that gets most superintendents in

trouble is when you violate your core values or you violate the standards of what

is your job. (Ryan)

These findings suggest the superintendent must weigh the influence of

stakeholders to ensure his or her core values are not compromised, and the primary

stakeholder, the students, get their needs met regardless of the demands of certain

stakeholder groups. Yet, in reality, for the school board, as elected officials with

constituencies to answer to, it is likely not as simple. As mentioned by Seth, “I think it'd

be easy to say that we make the best decisions for the District and for our mission, and

that's not always true”.

I found that the superintendent as steward requires allegiance to the best interests

of students, staying true to his or her core values and giving voice to the voiceless.

67

However, the findings suggest that dependent on the pressure of different stakeholders,

the components of stewardship may or may not be exercised in all decisions.

Additionally, when superintendents put the needs of students ahead of others

within the organization, it could be argued that rather than acting as a steward, the

superintendent is acting as an advocate. When giving voice to the voiceless,

superintendents are advocating for them going beyond good stewardship.

Superintendent as Architect a Tenet of Responsible Leadership Theory

The leader as architect creates an environment of inclusivity, in which people find

meaning, feel respected, recognized and included (Maak & Pless, 2006a, p. 47; Maak &

Pless 2006b, p. 111). In addition, the architect needs to dialogue with all relevant

stakeholders, ensuring they are a partner in achieving common objectives (Maak & Pless,

2006a; Maak & Pless, 2006b). Dialoguing with stakeholders supports the concept of

openness as a principle of trust. Openness also allows for better problem solving, as open

communication can prevent compounding the issue (Tschannen-Moran, 2014).

Bryk and Schneider (2003) describe personal regard as a component of trust that

aligns to openness. Through open communication and through reaching out to

stakeholders, a positive, supportive and trusting culture is built. The findings indicate

superintendent as architect builds a culture where stakeholders participate in decision-

making and have an understanding of how decisions are made. In addition, stakeholders

understand the decisions are for the overall good. The findings suggest that having a

process for decision making that includes stakeholders supports the concept of

superintendent as architect, while building trust.

68

Importance of stakeholders in complex decision making. The findings indicate

consistency in the use of focus groups, established committees and surveys to seek input

and involvement of stakeholders, supporting the shared decision-making model described

by Hoy and Tarter (2008). The process for making complex decisions often takes a lot of

time, especially if it involves major change. In turn, change brings to light competing

interests of stakeholders, which in turn can cause conflict.

According to Lampe (2001), “Conflict between an organization and its

stakeholders is inevitable” (p.166). Aligning to Lampe (2001), Ryan indicated

stakeholders having competing interests is natural, “Well it seems like always when

there's a complex decision is that was that you have people with competing interests.

That's just the nature of the beast. It's always that way”.

However, the data supported the value of having various or opposing viewpoints

to arrive at the best possible decision. It was stated:

I kind of pride myself on finding these absolutely dissimilar interests. Somebody

over here wants this and somebody over here wants that, and trying to find

something that's of a value to both. And when you pull them together, they share

their perspectives and ideas and there's a synergy that comes out of that, which is

a higher order level of a solution. (Ryan)

According to Nora:

So I guess there is no way getting around that conflicting viewpoints. But you try

to be really respectful and listen and incorporate their ideas whenever you can.

You try to find a win, win, if it's at all possible.

69

The research of Langlois (2004) and Jenkins (2007) noted that superintendents

have an awareness of how their decisions will affect others. I found this was consistent

with respondents who further indicated one must give rationale and be able to anticipate

stakeholder questions when making complex decisions. Will discussed the importance of

giving rationale for a decision. He states:

And I think if you have good clarity in your decision making. …it's hard to argue

against. …I think a complex decision completed or made without rationale and

[without] pre thinking the answers to almost every question that might come up,

makes it more difficult to implement. But if you can at least respond with you

know we thought about that and we realized that we never found a good way to

fix it. But we had to move forward. Because we felt that this met the greatest

number of objectives on that complex decision. (Will)

The above data seemingly endorse benevolence and openness as tenets of trust stated by

Bryk and Schneider (2003) and Tschannen-Moran (2014). The findings indicate the

superintendents listen to stakeholders who have conflicting interests and attempt to find

common ground or a win-win solution; however, ultimately a complex decision does not

satisfy all stakeholders, yet the decision is made. I found from the research the

superintendents believe through listening, answering questions and giving rationale, trust

will not be lost even when the result was not what the stakeholder wanted.

Complex decisions involving stakeholders with conflicting interests. Nora gave

an example of a complex decision involving stakeholders who were opposed to a

decision. It was the decision to add Spanish as an elementary special rotation. She

described a large amount of pushback from the community because the language offered

70

was not German. The decision was made to offer Spanish. Three years later, there is no

issue.

An additional example of a time when a complex decision was made affecting

stakeholders with conflicting interests was the changing of school start times.

We did a lot of meetings with our district, with parent leadership, and with our

district administrative leadership. We did board workshops. We did surveys of the

community. …So even though I said this several times, even though I recognize

that that is a concern, I felt my role as school superintendent was to bring the best

educational decision forward for the school board to make a decision. …I know

that there are some negative, peripheral factors for individual families, but I don't

think I can accommodate all of those and still meet that goal of delivering the best

educational solution. (Will)

Conversely, the research indicated including stakeholders in the decision-making process,

giving rationale for a decision, and doing what is best for students does not always yield

support by all stakeholders. Nora discussed those constituents who may never understand

a decision:

Sometimes it's just not possible [to find a win], but if people feel heard it's a little

bit better. Not always better because some people, I have learned, will never

forgive you and you're done as far as they're concerned.

Cara stated, “You have to be able to live with some cognitive dissonance and then make a

decision”. She goes on to say:

And when I look at that, for me personally, it's like when you finally made the

decision that you're going to own it, and you look yourself in the mirror and say

71

I've done my authentic best to do what's right for kids, or for staff, or for

community. (Cara)

The findings suggest at times superintendents will make a decision that some

stakeholders are still dissatisfied with. However, the superintendent makes the decision

that is for the good of students or the betterment of the organization as a whole, rather

than individuals.

Furthermore, the findings indicate the superintendency becomes more

complicated in the relationship with the school board. If the school board is not willing to

take pushback from certain stakeholders, they may not support the superintendent. In this

situation, the role of superintendent as architect moves back to the role of superintendent

as steward. As a responsible leader, the superintendent must then work to bring the

school board along to support the decision in order to bring about change. This is when

the superintendent moves into the role of change agent.

Superintendent as Change Agent a Tenet of Responsible Leadership Theory

The leader as change agent is responsible for mobilizing stakeholders to build

commitment, while keeping forward movement when change causes insecurity (Maak &

Pless, 2006a, p. 48; Maak & Pless, 2006b, p.112). In addition, a leader as change agent

implements change in a caring and responsible manner (Maak & Pless 2006a; Maak &

Pless 2006b). The research depicting benevolence as a tenet of trust supports the concept

of superintendent as change agent. As stated by scholars, school leaders can increase trust

through demonstrating caring between school leaders and stakeholders (Tschannen-

Moran, 2014; Smylie, Murphy, & Seashore Louis, 2016).

72

The superintendent as change agent brings about change that is best for the

students and the organization, while bringing along all stakeholders in the process. In

congruence with the research on reliability as a tenet of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014), a

theme emerged that trust comes from having a good process for decision making. The

findings indicate that having a good process helps limit pushback from those in

opposition to the decision, which in turn indicates some level of trust. It was stated:

You know, when you talk about decision making, very rarely I'm the final

decision, but many times when I have the final decision on a question, we've

brought it through a big process. (Hank)

According to Stan, “If there's no trust in you or in the organization or in the process, then

you're dead in the water”.

However, the findings suggest that getting 100 percent buy-in and satisfaction is

nearly impossible. According to Will, “People don't like change period. So anything that

requires a change, I think, is going to be complex and challenging”. He went on to say:

…my own natural style is to try to find the happy medium that will make

everybody happy, and what you eventually have to come to [is] the realization

that no matter how hard you work, you're not going to get it to the point where

there's 100 percent satisfaction or buy in.

Since 100 percent satisfaction may not be reasonable, the findings suggest the use of data

helped superintendents explain the rationale for their decisions.

73

Research and data use when acting as change agent. Each superintendent

interviewed stated they use data for making decisions. Will stated the complexity of the

decision determined the degree to which research was reviewed.

For example, we recently made a change to our school start times and that was a

very comprehensive review process where a lot of materials were reviewed,

survey data was collected from families and staff members and community. We

went through a pretty thorough analysis with that and put together a very

comprehensive packet that summarized the research and outlined the

recommendation and the implementation plan.

(Will)

The research indicated superintendents referred to data, first and foremost, as the

research they reviewed to guide their decision-making process. They went on to report

researching best practices for the assurance that something implemented has positive

outcomes was a priority. According to Cara, “Well best practices are the way to go. I

don’t believe you have to reinvent the wheel if someone else can give you some really

good insight”. Similar to Cara, Stan confirmed Cara’s comment, “Show me someplace

that this has been successful and the evidence that goes with it”.

The findings suggest that reading professional journals, literature provided by

professional organizations, and books for the benefit of one’s own professional learning

was significant. It was further acknowledged that others on their administrative team also

possess great knowledge of their respective areas and superintendents rely on their

knowledge to help with decision making. Ryan opined:

74

The other thing is that you don't have to be the smartest person in the room if

you're the superintendent. You have to know the smartest person in the room and

you have to be able to call up the smartest person in the room. (Ryan)

The findings suggest knowing and understanding the community can build trust and lead

to positive decision making. In alignment with the research from Khalifa et al. (2015) that

the community must trust the schools to enact reform, Seth stated the most important

kind of research is knowing your community and how the decisions will affect them. Seth

stated this is the utmost type of research.

I think the best research is to understand your local community and how decisions

are going to impact them. …I think that good grassroots understanding of how

decisions will impact those it's intended to or how they could possibly affect those

it's not intended to is really important. (Seth)

It was asserted that making recommendations based on research helps acquire

buy-in from stakeholders, and research adds value to the conversation. Andy stated that

providing data can provide comfort. He explained:

I looked at a lot of data during that time because we had the six suicides in a year

and a half. …And it was comforting only in the sense that the statistics given on

the Minnesota Student Survey said 17% attempted suicide. …it's discouraging

data, but it gave me some comfort to say it was not a contagion of sorts. It was a

cluster that happened over a period of time. (Andy)

The findings suggest that stakeholders need to understand the rationale behind a decision,

which data justifies. Superintendent as change agent is dependent on data to bring

concrete reasoning to what changes he or she wants to implement.

75

Superintendent as change agent must have trust between himself or herself and

stakeholders if stakeholders are going to support any change the superintendent wants to

institute. This is supported by the research of Khalifa et al., (2015) that states before

schools can initiate reform that requires parent support, building trust with the

community is necessary. The findings correspond to the prior statements signifying

relationships and approachability as necessary factors to build and sustain trust. It was

expressed by those interviewed that daily engagement with stakeholders builds trust. “It's

during all the time when you're not collecting the feedback. And I think your community

wants to see you out and about engaging and being conversational, being visible, being

present” (Will).

Listening and then taking appropriate actions build trust. According to Cara, “You

just can't listen because you have to take action. That shows them that you're leading in

the right direction”. It was indicated that trust is the work you do before you make a

decision. Referencing building trust as key to passing referendums, it was stated:

I've had people ask me before, so what's the most important thing to do in the

three months before a referendum. While there are important things to do, what's

more important is what did you do in the three years before the referendum. How

did you position yourself, and how did your teachers and staff engage with the

community? (Will)

The findings from this research indicate that superintendent as change agent must

build relationships with stakeholders, while providing rationale that is meaningful in

order to build trust with stakeholders. In turn, trust between stakeholders and the

superintendent will move changes forward. Furthermore, without trust, the likelihood of

76

change taking place is extremely unlikely. Building relationships with stakeholders

requires the superintendent to participate with the community, upholding the Responsible

Leadership tenet of superintendent as citizen.

Superintendent as Citizen a Tenet of Responsible Leadership Theory

The leader as citizen is a part of the community and committed to civic matters

(Maak & Pless 2006b; Stone-Johnson, 2014). Maak and Pless (2006b) contend that being

an active and reflective citizen leads to positive outcomes for both the organization and

the community (p. 108). The leader recognizes the organization and community are

connected to each other (Maak & Pless 2006b). The findings suggest the superintendent

as citizen is demonstrated through participation in community groups and activities

consistently linking the school district to the community acknowledging the importance

of the connection of the two.

Multiple superintendents stated that by participating in community organizations,

the needs of varying stakeholders come to light. Seth stated, “You know I'm involved in a

lot of board and governance work outside, both within and outside of the district, … for

that important work”. Ryan stated:

When I came into the …District. I wasn't quite in tune with who the business

leaders were because there's not a real big business community here. So I joined

the chamber of commerce got on the Chamber Commerce Board. Spent eight

years as one of the chamber board members. That helped me to have that network.

Stan discussed visiting with mayors and elected officials to find out their needs, along

with the elders and faith-based groups of the community. Will stated learning who the

77

stakeholders are arises from knowing who may have connection to the district and

participation in groups.

[How he would learn who stakeholders are] would be through our community

education programs and various community organizations that have peripheral

connections to the school district. So we would probably discover who our

business clientele would be through participation in the Chamber of Commerce

activities or Rotary or other types of service organizations. (Will)

This research suggests the superintendent deems citizenry an important part of the role of

superintendent through participation in civic groups. In this role, the superintendent is

representing the district and connecting the district to the greater community. Although

these organizations may not be directly impacted by the decisions superintendents make,

the findings support there are likely indirect impacts. The findings suggest community

groups are important stakeholders, yet not necessarily primary stakeholders as day to day

decisions do not directly impact them. As in the examples of passing referendums, the

need for community support is undeniable as they are the voters.

The findings from this research support that superintendents act in the roles of

servant, steward, architect, change agent and citizen when working with or considering

stakeholders in their decision-making process. In these various roles, trust is established

with stakeholders in order to mitigate pushback from stakeholders who may disagree with

a decision, give voice to the voiceless stakeholder, while gaining support for decisions

superintendents make.

Significance of Stakeholders

Understanding stakeholder identity

78

There was no uniform answer as to whom the stakeholders are. Superintendents

interviewed listed students, staff, parents and the community as stakeholders. This is not

inconsistent with the literature as Heifetz (2006) contends that teachers, parents and peers

are stakeholders, but Heifetz did not include the community, while Khalifa et al. (2015)

specifically discuss the community as an important stakeholder. However, the findings

note students are consistently mentioned as a stakeholder, while also including a broader

response by the inclusion of everyone as a stakeholder. Hank stated:

It's really topical because ultimately it's always our students and parents and

community. Those are always our stakeholders but our staff members are always

in that mix too because they're the deliverers of service to our community students

and parents.

Andy concurred, “…you look at students, you look at these students’ families.” Stan

stated:

It depends on the moment. So you're going to have students. We're in education

so students are #1 one stakeholder group for me. Staff, teachers, licensed or non-

licensed, anybody in a building. I mean you're going to have parents because

they're giving you their greatest asset. …So parents, that [and] getting the

community folks and your community partners whether it's Chamber or Rotary or

different civic organizations, or religious organizations.

Nora discussed the broader inclusion of everyone, “Everybody [is a stakeholder]. It's a

really political job so you cannot leave anybody out”. In agreement, Seth identified that

the situation drives who the stakeholders. “So I think when it comes to it, we have to do a

79

great job of understanding that really everyone's a stakeholder in education whether they

know it or not”. According to Cara,

I always feel that if you start in the center, the most important stakeholder for an

educational organization is the student. That's part of my philosophy is that

students first and then if you have the student in the middle, you're looking to

support them. You have a collaboration between parents, you have community

and you have staff, and they should be guiding and supporting the process.

The findings indicated the importance of a specific stakeholder, the school board.

One superintendent stated:

…you would have the school board. They’re a governance organization, but they

are a key stakeholder because they're decision makers in the process. (Cara)

According to Andy, “Clearly you report to the school board. I mean they're your boss. So

clearly they are your stakeholder as a superintendent” While Stan affirmed, “You've got

to always pay attention to the board and they can tell you perspectives too because that's

hopefully your boss.”

The identification of the school board as a stakeholder due to their position of

authority over the superintendent is an indicator of the uniqueness of the superintendent

school board relationship. The school board serves as the only authority to approve or

reject a proposal from the superintendent. This power differential shows the distinction

between the superintendent school board relationship and that of the relationship the

superintendent has with other stakeholders. As other stakeholders influence

superintendent decision making, they do not serve in the same power dynamic as the

school board superintendent relationship.

80

When asked how superintendents find out who stakeholders are, a specific

response was, “Well they find you, there's no problem with that” (Ryan), while another

said, “Sometimes they let you know without actually seeking it” (Stan). A common

response was being members of different community organizations and groups as an

excellent way to get connected to various stakeholders. These findings are consistent to

Maak, (2007) and Maak & Pless, (2006b) contentions that responsible leadership

includes stakeholders that are outside the organization.

Identifying stakeholders is a crucial part of the superintendency. As complex

decisions are made by superintendents regularly, not recognizing stakeholders may

negatively impact the support of complex decisions. These findings suggest, when

decisions affect multiple stakeholders the decision is likely more complex than other

decisions. This was supported by the respondents in a shared reply that when a decision

will not make everyone happy, yet will affect multiple stakeholders, it is complex. Will

stated that it mostly relates to how many stakeholders are affected. Additionally he states,

“You eventually have to come to the realization is that no matter how hard you work,

you're not going to get it to the point where there's 100 percent satisfaction or buy in.”

(Will)

Ryan stated:

You know nine times out of ten you're going to ultimately get what you what you

want. It's not what you do, it's how you do it. …And so I've really learned over

the years, sometimes slow is fast because if you go off and you screw it up,

81

you've lost that ability to maybe have the people that you need to have in the

decision. They're going to spend their energy against you versus with you.

Although not all stakeholders will be happy with a decision, slowing down and listening

to stakeholders may ultimately lead to less backlash. It is not always necessary to have

everyone agree or be happy with a final decision; sometimes it is about the ability to

accept a decision that a particular stakeholder group is not in favor. This acceptance

allows the organization to move forward with implementation of the change versus

spending energy on contending with those opposed to it.

The findings suggest, as stakeholders lend complexity to the decisions, decisions

can be misleading as to the degree of their complexity. It was expressed that seemingly

simple decisions can become complex quickly, “Sometimes though when you say a

simple problem, I smile, because some of the things that look the simplest, and you make

the snap decision, turn out to be the more complex” (Cara). “Sometimes the ones that

surprise you or bite you are the ones that you think are a simple decision, but they're

really not simple” (Ryan).

Examples of complex decisions were changing school start times, budget cuts,

and going out for a referendum. These examples include an impact on many stakeholders,

indicating the more various stakeholders are impacted by a decision, the more complex

the decision becomes.

Priority of stakeholders. Several respondents stated that the situation dictated

who the stakeholders are. When asked who the stakeholders are some responses were, “it

depends on the moment” (Stan); “it’s topical” (Hank); “it’s situational” (Cara); “it

depends on what the decision is” (Seth). However, these statements were followed by

82

“but students are the #1 stakeholder” (Stan), “ultimately, it’s always students” (Hank),

“At the center is the most important stakeholder, and that’s the student (Cara), “how will

it affect student achievement” (Seth). Therefore, the findings suggest the student is the

highest priority stakeholder. Although the school board, staff, parents, community were

repeatedly mentioned as stakeholders, seven out of the eight superintendents stated the

student as a central stakeholder multiple times throughout the interview.

Based on the above findings, I posit that stakeholder groups can be described as

either primary or ancillary stakeholders. According to Merriam-Webster, primary is

defined as “something that stands first in rank, importance, or value” (“primary”,

2019). The purpose of the decision affects the outcomes for the primary stakeholders.

Superintendents’ decisions ultimately have a direct impact on students, the collective

organization and individual staff.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, ancillary can be defined as, “providing

support or help” (“ancillary”, 2019). The ancillary stakeholders support the work or the

decision made by the superintendent. The decision may have an impact on them, but they

are not a primary focus for the decision being made. The influence of ancillary

stakeholders was important to superintendents as it applied to what is best for students.

The school board was ranked as very high since they approve the recommendation of the

superintendent. According to Nora:

So obviously the school board is definitely something that I consider thoroughly.

What might they be thinking. So last week, unfortunately, I cut thirty-seven

positions and that's a ton for a district my size. And so I thought about them

83

immensely because I needed them [school board] to approve my

recommendation, my budget recommendation.

The next two sections describe primary and ancillary stakeholders as indicated from the

research.

Primary Stakeholders

Students as primary stakeholders. Students are first and foremost the primary

stakeholder as all decisions are directly or indirectly about and for them and their

achievement. The primary purpose of public education is for the educational outcomes of

students. Although five out of the eight superintendents interviewed stated that everyone

is a stakeholder, all eight superintendents mentioned the students either directly or

indirectly. Will, Stan, Hank, Andy, Ryan and Cara stated directly the student is a

stakeholder, while Cara affirmed, “I always feel that if you start in the center the most

important stakeholder for an educational organization is the student”. Stan stated, “You're

going to have students. We're in education so students [are the] #1 one stakeholder group

for me”. In addition, Stan expressed “For me if it doesn't benefit a student then why are

we doing it?”. Both Hank and Seth discussed student impact and student achievement

when considering who the stakeholders are. These findings support the assertion that

students are the primary stakeholder.

However, the data reveal a disconnect when asked about how they learn what the

interests of stakeholders are. None of the superintendents mentioned they learn from

students what their interests are. This seems to indicate a disconnect between the primacy

of students as stakeholder, and the student having a voice in what is best for them. This

seems to imply a lack of student voice in the decision-making process of superintendents.

84

Yet, even without students’ voice in stating their own self-interests, superintendents

stated they still consider them as a primary stakeholder when making decisions.

Collective organization as a primary stakeholder. The collective organization

is also a primary stakeholder in that decisions impact the organization. The responsibility

of the superintendent is to make decisions that support the entirety of the organization

versus an individual stakeholder. A superintendent cannot put the good of the

organization behind that of an outside entity because they would not be fulfilling their

duty as leader of the organization.

Similar to the research by Jenkins (2007), several superintendents mentioned staff

as a stakeholder. Hank stated, “Our staff members are always in that mix too because

they're the deliverers of service to our community students and parents”. Nora discussed

a construction project in an elementary building and had to consider the staff who would

be working in the building in the near and distant future. Will, Stan, Ryan and Cara stated

specifically that staff are stakeholders.

Individual staff as a primary stakeholder. Individual staff are also stakeholders

as they are impacted by decisions the superintendent makes, whether it is in the area of

budget cuts or duty assignments. Staff were specifically mentioned as stakeholders by

five of the eight superintendents interviewed. In an example of budget cuts, Nora

explained:

So last week, unfortunately, I cut thirty-seven positions and that's a ton for a

district my size. …then I thought about my teaching staff and my

paraprofessionals everybody that was going to be cut. …So I think about them

and deeply. The longer you've been in a district, obviously, you know them better.

85

…I started mentally walking through each building who is going to get cut.

…You know I'm putting a name to it because I know them. …I think that I can

almost perseverate on those kinds of issues because I know that it's going to be

really critical to somebody.

Staff are an important consideration of superintendents when making complex budget

decisions as staff make up over 80% of district budgets. Therefore, staff are an important

stakeholder.

Superintendent. As superintendent, he or she is responsible to all of the

stakeholders in his or her decision-making process. As the leader of the organization, I

suggest the superintendent is indeed a stakeholder. Though their needs should not be

placed ahead of the needs of the other stakeholders. Ryan expressed:

That's probably one of the things that gets most superintendents in trouble is when

you violate your core values or you violate the standards of what is your job. And

there's, it's you’re constantly being tugged on all the time. And so you have to just

really have strong core values and beliefs, belief structure, that you are not going

to violate your own professional and personal ethics to allow influence in a way

that's not going to align with what you believe in.

In addition, the idea that a decision made by the superintendent with approval of the

Board may not be the best decision, thus alluding that the superintendent is not all-

knowing. Cara noted:

Now there is sometimes when you're so insulated and you feel that you've just

made just exactly the right programmatic decisions in staffing and in program and

you roll it out to the board and the board’s in agreement and all of a sudden

86

you've got parents who are saying that is not in the best interest of my child. We

really, we really want that program and we want to know some rationale. We

don't feel listened to, and in some cases you look at that and you really listen and

you say not only do they have influence but they have a perspective that has

merit. And so I think you have to be able to walk around the problem, and saying

yes it has merit and we are going to tweak something around here or we're going

to change or we're going to admit and move forward because it's valid.

Through the acknowledgement that a decision may not have been the best one, builds

trust with stakeholders. The recognition that all decisions made by the superintendent are

not always the best decisions leads to the notion of humility.

“I think humility is one of the greatest ways to earn trust as well” (Seth). Ryan

stated, “So in order to get that trust I think people have to know that you're not doing

things for your personal gain, but you're doing it for a higher purpose”. The attribute of

humility is analogous to integrity which is a component of trust (Mayer, et al., 1995,

Bryk & Schneider, 2003). “The relationship between integrity and trust involves the

perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable”

(Mayer, et al., 1995, p. 719). Humility exhibited by the superintendent fosters trust with

all stakeholders, including those that I consider ancillary stakeholders.

Ancillary Stakeholders

School Board as an ancillary stakeholder. The school board is considered an

ancillary stakeholder because the decisions are not about them but about student and

organizational outcomes. However, according to the research, the school board does play

an extremely important role, indicating that ancillary stakeholders do not imply they are

87

unimportant stakeholders. Their importance stems from their ability to approve or to not

approve a superintendent’s request, or support his or her decision. This could ultimately

lead to decisions that negatively affect student groups.

In addition, if school board support of the superintendent’s decisions is

continually lacking, the superintendent may have to consider alternative employment.

According to Ryan, “…you have a board that's just a rebel board that's going to do

whatever they want. And at that point then you just have to decide within your own core

values is this a place that I want to work”.

The school board as a stakeholder wields power in its ability to approve or reject

decisions a superintendent brings forward. Therefore, while the School Board may be an

ancillary stakeholder, the superintendent school board relationship is very important

substantiating the school board as a very important stakeholder.

Relationship with the Board. The relationship between the superintendent and

school board is extremely important to ensure decisions made by the superintendent are

supported by the School Board. Ryan, “So you either develop relationships with people

to where they [and you] are thinking the same about a lot of [the] direction for the

district, and that's when you have a rubber stamp board”.

In addition, the research suggests the superintendent school board relationship is

further built by ensuring the Board is not publicly embarrassed or made to look

incompetent. Cara stated, “I think some of that is to really prepare the board and let them

see what it is and don't embarrass the board by bringing them things that they can't

support either without the proper background”. Hank stated, “So I work with the board all

88

the time to make sure that they realize my job is to make them look like competent

leaders as the board”.

The school board superintendent relationship is important for the decision-making

process of superintendents. Supporting the research of competence and reliability as

tenets of trust by Tschannen-Moran (2014), the school board needs to trust the decisions

the superintendent brings forward are for the good of the stakeholders.

Lack of support for a decision by the school board. There was consensus the

respondents work diligently to move forward decisions that the School Board can

support. Regarding bringing decisions to the board, it was stated, “Well I'll tell you we

don't get there. I either get our board there, or there is no point in doing it” (Hank). It was

also asserted:

Because we have such a well-defined committee structure with our school board,

we have a lot of committees that operate and meet monthly. We have lots of

opportunities for discussion, not only there, but also on our work sessions each

month. I mean if it's a time to get a critical vote or decision, we vetted it out

together carefully and with so much time and detail. I can't really think of a time

when I felt, I don't think this is going to pass. For me a goal is to get a seven to

zero vote on every decision that goes to the board and that almost always

happens. (Will)

In relation to bringing forward decisions the board can support, a shared response

was the priority to treat School Board members with dignity and respect, and to never

embarrass them. According to Hank, “And so I work with the board all the time to make

sure that they realize my job is to make them look like competent leaders”. In addition,

89

Cara stated, “I think some of that is to really prepare the board and let them see what it is

and don't embarrass the board by bringing them things that they can't support either

without the proper background”. According to Ryan, “I don't take things out to the public

that I know aren't going to be supported by the board because there's no reason to do that.

That's my one of my core values, I'm not going to embarrass them”.

Alongside the importance of the school board superintendent relationship the data

also suggested the importance of the relationship among board members. The research

suggests the importance of individual board members working with each other, especially

if there is disagreement.

Some of it is working with other board members, so that the other board members

can give the information to another board member. So it's not you as the

administration beating them over the head, it's another board member having a

conversation with them off campus or whatever so they can do that differently”

(Stan).

Seth stated, “One is keeping my Board Executive Group Chair, Vice-Chair and

Treasurer informed and meeting with them frequently as a group, just so there are

no surprises”. Nora stated, “I've had bad board situations, you try to work through

chair”.

However, in contrast, superintendents stated you have to do the right thing even if

the school board wants a different outcome. Cara stated she had to remind the school

board they have one employee, and it is the superintendent. Cara discussed a situation

when the students, staff, community and the governor asked for the resignation of one of

the school board members who had posted racist comments on social media. The school

90

board member wanted her to discipline the staff member, she refused and reminded him

that he could discipline her if he saw fit. Andy had a conversation with the school board

chair regarding a personnel issue. The board chair did not want him to bring forward, for

board approval, the termination of a principal. He said he was going to bring it forward

and lost on a four to two vote.

These examples are explicit times when the superintendent went against the board

and in one case a decision was not approved indicating a contrasting response to those

that stated they do not bring forward decisions that will not be approved.

Outcome of going against the school board with a decision. It was stated by

most superintendents interviewed that the school board supported them in their decisions.

This confirms the previous responses regarding keeping the school board informed

through various meetings and communications in order for the school board to support

the superintendents’ decisions.

Will stated he could only remember one time when he did not have a seven to

zero vote, while Ryan said, “I don't take things out to the public that I know aren't going

to be supported by the board because there's no reason to do that”.

However, Andy described two situations where he went against the chair of the

school board and he stated:

I mean your life actually goes before your eyes and you realize you could be fired.

In either of those cases, I could have been fired. And I always thought I probably

didn't have a third one of those three strikes. I'd probably would have been

looking for a job. (Andy)

91

Stan discussed a time that he thought all the school board members were in agreement

with a decision and at the board table they changed their minds. He stated the situation

revolved around an addition to the high school for a gymnastics studio:

It's a big public meeting. …you have everybody organized and scripted and given

all the information. And one board member, who supposedly understood it and

had the most senior experience, said …we need do it, and we should tell the

superintendent that he needs to commit. So the other board members who were on

the other side of it, said we'll drop everything, we'll do it your way. …it was

committing the board to this [situation]. And so now I'm feeling massively

betrayed. (Stan)

The uniqueness of the superintendent school board relationship is evident from

the data. The importance of the school board supporting the superintendent is clear.

However, the data from this study suggest the decisions superintendents make are

ultimately for the good of students and the organization and they utilize the school board

for support of those decisions.

Parents as ancillary stakeholders. Although parents and families were indicated

as an important stakeholder by the respondents, I theorize they are ancillary stakeholders.

Parents at times want what is best for them, versus what is best for children. Take for

instance school start times, the superintendent did what was best for students, not parents.

Will stated regarding school start times:

And you're right it is going to impact some family budgets because now some

families are going to need to make different accommodations for after school, and

they're going to have to pay for some additional care. …even though I recognize

92

that that is a concern, I felt my role as school superintendent was to bring the best

educational decision forward for the school board to make a decision. So I feel

I've done that based on developmental needs and our ability to implement, with

quality, and I know that there are some negative peripheral factors for individual

families, but I don't think I can accommodate all of those and still meet that goal

of delivering the best educational solution.

Nora discussed a time she did what she thought was best for students with pushback from

parents:

When I came I decided that we were going to put Spanish as an elementary

special rotation. So we have music, we have art, phy. ed, we have Spanish, but the

kids rotate through. And that caused a furor in the community like you cannot

imagine. A website popped up and it was, doesn't she know our Germanic roots.

…it was really racist stuff. And so I used my team and we talked about it. Talk

about what's happening in the community and is the juice worth the squeeze, you

know. …we ended up putting it in. And I would say up until maybe three years

ago, we'd still have parents that balked at it. Now we never hear a word, never

hear a word.

As noted, although the parents are an important stakeholder, the ultimate decision

made by a superintendent is for what is best for the child supporting the assertion that

parents are ancillary stakeholders and not primary stakeholders.

Community as ancillary stakeholders. The community can be affected by

decisions the superintendent makes. An example of being affected by a decision can be

93

through monetary resources, such as taxes. Asking the community to approve a

referendum is a major decision for the superintendent and can have a considerable impact

on the local taxpayer.

Andy stated the taxpaying public is an important stakeholder and you need to

learn about what they will support or reject when it comes to bond or levy referendums.

The taxpaying public is comprised of various stakeholders. When asked about a time they

had to make a complex decision and include various stakeholders, Stan described this

situation:

The referendum. And so we didn't pass a referendum. So now the steps we did to

get to a successful one. So [we] started out with listening groups. We hired an

independent firm to come in and help us conduct 13 or 14 different listening

sessions throughout the community, and gather feedback. And now you've invited

anybody within that section to come into this. So you have parents and

community members and business folks that came in and gave you their ear or

took your ear apart or wanted to help you pass the next one.

Cara described a situation she faced:

…two years ago as you know we went out for our bond and we lost. And our

process was, we took the three things we wanted to do lumped it into one

question, worked with a very reliable firm in St. Paul and did all of our polling. It

said it would pass …we thought was like maybe a 70 percent rate. What we

weren't counting on was a real nucleus of opposition that surfaced in social media.

That was like a daily, daily drip, drip, drip and that it was a special election and

the people that were the 70 percent that said yes we'll vote for this. …And enough

94

of them stayed home, [and] this nucleus of people that were the vote no actually

defeated us by 98 votes.

Businesses as members of the community would be considered an ancillary

stakeholder because they are affected by a future workforce that schools are developing.

Nonetheless, the decisions superintendents make are designed first and foremost for

positive student outcomes, not for the success of the business. Consider Will’s comments

about employers as stakeholders:

I would also say maybe in a larger scheme the state employers and probably

national and even international employers, now we're part of the pipeline that

prepares talent for the future. So it's kind of an international worldwide

constituent base I guess but probably has lesser impact or a lesser degree of

constituency.

The findings suggest that the community, along with the business as a part of the

community, are stakeholders, yet since direct decisions are for the benefit of students and

the organization, they are considered ancillary stakeholders. Additionally, five of the

eight respondents indicated everyone is a stakeholder. Although superintendents know

the stakeholders are numerous, it was repeatedly suggested that students are the primary

consideration for the decisions made.

Conclusion

The findings support the importance of many stakeholders, reportedly, students,

staff, parents, community and the school board. However, the superintendents

interviewed discussed students as the center or the primary stakeholder. In addition to

students, the school board seemed to be the focus in the final decision-making process for

95

the superintendents. Although, it was mentioned that one should be willing to lose their

job in order to make the right decision, the idea of bringing a decision to the school board

that they could not support overrode the ideal of self-sacrifice for the well-being of

students in most cases.

It could be interpreted that in most cases, superintendents will do what is best for

students. Therefore, if the school board is not in agreement, superintendents will continue

meeting with the school board until they know they will approve the decision at the board

table.

The following chapter will describe a decision-making theory that arose from the

research from this study and from the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. The formative

theory will show how the balance of stakeholders is important for superintendents to

consider in their decision-making process.

CHAPTER V

Statement of the Problem

The decisions superintendents make impact stakeholders. Savage, Nix,

Whitehead, and Blair (1991) define stakeholders as individuals, groups or other

organizations who have an interest in (and the ability to influence) the organization (p.

61). Stakeholders consist of people at the building, district and community levels (Stone-

Johnson, 2014). When the interests of stakeholders align with the decision-making

process used by superintendents, the role of the stakeholder lessens (Lampe, 2001,

p.165). However, according to Lampe (2001), “When conflict arises between an

organization and one or more of its stakeholders, the possibility of damage to the

96

organization may be substantial” (p. 165). Although conflict is a natural occurrence in an

organization, it can be further complicated by the varying interests of stakeholders.

Since the decisions superintendents face affect stakeholders, trust between the

superintendent and stakeholders is significant to ensure stakeholder support.

Demonstrating care is a key component of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Smylie,

Murphy, & Seashore Louis, 2016); consequently, it can be stated that leaders, through the

act of caring, will likely build trust with stakeholders. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016)

posit that leaders who demonstrate the ethic of care must consider multiple voices in the

decision-making process (p. 17). Therefore, understanding how superintendents consider

and/or prioritize stakeholders in their decision-making process is important. Yet, there is

limited information about the priority superintendents give to different stakeholder

groups when making complex decisions.

Brief Description of Grounded Theory

Grounded theory was the method employed in this research. According to

Charmaz (2014), “…grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible

guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories from the data

themselves” (p.1). The intent of grounded theory is to move beyond description and to

discover a theory (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

According to Glesne (2011), “Grounded theory is not a theory in itself, but a

methodology for developing theory that is “grounded” in data” (p. 21). Similarly, Glaser

and Strauss (1999), define grounded theory as the discovery of theory from data (p. 1);

the development of the theory may help “…explain practice or provide a framework for

97

further research” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 82). The intent of this study is to formulate a

theory at the substantive level (Glaser & Strauss, 2008) based on data collected

concerning decision making of superintendents as it relates to the consideration of

stakeholders when making complex decisions.

Research Questions

The research questions guiding this study are:

1) To what extent do superintendents consider the influence of varying

stakeholders when making complex decisions?

2) How does the superintendent’s perception of trust by stakeholders influence his

or her decision-making process?

3) How do superintendents, as responsible leaders, prioritize varying stakeholders'

needs when making complex decisions?

Responsible Leadership Theory and Stakeholders

Maak and Pless (2006a) “…define responsible leadership as the art of building

and sustaining morally sound relationships with all relevant stakeholders of an

organization” (p. 5). Stakeholders are the key to Responsible Leadership Theory. The

following developing theory supports the tenets of Responsible Leadership Theory, yet

gives superintendents or aspiring superintendents a more explicit way of thinking about

their decision-making process and how they consider the needs and wants of

stakeholders.

Wehrkamp’s Decision-making Theory

98

In review of the data, I have concluded that no one stakeholder group lacks

importance, rather the superintendent must balance the needs and desires of various

stakeholders, supporting Responsible Leadership theory coined by Maak and Pless

(2006a). However, the data signal that stakeholders can be positioned into two categories,

primary stakeholders and ancillary stakeholders. Although primary indicates importance

by its natural definition, it does not mean ancillary stakeholders are not important: I posit

they play a different role in consideration for the superintendent when making decisions.

Primary stakeholders are those most readily affected by decisions of

superintendents and for whom the superintendent is primarily responsible. Primary

stakeholders are students, the collective organization, and individual staff. Although the

priority of superintendents is primary stakeholders, this does not mean superintendents

are not accountable to ancillary stakeholders. For example, superintendents are obligated

to be good stewards of monetary resources as public schools are funded by taxpayers.

Consequently, the superintendent is accountable to taxpayers, yet the primary

responsibility of the superintendent is to primary stakeholders.

Ancillary stakeholders are parents, the community and the school board. Since the

decisions superintendents make may impact parents and the community, they are

important stakeholders. In addition, while the school board has to approve many of the

decisions brought forward to them, they are particularly important. Yet, since the

decisions are not about school board, community or parents, they are considered ancillary

stakeholders.

When thinking about the positionality of primary stakeholders, students must

remain not only in the primary stakeholder category, they need to be at the forefront of all

99

decisions. The purpose of public schools is educating students; therefore, students are the

primary consideration when decisions are made. Imagine a superintendent visualizing

stakeholders on a road as a way of thinking about positionality of stakeholders in the

decision-making process. The picture below shows a road with the student placed at the

beginning of the road.

Figure 2 Primary Stakeholders/Students

This picture depicts the student as not only a primary stakeholder, but the one

who is closest and largest in the visual. The findings suggest that what is best for students

has to be the impetus for decisions, even if they are contradictory to the wants of other

stakeholders.

Additionally, when diversity within student groups exist, marginalization of

certain student groups may occur. This is when the superintendent acts as an advocate for

100

the marginalized students to elevate and empower them to an equal status of the non-

marginalized student groups.

Although the needs of students have to be at the forefront of the superintendent’s

thought process, the needs of the organization are also important and must be considered

by the superintendent. The organization itself is a primary stakeholder. When thinking of

decisions that impact the organization as a whole, a superintendent’s decision must not

satisfy an outside organization by placing the district in a compromising position. This

indicates faulty decision making. See the visual below showing the collective

organization on the road but behind the student and a bit smaller in size.

Figure 3 Primary Stakeholders/Collective Organization

As a superintendent considers individual staff and the staff person’s place in the

decision-making process, staff, too, are primary stakeholders. Although the needs of an

individual staff person cannot come ahead of the good of an organization or the students,

he or she is still important because of his or her role in the organization. Consider Nora’s

concern for the individual employees when she had to discontinue employment due to

101

lack of resources. She discussed how difficult that decision was because of her

relationship to individual staff members. However, the cuts had to be made for the

sustainability of the overall organization.

The visual below shows the road, but this time with the individual staff further

back on the road behind the collective organization.

Figure 4 Primary Stakeholders/Individual Staff

The staff is still a primary stakeholder as indicated by the position on the road, but

smaller and further down the road.

As stated earlier, the data suggest that stakeholders can be placed in two

categories, those of primary stakeholders and ancillary stakeholders. Although ancillary

stakeholders are important, I believe their role is different. Ultimately, decisions that

superintendents make can and often do affect ancillary stakeholders, or in the case of the

school board the need for their approval to move a decision forward. However, ancillary

stakeholders are different from primary stakeholders in that the decisions superintendents

102

make are principally for the benefit of the primary stakeholders, not for the benefit of the

ancillary stakeholders.

Take into consideration parents. Although parents are very important

stakeholders, the ultimate decision is for children, even when the desire of the parent may

not be what is best for students. Will discussed the issue of school start times. He stated

that his job was to meet the best educational outcomes for students even if there are some

“negative peripheral factors for families” (Will).

Figure 5 Ancillary Stakeholders/Parents

As you notice from the visual parents are placed on the side of the road. They are

large and at the front, but they are not placed on the road as students are. Superintendents

need to consider parents and often need their support to move forward with initiatives;

however, the decisions are what is best for students, not parents.

The community is also an important stakeholder, yet I would argue they are still

an ancillary stakeholder. The community reaps the reward of an educated populous

through potential employees, participants in government and positive contributions to the

103

community. The superintendent must take the community into consideration when

making decisions. For example, referenda require community support if they are to pass.

Superintendents work to build trust with the community, so they support schools. Stan

talked about the relationships he has built with local community groups, elder groups and

legislative leaders; however, he stated decisions have to benefit students first. The

decisions the superintendent makes are for the students and organization first and then

should have a positive impact on the greater community.

Figure 6 Ancillary Stakeholders/Community

The visual shows the community, pictured as the building, as an ancillary

stakeholder, on the side of the road, a bit further back from parents but only slightly. The

needs of the community are an important consideration for decision making for a

superintendent, but the primary focus for decisions are for those stakeholders on the road.

Based on the data, the school board is an essential stakeholder as their approval is

frequently necessary for decisions to move forward. However, the decisions they approve

104

routinely affect and are for the benefit of students, the organization and staff. Therefore, I

theorize the school board is an ancillary stakeholder. The visual depicts them on the side

of the road, opposite that of the parents and community. Due to the necessity of their

support, they are forward and large indicating their significance.

Figure 7 Ancillary Stakeholders/School Board

The findings suggest the superintendent must not allow decisions to benefit

themselves over others. Nonetheless, decisions can directly affect the superintendent.

Take for example the situation Cara described regarding negotiations with the union that

required no raises for all staff in order to manage a tight budget situation. The

superintendent reopened her contract and did not accept a raise. In this case, the

superintendent made a decision that directly had an impact on her personally. Therefore,

due to situations like these, I position the superintendent as a primary stakeholder.

105

Figure 8 Stakeholders/Superintendent

However, as the visual illustrates, the superintendent is far down the path, very

small in stature, well behind the individual staff person, the collective organization and

the student. It should also be noted that the superintendent is significantly further away

and smaller than the community, parents and the school board. This illustrates the

importance of stakeholders’ needs placed ahead of those of the superintendent’s in the

decision-making process. It is imperative that as superintendents consider stakeholders,

they do not put their own personal interests ahead of any other stakeholder group.

If superintendents make decisions that do what is best for stakeholders and place

their own personal needs last, trust may be built with stakeholders aligning to the tenet of

integrity described by Mayer, et al., (1995) and Bryk and Schneider, (2003). The findings

also support this reasoning as stated by Ryan, “So in order to get that trust I think people

have to know that you’re not doing things for your personal gain, but you’re doing it for a

higher purpose”.

106

As one considers the visualization of stakeholders in the decision-making process

for superintendents, another way to conceptualize it is with the graphic below.

Figure 9 Wehrkamp’s Decision-making Theory

As one can see, the arrow grows larger as it comes to a point with the student

being shown at the point of the arrow. The other primary stakeholders are positioned on

the smaller sections of the arrow with the superintendent being at the smallest section of

the arrow. The ancillary stakeholders are at the sides of the arrow, all three being near the

student. This illustration complements the visual of the road depicting the primary

stakeholders on the arrow getting smaller as they are placed further from the point of the

arrow, while the ancillary stakeholders are at the sides of the arrow, yet large to indicate

their importance. This visual indicates the positionality of stakeholders in the

superintendent’s decision-making process.

Conclusion

107

The goal is for superintendents to make the best decisions, so students realize the

best possible outcomes for their learning. The two visuals attempt to help superintendents

when making decisions to consider whose needs are being met.

The following chapter discusses conclusions to the research questions and restates

the formative theory that emerged from the research. Further research to potentially move

the theory from its current formative state to a formal theory is recommended.

108

CHAPTER VI

Conclusions and Implications

The decisions superintendents make impact stakeholders. Savage, Nix,

Whitehead, and Blair (1991) define stakeholders as individuals, groups or other

organizations who have an interest in (and the ability to influence) the organization (p.

61). Stakeholders consist of people at the building, district and community levels (Stone-

Johnson, 2014). When the interests of stakeholders align to the decision-making process

used by superintendents, the role of the stakeholder lessens (Lampe, 2001, p.165).

However, according to Lampe (2001), “When conflict arises between an organization and

one or more of its stakeholders, the possibility of damage to the organization may be

substantial” (p. 165). Although conflict is a natural occurrence in an organization, it can

be further complicated by the interests of various stakeholders.

Since the decisions superintendents face affect stakeholders, trust between the

superintendent and stakeholders is important to ensure stakeholder support.

Demonstrating care is a key component of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2014; Smylie,

Murphy, & Seashore Louis, 2016); consequently, it can be stated that leaders, through the

act of caring, will build trust with stakeholders. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016) posit that

leaders who demonstrate the ethic of care must consider multiple voices in the decision-

making process (p. 17). Therefore, understanding how superintendents consider and/or

prioritize stakeholders in their decision-making process is important. Yet, there is limited

109

information about the priority superintendents give to different stakeholder groups when

making complex decisions.

A qualitative approach of Grounded Theory research was used for this study to

answer the following research questions:

1) To what extent do superintendents consider the influence of varying

stakeholders when making complex decisions?

2) How does the superintendent’s perception of trust by stakeholders influence his

or her decision-making process?

3) How do superintendents, as responsible leaders, prioritize varying stakeholders'

needs when making complex decisions?

More specifically, Grounded Theory Research was selected to generate a formative

decision-making theory that superintendents or aspiring superintendents can draw on

when making complex decisions. According to Creswell and Poth (2018), “…grounded

theory is a qualitative research design in which the inquirer generates a general

explanation (a theory) of a process, an action, or an interaction shaped by the views of a

large number of participants” (p.82). Theories account for what happens, how it happens

and why it happens (Charmaz, 2014, p. 228). Charmaz (2014) goes on to state,

“Grounded theory provides both a way of analyzing situated action and of moving

beyond it” (p.228).

After a review of the literature, the development of a conceptual framework and

the formation of three research questions, eight superintendents were identified to be

interviewed. The school districts they represented varied geographically from rural,

110

suburban to urban districts. In addition, the districts represented small, medium and large

populations.

The coding process, specified by Charmaz (2014), was implemented for the

analysis of the data. After completion of the interviews, a line by line initial coding was

conducted. Following the initial coding was the process of focused coding. During this

phase, memos were written analyzing the data and codes. Next, theoretical sampling was

applied to the process. This process of analyzing data led to positing a decision-making

theory.

This chapter provides a discussion of the results of the research questions. It

includes the formative theory that emerged from the study, and implications for further

research.

Conclusions Related to Research Question Number One

Conclusion one. The influence stakeholders possess is a noteworthy

consideration for superintendents when making complex decisions. This research

indicates stakeholders possess varying degrees of influence based on their position and

ability to advocate for themselves. Those stakeholders whose voices are often not heard

must be advocated for by superintendents. Superintendents are responsible for decision-

making that gives voice to the voiceless (Maak & Pless 2006b). The data suggest

superintendents must weigh the influence of various stakeholders alongside what is best

for students.

Conclusion two. The school board’s influence is a primary consideration when

superintendents make decisions. The data from this study suggest the school board is a

primary consideration for superintendents since their role is “boss”. In most cases, if the

111

superintendent thought the school board would not approve a decision he or she brought

forward, then it was not brought to the board table. However, superintendents would take

a lot of time and host many meetings to create buy-in for a decision, so the

superintendent would feel confident of the decision being approved when brought to the

board table.

The process of creating buy-in by the board would include external and internal

experts to support the superintendent’s decision. This research supports the practice of

inclusion of internal and external expertise in the decision-making process of the

superintendent, in order to bring forward to the school board the best decision for

students and the organization.

Internal and external expertise and support of a superintendent’s decision

indicates real inclusion, rather than superficial inclusion (Lipham, 1983), while

demonstrating trustworthy behavior on the part of the superintendent (Whitener et al.,

1998). The interviews from this study indicated multiple meetings and discussions were

held ensuring each board members had a clear understanding of the situation. By having

all the pertinent information necessary, they could support the decision brought forward

by the superintendent.

Conclusions Related to Research Question Number Two

Conclusion three. Stakeholder trust is integral to the decision-making process of

superintendents. The research suggests trust by stakeholders is vital to the decision-

making process, most notably when a decision may not be what a particular stakeholder

group feels is in their best interest. Since conflict between stakeholder groups is

112

inevitable and natural, the data indicates communication is extremely important

(Voegtlin, et al., 2012).

The research further indicates that more importantly the “why” behind the

decision must be communicated to maintain trust by those who disagree with the

decision. If stakeholders feel informed and rationale accompanies the decision,

stakeholders are less likely to lose trust in the superintendent and his or her decision-

making competence.

Conclusion four. Learning who the stakeholders are and listening to their needs

helps superintendents understand the motives of stakeholders and affects the trust

between superintendents and various stakeholders. Trust amongst stakeholders affects

school performance (Adams & Forsyth, 2013; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Reaching out to

stakeholders and listening to their concerns or needs is important to the work of the

superintendent. Listening and developing relationships with stakeholders helps

superintendents understand any hidden agendas stakeholders possess, that without

listening, may lead to decisions that negatively impact students or the organization. In

addition, listening and relationship building increases trust between stakeholders and the

superintendent.

Conclusions Related to Research Question Number Three

Conclusion five. Stakeholders are various and their needs are noteworthy;

nonetheless, the needs of students must be the primary factor in the decision-making

process of superintendents. The research indicates the stakeholders are students, staff,

parents, the community and the school board. According to Pless and Maak (2011), “By

definition then, responsible leadership is geared toward the concerns of others and asks

113

for what and to whom leaders are responsible” (p. 4). The data suggest superintendents

demonstrate the traits of responsible leadership when stakeholders are listened to and if

actions are promised, they are acted on by the superintendent.

The research indicates superintendents ensure decisions are for the betterment of

the students and the organization. This, however, is where the data indicate that certain

stakeholders hold different places in the decision-making process. The research suggests

that students’ needs and outcomes are the primary focus in the decision-making process

for superintendents. Ultimately, who the decisions impact directly or are deemed of

principal concern are considered primary stakeholders, while those indirectly or

peripherally affected are ancillary stakeholders.

Conclusion six. The school board is integral in the decision-making process, yet

the decision itself is for the benefit of the primary stakeholders: students, the organization

and individual staff. The research in this study notes the importance of the school board

in the decision-making process. It was noted their importance is not about the decision

itself, but it is about their approval of the decision brought forward by the superintendent.

Therefore, the decision was for the benefit of the primary stakeholders; nonetheless, the

school board, although an ancillary stakeholder, is necessary for the final approval of the

decision denoting their importance.

Based on the findings from the research and the above conclusions drawn, a

decision-making theory constructed around the consideration of stakeholders emerged.

The formative theory is described in the next section.

Wehrkamp’s Decision-making Theory

114

Based on the findings and conclusions, I have derived that no one stakeholder

group lacks importance, rather the superintendent must balance the needs and desires of

various stakeholders, supporting Responsible Leadership theory coined by Maak and

Pless (2006a). However, the data signals that stakeholders can be positioned into two

categories, primary stakeholders and ancillary stakeholders. Although primary indicates

importance by its natural definition, it does not mean ancillary stakeholders are not

important: I posit they play a different role in consideration for the superintendent when

making decisions.

Primary stakeholders are those most readily affected by decisions of

superintendents and for whom the superintendent is primarily responsible. Primary

stakeholders are students, the collective organization and individual staff. Although the

priority of superintendents are primary stakeholders, this does not mean superintendents

are not accountable to ancillary stakeholders. For example, superintendents are obligated

to be good stewards of monetary resources as taxpayers fund public schools.

Consequently, the superintendent is accountable to taxpayers, yet the primary

responsibility of the superintendent is to primary stakeholders.

Ancillary stakeholders are parents, the community and the school board. Since the

decisions superintendents make may impact parents and the community, they are

important stakeholders. In addition, since the school board has to approve many of the

decisions brought forward to them, they are particularly important. Yet, since the

decisions are not about school board, community or parents, they are considered ancillary

stakeholders.

115

As demonstrated from the visual below, you can see the student at the forefront of

the picture signaling their priority in the thinking of the superintendent when making

complex decisions. The picture also shows the remaining primary stakeholders behind the

student and getting smaller as their placement indicates their consideration by the

superintendent when making decisions.

The ancillary stakeholders are on the sides of the road indicating they are

considered differently than primary stakeholders. Yet, they are forward and larger

indicating their importance in the consideration the superintendent gives them in the

decision-making process.

Figure 8 Stakeholders/Superintendent

As one considers the visualization of stakeholders in the decision-making process

for superintendents, another way to conceptualize it is with the graphic below.

116

Figure 9 Wehrkamp’s Decision-making Theory

As one can see, the arrow grows larger as it comes to a point with the student

being shown at the point of the arrow. The other primary stakeholders are positioned on

the smaller sections of the arrow with the superintendent being at the smallest section of

the arrow. The ancillary stakeholders are at the sides of the arrow, all three being near the

student. This illustration complements the visual of the road depicting the primary

stakeholders on the arrow getting smaller as they are placed further from the point of the

arrow, while the ancillary stakeholders are at the sides of the arrow yet large indicating

their importance.

Implications for Further Study

The findings from this study resulted in a formative theory on decision-making

for superintendents. However, due to the limited number of superintendents interviewed

and that they were from a similar geographic location, it is necessary for further research

to be conducted in order to shift this theory from a formative theory to a formal theory. In

117

addition, this theory in its formative state, is a decision-making process in a seemingly

static environment as depicted by the visuals; however, one can conclude that a

superintendent rarely leads in a static environment. Therefore, as the formative theory

moves to a formal theory, it will need to be understood in a dynamic environment, rather

than a static environment. I recommend interviewing many superintendents from across

the nation using the Grounded Theory research method.

Due to the role of the school board in the theory, it may be difficult for other

leaders in the field of education to utilize the theory in their work. Yet, since the student,

as a stakeholder, is at the forefront of the decision-making theory, it may be advantageous

for other educational leaders to consider the applicability of the theory to their decision-

making process. I recommend superintendents or aspiring superintendents consider using

this decision-making theory in their current or future role as a superintendent.

In addition, it may be interesting to see if leaders in other fields, who report to a

board, find the theory relevant to their work. Although they may not have students, other

stakeholders may be substitutes for the ones listed in this particular formative theory.

Further research of the theory’s applicability would be necessary to determine if the

decision-making process is relevant to leaders in other fields.

118

References

Adams, C.M., & Forsyth, P.B., (2013). Revisiting the trust effect in urban elementary

schools. The Elementary School Journal 114(1), 1-21.

Ancillary. 2019. In Dictionary.Cambridge.org. Retrieved July 17, 2019, from

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ancillary.

Begley, P. T., (2001). In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. International

Journal of Leadership in Education 4(4), 353-365.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L.M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu P. G. (2015). See the system that

produces the current outcomes. Learning to improve: America’s schools can get

better a getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 1-19, 57-85.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.

New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.

Educational Research 60(6), 40-45.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Inc.

Chingos, M. M., Whitehurst, G. J.., & Lindquist, K. M. (2014). School superintendents:

Vital or irrelevant? Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.

Washington, DC: 1-16. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp

content/uploads/2016/06/SuperintendentsBrown-Center9314.pdf.

119

Cohen, M.D., March, J.D., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational

choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.

Comstock, D. E. (1980). Dimensions of influence in organizations. The Pacific

Sociological Review, 23(1), 67-84.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L., & Kimber, M. (2003). The ‘right’ decision? Towards an

understanding of ethical dilemmas for school leaders. Westminster Studies in

Education, 26(2), 135-147.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research Design:

Choosing among five approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Inc.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. (2000). The trusted general

manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive

advantage. Strategic Management Journal 21(5), 563-576.

Dowding, K. (2008). Perceptions of leadership. In P. Hart & J. Uhr (Eds.), Public

Leadership, (93-102). Canberra, AU: ANU Press.

Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as

predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44-56.

Eisenhardt, K.M., & Zbaracki, M.J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic

Management Journal 13, Winter, 17-37.

Etzioni, A. (1967). A “third” approach to decision-making. Public Administration

Review, 27(5) 385-392.

Frowe, I. (2005). Professional trust. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(1), 34-53.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L. (2008). The Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for

120

qualitative research. New Jersey: Rutgers.

Glesne, C., (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Greenwood M., & Van Buren III, H.J. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory:

Trustworthiness in organization-stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business

Ethics, 95(3), 425-438.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (105-117),

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Heifetz, R. A. (2006). Educational leadership: Beyond a focus on instruction. The Phi

Delta Kappan, 87(7), 512-513.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2008). Administrators solving the problems of practice:

Decision making concepts, cases, and consequences. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Jenkins, C. (2007). Considering the community: How one rural superintendent perceives

community values and their effect on decision-making. The Rural Educator,

28(3), 28-32.

Khalifa, M. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership:

Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(3), 424-

467.

Khalifa, M., Witherspoon Arnold, N., & Newcomb, W. (2015). Understand and advocate

or communities first. The Phi Delta Kappan 96(7), 20-25.

Kidder, R.M. (1995). How good people make tough choices. New York, NY:

121

HarperCollins Publishers.

Kowalski, T. J. (1993). Challenges of leadership. In Contemporary School

Administration: An Introduction. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications.

Paper 51.

Lampe, M. (2001). Mediation as an ethical adjunct of stakeholder theory. Journal of

Business Ethics, 31(2), 165-173.

Langlois, L. (2004). Responding ethically: Complex decision-making by school

superintendents. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 78-

93.

Leithwood, K. & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidence from school

and district leaders. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review.

19(2), 79-88.

Lipham, J. M. (1983). Leadership and decision making for effective educational change.

Executive Review, 3(8), 2-6.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). The decision making process. National Forum of Educational

Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1-12.

Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of

social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329-343.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Introduction: The quest for responsible leadership in

business. In Maak, T., & Pless, N.M. (Eds.), Responsible leadership (pp. 1-13).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Maak, T., & Pless N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A

122

relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99-115.

Maitlis, S., & Ozcelik H. (2004). Toxic decision processes: A study of emotion and

organizational decision making. Organization Science, 15(4), 375-393.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of

organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J., (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mielke, C., (2019). Primary Stakeholders/Students (Digital Design). Minneapolis, MN.

Mielke, C., (2019). Primary Stakeholders/Collective Organization (Digital Design).

Minneapolis, MN.

Mielke, C., (2019). Primary Stakeholders/Individual Staff (Digital Design). Minneapolis,

MN.

Mielke, C., (2019). Ancillary Stakeholders/Parents (Digital Design). Minneapolis, MN.

Mielke, C., (2019). Ancillary Stakeholders/Community (Digital Design). Minneapolis,

MN.

Mielke, C., (2019). Ancillary Stakeholders/School Board (Digital Design). Minneapolis,

MN.

Mielke, C., (2019). Stakeholders/Superintendent (Digital Design). Minneapolis, MN.

Nitzan, S., & Paroush, J. (1994). A general theorem and eight corollaries in search of

correct decisions. Theory and Decision, 17(3), 211-220.

Noppe, R., Yager, S., Webb, C., & Sheng, B. (2013). Decision-making and problem

solving practices of superintendents confronted by district dilemmas.

International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 103-120.

123

Oplatka, I. (2017). A call to adopt the concept of responsible leadership in our schools:

Some insights from the business literature. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 20(4), 517-524.

Paine, L.S. (2006). A compass for decision making. In Maak, T., & Pless, N.M. (Eds.),

Responsible leadership (pp. 54-67). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pirson, M. & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to

different stakeholders. Organization Science 22(4), 1087-1104.

Pless N. M. (2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Role identity and motivational

drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 437-456.

Pless, N. M. & Maak, T. (2011). Responsible leadership: Pathways to the future. Journal

of Business Ethics, 98, 3-13.

Polka, W.S., Litchka, P.R., Calzi, F. F., Denig, S.J., Mete, R.E. (2011). Superintendent

decision making and problem-solving: Living on the horns of dilemmas. In B. J.

Alford, G. Perreault, L. Zellner, & J. Ballenger (Eds.), Blazing new trails:

Preparing leaders to improve access and equity in today’s schools. Lancaster, PA:

DEStech Publications, Inc. 93-108.

Primary. 2019. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved July 17, 2019, from

https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/primary.

Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for

assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. The Executive 5(2), 61-75.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and

its educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge.

Schraa-Liu, T., & Trompenaars, F. (2006). Towards responsible leadership through

124

reconciling dilemmas. In Maak, T., & Pless N. M. (Eds.) Responsible Leadership

(pp. 138-154). New York, NY: Routledge.

Seashore Louis, K., Murphy, J. & Smylie M. (2016). Caring leadership in schools:

Findings from exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2),

310-348.

Seashore Louis, K. & Wahlstrom, K. (2011). Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta

Kappan (92)5, 52-56.

Shapiro, J.P. & Stefkovich, J.A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in

education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. New York,

NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Sharp Paine, L. (2006). A compass for decision making (2006). In Maak, T., & Pless N.

M. (Eds.), Responsible Leadership (pp. 54-67). New York, NY: Routledge.

Simon, H.A. (1965). Administrative decision making. Public Administration Review,

25(1), 31 37.

Sipe, L., & Constable, S., (1996). A Chart of Four Contemporary Research Paradigms:

Metaphors for the modes of inquiry. The Journal of Culture and Education, 1,

152-163.

Smylie, M.A., Murphy, J., Seashore Louis, K. (2016). Caring school leadership: A multi

disciplinary, cross occupational model. American Journal of Education 123, 1-35.

Snowden, D. J. & Boone, M.E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making.

Harvard Business Review, Nov. 2007, 1-9.

Stone-Johnson, C. (2014). Responsible leadership. Education Administration Quarterly

50(4), 645-674.

125

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Inc.

Tarter, C.J. & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Toward a contingency theory of decision making.

Journal of Educational Administration, 36(3), 212-228.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., & Scherer, A. G. (2012). Responsible leadership in global

business: A new approach to leadership and its multi-level outcomes. Journal of

Business Ethics, 105, 1-16.

Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M., (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible

leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 327-341.

Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A., & Werner, J.M. (1998). Managers as

initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding

managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review 23(3), 513-

530.

Witt, M.A., & Stahl, G.A. (2016). Foundations of responsible leadership: Asian versus

western executive responsibility orientations toward key stakeholders. Journal of

Business Ethics, 136, 623-638.

126