Copyright
© Gregory Stephen Brown, 2016, All Rights Reserved
ii
Copyright
© Gregory Stephen Brown, 2016, All Rights Reserved
iii
Acknowledgements
This dissertation is the culmination of many years of self-discovery and determination. It
would not have been possible without the love, support, guidance and encouragement of
so many. Thank you all.
My wife, Jennifer, whose sacrifice, love and encouragement made this all possible. You
are my rock.
My children, Owen, Abby, and Ryan whose sense of awe and wonder about the world
around them inspire me to learn more.
My sister, Alicia, who spent hours reading my work, and pushing me to do better. I
could not have done it without you.
My parents, Stephen and Joann who have always encouraged me to follow my dreams no
matter where they lead.
Cohort 4, we may have all gone in our own directions, but I could not have made it
through Thursday nights without each of you.
My committee members:
Dr. Caldas, for pushing my thinking to places I did not know existed and for believing in
me every step of the way.
Dr. Wan, for giving sound advice, guidance, and encouragement as I navigated this
journey.
Dr. Fister, for being a source of encouragement. Your experience and legacy serves as an
example to many.
iv
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to Owen, Abigail, and Ryan Brown. I pray that as you grow,
you continue to approach the world with the same sense of curiosity and wonder that you
do now, with your eyes and hearts wide-open.
v
Table of Contents
Notice of Copyright ............................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………...x
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................. 3
Overview of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 4
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 5
Context .................................................................................................................... 7
Summary of Literature ............................................................................................ 7
Research Question ................................................................................................ 11
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................ 11
Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 12
Significance and Limitations of Study.................................................................. 12
Dissertation Structure............................................................................................ 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ............................................................................ 16
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 16
Educational Leadership ......................................................................................... 17
A Trait-Based Approach to Leadership ................................................................ 19
Leadership Skills Approach .................................................................................. 29
vi
Replication Theory................................................................................................ 40
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 45
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology ......................................................... 47
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 47
Research Rationale................................................................................................ 47
Rational for Replication ........................................................................................ 47
2007 Study Statistical Findings ............................................................................ 48
Modifications to 2007 Study................................................................................. 52
Research Question and Hypothesis ....................................................................... 54
2016 Research Design and Methodology ............................................................. 56
Setting ................................................................................................................... 58
Sampling ............................................................................................................... 59
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 60
Dependent Variables ............................................................................................. 62
Independent Variables .......................................................................................... 66
Control Variables .................................................................................................. 66
Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................... 66
Limitations of the study ........................................................................................ 68
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 69
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Findings ....................................................................... 71
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 71
Research Question ................................................................................................ 72
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................ 72
Review of The Study’s Purpose ............................................................................ 73
Summary of Setting and Data Collection Procedures........................................... 73
vii
Pre-Analysis Data Screening ................................................................................ 75
Effect Sizes and Significance Levels for This Study ............................................ 83
Creation of Latent Variables ................................................................................. 84
Results / Findings .................................................................................................. 87
Themes ................................................................................................................ 116
Recapitulation ..................................................................................................... 117
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 120
Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................................... 121
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 121
Discussion ........................................................................................................... 121
Conclusions/Implications .................................................................................... 129
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 140
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 141
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 142
References ....................................................................................................................... 144
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 153
Permission Letter to Use Copyrighted Material ............................................................. 171
Biography……………………………………………………………………………….173
viii
List of Tables
Table
Page
1.
Comparison of 2007 Study and Current Study
54
2.
Skewness and Kurtosis of all Leadership Skills by Group and Variable
80
3.
Cohen’s (1992) Effect size Interpretations
84
4.
Reliability Scores (alpha) for the 2007 and 2015 Studies
87
5.
Descriptive Statistics for all Skills by Organizational Level
89
6.
Pearson Correlation Matrix of Leadership Skill Requirements,
Organizational Level, and Covariates
91
Fit Indices for One-Factor and Four-Factor Measurement Models Using
Structural Equation Modeling and χ2 Difference Test
95
Estimated Marginal Means for Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business
and Strategic Skill Requirements, Controlling for Organizational Level,
Experience Level, Education Level, and District Setting
98
7.
8.
9.
Partial Correlations Between Leadership Skill Requirement Categories
and Organizational Level, Controlling for Years of Experience, Education
Level, and District Setting
100
10.
Summary of Findings and Comparison of Conclusions for the 2016 and
2007 Studies
106
Significant Univariate Effects for Organizational Level
110
11.
ix
List of Figures
Figure
Page
1.
The Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
6
2.
La Sorte’s Replication Paradigm
42
3.
One-factor confirmatory factor analysis structural equation measurement
model of leadership skills
93
4.
Multi-skill, four-factor confirmatory factory analysis structural equation
measurement model
94
Estimated marginal means for leadership skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education, and
district setting
101
Estimated marginal means for Cognitive skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education,
and district setting
111
Estimated marginal means for Interpersonal skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education,
and district setting
113
Estimated marginal means for Business skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education,
and district setting
114
Estimated marginal means for Strategic skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education,
and district setting
116
Schematic of multiple Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX pyramids of
varying size denoting the total amount of leadership skill required
133
11.
Leadership skills interacting on a three-dimensional plane
134
12.
Schematic of the reconceptualized Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
model
135
Schematic of the hypothesized, reconceptualized Leadership Skills
STRATAPLEX model with extension
137
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
13.
x
Appendices
Letter
Page
A.
Manhattanville College IRB Approval Letter
153
B.
Survey Instrument
154
C.
Survey Recruitment Card
169
1
Abstract
LEADERSHIP SKILL REQUIREMENTS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS OF
K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN NEW YORK STATE: A REPLICATION AND
GENERALIZATION OF THE LEADERSHIP SKILLS STRATAPLEX
With a history that began with the dawn of civilization, leadership has been one of the
most elusive and longest studied phenomena. Despite its long history, disagreement in
the field persists over how best to define, measure, and develop it. Effective leadership
has always been sought after and extremely valuable. Harvard’s Center for Public
Leadership reports that the United States of America is experiencing a crisis in
leadership, with this crisis felt most strongly in the realm of public leadership (Rosenthal,
2012). Educational leaders are not only public leaders but also are responsible for
maintaining high standards and providing strong outcomes for our nation’s children.
Waves of reform movements and ever-increasing levels of cynicism often complicate
their vital work. Identifying and understanding how to develop the leadership skills
required by educational leaders has never been more important. This study’s purpose
was to understand more completely the leadership skills required by leaders of New
York’s K-12 public schools. Through the application of the Leadership Skills
STRATAPLEX model, this researcher sought to determine the degree to which this skillsbased framework could be generalized to New York’s public school leaders across
multiple organizational levels. This research question was addressed by conducting a
theoretical replication and extension of Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson’s 2007 study.
2
This study made use of a quantitative research design and survey data collected from
1027 educational leaders in New York State. This study’s major findings suggests that
the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model failed to fully generalize to this new
population and setting. However, the results also led this researcher to suggest a more
sophisticated reconceptualization of the STRATAPLEX model that proposes a new
moderating construct, the leader’s “sphere of direct influence relative to the whole
organization”. This researcher’s findings and the reconceptualized Leadership Skills
STRATAPLEX model have the potential to influence the ways institutions train and
develop leaders while advancing the field of leadership skills-based theory.
3
Chapter One: Introduction
Overview of the Problem
Educational leadership is in the midst of tremendous change with the role of
educational leaders, at all levels, struggling to adapt (Fullan, 2001; Malone & Caddell,
2000). The internal and external pressures of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top
have created an environment centered on accountability and high-stakes testing. This
dissertation examined through the use of The Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX as a
conceptual framework, the leadership skills required of New York State’s public school
leaders (Mumford et al., 2007). It is important to examine leadership from this
perspective as the increasing rate and complexity of educational reform demands leaders
to confront complex problems that lack established solutions. Fullan (2001) states, “The
more complex society gets, the more sophisticated leadership must become” (p. 1). For
these reasons, this study is both timely and relevant.
Nationally, Americans believe a crisis of leadership exists at all levels. The
National Leadership Index 2012, conducted by The Center for Public Leadership at
Harvard’s Kennedy School, found that “Sixty-nine percent of Americans still believe we
have a leadership crisis” (Rosenthal, 2012, p. 1). This study also found that “educational
leadership, so important to the country’s future competitive strength, continues to
languish in fifth place from the bottom, among the thirteen sectors for which Americans
have ‘not much’ confidence” (Rosenthal, 2012 p. 1). Kellerman and Webster (2001)
lament, “the levels of our political cynicism, alienation, and now fear, are so high that
they throw into question the very possibility of effective leadership in the public realms”
(pp. 485-486). In the midst of this uncertain time, educational leaders face a “perfect
4
storm” which has formed as thousands of baby boomers enter retirement age and prepare
to leave their leadership roles (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010). Malone and Caddell (2000)
underscore the problem: “The demand for effective school principals is at an all-time
high, the result of reform efforts, constant public criticism, and demographic realities” (p.
162). For this reason, the time was right to apply the theories and conceptual frames of
Mumford et al., (2007) to the field of education through a theoretical replication and
extension. This researcher sought to further the development of leaders of learning
organizations, practitioner scholars, and leaders who develop both themselves and others
through this work. The implications of this type of study aim to impact professional
development and institutions that prepare future leaders.
Theoretical Framework
This researcher studied the relationships between leadership skill requirements
and a leader’s organizational level while controlling for the effects of demographic
variables, through a post-positivist framework. This framework allowed this researcher
to examine the educational leadership phenomena in an attempt to help establish best
practices for the field (Butin, 2010). Post-positivism acknowledges that research is often
shaped by the values and beliefs held by the investigator. Additionally, post-positivism
holds that theories cannot be proved conclusively (Teddie &Tashakkori, 2009).
This researcher also believes that elements of Critical Realism exist in this study.
Critical Realism purports that social interactions and structures existed on three levels
(real, actual, and empirical; Bhaskar, 1998). According to the theoretical work of Bhaskar
(1998), these levels help us understand what we observe (empirical), the actual events
that take place (actual), and the underlying structures and laws that cause the events
5
(real). This stratified understanding of reality adds a critical lens to what is observed, in
that the observable is influenced by events, and events are explained by theory. This
framework is useful for the study of leadership as leadership can be explained through the
observable actions of leaders (empirical), events that caused the leader to act (actual), and
the theories that are applied to explain actions (skill-based theory). Acknowledging that
invisible constructs such as leadership skills exist, are empirically distinguishable, and
lead to social events necessitates an understanding of the specific amounts and
proportions of leadership skills required by educational leaders across organizational
levels.
Conceptual Framework
This research study was conducted through an application of Mumford, Campion,
& Morgeson’s (2007) Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX framework to leaders of New
York State’s K-12 public schools. This conceptual framework suggests that previous
work done in the field of skills-based leadership can be conceptualized as four distinct
skill requirements (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic). These skill
requirements help to explain the complexity inherent in any study of leadership by
establishing the “plex” of the model. Additionally, this model suggests that leadership
must be viewed as stratified organizational levels, or “strata” (Mumford et al. 2007). The
basic tenants of this model are built around the following assumptions as tested in the
original study and represented by Figure 1:

Distinct leadership skills can be distinguished empirically.

Leadership skills increase as you ascend organizational levels.
6

Leadership skills become important in different proportions at each
organizational level.
Figure 1. The leadership skill requirements strataplex represents the complex relationship
hypothesized to exist between the four leadership skill requirements (Cognitive,
Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic) and a leader’s organizational level. Adapted from
“The Leadership Skills Strataplex: Leadership Skill Requirements Across Organizational
Levels,” by T. V. Mumford, M. A. Campion, and F. P. Morgeson, 2007, The Leadership
Quarterly, 18, p. 156. Copyright 2007 Elsevier Inc. Reproduced by permission of
copyright holder, http://www.elsevier.com.
Essentially, The Leadership Skills Requirements STRATAPLEX asserts that
leadership can be developed and that different but increasing amounts of the four
leadership skills are required at each successively higher organizational level. This
developmental view of leadership acknowledges that leaders must sharpen their existing
skills while preparing for future positions (Mumford et al., 2007).
7
Context
This research study was designed for several specific audiences including;
established and prospective educational leaders, educational policymakers, and other
contexts in which stratified leadership is present at different organizational levels. This
study and its findings may be of interest to these groups as they seek to hire, promote,
and establish programs for the development of leaders in the field of education.
According to Mascall and Leithwood (2010), the recent change in the job description of
educational leaders has made the job less attractive at the same time that there is a
reduced supply of people to fill the jobs that exists. This only adds to the urgency of this
type of work.
Summary of Literature
The study and definitions of leadership date back to the beginnings of written
history. Stogdill (1974), and later Bass (1990) stated, “The study of leadership rivals in
age the emergence of civilization, which shaped its leaders as much as it was shaped by
them. From its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders - what they did
and why they did it” (p.3). Bass (1990) also acknowledged, “Leadership research faces a
dilemma. A definition that identifies something for the factory manager or agency head
is not necessarily the most useful for the development of a broad theory” (p. 19).
Leadership is universal and therefore worthy of study, scrutiny, and evaluation.
“No societies are known that do not have leadership in some aspects of their social life,
although many may lack a single overall leader to make and enforce decisions” (Bass,
1990, p 5). According to Northouse (2010), leadership is also a “highly sought-after and
highly valued commodity” (p.1). Leadership is also often misunderstood. Bass (1990)
8
claims, “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons
who have attempted to define the concept” (p.11). Bass’s (1990) “Bass and Stogdill’s
Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications”, found no
fewer than thirteen different ways of conceptualizing leadership. Jago (1982) claims:
Leadership is both a process and a property. The process of leadership is the use
of non- coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of
an organized group toward the accomplishment of group objectives. As a
property leadership is the set of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who
are perceived to successfully employ such influence… It is important to
recognize what this definition includes and what it excludes. Leadership is not
only some quality or characteristic that one possesses or is perceived to possess it
can be something that one does. It therefore can describe an act as well as a
person. (pp. 315-316)
By adopting a broad definition of leadership that views it as a process and recognizes
common goals, we can better understand the combination of individual traits and
developable skills often associated with effective leadership.
The skills approach to leadership offers a unique lens through which to view the
leadership phenomena. Unlike its precursor, the trait-based approach, skills approaches
have been able to look at what the leader does rather than who the leader is. This more
developmental or behavioral view of leadership is optimistic by nature. Some have even
suggests that leadership skills are like athletic skills and as such can be improved by all,
through practice, regardless of natural abilities (Northouse, 2010).
9
Arguably, the most influential work related to skills-based leadership is Katz’s
1955 article entitled “Skills of an Effective Administrator.” Contrary to dominant
leadership studies of the time, this approach attempted to describe leadership as
something that could be developed. For Katz (1955) “this quest for the executive
stereotype has become so intense that many companies, in concentrating on certain
specific traits or qualities, stand in danger of losing sight of their real concern: what a
man can accomplish” (p. 33). He recognized that while traits exist, they are not the only
things that matter. Katz’s three-skill approach was a new way of observing the leadership
phenomenon. Katz (1955) concluded:
[Skill] transcends the need to identify specific traits in an effort to provide a more
useful way of looking at the administrative process. By helping to identify the
skills most needed at various levels of responsibility, it may prove useful in the
selection, training and promotion of executives. (p. 42)
This approach inspired later studies in the leadership skills field to be conducted by
others.
The leadership skills STRATAPLEX model (Mumford et al., 2007), like Katz’s
model, was created to assist in the examination of the leadership skills required by
leaders at different organizational levels (Mumford et al., 2007). Mumford et al.’s (2007)
model extended previous studies in that it focuses on the leader’s job requirements rather
than the person doing the job. Mumford et al. (2007) seek to “further our understanding
of leadership skill requirements across organizational levels by identifying four distinct
categories of leadership skill requirements that emerge differentially across
organizational levels” (p. 155).
10
The foundation of this model was built on four identifiable skills: Cognitive,
Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic. The STRATAPLEX model builds on previous
works by concurrently dividing leadership into tiers (strata), from junior to senior
management, and into four skill categories. Mumford et al. (2007) make several
hypotheses concerning the STRATAPLEX model: first, that the four leadership skill
categories will be empirically distinguishable; next, that all skills will be needed at each
level in a hierarchy (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic), and last that the
proportions of each will differ based on the organizational level. These skills were
measured through language created by the Occupational Information Network (O*NET),
developed by the U.S. Department of Labor (Mumford et al, 2007).
Mumford et al.’s (2007) findings suggests that leadership skills can be grouped
into four categories (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business and Strategic) and that all four
leadership skills are required in greater amounts as you ascend the organizational
structure. Leadership skill requirement amounts vary based on the specific skill category
and organizational level. Strategic and Business skills were more strongly correlated to
organizational level than Interpersonal and Cognitive skills, indicating that their
development may be more critical to leadership develop over time (Mumford et al, 2007).
Notable are the limitations of this study. Most importantly, the sample of 1,023
government workers may not be representative of workers in other fields. Mumford et al
(2007) encouraged future researchers to determine if this model of leadership skill
requirements could be generalized to other settings and contexts, which is what this
researcher attempted to do.
11
Research Question
To what extent is Mumford et al.’s Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model
generalizable to leaders of New York State’s K-12 public schools?
Hypotheses
In an attempt to answer this question and describe the leadership skills required
by leaders of New York’s K-12 public schools, a theoretical replication was conducted
which tested the following hypotheses as found in Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson’s
(2007) original study (pp. 151-159).
The original hypotheses are presented as found in Mumford et al.’s (2007)
original study (pp. 151-159):
(H1). The Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill categories will
be empirically distinguishable.
(H2). Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill category such that
Cognitive skills will be needed the greatest amount, followed by
Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skills, respectively.
(H3). Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill requirements will be
positively related to the job’s level in the organization.
(H4). Leadership skill requirements will interact with organizational level such
that:
a. Strategic skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business skill requirements.
b. Business skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive or Interpersonal skill requirements.
12
c. Interpersonal skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive skill requirements.
Research Methodology
In order to answer this research question, the researcher conducted a theoretical
replication and extension as described by La Sorte (1972), utilizing a descriptive, nonexperimental, quantitative, cross-sectionals design. The use of descriptive, bivariate,
multivariate, and correlational statistics, as-well-as confirmatory factor analysis and
model testing/comparison using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), allowed for the
testing of all of the aforementioned hypotheses. First, this researcher examined whether a
four-factor model of leadership skills was empirically distinguishable and if so, what was
the relationship between these leadership requirements and the leaders’ organizational
level, controlling for other factors. Next, this researcher examined the amounts and
proportion of leadership skills required by leaders at different organizational levels
regardless of their experience, educational level, and district setting. Finally, this
researcher concluded by conceptualizing the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model for
educational leaders.
Significance and Limitations of Study
The 21st century has seen a multitude of crises on many fronts, including national
security, the financial markets, and education. These uncertain times demand bold and
effective leadership, and the emergence of leaders equipped with the skills to confront
complex problems that lack established solutions.
13
The question many communities in New York State are asking is who will lead
our schools and children through these uncertain and monumental times of change?
Heifetz (1994) stated, “The common personalistic orientation to the term leadership, with
its assumption that ‘leaders are born and not made’, is quite dangerous. It fosters both
self-delusion and irresponsibility” (p. 20). Therefore, in the face of current challenges,
the creation and validation of a skills-based model of leadership in K-12 public education
has never been more necessary. The implications of such a model would allow leaders to
assess and develop their skills in order to become more effective in their current role and
as they prepare for future roles. In addition, such developable skill sets will help guide
professional development at a time when budgets are stretched under a 2% tax cap limit
in New York State. Lastly, as more educational leaders leave the field and fewer
qualified replacements enter, the implications of this study will help inform providers of
professional development and leadership preparation programs (Markow, Macia, & Lee,
2013).
Despite the significance of this study, limitations exist. First, cross-sectional
designs are restricted to measuring one moment in time. This data collection technique
was limited in that it did not allow for the current mood of the person taking the survey or
changes that may take place over time. Next, this study only controlled for leaders “level
of education”, “level of experience”, and “district’s setting”. While the addition of these
controls allowed for a clearer picture of the constructs being measured by eliminating
error, more covariates could exist which were not considered or accounted for in this
study. Finally, descriptive research by definition has the ability to describe a
phenomenon yet lacks the ability to predict.
14
Dissertation Structure
This dissertation conformed to the traditional five-chapter format. Chapter One’s
introduction began with the context and background of leadership theory, starting with
trait-based approaches to leadership and culminating with Mumford et al.’s skills-based
“Leadership STRTAPLEX” as a conceptual framework for future study. Theoretical and
conceptual frameworks are discussed. Next, the research problem and questions are
presented along with gaps in the current body of research, which established the
significance of this study to the field.
Chapter Two begins with a review of the literature describing the necessity for the
study of leadership and the development of skill-based models. This leads to a historical
overview of the study of leadership that establishes a context in which to specifically
explore trait- and skills-based approaches. Limits of this review within the broader field
of leadership are discussed. Next, an exploration of current research around leadership
skill acquisition and the various combinations required at different organizational levels
is presented. Finally, the merits of replication methodology are examined through the
work of La Sorte (1972).
Chapter Three provides an extensive explanation of the research methodology and
design for this study. Additionally, the rationale of sample selection, methods of data
analysis, and validity concerns are addressed. Chapter Three includes the presentation of
research questions and implications of this study.
Chapter Four begins with a description of the study’s setting and data collection
procedures. This is followed by extensive data screening that addresses; missing data,
outliers, normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. Next, the creation of latent variables
15
was reviewed along with tests for reliability. Descriptive and correlational statistics were
presented followed by the examination of each of the four Hypothesis which includes;
confirmatory factor analysis, model testing, model comparison (Structural Equation
Modeling), partial correlations, and univariate and multivariate analysis of variance and
covariance (MANCOVA). Finally, the chapter concludes with a presentation of
emerging themes.
Chapter Five begins with a discussion of the findings for both the theoretical
replication and extension. This is followed by an interpretation of these findings. Next,
conclusions are made, and suggests implications for professional development, leadership
development programs, and leadership skills theory development are presented. In light
of the findings and conclusions, a reconceptualized Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
model is proposed. The chapter closes with the acknowledgment of the limitations of this
study and recommendations for future research.
16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the Leadership
Skills STRATAPLEX can be generalized and validated in a sample of New York State
public school leadership. This study built on the work of leadership theorists Campion,
Connelly, Katz, Mumford, Morgeson, and Zaccaro by applying their theories and
conceptual frameworks to the field of K-12 education in New York State, thus
contributing in an original way to the field of educational leadership. In so doing, this
study has implications for the hiring, professional development, and promotional
practices of educational organizations.
The purpose of this literature review is to explore research surrounding the
necessity for and development of leadership skills across various organizational levels.
This chapter discusses the vast and varied definitions of leadership, establishing the
working assumptions around leadership held for this study. A historical overview of the
study of leadership establishes the context in which to specifically explore skills-based
leadership theory, establishing the bounds and limits of this review within the broader
leadership field. Next, this review discusses the current research around leadership skills
and the various skill requirements needed at different organizational levels, through an
investigation of the theories and frameworks established by Campion, Connelly, Katz,
Mumford, Morgeson and Zaccaro. Finally, the original study (Mumford et al., 2007) and
replication theory are discussed to establish a contextual basis for the 2016 study.
The varied development of definitions and concepts concerning leadership over a
vast period of time necessitated the establishment of constraints or boundaries for this
17
study. This review of the literature focused on trait- and skills-based approaches to
leadership in order to establish a context that necessitated the expansion of skills-based
leadership models. Torraco (2005) believes, “The best literature reviews examine the
literature with a particular lens… this lens points the author to specific aspects of
previous research that are critically examined and evaluated” (p. 361). Through these
lenses, this literature review examined leadership from a leader-centered perspective
concerning what a leader is (trait approach) and what a leader does (skills approach).
While leadership can be viewed through many other lenses (behavioral, contingency,
emotional, moral, and servant leadership), those lenses were beyond the scope of this
study.
Educational Leadership
The study of educational leadership is an offshoot of the larger leadership tree and
must be examined and understood in the context of the larger field, while paying
deference to its specific uniqueness. With these things in mind, the following review of
the literature examined leadership from a holistic view in an attempt to overlay some of
the larger theoretical approaches (trait- and skill-based) and frameworks (The Leadership
Skills STRATAPLEX) to the specific area of K-12 education.
Defining educational leadership. The study and definitions of leadership date
back to the beginning of written history. Stogdill’s (1974), and later Bass’s (1990),
comprehensive reviews of leadership state, “The study of leadership rivals in age the
emergence of civilization, which shaped its leaders as much as it was shaped by them.
From its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders – what they did and
why they did it” (p.3). Bass (1990) also acknowledged, “Leadership research faces a
18
dilemma. A definition that identifies something for the factory manager or agency head is
not necessarily the most useful for the development of a broad theory” (p. 19).
Leadership is universal and therefore worthy of study, scrutiny, and evaluation. “No
societies are known that do not have leadership in some aspects of their social life,
although many may lack a single overall leader to make and enforce decisions” (Bass,
1990, p 5). According to Northouse (2010), leadership is also a “highly sought-after and
highly valued commodity” (p.1). Leadership is also often misunderstood. Bass (1990)
claims, “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons
who have attempted to define the concept” (p.11). Bass’s (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s
Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications found no fewer
than thirteen different ways of conceptualizing leadership. This same problem was
recognized by Pfeffer (1977) in his article entitled “The Ambiguity of Leadership”, in
which he stated, “While there have been many studies of leadership, the dimensions and
definition of the concept remain unclear” (p. 105). For the purposes of this review,
leadership was broadly defined as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2010, p. 3). Or as Jago in his 1982
article stated:
Leadership is both a process and a property. The process of leadership is the use
of non-coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of
an organized group toward the accomplishment of group objectives. As a
property, leadership is the set of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who
are perceived to successfully employ such influence.… It is important to
recognize what this definition includes and what it excludes. Leadership is not
19
only some quality or characteristic that one possesses or is perceived to possess, it
can be something that one does. It therefore can describe an act as well as a
person. (pp. 315-316)
By adopting a broad definition of leadership that views leadership as a process and
recognizes common goals, we can better understand the combination of individual traits
and developable skills associated with effective leadership.
A Trait-Based Approach to Leadership
To understand trait-based leadership is to understand the broader history of
leadership study. For thousands of years, leaders and heroes can be found universally
across culture, religion, myth and literature (Bass, 1990; Hunt, 1999; Stogdill, 1974,)
Both historic and mythical leaders have been examined in an attempt to establish
generalizable characteristics that led to their successes. This forms the foundation of a
trait-based approach to understanding leadership. Examples of ancient writings
concerning such leaders and their distinct traits include but are not limited to: The Epic of
Gilgamesh, The Odyssey, The Iliad, The Bible, and in the ancient philosophies of
Confucianism and Taoism (Bass, 1990). In all cases, a special quality or set of qualities
are present which separate the leader from the follower. This “Trait Theory” has
persisted throughout the centuries, while gaining, losing, and recently regaining
popularity amongst researchers. Most theories of leadership have been built upon or
developed in rejection of this trait-based approach (Bass, 1990; Kirkpatric & Locke,
1991; Stogdill 1974; and Zaccaro, 2007) The fingerprints of trait theory can be seen in
Nadler and Tushman’s (1988) article for Fortune magazine entitled “What Makes for
20
Magic Leadership” and the thousands of other publications on leadership that line book
shelves.
Many scholars have commented on the history and study of leadership, but
arguably none more comprehensively than Stogdill (1974) in the Handbook of
leadership: A survey of theory and research and later Bass (1990) in the Bass and
Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory Research and Managerial Applications.
These volumes, reviewing more than 8,000 writings and studies, are frequently
referenced and considered one of the master works in the field of leadership. A more
comprehensive review of leadership, in its many forms, theories, and constructs, beyond
the scope of this review, can be found within their pages.
The great man theory. The explanation of historical events and the individuals
who shaped them are often attributed to great men. Bass (1990) stated, “Martin Luther
King is considered to be the ‘great man’ whose leadership inspired the black civil rights
movement” (p. 38). Historians and psychologists share an interest in this study, for it is
through the examination of impactful social and political leaders like Gandhi, Lincoln,
Hitler, and Franklin D. Roosevelt that we can better understand our world and its events
(Bass 1990 & Northouse, 2010). Northouse (2010) remarked, “It was believed that
people were born with these traits and that only ‘great’ people possess them” (p. 15).
According to Bass (1990), “The great man theory of leadership is currently espoused by
those who show how faltering business corporations are turned around by
transformational leaders, such as Lee Iacocca” (p. 38). Nadler and Tushman (1988) echo
this supposition:
21
In the emerging folklore of corporate leadership, larger-than-life characters
transform or save major American companies single-handedly. The current
literature is rife with references to such leaders as Lee Iacocca, John Sculley, Jack
Welch and others whose exploits assume mythic proportions. (p. 261)
These examples illustrate how foundational the concepts of innate leader separating traits
have become to our understanding of the world around us.
Both Bass (1990) and Zaccaro (2007) agree that much of what we term trait
theory, more specifically great man theory, today traces its roots in Galton’s (1869) study
of hereditary genius. In this work, Galton attempted to establish a direct link between
heredity and eminent men through the study of “the British”: judges, statesmen,
commanders, literary men, men of science, poets, musicians, and painters, among others.
Galton (1869) intended “to show ...that a man’s natural abilities are derived by
inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of
the whole organic world” (p. 1). While many of his theories on race and inheritance
would be rejected today, the underlying construct that an inborn characteristic or trait
exists in some leaders and is absent in others would strongly influence early and
contemporary trait theory.
Trait theory. The study of leadership traits was greatly impacted by Ralph M.
Stogdill’s 1948 review of trait leadership entitled “Personal Factors Associated with
Leadership: A Survey of the Literature.” In this review, Stogdill examined more than one
hundred studies concerning leadership traits and characteristics, which had taken place
between 1904 and 1947. Stogdill (1948) specifies, “The present survey is concerned only
with those studies in which some attempt has been made to determine the traits and
22
characteristics of leaders.... The present survey lists only those factors which were studied
by three or more investigators” (p. 35). Stogdill recognized two serious flaws, which
existed in the study of trait leadership. First, leadership was often left undefined, and
second, the methods used by the researchers were often unrelated to the stated
investigation (Stogdill, 1948).
In spite of these potential flaws, Stogdill (1948) identified seven common
methodologies. Many of the methods for studying leadership relied heavily on the
observed interactions amongst children or college-aged students, which were later
generalized to adults. Only one of the seven methodologies studied relied primarily on
evidence gathered through data collected from adults. However, from Stogdill’s study
emerged a series of characteristics that are discussed later in this literature review.
Stogdill (1948) was able to synthesize the available body of trait literature into
twenty-nine areas. From that list he purported that all characteristics could be classified
into one of the following categories: intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility,
initiative, persistence, self-confidence, and sociability. While this new classification
system, supported by his findings, would become the foundation of further attempts to
create a universal classification system, it was not the most impactful of Stogdill’s
findings. The assertion with the greatest impact on the study of leadership is clearly seen
in Stogdill’s (1948) statement, “the total weight of evidence presented in this group of
studies suggests that if there are general traits which characterize leaders, the patterns of
such traits are likely to vary with the leadership requirements of different situations”
(1948, p. 61).
23
Bass (1990) would later refer to this finding as “sounding the seeming death-knell
of a pure traits approach to the study of leadership” (p. 78). He would later recognize, as
does Northouse (2010) and Jago (1982), that Stogdill’s 1948 review would be used “to
support the view that leadership was entirely situational in origin and that particular
personal characteristics could not accurately predict leadership” (p. 78). Thus, in reaction
to these findings, the study of situational leadership began, and pure trait-based
approaches were abandoned (Northouse, 2010).
Highly influenced by Stogdill before him, Richard Mann’s 1959 work, “A
Review of the Relationships between Personality Traits and Performance in Small
Groups”, would consider traits, behaviors, and situational factors of leadership. In an
attempt to “summarize the present state of knowledge about the relationship of an
individual’s personality to his behavior or status in groups” (p. 241), Mann (1959) began
the process of reconciling trait and situational theories.
In a more sophisticated examination of the literature, Mann (1959) examined
published and non-published studies done between 1900 through 1957. His identification
of more than 500 measures and labels for personality traits illustrated the vastness and
lack of consensus found in the field (Mann, 1959). Mann’s review of the literature
classified personality traits into seven categories and behaviors into six. He then
compared these personality traits and behaviors in light of situational considerations.
Similarities are evident between Mann’s and Stogdill’s classifications of
personality traits, and later leadership skills. Mann’s (1959) list includes intelligence,
adjustment, extroversion-introversion, dominance, masculinity-femininity, conservatism,
and interpersonal sensitivity. While the terms differed, many of the categories describe
24
the same qualities observed by Stogdill and Mann (Bass, 1990; Northouse 2010). Lastly,
Mann’s study would call for research focused on personality traits, while controlling for
situations. Like Stogdill before him, Mann’s work had a chilling effect on purely-trait
based research and facilitated the growth in situational leadership theory that followed
(Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004). Stogdill’s (1974) second review of the
literature from 1948-1970 again examined the validity of personality traits and situations
on effective leadership. This comprehensive volume of more than 600 pages defines,
outlines, and reviews leadership theories and literature (163 studies). Unlike the study
done in 1948, this work additionally examines leader stability, emergence, leaderfollower interactions, and group performance. This handbook would be reproduced
several times, its third addition representing a collaborative effort between Stogdill and
Bernard Bass.
Like his previous review, traits were categorized (leadership, physical, social,
intelligence and ability, and personality; Stogdill, 1974). The findings were explored
through contemporary literature and compared to the 1948 review. According to
Northouse (2010), what emerged “was more balanced in its description of the role of
traits and leadership (p. 17). When responding to those promoting pure situational
leadership theories, Stogdill (1974) stated, “This view seems to overemphasize the
situational, and underemphasize the personal, nature of leadership. Strong evidence
indicates that different leadership skills and traits are required in different situations” (p.
73). This repositioning would be seen throughout the 1974 review and would be echoed
in its findings.
25
Unlike the simple list of eight leadership categories found in the 1948 review, a
more descriptive set of categories emerged. Stogdill (1974) concluded:
The leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task
completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness
and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social
situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to
accept consequences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal
stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other
persons’ behavior, and capacity to structure social interaction systems to the
purpose at hand. (p. 81)
This more tempered approach marked the reassertion of personality traits as an important
factor of effective leadership. It also shared many similarities to future skill-based
models. Stogdill (1974) recognized, “The conclusion that personality is a factor in
leadership differentiation does not represent a return to the trait approach. It does
however; represent a sensible modification of the extreme situationist point of view” (p.
82).
Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986) took a second look at the works of Stogdill
and Mann, and acknowledged, “Trait theories have not been seriously considered by
leadership researchers since Mann (1959) and Stogdill (1948) reported that no traits
consistently differentiated leaders from non-leaders across a variety of situations” (p.
402). This reexamination of past findings was consistent with the popular shift in position
observed between Stogdill’s 1948 and 1974 works. Through the use of more
sophisticated methods of analysis (validity generalization procedures), Lord et al. (1986)
26
proposed, “…first, these reviews [Stogdill and Mann] have often been misinterpreted,
and second, there are both theoretical and methodological reasons for reconsidering the
relations between the traits of potential leaders and their tendency to be perceived as
leadership by others” (p. 402).
The significance of Lord et al.’s (1986) study lies in the assertion that stronger
relationships exist between personality traits and leadership perceptions than reported by
Mann, and as a result were subsequently transmitted in other studies. Lord, et al. (1986)
stated “personality traits are associated with leadership perceptions to a higher degree and
more consistently than the popular literature” (p. 407). Their findings would reinvigorate
the investigation of personality traits as a predictor of leadership perceptions and
performance.
Much like Lord, et al., Kirkpatric and Locke (1991) also advanced the once
outmoded and now resurrected notion that leadership traits do matter. Through a brief
comparison between “Great Man Theories” and “Trait Theories,” Kirkpatric and Locke
(1991) drew an important dissimilarity, stating, “Trait theories did not make assumptions
about whether leadership traits were inherited or acquired. They simply asserted that
leaders’ characteristics are different from non-leaders” (p. 48). This observation is
important in that it once again provided a venue for the discussion of traits or
characteristics within modern leadership theory. By recognizing the difference between
static traits and plastic characteristics, Kirkpatrick and Locke helped modernize trait
leadership theory, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of the skills-based
approaches that followed.
27
Like theorists before, Kirkpatric and Locke (1991) grappled with the
overwhelming list of characteristics and their overlapping descriptors, which had been
discovered and observed over the previous century. They attempted to classify these
traits into broad categories, and subsequently a framework was attempted with six
classifications emerging (drive, leadership motivation, honesty/integrity, self-confidence,
cognitive ability, knowledge of the business, and other traits) (Kirkpatric & Locke, 1991).
However, unlike other strict trait theorists, Kirkpatric and Locke (1991) commented:
Traits alone, however, are not sufficient for successful business leadership-they
are only a precondition. Leaders who possess the requisite traits must take certain
actions to be successful … Possessing the appropriate traits only makes it more
likely that such actions will be taken and be successful. (p. 49)
The theory that traits are prerequisite to leadership (difference between leaders and nonleaders), specific traits increase the probability of leaders taking action (forming a vision,
setting goals…), and successful actions determine success, was a major contribution to
the field and again points to leadership skill-development.
As a corollary to the six trait classifications, Kirkpatric and Locke (1991) point to
“the rest of the story,” where they recommend that leadership theories require more than
a simple examination of leader traits. Deference is paid to the necessity of requisite
traits. However, other factors exist to maximize leadership potential (Kirkpatric & Locke,
1991). Kirkpatric and Locke (1991) stated, “Skills are narrower in meaning than traits
and involve specific capacities for action such as decision making, problem solving and
performance appraisal” (p. 56). Taken together, the six traits (similar to the previous
works of Galton, 1869; Stogdill, 1948 and 1974; Mann, 1959; and Lord et al. 1986) and
28
the addition of skills (with their ability to be developed) marked a change in the way trait
theory would be examined by others. The implications of this change would be felt in
hiring, training, and promotional practices.
Section summary. Between the early twentieth century and the early 1990s, trait
theory underwent a metamorphosis. Purely trait-based works like, Galton (1869) were
discredited and all but abandoned in light of critical reviews done by Stogdill (1948) and
Mann (1959). What followed was a paradigm shift in the way leadership was
conceptualized. The situation in which leadership was being exercised became the
dominant point of study. Situational leadership theorists like Carter (1953) and Gibb
(1954) espoused the belief that leadership was based solely on the situation and that traits
could not predict leadership (Bass, 1990; Zaccaro, 2007; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader,
2004). However, the concept of leadership traits, characteristics, and later personality
would remain, in that they help distinguish leaders from non-leaders.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the pendulum would swing back, and a more
balanced approach between trait and situational leadership would emerge. This was due
in part to a more tempered review of the literature done by Stogdill (1974), and later a
complete reevaluation of the works of Stogdill and Mann, by Lord et al. (1986).
Leadership traits were once again a factor in the leadership equation.
Finally, Kirkpatric and Locke (1991) blended traits and actions (skills) when
stating:
Since Stogdill’s early review, trait theory has made a comeback, though in
altered form.… The evidence indicates that there are certain core traits which
significantly contribute to business leaders’ successes. Traits alone, however, are
29
not sufficient for successful leadership- they are only a precondition. Possessing
the appropriate traits only makes it more likely that such actions will be taken and
be successful. (p. 49)
Trait-based leadership, while markedly different in form, remained. Trait-based
approaches to leadership still conclude that certain characteristics separate leaders from
non-leaders. Situations play a role in the emergence of leadership, and requisite traits can
cause leaders to take action which may lead to success. While these conclusions had
broad implications for the field of leadership, with many models and new theories
developed, this study now focuses on the skills-based approach to leadership that grew
out of the traditional trait-based approach.
Leadership Skills Approach
A skills-based approach to leadership traces its roots to the 1950s, and theory has
developed significantly in the years since. Though originally conceived during a period
of leadership history marked by the search for individual leader traits, and thus similar in
its leader-centered approach, the skills-based approach differs in its foundational belief
that leadership skills are developed (Bass, 1990). This fundamental difference holds a
more optimistic approach, one that could be seen as more compliant with the American
narrative. Katz (1955) stated:
This approach is based not on what good executives are (their innate traits and
characteristics), but rather on what they do (the kinds of skills which they exhibit
in carrying out their jobs effectively) … skill implies an ability which can be
developed, not necessarily inborn, and which is manifested in performance, not
merely in potential. (p. 34)
30
This section first considers two distinct skills-based approaches (the three-skill
approach and the skills model) based on the works of Katz (1955 and 1974) and several
studies conducted by Mumford et al. (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d). Then, it will discuss
The Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX as a model for understanding leadership through
four reconfigured leadership skill categories (Cognitive skill, Interpersonal skill, Business
skill, and Strategic skill) and their required amounts and proportions across
organizational levels. This literature review reflects the natural progression of leadership
study, from trait- to skills-based approaches. Additionally, it suggests that, like trait
theories before, skill-based approaches can consolidate skills into broad categories (Katz,
1974; Mumford et al., 2007; Mumford et al., 2000b; Zaccaro et al., 2004).
The three-skill approach. Arguably, the most influential work related to skillsbased leadership is Katz’s 1955 article entitled “Skills of an Effective Administrator.”
His framework for understanding skills-based leadership laid the foundation for all other
works that followed (Bass, 1990; Mumford et al. 2000a; Mumford et al. 2007). Contrary
to dominant leadership studies of the time, this approach attempted to examine
leadership, developmentally, within the context of organizations. For Katz (1955), “this
quest for the executive stereotype has become so intense that many companies, in
concentrating on certain specific traits or qualities, stand in danger of losing sight of their
real concern: what a man can accomplish” (p. 33). He recognized that while traits exist,
they are not the only things that matter. Katz’s (1955) statement, “At the root of this
difference is industry’s search for the traits or attributes which will objectively identify
the ‘ideal executive’ who is equipped to cope effectively with any problem in any
organization,” (p.1), reflects the shift away from trait-based towards skill-based
31
leadership, post Stogdill and Mann. Katz’s work created the framework from which to
study leadership, a framework that acknowledges traits and situations but attempts to
transcend them through the exploration of developable skills (Northouse, 2010).
Katz’s (1955) model for studying leadership is built around three distinct skills:
technical, human, and conceptual. Katz purports, “this approach suggests that effective
administration rests on three basic developable skills which obviate the need for
identifying specific traits and which may provide a useful way of looking at and
understanding the administrative process” (p. 34). The three skills are seen to hold
differing degrees of importance at different organizational levels.
Technical skills are seen as most important at lower organizational levels. These
skills are necessary to perform specific operations. In reference to technical skills, Katz
(1955) suggests “technical skill implies an understanding of, and proficiency in, a
specific kind of activity, particularly one involving methods, processes, procedures, or
techniques” (p. 34). He also suggests that this type of skill is needed to a lesser degree as
you move up organizational levels. For example, technical skills would still be a
necessity at the middle level, but almost non-existent at the top levels (Katz, 1955).
Human skill is defined by Katz (1955) as “the executive’s ability to work
effectively as a group member and to build cooperation with the team he leads … human
skill is primarily concerned with working with people” (p. 34). He later recognizes that
human skill not only means cooperation but also requires the leader to understand the
perceptions and beliefs of others and to anticipate reactions. This skill type dictates the
way a leader reacts to others and how they approach situations. Katz (1955) warns,
“human skill cannot be a sometime thing… It must become an integral part of his whole
32
being” (pp. 34-35). This skill must be present at all organizational levels but is most
important to middle and top management.
Conceptual skill is the ability to see the big picture (Katz, 1955). Here, the leader
must take into account all the moving parts. The ability to decide between conflicting
solutions and make the difficult decisions is required. Katz (1955) states, “it includes
recognizing how the various functions of the organization depend on one another and
how changes in any one part affect all the others” (p. 35). This skill is most important for
top managers charged with setting the vision and strategic plan for the company
(Northouse, 2010). While conceptual skill is predominantly needed for executive
management, middle management requires a balance of human and conceptual skills
(Katz, 1955).
Taken together, the three-skill approach is a new way of observing the leadership
phenomenon. Katz (1955) concludes:
[Skill] transcends the need to identify specific traits in an effort to provide a
more useful way of looking at the administrative process. By helping to
identify the skills most needed at various levels of responsibility, it may prove
useful in the selection, training and promotion of executives. (p. 42)
This approach will greatly influence later works by Mumford, Zaccaro, and others.
Twenty years after its original publication, Katz’s work was reprinted to include a
retrospective. True to its original appeal, this second printing was welcomed. It reached
the public at a time when the study of leadership based on traits was almost non-existent
(Zaccaro, 2007). Unlike his previous statements, several positional shifts were present in
the retrospective.
33
Katz (1974) begins by dividing the human skill into two parts: leadership skill
within the managers own unit and skill in intergroup relationships. Katz (1974) states,
“managers are obligated to choose between gaining full support from subordinates and
enjoying full collaboration with peers and/or superiors. Having both is rarely possible”
(p. 101).
Katz’s most dramatic repositioning happens within the conceptual skills category.
Making a fundamental adjustment to his original model, Katz claims:
I am now far less sanguine about the degree to which this way of thinking can be
developed on the job … I question how easily this way of thinking can be
inculcated after a person passes adolescence. In this sense, then, conceptual skill
should perhaps be viewed as an innate ability. (p 101)
This shift in position runs in direct conflict with his original thesis, and once again
demonstrates the fine line between traits and skills.
Lastly, Katz (1974) redacts his claim that technical skill is only required at the
lower and middle organizational levels. He adjusts by recognizing that top managers will
need this skill in smaller or larger degrees based on the size of their organization and the
skill level of the teams they lead (Katz, 1974).
These adjustments to the model have had profound ramifications. The addition of
multiple levels of human skill and the concession that conceptual skills may in fact be
traits opens the door for other theorists to construct more complex models. Not
surprisingly, this modification to Katz’s original premise occurred just prior to the
reinvigorated examination of trait-based research and models that combine both traits and
skills.
34
Leadership skills model. During the early and mid-1990s, Michael Mumford and
associates began to study leadership skills through a contract with the Unites States
Army. Mumford and co-researchers, would attempt to create and validate a
comprehensives theory of leadership skills (Yammarino, 2000). This departure from
other studies of leadership relied on the leader’s ability to solve novel, ill-defined,
complex problems. With complex problem solving and performance as the ultimate
Leadership Outcomes, this model is comprised of four central components: Individual
Attributes, Competencies, Career Experience, and Environmental Influences (Connelly,
Gilbert, Zaccaro, et al. 2000; Mumford, Marks, Connelly, et al. 2000d; Mumford,
Zaccaro, Connelly, et al. 2000a; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al. 2000b; Yammarino,
2000). Together, these components show a blending of concepts ranging from early
skills-based research to individual trait models. Mumford, Zacarro, Connelly, et al.
(2000) state, “The skills-based model of leader performance proposed … does not
discount the importance of traits. In fact, within this model, skills are seen as developing
as a function of the interaction between traits and experience” (p. 156).
Mumford and associates’ skills-based model views Competencies (problemsolving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge), the heart of the model, combined
with Individual Attributes (general cognitive ability, crystallized cognitive ability,
motivation, and personality), which lead to Leadership Outcomes (effective problem
solving and performance). Outside the central components of this model are Career
Experiences and Environmental Influences, believed to also affect Leadership Outcomes.
The skills found in the Competencies component of the model (Problem-Solving skills,
Social Judgment skills, and Knowledge) were shown to be measurable through
35
constructed response measures, developable over time through experience, and present in
different amounts at different organizational levels (Connelly et, al. 2000; Mumford et al.
2000a; Mumford et al. 2000c). Taken together, these findings create a new way to view
leadership development and emergence across organizational levels. Mumford, Zaccaro,
Connelly, et al. (2000) conclude by stating:
… this skills-based approach to leader performance adds a significant new
element to our conception of leadership. It postulates that leadership may
sometimes be a rather indirect phenomenon where influence is exercised
through cognition and performance as well as through interpersonal
interaction. We believe that cognitive performance or skills performance
embedded in a distinctly social context, has always been a key aspect of
leadership and is likely to become progressively more important as we move
into the twenty-first century. (p. 167)
This series of studies, while seemingly straightforward, exposes the complexity of
leadership through the interplay of individual traits, skills, environmental factors,
situations, and career experiences. The major contribution of these studies was to further
the notion that skills can be developed, and therefore leaders can improve (Mumford et
al. 2000a). Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al. (2000) importantly state, “Thus, leaders
are not born, nor are they made; instead, their inherent potentials are shaped by
experiences enabling them to develop the capabilities needed to solve significant social
problems” (p. 24).
2007 study: Leadership skills STRATAPLEX. Mumford et al.’s original 2007
study suggests that the leadership phenomena can be understood through a purely skills-
36
based model. This skills approach consists of four specific skill requirement categories
which leaders must develop (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business and Strategic). These
leadership skill requirements are needed in varying amounts at different levels of the
organizational structure (junior, middle and senior management). The Leadership Skills
STRATAPLEX is a theoretical framework created to assist in the examination of
leadership skills required at different organizational levels (Mumford et al., 2007). This
model continues the line of skill-based leadership study previously mentioned in that it
focuses not on characteristics but on the skills, leaders require. By doing so, Mumford et
al. (2007) sought to “further our understanding of leadership skill requirements across
organizational levels by identifying four distinct categories of leadership skill
requirements that emerge differentially across organizational levels” (p. 155).
The foundation of this model is the reconceptualization of previously researched
leadership skills, consolidated into four distinct skills categories (Cognitive,
Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skills). These skill categories are similar to the
ones described by Katz (1955), and later by Mumford and colleagues (2000b). However,
while similar, these skill categories are more complex than Katz’s model and represent a
more consolidated version of Mumford et al.’s skills model. Additionally, the Leadership
Skills STRATAPLEX uniquely focuses on the leadership skills required by the position
rather than the skills of the leaders in the position. With these assumptions set, the model
builds on previous works by dividing leadership into tiers (strata) based on organizational
levels. Mumford et al. (2007) claim, “Three levels are chosen for illustration in the
figure, but the concept could be applied to more organizational levels” (p. 115).
37
Cognitive skills as conceptualized by Mumford’s STRATAPLEX model are
comprised of six previously identified skills or characteristics. These skills focus
primarily on thinking, communicating, and comprehending. As such, in a broad sense,
speaking and active listening encapsulate both sides of verbal communication, much as
writing and reading comprehension do for written communication. Lastly, active
learning and critical thinking address one’s ability to work with new information in a
logical way, thus addressing the strengths and weaknesses of each approach (Mumford et
al., 2007).
The Interpersonal skills category is comprised of four independent skill
requirements: Social Perceptiveness, Coordination, Negotiation, and Persuasion. These
skills align with previous works on social dynamics and are most similar to Katz’s
Human Skills. Here, the leader must be aware of the reactions of others and must
develop the ability to adjust, reconcile, and persuade team members (Mumford et al.,
2007).
Business skills address task completion. The ability to manage people, financial
and material resources is the heart of this skills category. Additionally, leaders who
possess Business skills are able to analyze the needs of others and manage personnel
resources (Mumford et al., 2007).
Lastly, the Strategic skills category focuses on the skills most necessary at the top
levels of leadership (Mumford et al., 2007). Visioning and Systems Perception are
important to creating and adapting systems. This executive operation also requires the
ability to evaluate systems, adapting when necessary. Most closely associated with
Mumford et, al.’s (2000b) work, the final four skills (Identification of Downstream
38
Consequences, Identification of Key Causes, Problem Identification, and Solution
Appraisal) all deal with the ability to implement the previous three skill categories, while
applying them to complex problem solving.
Much like Katz (1955) and Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly, et al. (2000), Mumford
et al. (2007) recognizes that each of the four skills categories is required at every level of
leadership to a greater or lesser degree:
Although it is true that jobs at higher organizational levels are likely to have
additional leadership skill requirements (e.g., visioning), they are also likely to
require more fundamental leadership skills (e.g., oral communication). These
Cognitive skills are likely to become increasingly important at higher
organizational levels because the environment in which they are used grows more
complex, novel and ill-defined (Mumford & Connelly, 1991). Thus, the positive
relationship between organizational level and leadership skill requirements will
exist for each of the four leadership skill requirement categories. (p. 158)
Mumford et al.’s (2007) study made several hypotheses: first, that the four skill
categories are distinguishable; next, that each will be required at every organizational
level; and lastly, that the degree of each skill category required will differ based on the
organizational level but generally increase as you ascend the organizational structure.
Skill categories were measured using terms derived from the Occupational
Information Network (O*NET). This job inventory was developed by the U.S.
Department of Labor to create a common language that could be applied across job
descriptions (Mumford et al, 2007).
39
Mumford et al.’s (2007) findings suggests that leadership skill requirements can
be grouped into four categories (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic).
Overall, leadership skills were required in greater amounts as one ascends the
organizational structure. In addition, leadership skill amounts varied in importance based
on the skill category and organizational level. Lastly, Strategic and Business skills were
more strongly correlated to organizational level than Interpersonal and Cognitive skills,
indicating that their development may be more critical (Mumford et al, 2007).
The limitations of this study are notable. Most importantly, the sample of 1,023
government workers may not be generalized to other fields, such as educational
leadership. Future research is encouraged to determine if this model of leadership skills
can be observed in other settings and contexts. This research intended to answer that call.
Section summary. The skills approach offers a unique way of viewing the
leadership phenomena. Unlike its precursor, the trait-based approach, skills approaches
have been able to look at what the leader does, rather than who the leader is. This more
developmental view of leadership is optimistic by nature. Northouse (2010) likens skills
to “playing a sport such as tennis or golf. Even without natural ability in these sports,
people can improve their games with practice and instruction” (p. 54). Northouse (2010)
later concludes, “Whereas the early research on skills highlighted the importance of skills
and the value of skills across different management level, the later work placed learning
skills at the center of effective leadership performance at all management levels” (p. 54).
This recognized shift reflects an evolution in leadership study from a leader attribute to
leader skill development focus.
40
Replication Theory
Gall, Borg and Gall (2003) state, “Replication is the process of repeating a
research study with a different group of research participants using the same or similar
methods” (p. 145). Yin (2003) further explains:
The replication logic is analogous to that used in multiple experiments… Some of
the replications might have attempted to duplicate the exact conditions of the
original experiment Other replications might have altered one or two experimental
conditions considered irrelevant to the original finding, to see whether the finding
could still be duplicated. Only with such replications would the original finding
be considered robust and worthy of continued investigating or interpretation.
(p. 47)
Replication studies enable research to be verified, extended, and generalized. While
often seen as important, replication studies are seldom perused or published. Nosek and
Lakens (2014) stated, “The signature strength of science is that the evidence is
reproducible. However, direct replications rarely appear in psychology journals because
standard incentives emphasize novelty over verification” (p. 59). Similarly, La Sorte
(1972) noted:
Even though many pay lip service to the importance of replication, one rarely
finds extended discussion on it in textbooks on research methods. When applied
in survey research the purpose of the replication is often left vague, its role in
verifying data and theory is either exaggerated or ignored and, on occasion
misused. (p. 218)
41
However, more recently social science has called for a renewed focus on replication as a
valuable tool for furthering research validity, theory building, and generalization
(Duvendack & Palmer-Jones, 2013; Klein et al., 2014; Nosek & Lakens, 2014).
Gall et al. (2003) claim, “The need for replication is even more critical in
education and other social science disciplines because studies often have weaknesses in
methodology or very limited generalizability” (p. 42). Gall et al. (2003) also conclude
that replication studies should be conducted in education research for the following
reasons:

To check the findings of a breakthrough study.

To check the validity of research findings across different populations.

To check trends or change over time.

To check important findings using different methodology.

To develop more effective or efficient interventions (pp. 42-43).
While the reasons for conducting replications are clear, the methods and
terminology remain less clear. La Sorte (1972) realized the lack of “common
terminology” when discussing replication studies. Additionally, he recognized the
benefit of a common framework for conducting replications contingent on the stated
purpose of the study. La Sorte (1972) proposes “replication refers to a conscious and
systematic repeat of an original study... The specific functions vary according to the aims
of the replicator” (p. 281). From this position La Sorte (1972) creates a Replication
Paradigm based on a review of the literature, comprised of the types and sub-types:
42
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Retest Replication
1.
Confirmation Retest
2.
Validity Retest
3.
Data Measurement Retest
4.
Stability Retest
Internal Replication
1.
Multiple Independent Samples
2.
Single sample
Independent Replication
1.
Empirical Generalization
a.
Validity
b.
Extension
c.
Specification
Theoretical Replication
1.
Theoretical Generalization
a.
Inter-Societal
b.
Intra-Societal
Figure 2. La Sorte’s (1972) Replication Paradigm. Adapted from outline in text
“Replication as a Verification Technique in Survey Research: A Paradigm,” by M. A.
La Sorte, 1972, The Sociological Quarterly, 13(2), pp. 218-219. Copyright 1972 by
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Retest replication. Retest replication is concerned with checking the original
study for reliability and ruling out procedural errors or inconsistencies. However, in
general this type of replication cannot rule out errors of process, nor extend or establish
bounds of generalizability. It must proceed in one of two directions; it can directly repeat
the original study or add new methods (La Sorte, 1972).
Confirmation retest. According to La Sorte (1972), confirmation retest is the
most basic type of replication where the original investigator will repeat the study with a
similar sample and very little difference in time. This type of replication adds validity to
and confirms the original findings. It does not allow for generalizability of theory.
43
Validity retest. This type of replication retest allows a single concept to be
measured using several different indicators. Here the replicator intends to validate the
use of a specific procedure for measurement. This retest has the power to validate new
research techniques by comparing the new technique against the original study’s more
accepted technique (La Sorte, 1972).
Data measurement retest. Data measurement retest is a replication tool used to
confirm qualitative research studies through quantitative analysis. For this replication, an
original qualitative study is translated into survey items and the same or similar sample is
retested. This type of replication allows for cross-methodological validation (La Sorte,
1972).
Stability retest. This type of replication retest looks to establish the stability of
research findings over time. Here the original study is faithfully reproduced or slightly
adapted and compared to the original study’s findings. This type of replication will
establish stability or suggest changes to the sample over time (La Sorte, 1972).
Internal replication. Internal Replication focuses on the validity of an original
study by conducting replications as part of the original study’s methodology. La Sorte
(1972) suggests that this can happen one of two ways: “drawing two or more independent
samples or taking a single sample and later dividing it into subsamples for the purposes
of analysis and comparison” (p. 221). This type of replication, like retest, can add
validity to findings.
Independent replication. La Sorte (1972) recognizes “A major aim of survey
research is that of generalization…Independent replication is the basic procedure for
verifying an empirical generalization” (p. 222). He concludes that independent
44
replication has the ability to go beyond confirming and validating research findings to
generalizing the findings or theories to larger populations. This is done by testing the
findings of an original study with an independent sample drawn from related populations
by a different investigator. La Sorte (1972) suggests that independent replication can
answer the following questions:

Is the empirical generalization valid?

Does further investigation extend it to other social situations or subgroups
outside the scope of the original study?

Is the empirical generalization limited by the conditions of particular social
situations or specific subgroups?
Like Yin (2003) and Gall et al. (2003), La Sorte’s independent replication model seeks to
test the universal generalization of research or establish the limits of its generalizability,
thus confirming or extending knowledge in that field.
Theoretical replication. Theoretical replication is the process of examining the
ability to apply empirical findings to a larger theoretical framework, or the ability to
generalize previous empirical findings to theoretical generalizations through the use of
independent replications and retests. La Sorte (1972) claims:
In order to move toward a theoretical generalization, where empirical variables
which have concrete anchoring points are abstracted and conceptualized to a
higher theoretical plane, it is necessary to sample a variety of groups using
different indicators of the same concepts. (p. 233)
This process can take the viewpoint of inter-societal or intra-societal replications.
45
Inter-societal. Inter-societal theoretical replication is primarily concerned with
replicating and validating theoretical generalizations between two or more societal
groups. Ultimately, the purpose of this type of replication is to determine whether a
theory holds true from one society (western) to another (eastern), thus being universal (La
Sorte, 1972).
Intra-societal. Intra-societal theoretical replication seeks to generalize theory
within one society but between different subgroups. La Sorte (1972) states, “A constant
problem in theory is the attempt to demonstrate that a variety of seemingly unrelated
social groups have certain analytical properties in common” (p. 224). This type of
replication attempts to reproduce the findings of an original study or theory in a different
setting within a common society.
Section summary. Replication theory is often used in experimental research to
establish validity. However, while seen as important to the social sciences replications are
rarely conducted. The lack of replication found in the literature and a lack of consistent
procedures or standards for replication have led to the overgeneralization of research
findings in the social sciences and education specifically (Duvendack & Palmer-Jones,
2013; Gall, Borg and Gall 2003; Klein et al., 2014; Nosek & Lakens, 2014; Yin, 2003).
La Sorte’s (1972) Replication Paradigm can be used as a framework for classifying
replications based on their purpose while providing a common language through which to
promote replication studies in the social sciences.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this literature review was to acknowledge the progression of
research surrounding the necessity for and development of leadership skills across
46
organizational levels. By beginning with the difficult but necessary task of defining
leadership for the purposes of this study, the clear lack of consensus in the field was
exposed. Context was established through a historical overview of the study of
leadership from early to modern and postmodern iterations. Like the lack of consensus in
defining leadership, the variety of lenses through which to observe and explain the
leadership phenomenon created additional challenges. By examination of anchor studies
in the trait- and skills-based models, this review of the literature paid deference to the
complex nature and boundless interplay of conditions that predicate the trait and skill
development of effective leadership. Finally, an examination of the importance and
possible use of theoretical replication in the social sciences as a means to extend theory
was discussed through the framework of La Sorte’s Replication Paradigm. The work
continues.
47
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology
Introduction
Chapter Three describes the methods and research design used in this study. The
chapter opens with a presentation of the research questions and hypotheses. Next, a
rationale for conducting a quantitative, conceptual replication study, with the goal of
generalizing the findings of previous studies to a new population, is discussed. The use
of a non-experimental, cross-sectional, descriptive, and multivariate correlational
research design is described. Chapter Three then discuss the methodology, participant
selection, data collection techniques, and analysis methods used. Finally, threats to
validity and reliability, their treatment, and the limitations of this study are examined.
Research Rationale
In light of the current national, state, and local educational reform movements,
coupled with the large number of leaders leaving the field of education, this researcher
sought to examine and understand the current leadership skills required of educational
leadership, across organizational levels (Malone & Caddell, 2000). Specifically, this
researcher wanted to know if Mumford et al.’s (2007) Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
could be used as a model to better understand the current leadership requirements of
educational leaders in New York State, and perhaps nationally.
Rationale for Replication
Replication theory is primarily concerned with external validity. Johnson and
Christensen (2012) argue that increasing the number of times research findings are found
to be true, in different context or settings, increases the ability to generalize the findings
beyond the original study or participants. Smith (1970) proposed “The most defensible
48
test of the reliability of data is provided by the replication or cross-validation study” (p.
971). Nosek and Lakens (2014) stated:
Replication is a central tenet of science; its purpose is to confirm the accuracy of
empirical findings, clarify the conditions under which an effect can be observed,
and estimate the true effect size. Successful replication of an experiment requires
the recreation of the essential conditions of the initial experiment. (p. 138)
However, while replication is considered a main tenant of science, it is rarely carried out
(Duvendack & Palmer-Jones, 2013; Gall et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2014; Nosek & Lakens,
2014; Yin, 2003).
Replication studies can take several forms other than direct replication designs,
which repeat the original study. This 2016 study conducted an Intra-Societal Theoretical
Replication as outlined by La Sorte (1972) by replicating the critical aspects of the 2007
study in a new setting and context within a single society. Undertaking this study in a
different context (New York State) and with a different sample (Educational Leaders)
adds to the generalizability of Mumford et al.’s original findings. The replication of
Mumford et al.’s (2007) leadership skills STRATAPLEX may further validate this model
or establish a clear boundary for its use, ultimately increasing what is known about the
requirements of leaders in the field of K-12 public education in New York State.
2007 Study Statistical Findings
Mumford et al. (2007) sought to measure the leadership skills required of, “1,023
“professional employees working in an international agency of the U.S. government”
(p.159). These positions encompassed five different career specialties; administrative,
public relations, economic analysts, political analysts and multifunctional positions
49
comprised of a combination of the other four. These leaders were located in 156 different
countries. Specifically, Mumford et al. (2007) hypothesized the following:
(H1). The Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill categories will be
empirically distinguishable.
(H2). Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill category such that Cognitive
skills will be needed the greatest amount, followed by Interpersonal, Business,
and Strategic skills, respectively.
(H3). Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill requirements will be
positively related to the job’s level in the organization.
(H4). Leadership skill requirements will interact with organizational level such that:
a. Strategic skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business
skill requirements.
b. Business skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive or Interpersonal skill
requirements.
c. Interpersonal skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive skill requirements. (pp. 157159)
Each leadership skill requirement level was measured using a 7-point Likert scale
with behavioral anchors provided for low, medium, and high points on the scale.
Cognitive skill requirements were measured through six items with an internal
50
consistency reliability of .90. Interpersonal skill requirements were measured by four
items with an internal consistency reliability of .84. Business skill requirements were
assessed through the use of four questions with and internal consistency reliability of .75.
Strategic skill requirements were assessed through six items with an internal consistency
reliably of .91 (Mumford et al, 2007).
Hypothesis 1. “The Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill
categories will be empirically distinguishable” (Mumford et al., 2007, p. 157) was
measured through confirmatory factor analysis, using the maximum likelihood method of
covariance structure analysis (Structural Equation Modeling). One and four factor
measurement models were built, tested and compared using a Chi-squared difference test.
Both the four factor and one factor model fit the data (χ2=324.1 and χ2=714.8)
respectively. However, the χ2 difference test suggests that the four factor model better fit
the data than the one factor model (Δ χ2=390.7, 6df, p<.01) thus, supporting hypothesis 1
(Mumford et al., 2007).
Hypothesis 2. “Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill category such
that Cognitive skills will be needed the greatest amount, followed by Interpersonal,
Business, and Strategic skills, respectively” (Mumford et al., 2007, p. 158) was measured
using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). This analysis evaluated the
mean differences in leadership skill requirements among organizational levels, while
controlling for organizational specialty and location. Mumford et al. (2007) used a
within-subject design to control for rater effects as leaders gave ratings for each of the
skill levels (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic). The Bonferroni procedure
was used when comparing means. The result yielded significant differences in the
51
means, with controls, for all four skills at a p<.05 level. Adjusted means for each
leadership skill indicated that Cognitive skill were needed in greater amounts followed by
Interpersonal, Business and Strategic skills (x̄=5.05, x̄=5.11, x̄=5.34, x̄=5.44)
respectively. However, pairwise comparisons indicated that Cognitive skills were needed
in greater amounts than Business, that Cognitive and Interpersonal skills were needed in
greater amounts than Strategic, and all other mean differences while in the predicted
direction were not significant at the p<.05 level. Thus, hypothesis 2 was found to be
partially supported (Mumford et al., 2007).
Hypothesis 3. “Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill
requirements will be positively related to the job’s level in the organization” (Mumford et
al., 2007, p. 159) was measured through the use of partial correlations. Hypothesis 3 was
fully supported as all partial correlations, when controlling for the effects of the control
variables, indicated positive significant relationships between all four skills requirements
and organizational level such that Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business and Strategic skills
correlated at (r=.15, p<.05; r=.20, p<.05; r=.28 p<.05; and r=.25, p<.05) respectively
(Mumford et al., 2007).
Hypothesis 4. Leadership skill requirements will interact with organizational
level such that:
a. Strategic skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business
skill requirements.
52
b. Business skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive or Interpersonal skill
requirements.
c. Interpersonal skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive skill requirements.” (Mumford
et al., 2007, p. 159)
This hypothesis was tested through an examination of the correlation coefficients
between the leadership skill requirement and organizational level while controlling for
organizational specialty and location. Correlations were compared using the Bonferroni
correction for multiple comparisons. Hypothesis 4a was partially supported in that
Strategic skill requirements (r=.25, p<.05) were more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive and Interpersonal skill but not Business skill (r=.15, p<.05 and
r=.20, p<.05; r=.28, p<.05) respectively. Hypothesis 4b was fully supported as a
stronger relationship existed for Business skill requirements and organizational level than
that for Interpersonal and Cognitive (r=28, p<.05; r=.20, p<.05 and r=.15, p<.05)
respectively. Finally, Hypothesis 4c was fully supported as the strength of the
relationship between Interpersonal skill requirements and organizational level was
stronger than that of Cognitive skill requirements (r=.20, p<.05 and r=.15, p<.05)
respectively (Mumford et al., 2007).
Modifications to 2007 Study
Modifications were made to the original 2007 study to allow for its appropriate
application to the new setting and context. Mumford et al.’s sample was drawn from
1,023 U.S. professional government employees stationed around the world. Each
53
employee was classified as belonging to one of three organizational levels (junior, midlevel, and senior) dependent on their years of service (1-5, 6-20, and 21+ years). This
classification system was appropriate for the 2007 study as the U.S. government practices
a promotional system where each employee must pass through each of the lower
organizational level, being promoted or forced to retire. Additionally, Mumford et al.
(2007) controlled for several variables such as organizational specialty and location.
Finally, the survey tool was distributed in paper form.
The current study drew its sample from K-12 public school and district leaders in
the State of New York. Each leader was classified into one of four organizational levels
(Assistant Principal, Principal, Assistant Superintendent, and Superintendent). This
differs from the original study in that an additional level was added and leaders must not
always pass through each of the lower organizational levels. This classification system
was appropriate as it represented the four major educational leadership levels found in
New York State. The current study differed from the original in that the survey was
distributed electronically. Also, this researcher controlled for several different variables
such as years of experience, education level, district size, and district setting. A
comparison of both the 2007 and 2015 study can be seen in Table 1.
54
Table 1.
Comparison of the 2007 Study and Current Study
2007 Study
Current Study
Location
World-Wide
New York State
Subjects
Professional U.S. Government
Employees
K-12 Educational Leaders
Organizational Levels
Junior
Mid-level
Senior
Assistant Principal
Building Principal
Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent
Survey Tool
Paper, Mailed
Electronic, Surveymonkey
Control Variables
Organizational Specialty
Location
Years of Experience
Education Level
District Setting
Research Question and Hypothesis
Quantitative research is concerned with answering “what,” “where,” and “when”
questions and uncovering the variation and complexity that exists in the natural and
behavioral sciences (Butin, 2010; Pedhazur, 1997). Given that leadership is complex and
that leadership skills models are rarely studied, a replication of Mumford, Campion, and
Morgeson’s study was conducted in hopes of generalizing and validating the Leadership
Skills STRATAPLEX framework within a new population (Educational Leaders) and
context (New York Public Schools; Bass, 1990; Mumford et al., 2007; Mumford,
Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000). Additionally, this researcher intended to
better understand the current leadership skills required by educational leaders in New
York State, across organizational levels, with the hope of directing future leadership
training, professional development, and the hiring and promotional practices of school
districts. In this study, the researcher explored possible answers to the question:
55
To what extent is Mumford et al.’s (2007) Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model
generalizable to leaders of New York State’s K-12 public schools?
In an attempt to answer this question and describe the leadership skills required
by leaders of New York’s K-12 public schools, a theoretical replication was conducted
which tested the following hypotheses as found in Mumford et al’s., (2007) original study
(pp. 151-159).
(H1). The Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill categories will
be empirically distinguishable.
(H2). Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill category such that
Cognitive skills will be needed the greatest amount, followed by
Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skills, respectively.
(H3). Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill requirements will be
positively related to the job’s level in the organization.
(H4). Leadership skill requirements will interact with organizational level such
that:
a. Strategic skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business skill requirements.
b. Business skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive or Interpersonal skill requirements.
c. Interpersonal skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive skill requirements.
56
2016 Research Design and Methodology
This theoretical replication, descriptive, non-experimental, quantitative, crosssectional study employed the use of descriptive, bivariate, multivariate, correlational
statistics as-well-as structural equation modeling to test the aforementioned hypotheses,
thus, answering the research question. This study first examined whether a four-factor
model of leadership skills was empirically distinguishable and if so, what is the
relationship between these leadership factors and leaders’ organizational level while
controlling for other factors. Finally, this study examined the proportion of leadership
skill required by leaders at different organizational levels regardless of their experience,
educational level, and district setting.
Replication. While often neglected by the social sciences, the purpose of direct
and conceptual replication studies is to confirm, validate, generalize, and extend
knowledge (Burman, Reed, & Alm, 2010; Duvendack & Palmer-Jones, 2010; ReiterPalmon &Tinio, 2014; Smith, 1970). In this study, the researcher intended to apply The
Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model to a new setting and in so doing attempted to
determine the generalizability of a previously validated model to determine whether its
relevance extends to broader populations.
Descriptive research. The goal of descriptive research is to describe existing
populations and make inferences about larger populations through the establishment of
trends, while providing an accurate picture of the characteristics of the phenomenon
being studied (Creswell, 2003; Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).
Descriptive research is limited in that while allowing for rich description, it does not
focus on cause-and-effect relationships; instead, it describes existing variables and the
57
relationships between those variables (Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Singh, 2007). Much
is unknown concerning leadership skills, and less is known about how these skills relate
to the positions held by leaders (Bass, 1990; Mumford et al., 2007). Additionally, no
study of K-12 public school leadership skill requirements was found in the literature,
justifying both a descriptive and correlational research design.
Non-experimental research. Non-experimental research is undertaken when the
manipulation of the independent variable(s) is not possible or ethical (Johnson &
Christensen, 2012). While often weaker than experimental and quasi-experimental
research in its ability to generalize, non-experimental quantitative research is able to
answer many important research questions found in the field of education (Butin, 2010;
Johnson & Christensen, 2012). Manipulation of variables, namely educational leadership
positions, is not possible; therefore, an empirical, non-experimental, quantitative design
was used.
Cross-sectional design. Consistent with Mumford et al.’s (2007) original study,
a cross-sectional design was used for this study due to the large sample of educational
leaders and the resources available to the researcher. According to Johnson and
Christensen (2012), cross-sectional research allows for large amounts of diverse data to
be collected in a short amount of time. Additionally, a cross-sectional design facilitated
data collection from a large number of participants comprised of multiple groups.
However, several weaknesses exist when using cross-sectional research designs,
including the inability to observe changes over time or account for the specific mood of
the respondent as they completed the survey (Johnson & Christensen, 2012). Despite
these limitations, and due to the nature of this study and its research question, a single
58
measure in time was appropriate for gathering a large sample, with the ability to describe
only the current state of leadership skills required of educational leaders in New York
State.
Statistical analysis. Since this study attempted to describe both the current
leadership skills required by educational leaders and compare a one factor and two factor
model, structural equation modeling and multivariate procedures were applied.
Specifically, Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance (MANCOVA), withinsubject design, was used to determine the effects of several independent variables on
multiple dependent variables while controlling for the impact of covariates (George &
Mallory, 2011).
This researcher explored the use of Mumford et al.’s Leadership Skills
STRATAPLEX as a possible model for describing the current state of public school
leaders in New York State through a replication study. This study used structural
equation modeling (SEM) to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis to determine and
compare the model fit of a one and two-factor model. This was followed by descriptive,
bivariate, correlational, and multivariate statistics.
Setting
Seven hundred and eighty-five New York State public school districts were the
population target of this study. The criteria for inclusion was as follows: public school
districts (BOCES, City, Union Free, Independent Union Free, Central, City Central,
Independent Central, and Common) as listed by New York State Department of
Education records for 2013. The “Big Five” city school districts (New York City,
Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers) were not included as their leadership
59
structure and size often differ from the rest of the state. Parochial, private, and charter
districts were not included as their leadership certification requirements vary. From the
remaining districts, district-level leadership and leaders of secondary schools (middle and
high) were considered. Any school district that did not have a leader at each of the four
stratified leadership levels (Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Building Principal,
and Assistant Principal) was not included.
Sampling
Upon receiving approval from the Manhattanville College Institutional Review
Board, electronic surveys were administered, through email, to 5,450 qualifying
educational leaders in New York State (Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents,
Building Leaders, and Assistant Principals) for which contact information was publically
available. This email described the purpose of the study, parameters for participation,
and statements concerning confidentiality and consent.
Electronic surveys were emailed to each of the participants containing a hyperlink
to SurveyMonkey.com. Follow up emails were sent to participants who did not initially
respond, one, two, and four weeks after the original distribution. Surveys are appropriate
for obtaining data concerning attitudes, beliefs, values, and perceptions and can be used
to collect several additional types of information from participants (Johnson &
Christensen, 2012). Electronic surveys capitalize on the ease of creation, distribution,
and collection (Butin, 2010). The survey was distributed during the months of October
and November, 2014. This period of time generally represents a slower period for
educational leaders as students have transitioned back to school and the holiday season
has not started, serving as an opportunity to maximize participation. Once the survey
60
period closed, responses were uploaded to IBM’s SPSS software, a powerful statistical
analysis tool (George & Mallery, 2011). The specific statistical analysis and techniques
that were used are discussed in subsequent sections of Chapter Three and Four.
Instrumentation
This researcher developed an interest in leadership skill models as an alternative
to trait-based models while reading a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly [The
Leadership Quarterly An International Journal of Political, Social and Behavioral
Science] dedicated to the topic. Ultimately, this led to further inquiry and the
development of the overarching research question: To what extent is Mumford et al.’s
Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model generalizable to leaders of New York State’s K12 public schools?
In order to address the first part of the research question, after receiving
permission from the author of the original study, the researcher conducted a theoretical
replication study using Mumford et al.’s (2007) validated, twenty-one question survey.
The addition of demographic questions specific to educational leaders was added.
Appendix B shows the survey for this study.
The survey consisted of four sections, which intended to measure the four
leadership skill requirements found in the STRATAPLEX (Cognitive, Interpersonal,
Business, and Strategic skill requirements). Each survey question in these sections was
measured using a 7-point Likert scale, where one indicated low levels required and seven
indicated high levels required. Anchor statements, derived from the Occupational
Information Network developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, were also provided.
61
The first section of the survey consisted of six questions designed to measure the
Cognitive skill requirements of the leader’s position. Each question measured a specific
aspect of Cognitive skills, including: speaking, active listening, writing, reading
comprehension, active learning, and critical thinking. Taken together, these questions
formed the Cognitive skill requirement index (CSR).
The next section included four questions intended to measure Interpersonal skill
requirements. The specific components of Interpersonal skill requirements are: social
perceptiveness, coordination, negotiation, and persuasion. These four questions were
combined to create the Interpersonal skill requirement index (ISR).
The third section of the survey measured the Business skill requirements of the
leader’s job. This section consisted of four survey questions intended to measure the
specific aspects of Business skills, which included: operations analysis, management of
personnel resources, and management of financial resources. These questions were used
to create the Business skill requirements index (BSR).
The fourth section of the survey asked leaders to identify the level of Strategic
skill required by their leadership position. This section consisted of seven survey
questions, each of which measures one of the following components of Strategic
leadership skill: visioning, systems perception, system evaluation, identification of
downstream consequences, identification of key causes, problem identification, and
solution appraisal. These questions were combined to create the Strategic skill
requirement index (SSR).
The final section of this survey consisted of demographic questions that were used
as controls for this study. These questions asked the educational leaders to identify
62
current leadership level, gender, total years as a leader, total number of graduate credits
earned beyond the masters’ degree, district enrollment, district geographic setting (rural,
suburban, urban small city), and socioeconomic status (SES). The intent of these
questions was to provide a context in which to examine leadership and to determine the
unique effects of these factors on the leadership skill requirements at each organizational
level.
Dependent Variables
Dependent variables were organized into four leadership skill requirement groups:
Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic (Mumford et al., 2007).
Cognitive skill requirements. As conceptualized by Mumford et al. (2007),
Cognitive skills were the basic skills and capacities that allowed leaders to think,
communicate, learn, and adapt. These foundational skills were comprised of the
following specific attributes:
Speaking. Speaking skill requirements referred to the leader’s required level of
oral communication skills. This skill involved the leader’s ability to communicate
effectively, receiving and disseminating information (Mumford et al., 2007).
Active listening. Active listening skill requirements were those skills required by
leaders which allowed them to understand questions, thus achieving complete
understanding of a problem or situation (Mumford et al., 2007).
Writing. Writing skill requirements spoke to the leaders required skill level
concerning written communication. The leader’s ability to clearly communicate ideas
while keeping the message and audience in mind were a key Cognitive skill (Mumford et
al., 2007).
63
Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension was the leader’s required skill
level to read, comprehend, and evaluate complex texts (Mumford et al., 2007). Texts
were often job or level specific.
Active learning. Learning how to adapt to new situations and apply new
information to these situations were examples of active learning skills (Mumford et al.,
2007).
Critical thinking. Critical thinking skill requirements referred to the level of skill
required by the leader’s position to use logic and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of
different approaches.
Interpersonal skill requirements. For Mumford et al. (2007), Interpersonal
skills “grows out of what previous research has referred to as social capacities, social
judgment, social complexity and differentiation” (pp. 156-157). This skill enabled a
leader to understand the actions and reactions of others, and allowed them to coordinate,
influence, and negotiate with others.
Social perceptiveness. Social perceptiveness was the level of skill required by a
leader to understand others, namely their actions and reactions (Mumford et al., 2007).
Coordination. Coordination represented a leader’s required skill level when
adjusting to the actions of others or coordinating with others to achieve a common
outcome (Mumford et al., 2007).
Negotiation. Negotiation skills were best described as the level of skill required
to bring others together and/or to reconcile differences between two or more parties
(Mumford et al., 2007).
64
Persuasion. Persuasion described the skill required by leaders to persuade others
to change their minds or behaviors to align with organizational goals (Mumford et al.,
2007).
Business skill requirements. Business skills were originally conceptualized as
management skills in previous works of Mumford et al. For the purposes of the
STRATAPLEX, they described a leader’s daily management of the “functional areas that
create the context in which most leaders work,” as well as management of resources
specific to the leader’s area of responsibility (Mumford et al., 2007, p. 157).
Operations analysis. Operations analysis described the leaders’ specific, daily
job operations and the level of skill required to complete them (Mumford et al., 2007).
Management of personnel resources. Management of personnel resources
referred to the leader’s required amount of skill in motivating and directing people in
their daily work responsibilities (Mumford et al., 2007).
Management of financial resources. Management of financial resources
described the leader’s required skill level for budgeting how money will be spent to
accomplish organizational goals (Mumford et al., 2007).
Management of material resources. Management of material resources referred
to the leader’s required ability to manage, obtain, and appropriately use materials,
facilities, and equipment to accomplish one’s job (Mumford et al., 2007).
Strategic skill requirements. Strategic skills were those that allowed leaders to
manage and understand complexity, deal with ambiguity, and see the potential
consequences of decisions from a systems level (Mumford et al., 2007). These skills
65
were most important to organizational leaders who are responsible for conceptualizing
and executing the steps necessary for long-term planning.
Visioning. Visioning was the required leadership skill that allowed a leader to
understand and develop a picture of how the organization should function (Mumford et
al., 2007).
Systems perception. Systems perception was the leader’s ability to determine
when key changes have happened or are most likely going to happen to the organization
(Mumford et al., 2007).
Systems evaluation. Systems evaluation was a skill that allowed leaders to
evaluate the performance of an organization (Mumford et al., 2007).
Identification of downstream consequences. Downstream consequences were
the predicted consequences of organizational decisions or indecision (Mumford et al.,
2007). A key Strategic skill was the ability of a leader to consider and make decisions
with these potential consequences in mind.
Identification of key causes. A leader’s ability to identify key causes was
described as the awareness of changes in the field and/or outside policy implications on
the organization (Mumford et al., 2007).
Problem identification. Problem identification was the leader’s ability to
recognize important organizational problems that need to be solved. These problems can
be routine or novel (Mumford et al., 2007).
Solution appraisal. Solution appraisal was the leader's ability to reflect on and
learn from the outcomes of problems solved, and redirect efforts when necessary
(Mumford et al., 2007).
66
Independent Variables
There were four independent variables that were considered by this researcher:
Organizational levels. For the purposes of this study, organizational level was
understood to describe the stratified leadership level to which the surveyed leader
belonged: (a) Assistant Principal, (b) Building Principal, (c) Assistant Superintendent,
and (d) Superintendent of schools or other chief executive.
Control Variables
Leader’s years of experience. The leader’s years of experience was defined as
the total number of years served as an educational leader at any of the four stratified
organizational levels.
Leader’s level of education. For the purpose of this study, the leader’s level of
education was represented by the number of credit hours earned beyond the master’s
degree and highest degree earned (MA +30, MA+45, MA+60, Doctorate).
District setting. The district setting distinguished between rural, suburban, and
small city school districts.
Statistical Analysis
In order to answer the research question through addressing the corresponding
hypotheses, quantitative methods with statistical analysis were conducted, which
included: descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients (bivariate and partial),
confirmatory factor analysis, a Chi-squared difference test between two structural
equation measurement models, and a one-way multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA).
67
The data were first screened for missing data, outliers, normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity. Descriptive univariate statistics were then presented, including:
frequencies, mean, median, mode, and standard deviations for all dependent,
independent, and control variables.
Latent variables were then created utilizing both traditional confirmatory factor
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis utilizing structural equation modeling.
According to Costello and Osborne (2005) “The aim of factor analysis is to reveal any
latent variable that causes the manifest variables to covary” (p.2). As with most research,
this researcher collected and analyzed the data with an a priori idea about the variables
already set, and thus intended to test the hypothesis that all four of the leadership skill
requirements would be distinct (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Preacher & MacCallum,
2003).
Additionally, Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin’s (KMO) measure of sample adequacy was
used along with Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity to determine if the data were adequately
distributed and analysis could therefore, be conducted. Factors were created and
reliability testing conducted in order to further test construct reliability and theory
validity, via calculating Cronbach’s alpha (George & Mallory, 2011).
Bivariate correlations were examined. Bivariate correlation coefficients (Person’s
r) were calculated to examine the strength and direction of the relationships between all
study variables. A two-tailed test of significance was used with a probability level of
p<.05 being considered significant (Cohen, 1992). Partial correlations between
leadership skill indices (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business and Strategic) and
organization level, while controlling for variables (years of experience, education level,
and district setting) were calculated. This procedure intended to examine the correlations
68
between variables, while controlling for the effects of other variables (George & Mallory,
2011).
Structural equation modeling was used to create both a one and four factor model
of leadership skills required. These models were tested for general model fit using the
following fit indices as suggests by Byrne (2010) and Hoyle (2012): Chi-square (CS),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA). The two models were then compared via a Chi-square
difference test to determine which model best fit the data.
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) is a procedure that
determines the effects of several independent variables on multiple dependent variables
examining whether or not differences exist among dependent variables (George &
Mallery, 2009). This procedure was used to determine if different amounts of one or
more of the leadership skills were required at different organizational levels, while
controlling for the leader’s experience, educational level, and district setting. While
multiple ANCOVAs could have been run, a MANCOVA allowed for analysis to be done
through the utilization of one test thus protecting against possible type 1 errors inherent in
running multiple tests.
Limitations of the study
One limitation of this study was that while it controlled for several factors
suspected to directly or indirectly affect school leadership, other factors may exist that
were not considered. Their omission and the lack of skills-based leadership research
conducted in the public school setting was a major limitation of this study.
69
Cross-sectional research designs presented several weaknesses, including an
inability to observe changes over time or the ability to account for the specific mood of
the respondent when the survey was administered. These limitations affected the
reliability of the survey data collected.
As a theoretical model, The Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX was originally tested
and validated in a sample of professional employees working in and international U.S.
government agency that used an “up or out” promotional system (Mumford et al., 2007).
Consequently, if you failed to be promoted within a specific period of time, you were
forced to retire, leaving a sample of leaders who demonstrated upward mobility within
the organization. Conversely, when studying leaders of public schools this dynamic does
not exist. Educational leaders hold positions in the organizational structure for many
reasons, both personal and professional, opting at times to remain at a particular
organizational level for long periods of time.
Finally, this study attempted to examine the perceived leadership skills required
of educational leaders in NYS at different organizational levels. Because of the specific
sample, the findings cannot easily be generalized to other states or nonpublic schools.
Additionally, descriptive research methodology was used, and by its nature descriptive
research seeks to describe rather than predict, eliminating the ability of this study to serve
as a predictive tool.
Chapter Summary
One goal of this study was to determine if the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
could be generalized to leaders of public education in New York State, thus furthering the
limited work in the field of leadership skills and educational leadership. Ultimately, this
70
study intended to impact leadership training, hiring protocols, and professional
development practices. While this study was only one step towards that end, further
research concerning educational leaders, examined through a skills-based approach is
needed. This study employed the use of quantitative, cross-sectional survey methodology
to describe the current skill requirements of New York State’s educational leaders, while
also attempting to validate the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX proposed by Mumford et
al (2007). Additionally, this researcher intended to examine the unique effects of several
control variables that have been shown to affect how leadership is carried out, thus
predicting the skill requirements necessary in specific settings and conditions.
While thousands of studies of leaders and leadership have been conducted
through the identification and examination of traits, with a focus on the leader, few have
approached the phenomena from a skills-based approach with a focus on the job of the
leader (Bass, 1990; Mumford et al., 2007; Northouse, 2010). This researcher intended to
add to the existing body of literature with the hope of furthering our understanding of
educational leadership during a time of dramatic change.
71
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Findings
Introduction
In this chapter, the findings of this study are presented through descriptive,
univariate, and multivariate statistics. Additionally, confirmatory, measurement, and
structural models were explored with the purpose of determining the extent to which
Mumford et al.’s four-factor Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model was generalizable to
public school leaders in New York State. Replication methodology was utilized with
many of the original statistical tests performed, which allowed a comparison between the
two studies and their findings. Particular attention was paid to the strength of relationship
between the independent variables “Organizational Level” (Superintendent, Assistant
Superintendent, Building Principal, and Assistant Principal), and dependent variables
“Leadership Skills Required” (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic), and the
mean differences between these variables, while controlling for the effects of covariates.
Structural equation modeling (SEM), utilizing confirmatory factor analysis, was used to
compare the relative fit of a four-factor leadership skills STRATAPLEX model compared
with a one-factor model of leadership skills. Further tests were conducted beyond the
scope of the 2007 study in order to more deeply examine the mean differences that
existed between the dependent variables “Leadership Skills” and the grouping variable
“Organizational Level”, controlling for other factors. These tests included a full factorial,
one-way multiple analysis of variance and covariance (MANCOVA) with LSD post hoc
tests. All tests were completed in order to formulate conclusions to the research question
and corresponding hypotheses. These questions and hypotheses are listed below to
provide the context and logical progression of this chapter.
72
Research Question
To what extent is Mumford et al.’s Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model
generalizable to leaders of New York State’s K-12 public schools?
Hypotheses
In an attempt to answer this question and describe the leadership skills required
by leaders of New York’s K-12 public schools, a theoretical replication was conducted
which tested the following hypotheses as found in Mumford et al. (2007) original study
(pp. 151-159).
(H1). The Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill categories will
be empirically distinguishable.
(H2). Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill category such that
Cognitive skills will be needed the greatest amount, followed by
Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skills, respectively.
(H3). Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill requirements will be
positively related to the job’s level in the organization.
(H4). Leadership skill requirements will interact with organizational level such
that:
a. Strategic skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business skill requirements.
b. Business skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive or Interpersonal skill requirements.
c. Interpersonal skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive skill requirements.
73
Review of The Study’s Purpose
The purpose of this research study was to examine, through confirmatory factor
analysis, the relative fit of Mumford et al.’s four-factor (STRATAPLEX) model for
leadership skills with the leadership skill requirements reported by educational leaders in
New York State. Additionally, this researcher sought to re-conceptualize the Leadership
Skills STRATAPLEX model for educational leaders in New York State, providing insight
into the complex roles and unique combinations of skills required by these educational
leaders. The ultimate goals of this researcher was to examine and articulate these
findings in a practical way in order to maximize their potential impacts on school
leadership, development, training programs, hiring, and promotional practices.
Summary of Setting and Data Collection Procedures
Setting. The study’s setting included a stratified sample of public school leaders
(Assistant Principals, Principals, Assistant Superintendents, and Superintendents) in New
York State, exclusive of the Big Five city school districts (New York City, Buffalo,
Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers), for which contact information was publicly available.
Data collection. Contact information for principals and superintendents is
annually compiled by the New York State Education Department (NYSED) and was
obtained from a readily available database found at the NYSED’s Department of
Statistics. Since no such database exists for assistant superintendents and assistant
principals, this contact information was obtained and compiled manually. A database of
publically available assistant superintendents and assistant principals was created by
visiting all corresponding district and school web pages for which a superintendent and
principal was reported in the NYSED annual report. Publically available contact
74
information was obtained and confirmed for 5,450 school leaders and recorded in an
Excel spreadsheet by name, position, title, and district. On October 25, 2014, this
researcher sent those identified leaders an electronic request soliciting participation in
this study. The request included a detailed description of the study, an active consent
form, this researcher’s contact information, and a link to the twenty-eight question survey
through SurveyMonkey’s software. Two follow-up requests for participation were made
on November 1, 2014, and November 11, 2014, respectively. These follow-up requests
were made only to those who had yet to respond and to those who had begun the survey
but failed to complete it. Additionally, this researcher attended the School
Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS) annual conference on October
26-27, 2014, where 250 business cards containing a Quick Response Code (QR scan
Code), survey information, and a request to participate were distributed to educational
leaders from across New York State. The data collection window concluded on
November 22, 2014, and the electronic survey collection devices were closed. Of the
original 5,450 leaders who were asked to participate, 207 had previously “opted out” of
SurveyMonkey surveys and were immediately eliminated by the survey collection
system. During the survey collection period, 40 additional leaders “opted out” of
SurveyMonkey surveys, and 37 leaders indicated that they did not wish to participate in
the study by selecting the choice “no” on the active consent page. Finally, 89 email
addresses were returned as invalid or changed. This researcher was unable to find valid
email addresses for these leaders. Of the 5,077 leaders who received requests to
participate, 1,235 (24%) consented to participate in the study. Of the 1,235 who
consented to participate, 1,018 completed both sections one and two of the survey with
75
nine having completed section one but having failed to complete section two. The data
from these 1,027 surveys surveyed leaders were further analyzed.
Pre-Analysis Data Screening
Missing data. Data analysis began with the survey data collected from 1,027
school administrators in New York State, ranging in position from assistant principal to
superintendent. The use of multiple stochastic imputations found within SPSS was
considered for replacing the missing demographic data for nine individuals who did not
complete section two (demographics) of the survey. Ultimately, due to the relatively
small number of incomplete surveys, all nine incomplete responses were removed. The
remaining 1,018 complete surveys yielded a 19% return rate of all leaders surveyed.
Responses from the survey were then imported into SPSS from SurveyMonkey for
analysis.
Outliers. According to Mertler and Vannatta (2005), outliers are “cases with
unusual or extreme values at one or both ends of a sample distribution” (p. 27).
Researchers must be cognizant of outliers and the ill effects they can have on one’s
ability to accurately interpret their data. Outliers can be both univariate and multivariate
in nature, exhibiting extreme values on one variable or combinations of variables,
respectively (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). For this reason,
both univariate and multivariate outliers were examined and treated through trimming.
After the nine incomplete surveys were removed, the remaining 1,018 responses
were evaluated for univariate normality of distribution and the “outlier labeling rule” was
applied (Hoaglin, Iglewicz, & Tukey, 1986). Much like Tukey (1977), Iglewicz and
Banerjee (2001) acknowledged the importance of establishing simple and effective
76
“outlier screening procedures that can easily be applied to both large and more moderate
data sets” (p. 1). This becomes increasingly important, as modern research tends to
evaluate ever larger datasets, which makes the traditional visual inspections of frequency
distributions or histograms difficult (Inglewicz & Banerjee, 2001; Mertler &Vannatta,
2005). As this study fell within the range of a moderately large sample size as defined by
Iglewicz and Banerjee (2001), and in light of Hoaglin, & Iglewicz’s (1987) revision of
Tukey’s (1977) “Boxplot outlier labeling rule,” the following equation and g value were
used to identify univariate outliers in this sample ((Q1-g(Q3-Q1), Q3+g(Q3-Q1) where
Q1= the 25th percentile, Q3 = the 75th percentile, and g=2.2). While originally a g-value
of 1.5 and 3.0 had been suggests, these values tend to yield both overly liberal and
conservative results, resulting in the elimination of, or failure to eliminate, valuable data.
For this reason, Hoaglin and Iglewicz’s (1987) suggests value of 2.2 is now widely used.
Next, the mean scores for “total leadership skills” were calculated and evaluated
by creating a new variable in SPSS consisting of the responses to survey questions 2-22,
which measured the four factors of leadership skill. The mean scores were summed and
divided by 21, resulting in an average “total leadership skills” score for each participant.
SPSS was then used to calculate percentile scores (25th percentile = 5.333 and 75th
percentile = 6.2381), respectively. Upper and lower boundaries for the outlier labeling
rule were established using the previously discussed method (6.2381+2.2(6.2381-5.333)
=6.93) and (5.333-2.2(6.2381-5.333) =4.64), respectively, and responses outside these
limits were identified and considered for removal. Next, the box, stem, and leaf plots for
each of the 21 leadership-measuring variables were reviewed as one group. Finally, the
21 variables were evaluated again using box, stem, and leaf plots by organizational group
77
(assistant principal, building principal, assistant superintendent, and superintendent).
This evaluation confirmed that outliers existed both at the univariate and multivariate
levels even after the outliers for construct “total leadership” were labeled and removed.
Additionally, some cases were considered outliers when separated by organizational level
but not when viewed as part of the whole group. For this reason, rather than this
univariate approach, a multivariate approach that took into account each variable’s
interaction with all other variables, was explored and ultimately used for the labeling and
removal of outliers from this data set.
Tests for multivariate outliers, “those comprised of unusual combinations of
scores on two or more variables” (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005, p.29), were conducted using
the Mahalanobis Distance Test (Mahalanobis D²), which measures a case’s distance from
the centroid, with the centroid being a composite of the means of all variables (Cohen,
Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003). SPSS was used to calculate the Mahalanobis D² values for
all leaders sampled, and the variable “MAH_3” was created. The analysis considered
each of the 21 variables intended to measure “leadership skills” in light of the control
variables, which sought to measure a leader’s, “Years of Experience”, “Education Level”,
“Organization Level”, and “District Setting”, respectively. The resulting D²
standardized scores were evaluated as chi-square with the degrees of freedom equal to the
number of variables being evaluated. Scores were considered a significant Mahalanobis
distance from the centroid at an alpha level of p<.001 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). SPSS
was then used to transform the Mahalanobis D² scores to probability scores and 67 cases
were found to be significant at the p<.001 level. These cases were again individually
reviewed, identified as multivariate outliers, and trimmed from the data set.
78
Finally, the dataset was screened for “total leadership skill” scores equal to any
whole number, suggesting that the leader had simply selected the same number on the
Likert scale for every question. The researcher found that 29 leaders had selected choice
7 on the Likert-scale as their sole answer for all questions, two had selected choice 6 as
every answer, and two had selected choice 5 in response to each question. Of the 33
leaders who repeatedly selected choice 7, 6, or 5 for all survey questions, all 33 spent
fewer than three minutes to complete the survey, which is less than 50% of the average
completion time range of 7-10 minutes. The repeated nature of their responses and the
short amount of time spent by the leader on the survey overall, suggests to this researcher
that these responses were not valid. These 33 additional cases were trimmed.
The 67 cases identified through a multivariate analysis and the 33 additional cases
described above were removed. The trimming of 100 of the 1,018 cases represented
9.8% of the total sample and fell below the range considered for moderate sample
trimming (10%-30%) according to Jose & Winkler (2008). The remaining 918 responses
represent the final sample that was utilized in all subsequent analyses using SPSS and
AMOS.
Normality. Normality, like linearity and homoscedasticity, is often an important
assumption when conducting univariate, and especially multivariate statistical analyses.
When one or more of these assumptions are violated, results may be biased (Kennedy &
Bush, 1985). Both univariate and multivariate tests of normality were conducted.
Univariate normality was considered through the inspection of each variable’s
normal probability or Q-Q plots. SPSS was used to create this graphic, which plots the
expected normal values along the y-axis and the actual values along the x-axis. When
79
normality is found, the plot creates a somewhat straight line. (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005).
Observations of the Q-Q plots, while subjective, led this researcher to believe that the
data were not normally distributed around the mean. This qualitative test was followed
by calculating and examining the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic with Lilliefors’
significance correction and Shapiro-Wilk statistic for each variable. Mertler and
Vannatta (2005) stated, “The Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic tests the null hypothesis that
the population is normally distributed.” (p. 30). All variables were found to have a
significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk statistic at a p=.000 level, which
confirmed the Q-Q plot observation of non-normal distribution. Finally, skewness and
kurtosis values for each variable were evaluated by Organizational Level. All skewness
values for each variable by Organizational Level fell within the acceptable range of ±2
(George & Mallery, 2011), except for the variable “Business skills Required,
Management of Financial Resources” within the Superintendent group (-2.205). Values
of kurtosis outside the acceptable range of ±7 (Hoyle, 2012) were found for one variable,
“Business skills Required, Management of Financial Resources,” again within the
Superintendent group (9.491). Skewness and Kurtosis scores are reported in Table 2, with
scores falling outside the accepted range in bold.
80
Table 2
Skewness and Kurtosis of all Leadership Skills by Group and Variable
Skill
Cognitive Skill
Requirements
Group
Assistant
Principal
Variable
Speaking
Active Listening
Writing
Reading Comprehension
Active Learning
Critical thinking
Skewness
-.107
-.661
.158
.026
-.354
.400
Kurtosis
.593
1.336
.411
.769
-.081
-.710
Cognitive Skill
Requirements
Building
Principal
Speaking
Active Listening
Writing
Reading Comprehension
Active Learning
Critical Thinking
.080
-.269
.406
.169
-.303
.006
-1.436
-1.176
-.830
-.718
-.532
-1.089
Cognitive Skill
Requirements
Assistant
Superintendent
Speaking
Active Listening
Writing
Reading Comprehension
Active Learning
Critical thinking
-.153
-.707
.395
-.188
-.330
.001
-.209
1.088
-.929
.201
-.312
-.954
Cognitive Skill
Requirements
Superintendent
Speaking
Active Listening
Writing
Reading Comprehension
Active Learning
Critical thinking
-.135
-.458
.339
.018
-.459
-.349
-1.627
-1.245
-1.038
-1.170
-1.095
-1.510
Interpersonal
Skill
Requirements
Assistant
Principal
Social Perceptiveness
Coordination
Negotiation
Persuasion
-.975
-1.080
.167
-.539
1.787
2.346
-.112
1.403
Interpersonal
Skill
Requirements
Building
Principal
Social Perceptiveness
Coordination
Negotiation
Persuasion
-.589
-.487
.110
-.197
-.615
-.220
-.382
-.210
Interpersonal
Skill
Requirements
Assistant
Superintendent
Social Perceptiveness
Coordination
Negotiation
Persuasion
-.262
-.787
.493
.036
-.1.104
.656
-.748
-.412
Superintendent
Social Perceptiveness
-.564
-.892
81
Interpersonal
Skill
Requirements
Business Skill
Requirements
Business Skill
Requirements
Business Skill
Requirements
Business Skill
Requirements
Strategic Skill
Requirements
Strategic Skill
Requirements
Coordination
Negotiation
Persuasion
Assistant
Principal
Building
Principal
Assistant
Superintendent
Superintendent
Assistant
Principal
Building
Principal
-1.378
-.077
-.347
3.666
-1.008
-.778
Operations Analysis
Management of Personnel
Resources
Management of Financial
Resources
Management of Material
Resources
-.436
1.055
-.924
.678
-.465
.240
-.281
-.137
Operations Analysis
Management of Personnel
Resources
Management of Financial
Resources
Management of Material
Resources
-.419
.649
-1.207
2.047
-.309
-.433
.451
.648
-.601
.957
-1.216
2.311
-1.087
2.352
-.852
2.577
-.302
.617
-1.148
2.222
-2.205
9.491
-.228
.370
Visioning
System Perception
System Evaluation
ID Downstream
Consequences
ID of Key Causes
Problem ID
Solution Appraisal
-.264
-.296
-1.260
-.602
.203
1.919
-.419
-.607
-.144
-.697
-.121
.333
-.516
.108
Visioning
System Perception
System Evaluation
-.517
-.397
-.729
-.235
.660
.847
Operations Analysis
Management of Personnel
Resources
Management of Financial
Resources
Management of Material
Resources
Operations Analysis
Management of Personnel
Resources
Management of Financial
Resources
Management of Material
Resources
82
ID Downstream
Consequences
ID of Key Causes
Problem ID
Solution Appraisal
Strategic Skill
Requirements
Strategic Skill
Requirements
Assistant
Superintendent
Superintendent
-.907
-.547
-.155
-.834
1.504
-.010
-1.055
.949
Visioning
System Perception
System Evaluation
ID Downstream
Consequences
ID of Key Causes
Problem ID
Solution Appraisal
-.756
-.654
-1.451
.343
1.248
4.185
-1.170
-.796
-.793
-1.076
2.169
1.004
.588
2.192
Visioning
System Perception
System Evaluation
ID Downstream
Consequences
ID of Key Causes
Problem ID
Solution Appraisal
-1.022
-1.053
-.721
1.562
2.673
.165
-1.039
-.607
-.907
-1.478
1.368
.257
.760
5.440
Note. Scores in bold fall outside the generally accepted range of ±2 for Skewness and ±7
for Kurtosis.
Linearity and homoscedasticity. Linearity is an important assumption in
multivariate analysis of the kind conducted in this study and assumes that the relationship
between variables occurs in a straight line (Cohen, Cohen, & Stephen, 2003; Mertler &
Vannatta, 2005). This relationship can occur between two or more variables or subscales
in the case of this research study. A review of residual plots, the amount of the variation
not accounted for by the analysis (error), was conducted by plotting the standardized
predicted values along the x-axis and the standardized residuals along the y-axis.
According to Mertler and Vannatta (2005), “when the assumptions of linearity,
normality, and homoscedasticity are met, residuals will create an approximate rectangular
distribution with a concentration of scores along the center” (p.55). As extreme
83
groupings were not present and the residual plot was rectangular in shape, general
linearity and homoscedasticity were assumed for variables “Cognitive, Interpersonal,
Business, and Strategic skill”. As is explored in a future section, multivariate
Homoscedasticity was not assumed as a significant Box’s M statistic was reported. The
Box’s M statistic has been widely criticized as being overly sensitive (Mertler &
Vannatta, 2005). A significant value of p<001 suggests the rejection of the null
hypothesis, that covariance matrices are equal (George & Mallery, 2011; Mertler &
Vannatta, 2005). Mertler and Vannatta (2005) noted, “one may reject the assumption that
covariance matrices are equal due to a lack of multivariate normality,” (p. 34). Due to
the lack of multivariate normality found for these data and the overly sensitive nature of
the Box’s M statistic, further analysis was conducted despite the data’s failure of this
assumption.
Effect Sizes and Significance Levels for This Study
Cohen’s effect size. Cohen (1990) examined effect size as one of three
components of statistical power. Cohen (1990) went on to report that effect sizes are an
acceptable way to report the magnitude and direction of influence in quantitative studies.
While only an estimate, suggests values of population effect size coefficients have
become an accepted way of reporting effect sizes, such that .1 is small, .3 is middling,
and .5 is large (Cohen 1962, 1988, & 1990).
Despite their questioning of the use of Cohen’s (1988 & 1990) guidelines for
reporting effect sizes, Bosco, Aguinis, Singh, Field and Pierce (2015) acknowledged that
these conventions for understanding the magnitude of effect are present in most
quantitative studies. Cohen (1988) recognized that his standards of effect size may be
84
overstated as he reported, “…if what is here defined as large is too small to meet what his
area of behavioral science would consider appropriate standards he is urged to make
more suitable operational definitions” (p.79). While generally accepted, Cohen’s (1988)
guidelines should not be assumed to apply equally to all fields of study (Bosco et al.,
2015). In spite of these recognized limitations, Cohen’s guidelines were used to report
effect sizes for the purposes of this study and can be found in Table 3.
Table 3
Cohen’s (1992) Effect Size Interpretations
Small
Medium
Large
r
R2
F2
.10
.30
.50
.02
.13
.26
.02
.15
.35
Creation of Latent Variables
Confirmatory factor analysis using the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method was
performed on all 21 variables measuring the four Leadership skills categories (Cognitive,
Interpersonal, Business and Strategic). This allowed for a comparison of factor loadings
in an attempt to determine if the variables grouped as determined a priori.
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin’s (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was used to
examine the distribution of values and whether they were adequate for factor analysis
using Kaiser’s scale (.9 > Marvelous, .8 > Meritorious, .7 > Middling, .6 > Mediocre, .5 >
Miserable and .5 < Unacceptable). The KMO for this sample was .942 and fell in the
“marvelous” range, thus indicating that the sample’s distribution was sufficient for
conducting factor analysis (George & Mallery, 2011).
85
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (x²=8150.44, df =210) was used to measure the
multivariate normality of the data and was significant at the p<.001 level, which
indicated that the multivariate distribution of the data was not sufficiently normal and
thus unacceptable for factor analysis. It is important to note that it was hypothesized, a
priori, that mean differences between groups would exist and that all skill levels would
increase as organizational level increased, thus suggesting a de facto non-normally
multivariate distribution.
Four factors with Eigen values greater than 1.00 were identified (factor 1 = 8.17,
factor 2 = 1.88, factor 3 = 1.09 and factor 4 = 1.01) with 57.86% of the variance
explained. The screed plots revealed three distinct factors, with the fourth being
marginal. Initial review of the factor loadings suggests that the four factors with Eigen
values greater than one were consistent with the four leadership skills being measured.
This is important as it could be used to lend support to hypothesis 1 by confirming that
each of the four specified leadership skills are empirically distinguishable.
Reliability testing. In light of the four factors identified by the confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA), additional reliability tests were conducted for all variables that
sought to measure each of the four leadership skills. Reliability analysis in SPSS was
utilized for the four identified factors. Cronbach alpha scores with deletion were
calculated for each of the indices created. The removal of items did not raise the overall
alpha score, and all 21 items were retained in the creation of the four indices.
Cognitive skills. Six items on the survey instrument were designed to measure the
perceived level of Cognitive skill required by the educational leader to perform his or her
current job.
Cognitive skills were measured in the areas of speaking, active listening,
86
writing, reading comprehension, active learning, and critical thinking. An internal
consistency reliability score of α=.847 was determined with factor loadings ranging from
.590 to .670.
Interpersonal skills. Four items on the survey instrument were designed to
measure the perceived level of Interpersonal skill required by the educational leader to
perform his or her current job. Interpersonal skills were measured in the areas of social
perceptiveness, coordination, negotiation, and persuasion, with an internal consistency
reliability score of α=.722 and factor loadings ranging from .505 to .613.
Business skills. Four items on the survey instrument were designed to measure
the perceived level of Business skill required by the educational leader to perform his or
her current job.
Business skills were measured as operations analysis, management of
personnel resources, management of financial resources, and management of material
resources. An initial Cronbach’s alpha of .690 was noted, with factor loadings ranging
from .461 to .599.
Strategic skills. Seven items on the survey instrument were designed to measure
the perceived level of Strategic skill required by the educational leader to perform his or
her current job.
Strategic skills were measured as visioning, systems perception, system
evaluation, identification of downstream consequences, identification of key causes,
problem identification, and solution appraisal. A Cronbach’s alpha score of .878 was
noted, with factor loadings ranging from .641 to .695.
All indices were found to possess adequate internal validity with Alpha scores
approaching or exceeding .700 and Strategic skills required approaching the clinical level
of .900 (Johnson & Christensen, 2012). This suggests that each item in the index(s) was
87
measuring the same latent variable adequately. When compared to the original study, all
of the coefficients found in this study were slightly smaller. Table 4 compares the
reliability statistics of the current study compared to the original 2007 study.
Table 4
Reliability Scores (alpha) for the 2007 and 2015 Studies
Skill requirements
Cognitive
Interpersonal
Business
Strategic
2007 Study
.90
.84
.75
.91
2015 Study
.85
.72
.69
.88
Results / Findings
Descriptive statistics. An analysis of the data using SPSS version 22 and AMOS
version 22 (structural equation modeling) was conducted. Table 5 presents univariate
statistics for all four leadership skill indices and demographic/control variables. In
addition, the univariate statistics for each of the four leadership skills by “organization
level” are presented. The leadership skill indices had mean scores ranging from = 5.46
for Business skills to = 5.77 for Strategic skills, with wider ranges found between lower
and higher organizational levels. Standard deviations ranged from 0.70 to 0.78, again
with wider ranges found at the individual organizational levels. These statistics
represented a fairly narrow range and variability of responses. Range and variability
differed between this study and the 2007 study, where mean scores of 4.59 to 5.84 and
standard deviations ranging from .75 to 1.10 were considered to show “good range and
variation” (Mumford et al., 2007, p.161). This indicated that a wider variation of
responses existed in the population examined by the 2007 study than the sample of
88
educational leaders analyzed by this researcher. These differences suggests that
educational leaders differ from the population originally studied in that higher amounts of
leadership skills are perceived to be required overall, while variation between leadership
levels are less pronounced.
Skewness and Kurtosis values were examined for each index at the group level.
All variables except one showed moderate to low negative skew. Strategic skills had the
greatest negative skew (-0.70) yet remained within the acceptable range. This suggests
that survey responses tended to be grouped slightly more towards the higher end of the
Strategic skill requirement range. The data were therefore slightly skewed to the left with
fewer numbers of responses found in that tail. Additionally, values of kurtosis were
examined. This revealed that leadership skills tended to be slightly more peaked than
normally distributed data. Cognitive skill requirements were the exception with the data
being slightly more platykurtic. No comparison was made between the 2007 study and
the 2015 study as indications of normality of distribution were not reported in the original
study.
89
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for all Skills by Organizational Level
1. Cognitive Skills Index
Assistant Principal
Building Principal
Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent
N
918
241
359
161
157
Mean
5.74
5.54
5.76
5.72
6.00
Med.
5.67
5.50
5.67
5.50
6.00
Min.
2.33
3.0
4.0
2.33
4.50
Max.
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
SD
0.72
0.72
0.70
0.77
0.65
2. Interpersonal Skills Index
Assistant Principal
Building Principal
Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent
918
241
359
161
157
5.76
5.60
5.77
5.73
6.04
5.75
5.50
5.75
5.75
6.00
3. Business Skills Index
Assistant Principal
Building Principal
Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent
918
241
359
161
157
5.46
5.15
5.38
5.65
5.89
4. Strategic Skills Index
Assistant Principal
Building Principal
Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent
918
241
359
161
157
5. Organizational Level
Assistant Principal
Building Principal
Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent
241
359
161
157
6. Experience Level
0-10 years
11-20 years
21-30 years
30+ years
365
348
150
88
7. Educational Level
Master’s Degree
1-30 Beyond Master’s
31-60 Beyond Master’s
Terminal Degree
Skewness
0.06
0.28
0.12
-0.23
-0.05
Kurtosis
-0.16
0.20
-0.78
1.21
-1.08
2.75
2.75
3.75
4.0
4.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
0.70
0.74
0.70
0.64
0.62
-0.23
-0.32
-0.13
0.04
-0.31
0.15
0.68
-0.19
-0.26
-0.78
5.50
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
2.25
2.75
2.25
3.50
3.50
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
0.78
0.84
0.74
0.70
0.59
-0.56
-0.36
-0.50
-0.49
-0.69
0.49
-0.03
0.73
0.46
2.04
5.77
5.48
5.76
5.86
6.13
5.86
5.57
5.86
5.86
6.14
2.43
2.43
2.86
3.14
3.71
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
0.75
0.81
0.73
0.70
0.58
-0.70
-0.53
-0.68
-0.73
-0.73
0.94
0.58
1.08
1.15
1.15
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
18
146
549
205
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
8. District Setting
Rural
Suburban
Small City
250
565
103
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
9. % Free and Reduced Lunch
0-50%
51-100%
671
247
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Correlation coefficients. Table 6 presents a bivariate correlation matrix
(Pearson’s r) with all leadership skill indices and demographic/control variables included.
90
There were strong correlations between the four leadership skill requirements, with the
strongest positive relationship found between variables “Business Skill Requirements”
and “Strategic skill Requirements” (r = .658, p < .001). The average correlation found
between the four leadership skill requirements was r = .572, which accounted for 42.8%
of the total shared variance explained. Therefore, while strongly correlated, 57.2% of the
total variance was unexplained and a result of other outside factors. Similar findings
were reported by the authors of the original 2007 study, with an average correlation
between the leadership skill requirements reported as r = .62 or 38% of the shared
variance (Mumford et al., 2007). Similar to the original study, strong positive
relationships between the leadership skill categories were established and expected
“given that we expect all skills to be required of all leaders” (Mumford et al., 2007,
p.161).
While both direction and magnitude of correlation were similar between the 2007
and 2015 samples, comparisons of Pearson’s product moment (r) using Fisher’s ztransformation revealed that while generally slight, the difference between all but two
correlations (“Strategic skill” and “Cognitive skill” and “Strategic skill and
Organizational Level”) were found to be statistically significantly different, at a p<.05
level, between the two studies. This suggests that the correlation between Cognitive skill
and Strategic skill, and Strategic skill and organizational level, are the same in both
populations. While all other correlations may share direction and magnitude of
correlation, the two populations were different in a meaningful way. The most notable
difference was that educational leaders tended to have a weaker positive correlation
between “Interpersonal skill Requirements” and “Organizational Level” than those in the
91
original study (r= .184, p<.000; r= .32, p<.000), respectively. This suggests that
“Interpersonal skill Requirements” are less closely associated with a school leader’s
“Organizational Level” than among those in the original population, and, when combined
with higher overall mean scores, may suggest that “Interpersonal skill Requirements” are
more important for educational leader’s at all organizational levels.
Table 6
Pearson Correlation Matrix of Leadership Skill Requirements, Organizational Level, and Covariates
Variables
1. Cognitive skill
requirements
2. Interpersonal skill
requirements
3. Business skill
requirements
4. Strategic skill
requirements
2
.598**
(.71**)
z=-4.33**
---
3
.472**
(.23**)
z=6.12**
.545**
(.41**)
z=3.86**
4
.565**
(.62**)
z=-1.86
.594**
(.70**)
z=-4.03**
5
.190**
(.28**)
z=-2.09**
.184**
(.32**)
z=-3.20**
6
.138**
7
.130*
8
.047
.148**
.096**
.061
---
.658**
(.53**)
z=-4.37**
---
.329**
(.24**)
z=2.13**
.278**
(.34**)
z=-1.51
---
.168**
.100**
-.006
.160**
.161**
.067*
5. Organizational
.430**
.214** -.123**
Level
6. Experience Level
--.239** .099**
7. Educational Level
--.066*
8. District Setting
--Note. N= 918. Numbers in parentheses represent correlation coefficients from 2007 study. * p<.05 and
**p<.001 two-tailed.
Hypothesis 1: The Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill
categories will be empirically distinguishable. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
was utilized for the purposes of testing whether the four leadership skill categories were
empirically distinguishable. While the 2016 study previously used traditional
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilizing the maximum likelihood method (ML) and
reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha), which supported a four-factor model of
92
leadership and the creation of four leadership skill indices, CFA with ML utilizing SEM
(with AMOS) was also conducted for the purposes of comparing the data’s relative fit to
a one-factor and four-factor leadership skills model as in the original study. The
following model fit indices were reported: Maximum Likelihood (ML) Chi-Square (X2),
the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Normed Fit Index (NFI), and the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with 90 percent confidence intervals (CI).
Statistical analyses of the data were conducted utilizing first-order CFA with the
ML estimation procedure in SEM utilizing AMOS version 22. Both one-factor and fourfactor measurement models were created. Both CFA Models were examined for model
fit. Fit indices, as outlined by Byrne (2010), suggests that a one-factor model fit the data
very poorly (X2 =1879.44/df=189 p<.001), CFI=.789, NFI=.771, RMSEA=.099 (90%
CI=.095-.103) and a four-factor model fit the data marginally well (X2 =926.65/df=183
p<.001), CFI=.907, NFI=.887, RMSEA=.067 (90% CI=.062-.071). Additionally, a X2
difference test revealed a statistically significant difference between the one-factor and
four-factor models (X2 difference = -952.79, p <.001). While neither hypothesized model
fit the data exceptionally well, the four-factor model fit the data significantly better.
These findings lend support to Hypothesis One, in that a four-factor model of leadership
skills is empirically identifiable and preferable to a single-factor model. Both
measurement models are presented in Figures 3 and 4, and a comparison of the two
measurement models, fit indices, and chi-square difference test are reported in table 7.
93
Figure 3. One-factor confirmatory factor analysis structural equation measurement model
of leadership skills. Completely standardized robust maximum likelihood parameter
estimates (factor loadings). The residual variance components (error variances) indicate
unexplained variance. Fit Indices: Chi-square=1879.44 / df = 189. (p<.001); CFI = .789;
NFI = .771; RMSEA = .099
94
Figure 4. Multi-skill, four-factor confirmatory factory analysis structural equation
measurement model. Completely standardized robust maximum likelihood parameter
estimates (factor loadings). The residual variance components (error variances) indicate
unexplained variance. Ovals represent the four leadership skill types (latent variables).
Curved lines represent correlations between leadership skill categories. Fit Indices: Chisquare=926.65/df=183, (p<.001); CFI=.907; NFI=.887; RMSEA=.067
95
Table 7
Fit Indices for One-Factor and Four-Factor Measurement Models Using Structural Equation
Modeling and χ2 Difference Test
Test
χ2
Four926.65
factor
(324.1)
model
One-factor 1879.44
model
(714.8)
Model
difference
df
CFI
183
(14)
.907
(.991)
NFI
.887
(.991)
189
(20)
.789
(.981)
.771
(.980)
RMSEA
.067
(90% CI=.062-.071)
(.147)
.099
(90% CI=.095-.103)
(.184)
χ2 Difference
df
-952.79**
(-390.7**)
6
(6)
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation. Scores in parentheses represent the findings of the 2007 study. N=951, **p=<.01
Hypothesis 2. Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill category such
that Cognitive skills will be needed the greatest amount, followed by Interpersonal,
Business, and Strategic skills, respectively. Multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was utilized to evaluate the degree to which each of the four identified
leadership skills were required and if those requirement levels lent support to the
aforementioned hypothesis. The advantage of using MANCOVA for this type of analysis
is that one or more covariates can be introduced and the effects of the covariates are then
controlled for. Removing the effects of covariates decreases error and helps ensure a
clearer understanding of the true effects of the independent variables on the multiple
dependent variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). MANCOVA is recommended over
multiple t tests or multiple one-way ANOVAs conducted separately, especially when
dependent variables are correlated, as was the case with this study, due to an increased
chance of committing a type I error. Therefore, MANCOVA was conducted to establish
the mean differences in the skill requirements. Additionally, the Bonferroni procedure
96
for multiple tests was used to protect against a type I error, which can occur when
multiple tests are conducted simultaneously as in MANCOVA (Holm, 1979). Therefore,
the probability statistic (α=.05) was divided by the number of tests being run (H=4), and
a new threshold for significance was established at α<.013. This more conservative alpha
level was used to determine the statistical significance of the marginal means for each
skill requirement. Finally, the Wilks Lambda statistic was used as the multivariate test
statistic, which reported the main effect and significance for each leadership skill
category.
The analysis was conducted by performing a one-way MANCOVA utilizing
SPSS version 22. This test, as in the 2007 study, was selected in order to investigate
possible categorical differences between organizational levels of educational leaders and
the four leadership skills (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic), while
controlling for organizational level, years of experience, amount of education, and district
setting. Linearity of the four dependent variables (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business,
and Strategic skills) and the covariates (experience, education, and district setting) was
tested by reviewing a matrix scatterplot and Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 6).
As previously discussed, results suggest a linear relationship. Correlation coefficients
between the dependent variables were considered high, ranging from r=.472 to r=.658
and were statistically significant at the p<.001 level. Correlation coefficients between the
dependent variables and the covariates were significant at the p<.05 level and ranged
from small r=.006 to medium r=.430. The final assumption of MANCOVA,
homogeneity of variance-covariance, was tested using the Box’s M test. A significant
Box’s M (p=.001) indicated that equality of variance could not be assumed. Therefore,
97
rather than Wilks Lambda, the more robust Pillai’s Trace statistic was utilized as the
appropriate test statistic (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). For the purpose of comparison,
Wilks’ Lambda was also reported, since Wilks Lambda was reported in the original 2007
study. The main effect of the leadership skill categories, while controlling for
organizational level, experience, education, and district setting was statistically
significant with a (Pillai’s Trace = .111, p<.001) and (Wilks’ Lambda = .892, p<.001).
This suggests that significant differences in the mean scores of the dependent variables
were found between skill groups, controlling for the covariates. An evaluation of the
estimated marginal means for each of the perceived leadership skill requirements
revealed that overall, Strategic skills were required the most, followed by Interpersonal
skills, Cognitive skills, and Business skills ( = 5.80, = 5.78, = 5.75 and
=5.52),
respectively (Table 8). These results suggests that when controlling for an educational
leader’s organizational level, years of experience, level of education, and the district’s
geographic setting, there is a statistically significant difference among the average
required amounts of the four leadership skills. However, statistically significant
differences did not exist between all skill groups and the order in which skills are
required in the greatest amounts differed from the original study. Therefore, Hypothesis
Two was not supported, and the results suggests that educational leaders might in fact
require a very different combination of leadership skills than those proposed by Mumford
et. al.’s Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model.
98
Table 8
Estimated Marginal Means for Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic Skill
Requirements Controlling for Organizational Level, Experience Level, Education Level, and
District Setting.
Variable
Estimated marginal mean with controls
Strategic skill requirements
5.80a
(5.05a)
Interpersonal skill requirements
5.78ab (5.34bc)
Cognitive skill requirements
5.75b
(5.44c)
Business skill requirements
5.52c
(5.11abc)
Wilks Lambda
.892, F=8.874** (.982, F=6.020**)
Pillai’s Trace
.111 F=8.704**
Note. Numbers in parentheses represent estimated marginal means from the 2007 study. Means
in each column that do not share subscripts differ at p<.05 when corrected using the Bonferroni
procedure. **p<.01, two tailed.
Hypothesis 3. Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill
requirements will be positively related to the job’s level in the organization. Partial
correlations with controls were used to explore the magnitude and direction of the
relationships between a leader’s organizational level and leadership skills required for the
job, while controlling for the influence of years of experience, level of education, and
school district setting. According to George & Mallery (2011), “Partial correlation is the
process of finding the correlation between two variables after the influence of other
variables has been controlled for” (p. 127). Cohen et al. (1983) stated that, “…partial
correlation is the correlation of Xi with that part of Y that is independent of the other IV’s
in the equation” (p. 316). Thus, partial correlations allowed a clearer view of the
direction and magnitude of association between the dependent variable (Leadership
Skills) and the independent variable (Organizational Level) by removing the impacts of a
leader’s years of experience, level of education, and district’s setting.
99
The results of the partial correlational analysis revealed that after controlling for
covariates, which were also highly correlated with the DV, statistically significant,
positive, small to medium relationships were found between each of the four leadership
skills and organizational level. Interpersonal and Cognitive skills had a small, positive,
statistically significant relationship with organizational level (r=.140, p<.05; r=.143,
p<.05) that were of about the same magnitude. Strategic and Business skills had
moderate, positive, statistically significant correlations with organizational level (r=.236,
p<.05; r=.283, p<.05) again, with about the same magnitude. All four of these findings
suggests that as organizational level increases, so too does the required amounts of each
of the four leadership skill categories. The strongest relationship was found between
organizational level and Business skills followed by Strategic, Cognitive, and
Interpersonal, respectively. Partial correlations with Fisher’s z-transformation
comparisons between the original 2007 and current 2016 studies found that the
magnitude of relationship between each of the four leadership skill categories were about
the same. These results and comparisons between the two studies are found in table 9.
Fisher’s z-transformations were conducted to determine if there was a statistically
significant difference between each of the skill requirements. Standardized z-scores were
calculated and revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the rscores of Strategic skill requirements and Interpersonal skill requirements (z=2.13,
p=.033); Strategic skill requirements and Cognitive skill requirements (z=2.07, p=.039);
Business skill requirements and Interpersonal skill requirements (z=3.21, p=.001); and
Business skill requirements and Cognitive skill requirements (z=3.14, p=.002)
respectively.
100
Table 9
Partial Correlation Between Leadership Skill Requirement Categories and Organizational Level,
Controlling for Years of Experience, Education Level, and District Setting.
Variable
Estimated marginal mean with controls
Strategic skill requirements
Interpersonal skill requirements
Cognitive skill requirements
.236a ** (.25a **)
.140b ** (.20b **)
.143b ** (.15c **)
z=-.33, p=.741
z=1.36, p=.174
z=-.16, p=.873
Business skill requirements
.283a ** (.28a **)
z=.07, p=.944
Note. N = 918. Correlations that do not share subscripts differ at p<.05. Scores in parentheses
represent the findings of the 2007 study. Fisher’s z-scores with probability coefficients are given
for comparison between the 2007 and 2015 study. **p=<.05, two tailed.
This statistically significant, positive relationship between organizational level
and leadership skill requirement lent support to Hypothesis Three by showing that as
organizational level increased so too did the amount of the leadership skill required.
However, while all four skills are positively correlated to Organizational level in a
statistically significant way, the estimated marginal means of variables Cognitive skill
required and Interpersonal skill required, while controlling for covariates, tended to
decline in a non-statistically significant way between organization level “Principal” and
“Assistant Superintendent”. This suggests that no meaningful mean difference existed
between Organizational levels “Principal” and “Assistant Superintendent” and
Leadership skill Types “Interpersonal” and Cognitive”. This finding was inconsistent
with the findings of the 2007 study (Table 10). This mostly positive relationship is also
101
illustrated in figure 5.
Amount of Leadership Skills Required
6.5
6.25
6
5.75
Cognitive Skill
5.5
Interpersonal Skill
Business Skill
5.25
Strategic Skill
5
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Supt.
Organization Level
Supt.
Figure 5. Estimated marginal means for leadership skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education, and district setting.
Additionally, Fisher’s z-transformations were performed between the partial
correlations found in the original study and those reported in this 2015 study.
Standardized z-scores for Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill
requirements were found to be non-statistically significant (z=-.16, p=.873; z=1.36,
p=.174; z=.07, p=.944; and z=-.33, p=.741), respectively. This suggests that there was
no statistically significant difference in the direction or magnitude of correlation between
leadership skill requirements and organizational level found between the original and
current studies. In effect, both population samples, while very different in characteristics
102
and occupational fields, require overall increasing amounts of leadership skill
requirements as one ascends the organizational structure. Thus, this finding validates the
portion of Mumford et al.’s 2007 STRATAPLEX model that suggests that all skill levels
will increase as organizational level increases such that leaders at the highest
organizational level require all the skills required at each subordinate level in this new
population sample. Another way of conceptualizing this phenomenon is to view
leadership skills as cumulative, increasing at each organizational level as one ascends the
hierarchy. For instance, as Cognitive skills increase from assistant principal ( =5.54) to
superintendent ( =6.01) all the skills of an assistant principal are needed in conjunction
with the additional skills required by the superintendent.
Hypothesis 4. Interaction of skill requirements and organizational level.
Hypothesis 4, by means of three sub hypotheses, sought to examine the magnitude of the
relationship between organizational level and leadership skill requirements. It suggests
that the strength of relationship with organizational level will be different for each of the
four leadership skill types and that these differences would be found in a hypothesized
way. Support for hypotheses 4 could be suggests if correlation coefficients, controlling
for covariates (“years of experience,” “level of education,” and “district setting”), were
found to be statistically significantly different and of successively greater magnitudes for
Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skills.
Partial correlations between leadership skill requirements and organizational
level, while controlling for covariates, were examined for this study. The correlations
were compared to each other using Fisher’s z-transformation to determine if significant
103
differences existed between the four skill types. Statistically significant differences were
found between Strategic skills and both Cognitive and Interpersonal skills and between
Business skills and both Cognitive and Interpersonal skills. However, no difference was
found between Strategic and Business skills or between Interpersonal and Cognitive
skills. These multiple comparisons, adjusted using the Bonferroni procedure in SPSS
version 22 as suggests by Cohen et al. (1983 and 2003) and Pedhazur (1997) are reported
in Table 9 and Figure 5.
Hypothesis 4a stated that Strategic skill requirements would be more strongly
related to organizational level than Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business skill
requirements. Results from the partial correlations reported in table 9 indicated that
Strategic skill requirements were indeed more strongly correlated to organizational level
(r=.236, p<.001) than either Cognitive or Interpersonal skill requirements (r=.143,
p<.001 and r=.140, p<.001, respectively), even when controlling for other variables.
However, Business skill requirements were slightly more strongly correlated to
organizational level than Strategic skill requirements (r=.283, p=.000 and r=.236,
p=.000). The differences among the correlations between Business skill requirements
and organizational level (r=.283, p=.000) and Strategic skill requirements and
organizational level (r=.236, p=.000) were not different in a statistically significant way
(z=-1.08, p=.280). This suggests that both Business skill requirements and Strategic skill
requirements are about the same in regards to their strength of relationship to
organizational level, while controlling for other variables. Therefore, hypothesis 4a was
only partially supported.
104
These findings were similar to the findings from the 2007 study, which also
reported stronger relationships between Strategic skill requirements and organizational
level than Interpersonal and Cognitive skill requirements and organizational level.
Again, strong similarities exist between both population samples with Business skills
having the strongest statistically significant positive relationship to organizational level in
both studies (Table 9).
Hypothesis 4b suggests that Business skill requirements would be more strongly
related to organizational level than Cognitive or Interpersonal skill requirements. Results
from the partial correlations reported in Table 9 indicated that Business skill requirements
were indeed more strongly associated with organizational level than both Cognitive and
Interpersonal skill requirements (r=.283, p<.001; r=.143, p<.001 and r=.140, p<.001),
respectively. The magnitude of the correlations was significantly different when
Business skill requirements were compared to Cognitive and Interpersonal skill
requirements (z=3.14, p=.002 and z=3.21, p=.001). Therefore, hypothesis 4b was fully
supported.
As with the previous hypothesis, the findings for hypothesis 4b were the same
among both the original and present study. Additionally, the lack of statistical
significance found between the magnitude of the partial correlations reported in both
studies suggests that the findings were similar, failing to differ from each other in a
statistically meaningful way. This finding lent further support to hypothesis 4 in this
sample of school administrators.
Hypothesis 4c stated that Interpersonal skill requirements would be more strongly
related to organizational level than Cognitive skill requirements. An examination of the
105
partial correlations with controls reported in Table 9 demonstrated that Interpersonal
skills were less strongly correlated to organizational level than Cognitive skills (r=.140,
p<.001 and r=.143, p<.001). An evaluation of the partial correlations using Fisher’s ztransformation indicated that no statistically significant difference existed between the
two reported correlation coefficients suggesting that they did not differ in a meaningful
way. Therefore, no support was given for Hypothesis 4c.
Unlike hypothesis 4a and 4b, hypothesis 4c was not in line with the findings from
the 2007 study, which reported support of hypothesis 4c. This difference suggests that
educational leaders in New York State required about the same amount of both Cognitive
and Interpersonal skill and that these two skills were positively related to one’s
organizational level. This differed from the original 2007 study, which found Cognitive
skill to be required more than Interpersonal skill among that sample of diplomats. This
finding would suggest that the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model could not be fully
generalized to educational leaders in New York State. A comparison of the findings of
this study to the original 2007 study is summarized in table 10.
106
Table 10
Summary of Findings and Comparison of Conclusions for the 2016 and 2007 Studies
Hypothesis
H1: Cognitive, Interpersonal,
Business, and Strategic skill
categories will be empirically
distinguishable
Test(s)
Confirmatory Factor
Analysis
Structural Equation
Modeling
Chi Squared Difference
Test
Findings
Variables loaded on 4 distinct
factors with Engine values
greater than 1.
Conclusions
2007 Study: Full Support
2016 Study: Full Support
The 4 Factor measurement
model (SEM) fitted the data
better than the 1 factor model.
Leadership skills were
measureable and were
empirically distinguishable.
H2: Leadership skill requirements
will vary by skill category such that
Cognitive skills will be needed the
greatest amount, followed by
Interpersonal, Business and Strategic
H3: Cognitive, Interpersonal,
Business and Strategic skill
requirements will be positively related
to the job's level in the organization
Multivariate Analysis of
Variance and Covariance
(MANCOVA)
Educational leaders required
over all greater amounts of all
four leadership skills.
2007 Study: Partial Support
2016 Study: No Support
Skills varied such that Strategic
skills were needed in the
greatest amounts followed by
Interpersonal, Cognitive and
Business.
Test of Partial
Correlations
Significant positive
relationships existed between
each Leadership skill and
Organizational Level, while
controlling for other factors.
2007 Study: Full Support
2016 Study: Full Support
The magnitude of relationship
between each skill and
organizational level was the
same between both studies.
H4: Leadership skill requirements will
interact with organizational level such
that:
All four skills were positively
related to Organizational level
such that Business skills had
the strongest relationship
followed by Strategic,
Cognitive and Interpersonal.
H4a: Strategic skill requirements will
be more strongly related to
organizational level than cognitive,
Interpersonal, and Business Skills
Partial Correlations
H4b: Business skill requirements will
be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive or
Interpersonal skills
Partial Correlations
The Magnitude of relationship
between Business and Strategic
skills, and Organizational level
were statistically the same.
The Magnitude of relationship
between Cognitive and
Interpersonal skills, and
Organizational level were
statistically the same.
2007 Study: Partial Support
2016 Study: Partial Support
2007 Study: Full Support
2016 Study: Full Support
H4c: Interpersonal skill requirements
Partial Correlations
2007 Study: Full Support
will be more strongly related to
2016 Study: No Support
organizational level than Cognitive
skills
Note. Due to the differences between the 2015 and 2007 studies, the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model is not generalizable to
leaders of K-12 Public Education in New York State
107
Extended multivariate analysis. In light of these findings, further analyses were
conducted to examine the mean differences in the four leadership skill requirements at
each of the four organizational levels, while controlling for covariates “level of
education”, “years of experience” and “district setting.” The purpose of these follow-up
tests was to better understand the differences between the average amounts of each of the
four leadership skill types required at each of the four organizational levels examined.
A MANCOVA was performed on the means to help protect against a Type 1 error
that can result from performing repeated ANCOVAs and post-hoc comparisons. Pearson
product moment correlations were generated between all of the independent variables and
dependent variable All four skill categories were either moderately or highly correlated
(Table 6). These relationships ranged from r=.472, p<.001 to r=.658, p<.001, thus
satisfying one of the assumptions of MANCOVA. Additionally, a Box’s M value of
83.037 (f=2.74) had an associated p value of .000, which was interpreted as significant.
Therefore, equality of variance-covariance between groups was not assumed equal for the
purposes of this MANCOVA. While this was a violation of the assumptions of
MANCOVA, the failure likely resulted due to differences in sample sizes among the
groups (Table 5). According to Mertler and Vannatta (2005) “Violations of this
assumption of homoscedasticity, similar to violations of homogeneity, will not prove
fatal to an analysis” (p. 34).
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance was then conducted. The purpose of
the test was to examine the mean differences in leadership skills required by leaders at
different levels of the organizational structure. While this study has already confirmed
that these skills can be empirically tested, that they were positively correlated to
108
organizational level, and that the amount of leadership skill required was moderated by
the leader’s organizational level, it was unclear how these skill requirements differed
among leaders at different organizational levels. A statistically significant MANCOVA
effect was obtained with Pillai’s Trace = .111, F= (12, 2730) = 8.70, p<.001, and
multivariate eta squared = .037. A Multivariate effect size of .037 was estimated and
indicated that 3.7% of the variance in the canonically derived dependent variable was
accounted for by Organizational level. This suggests that 3.7% of the difference in the
mean scores reported for each of the four leadership skill categories at each of the four
organizational levels could be explained by the effects of organizational level.
Before conducting follow-up ANCOVAs for the purpose of examining the
individual differences that existed between the four leadership skills at the four
organizational levels, the homogeneity of variance was tested for all four leadership skill
subscales by conducting a series of Levene’s tests. Homogeneity of variance was
assumed despite two of the four Levene’s tests being reported as statistically significant
(p<.05). According to Howell (2007), ANOVAs can be considered robust even if they
fail the assumption of homogeneity of variance as long as the largest standard deviations
are not more than four times the smallest. None of the largest standard deviations were
four times that of the smallest (Table 5) and therefore a series of one-way ANCOVA’s
were conducted on each of the four dependent variables as a follow-up to MANCOVA.
As seen in Table 11, Organizational level differences were significant for Cognitive
skills, F(3, 911) = 9.728, p<.001, partial eta squared = .031. Differences in Interpersonal
skills were significant, F(3, 911) = 9.481, p<.001, partial eta squared = .030. Differences
in Business skills were also significant F(3, 911) = 26.499, p<.001, partial eta squared =
109
.080. Finally, differences in Strategic skills among the four organizational levels were
also significant F(3, 911) = 19.620, p<.001, partial eta squared= .061. This indicated that
while controlling for covariates, significant mean differences existed among groups for
each of the four leadership skill requirements tested and the magnitude of these
differences were small for Cognitive and Interpersonal skills and moderate for Business
and Strategic skills (Cohen, 1988).
Finally, a series of t-tests with Bonferroni post hoc analyses were calculated to
examine individual mean differences across all four organizational levels and all four
leadership skill categories, while controlling for the covariates (years of experience,
education level, and district setting).
110
Table 11
Significant Univariate Effects for Organizational Level
Dependent Variable
df
df error
Cognitive Skill
requirement
3
911
Interpersonal Skill
requirement
Business Skill
requirement
Strategic Skill
requirement
3
3
3
911
911
911
F
9.73
9.48
26.50
19.62
Organizational Level
Means
99.9% Confidence Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
bound
Assistant Principal
5.55a
5.46
5.65
Building Principal
5.78b
5.70
5.85
Assistant Supt.
5.69ab
5.58
5.80
Superintendent
5.97c
5.85
6.09
Assistant Principal
5.62a
5.53
5.71
Building Principal
5.78b
5.71
5.85
Assistant Supt.
5.70ab
5.59
5.81
Superintendent
6.02c
5.90
6.14
Assistant Principal
5.16a
5.06
5.26
Building Principal
5.40b
5.31
5.57
Assistant Supt.
5.63c
5.51
5.75
Superintendent
5.88d
5.76
6.00
Assistant Principal
5.49a
5.39
5.58
Building Principal
5.78b
5.70
5.85
Assistant Supt.
5.83b
5.72
5.95
Superintendent
6.12c
6.00
6.24
Note. N= 918. Means in each column that do not share subscripts differ at p<.05 using the Bonferroni procedure for multicomparison adjustment.
Cognitive skills. There was a statistically significant difference in the means
reported for the construct “Cognitive skills” between grouping variables “assistant
principal” ( =5.55) when compared to “building principals” ( =5.78, p=.001), and
“superintendents” ( =5.97, p<.001). However, there was no significant difference in the
means reported for “Cognitive skills” between the groups “assistant principal” ( =5.78,
p=.001) and “assistant superintendent” ( =5.69, p=.427). This suggests that as one
increases in organizational level from assistant principal to building principal and from
assistant principal to superintendent, the amount of Cognitive skills required for the job
111
increases in significant ways. Statistically significant differences also existed for
Cognitive skills between “building principals” ( =5.78) and “superintendents” (5.97,
p=.040) but not between “building principals” ( =5.78) and “assistant superintendents.”
This would also suggest that as one advances from building principal to superintendent
an increased amount of Cognitive skills is required. However, there is no difference
between the amounts of Cognitive skills required to be a “building principal” or
“assistant superintendent.” Finally, there was a significant mean difference in Cognitive
skills required between assistant superintendents ( =5.69) and “superintendents” (
=5.97, p=.003) which indicated that educational leaders require higher amounts of
Cognitive skills as they move from assistant superintendent to superintendent ( =5.69,
p=1.00). This linear relationship is represented in Figure 6.
Amount of Cognitive Skill Required
6.5
6.25
6
5.75
Assistant Principal
Principal
5.5
Assistant Supt.
Supt.
5.25
5
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Supt.
Organizational Level
Supt.
Figure 6. Estimated marginal means for Cognitive skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education, and district setting.
112
Interpersonal skills. There was a statistically significant difference in the reported
means for the construct “Interpersonal skills” among the grouping variable
"organizational level” such that “assistant principals” ( =5.60) had significantly smaller
means than “building principals” ( =5.80, p=.037) and “superintendents” ( =6.04,
p<.001). However, “assistant principals” ( =5.60) did not differ in a statistically
significant way from “assistant superintendents” ( =5.73 p=1.00). This suggests that as
one increases in organizational level from assistant principal to building principal and
from assistant principal to superintendent; one requires greater amounts of Interpersonal
skills. Conversely, while directionally consistent, the increase in Interpersonal skills
required when advancing from assistant principal to assistant superintendent was not
significantly different.
Additionally, “building principals” ( =5.78) had significantly smaller mean
scores on Interpersonal skills than “superintendents” ( =6.02, p=.003). However, there
was no significant difference in the mean scores reported among “building principals” (
=5.78) and “assistant superintendents” ( =5.70, p=1.00). This would suggest that as one
increased in organizational level from building principal to assistant superintendent, there
is no difference in the amount of Interpersonal skills required. In fact, the amount needed
tends to slightly decrease. However, there is a significant increase in the amount of
Interpersonal skills required as you move from building principal to superintendent.
Next, “assistant superintendents” had significantly smaller mean scores on
Interpersonal skills ( =5.70) than superintendents ( =6.02, p<.001), which suggests that
113
as one moves from assistant superintendent to superintendent, one requires additional
amounts of Interpersonal skills to do the job.
Finally, “superintendents” ( =6.02) reported needing significantly higher levels
of Interpersonal skills than did all other organizational levels. This suggests that as one
moves from any other organizational level to superintendent, one would need to acquire
additional amounts of Interpersonal skills to do the job. Figure 7 reflects these
relationships.
Amount of Interpersonal Skills Required
6.5
6.25
6
5.75
Assistant Principal
Principal
5.5
Assistant Supt.
Supt.
5.25
5
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Supt.
Organizational Level
Supt.
Figure 7. Estimated marginal means for Interpersonal skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education, and district setting.
Business skills. A statistically significant mean difference was reported for all
combinations of the dependent variable “Business skills” and the grouping variable
“Organization Level” such that “assistant principals”( =5.16) reported needing
114
significantly lower levels of Business skills than “building principals”( =5.39, p=.002),
“assistant superintendents”( =5.63, p<.001) and “superintendents”( =5.88, p<.001).
Also, the mean for “building principals” ( =5.39) was significantly smaller than that of
“assistant superintendents” ( =5.63, p=.004) and “superintendents” ( =5.88, p<.001).
Finally, “assistant superintendents” ( =5.63) reported needing significantly lower levels
of Business skills than did “superintendents” ( =5.88, p=.020). These findings suggest
that no matter one’s current level in the organizational structure, one would require
increasing amounts of Business skills as one increases in position. These relationships
are shown in Figure 8.
Amount of Business Skill Required
6.5
6.25
6
5.75
5.5
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Supt.
5.25
Supt.
5
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Supt.
Organizational Level
Supt.
Figure 8. Estimated marginal means for Business skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education, and district setting.
115
Strategic skills. A statistically significant mean difference was reported for the
construct “Strategic skills” and the grouping variable “Organizational Level”. “Assistant
principals” ( =5.49) reported requiring significantly lower amounts of “Strategic skills”
than “building principals” ( =5.78, p<.001), “assistant superintendents” ( =5.83,
p<.001), and “superintendents” ( =6.11, p<.001). In addition, “building principals” (
=5.78, p<.001), reported requiring lower amounts of “Strategic skills” than “assistant
superintendents” ( =5.83, p<.001) and “superintendents” ( =6.11, p<.001). Finally,
“assistant superintendents” ( =5.83) reported requiring lower amounts of “Strategic
skills” than “superintendents” ( =6.11, p<.001). This would suggest that as you increase
in position from assistant principal to any other higher position in the organization, you
also tend to require successively larger amounts of Strategic skill to perform the job.
Additionally, “building principals” ( =5.78) had significantly smaller mean
scores on “Strategic skills” than “superintendents” ( =6.11, p<.001). However, there
was no significant difference in the mean scores reported among “building principals” (
=5.78) and “assistant superintendents” ( =5.83, p=1.00). This suggests that as you
increase in organizational level from building principal to assistant superintendent there
is no reported increase in the amount of Strategic skills required to do the job. However,
there is a significant increase in the amount of Strategic skills required as you move from
building principal to superintendent.
Also, “assistant superintendents” ( =5.83) reported significantly lower amounts
of Strategic skills required to do their job than “superintendents” ( =6.11, p=.004).
Finally, “superintendents” ( =6.11) reported requiring greater amounts of Strategic skills
116
than any other leadership group. This suggests that assistant superintendents, like all
other lower level leadership groups, require lower mounts of Strategic skills to do their
jobs than superintendents do. These relationships are illustrated in Figure 9.
6.5
Amount of Strategic Skill Required
6.25
6
5.75
Assistant Principal
Principal
5.5
Assistant Supt.
Supt.
5.25
5
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Supt.
Organizational Level
Supt.
Figure 9. Estimated marginal means for Strategic skill requirements across
organizational levels while controlling for experience, education, and district setting.
Themes
As anticipated, the leadership skills of leaders of K-12 public education in New
York State can be conceptualized as the four empirically distinguishable skills theorized
by Mumford et al (2007). Additionally, these four skills were found to be required in
increasing amounts as the leader’s organizational level increased from assistant principal
to superintendent. Despite these similarities, leaders in the current study differed in
important ways from those of the original 2007 study. These differences were found in
117
the total amount and proportions of leadership skills required at each level of the
organization. Interestingly, leaders of K-12 public schools in New York State seem to
have required a higher level of overall skills than the diplomats in the original study.
Also, the required amount of Interpersonal skills required by school administrators was
found to be almost equally as important as Cognitive skills at all levels, rather than
subordinate to Cognitive skills as found in the original 2007 study.
These findings suggest that while a four-factor model of leadership skill
requirements did explain the leadership skills phenomena in this study’s setting, the
amount and way in which these skills are required are quite different from the original
group studied. This uniqueness should be noted, as it will potentially impact the way
educational leaders are formed, developed, and ultimately, perform. While the original
2007 study validated most aspects of the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model, this
current study was unable to generalize those findings to educational leaders. The fact
that these two sample groups were quite different in the amount and proportion of
required leadership skills across organizational levels, suggests that a clear boundary or
limit to the generalization of the STRATAPLEX model exists.
Recapitulation
The research question for this study was:
To what extent is Mumford et al.’s Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model generalizable
to leaders of New York State’s K-12 public schools?
This question was answered by examining each of several hypotheses as
presented by Mumford et al. 2007 (pp. 151-159):
118
(H1). The Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill categories will
be empirically distinguishable.
(H2). Leadership skill requirements will vary by skill category such that
Cognitive skills will be needed the greatest amount, followed by Interpersonal,
Business, and Strategic skills, respectively.
(H3). Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic skill requirements will
be positively related to the job’s level in the organization.
(H4). Leadership skill requirements will interact with organizational level such
that:
a. Strategic skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business skill requirements.
b. Business skill requirements will be more strongly related to organizational
level than Cognitive or Interpersonal skill requirements.
c. Interpersonal skill requirements will be more strongly related to
organizational level than Cognitive skill requirements.
Hypothesis 1 was fully supported as traditional factor analysis suggests that
leadership skills were empirically measurable on four distinct factors. Additional support
for hypothesis 1 was found when one-factor and four-factor confirmatory factor analysis
measurement models using structural equation modeling (SEM) were compared using a
chi-squared difference test. Findings suggests that the one factor model did not fit the
data well, while a four-factor model fit markedly better. These results were similar to
those found by Mumford et al. (2007).
119
While the main effect of the leadership skills required, controlling for covariates,
was statistically significant, an evaluation of the estimated marginal means for each of the
individual skill requirements revealed that Strategic Skills were required the most
followed by Interpersonal skills, Cognitive skills, and Business skills. This suggests that
while there is a statistically significant difference in the amount of skills required by
leaders, the amounts of each individual skill category (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business,
and Strategic) were not found to be in the hypothesized order of importance. Thus unlike
the original 2007 study which found partial support, the data from the 2015 study did not
lend any support to Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3, consistent with the original study, received full support. Partial
correlations between leadership skill requirements and organizational level, controlling
for covariates, were found to be statistically significant, positive relationships. This
would suggest that as you ascend the organizational structure from front line leadership
to executive leadership, all of the leadership skill requirements increase also.
Finally, Hypothesis 4, which sought to examine the interaction of leadership skills
required with organizational level while controlling for other factors, received mixed
results. Rather than all skill levels being statistically significantly different, such that
Cognitive skills were most strongly correlated to organizational level followed by
Interpersonal, Business, and Strategic, this study found Strategic skills to be most
strongly correlated to organizational level, followed by Business, Interpersonal, and
Cognitive, when controlling for other factors. Thus, Hypothesis 4a received only partial
support, which was consistent with the original 2007 study findings. Hypothesis 4b
received full support, which was also consistent with the original study’s findings.
120
However, Hypothesis 4c received no support, which was inconsistent with the original
2007 study’s findings
Chapter Summary
Researchers have debated for decades how best to conceptualize and measure
leadership. Previous researchers conceptualized the leadership phenomena as being made
up of traits, styles, personality traits, and interactions between leaders and situations, and
as skills (Bass, 1990; Connelly, et al., 2000, Heifetz, 1994; Katz, 1955and 1974;
Kellerman & Webster, 2001; Mumford et al. 2007; Mumford et al., 2000a, 2000b, 2000c;
Stogdill, 1948 and 1974; Zaccaro, 2007; Zaccaro et al., 2004; Zaccaro et al., 2000). One
thing is clear; leadership is complex and a lack of consensus about how it should be
conceptualized continues to exist.
This researcher chose to examine leadership through a skills-based lens, thus
providing additional insight into a segment of leadership research that is still emerging.
This study provides strong evidence that educational leaders’ skills, like public
administration, can in fact be measured and that those required skills change depending
on the position held by that leader. What this study could not prove is that Mumford et.
al’s (2007) Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model was completely generalizable to
educational leaders of New York State’s K-12 public schools. In spite of this, a better
understanding of the leadership skills required by school administrators in New York
State was gained, and this study lays the groundwork for the establishment of a modified
STRATAPLEX model, elaborated in the next chapter, that may better fit educational
leaders.
121
Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to establish the extent to which the Leadership
Skills STRATAPLEX, as a theoretical model, could be generalized from professional
government embassy workers, as in the original study, to leaders of K-12 public schools
in New York State. Additionally, given the implications of a stratified, skills-based
model of leadership, this study intended to add to the specific field of educational
leadership as well as the larger study of leadership skill theory. Both theoretical and
practical implications of this study are given.
This chapter begins with a discussion of this study’s results, along with its major
findings and interpretations of these findings. This chapter explores the relevance of this
skills-based leadership study and makes suggestions to the field. Findings from this
theoretical replication and extension are discussed and interpreted. Conclusions and
implications for professional development, leadership preparation programs, and for the
field of leadership skills theory are presented. Finally, the chapter concludes with a
reconceptualization of the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model followed by a
presentation of recommendations and limitations for this study.
Discussion
This section explores the study’s major findings and interpretations of those
findings. Key comparisons are made between the original 2007 and current 2015 studies.
These findings lead to implications for and recommendations to the field.
Purpose of this study. Like Mumford et al. (2007), this researcher intended to
better understand the nature of the leadership skill requirements for leaders at different
122
levels of an organization. Unlike Mumford et al., this researcher sought to move beyond
the validation of theory to the specific application of the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
model to the context of public school leaders in New York State. By using the Leadership
Skills STRATAPLEX model, which intends to capture the “layered (strata) and divided
complex (plex) nature of leadership skill requirements” (Mumford et al., 2007, p.163),
this researcher examined the discrete leadership skill requirements of K-12 public school
leaders in New York State and compared these findings to Mumford et al.’s 2007 study.
This theoretical replication and extension allowed the researcher to test the extent to
which the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model could be generalized to a new setting
and context, either extending or identifying limits to the model’s usefulness.
Additionally, this study allowed for an examination of the unique leadership skills
required of current leaders in the field of K-12 public education in New York State.
Theoretical replication, findings, and interpretations. All aspects of the
Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX, as tested in Mumford et al., were tested by this
researcher within a large sample of educational leaders in New York State. Overall, the
Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model failed to fully generalize to this new context and
setting. The results suggest that a possible theoretical boundary or limit may exist for this
specific leadership skills-based model. The identification of a limit or boundary to this
model is useful as it serves to draw important distinctions between the leaders studied in
the original sample (professional U.S. government employees), and the educational
leaders examined in this current study. These distinctions led this researcher to suggest a
reconceptualized Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model that better explains the unique
skill requirements of educational leaders in New York. Like the original, the proposed
123
skill-based model accounts for leadership skill requirements across organizational levels
through the use of a STRATAPLEX triangle. However, this new model suggests that
organizational levels can be organized into sub-groups and that more than one
STRATAPLEX triangle may actually exist. It also suggests that these independent
STRATAPLEX triangles may exist in different sizes and proportions, representing the
different amounts and relative importance of each of the four leadership skills required by
each sub-group. Finally, this researcher proposes that the series of STRATAPLEX
triangles can be arraigned along a third dimension that represents the sub-group’s sphere
of direct influence relative to the whole organization. Major findings from this study are
presented below.
The first and most foundational finding of this study was that the leadership skills,
as theorized by Mumford et al. (2007), were empirically measured within this large
sample of New York State public school leaders. This seemingly basic finding
confirmed, within this sample, the theoretical base upon which previous leadership skills
theories have been built (Connelly et, al. 2000; Katz, 1955; Mumford et al. 2000a;
Mumford et al., 2000d). The ability to identify individual, discrete leadership skill types
is a significant finding of this study as very little empirical evidence of this phenomenon
is present in the literature, and no evidence at all of this type of research was found in
studies of educational leadership. Therefore, the findings of this study suggest that
educational leadership can and should be further examined through the lens of a skillsbased approach.
Second, like the original 2007 study, leadership skill requirements were overall,
positively related to the leader’s organizational level. While controlling for the
124
differences due to the leader’s education level, experience level, and district setting, the
amount of leadership skills reportedly required by educational leaders tended to increase
as the educational leader’s organizational level increased. In other words, the leadership
skills required by educational leaders to do their jobs may be cumulative, such that each
subsequently higher leadership position requires all the skills gained at the lower
organizational levels and more. This finding was consistent with those found in the
original study where a sample of professional government employees tended to require
overall increasing levels of leadership skills as they moved from lower to higher positions
of leadership. Again, the general overall increase in required leadership skills found by
this researcher further demonstrates and extends the theorized cumulative nature of
leadership skills found by Mumford et al. 2007. This finding suggests that this
relationship between organizational level and leadership skills can be demonstrated in
New York public school leaders.
Third, among the current sample of New York State educational leaders, at each
of the four organizational levels, the amounts and proportions of each of the four
leadership skills were found to be different from those found among U.S. diplomats by
Mumford et al. in 2007. The researcher found that across organizational levels, Strategic
skills were generally needed in the largest amounts, followed by Interpersonal, Cognitive,
and Business skills. Interestingly, Interpersonal and Cognitive skills tended to be
required in roughly the same amounts, at most organizational levels. These findings
suggest that educational leaders may require a very different combination of leadership
skills than those reported by the original 2007 study. In addition, educational leaders
reported needing leadership skills in more balanced amounts, especially Cognitive and
125
Interpersonal. While three of the four leadership skill categories (Strategic, Cognitive,
and Interpersonal skills) were required in similar amounts, it was Cognitive and
Interpersonal skills that tended to be most closely related to one another. Therefore,
educational leaders reportedly require a different and more balanced amount of
leadership skills than previously suggests by the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model.
Fourth, the total overall amount of leadership skills required by leaders to do their
job, across and within all organizational levels, was found to be greater for educational
leaders than those examined in the original study. This difference suggests that
educational leaders of New York State’s K-12 public schools feel that their positions
require greater amounts of each of the four leadership skills, at each of the four
organizational levels, than do their counterparts, working as professionals in an
international agency of the U.S. government.
Fifth, similarly to the original study, this study found a significant relationship
between “organization level” and each of the four “leadership skill categories,” which
means that as educational leaders increase in position they also tend to need more
Strategic, Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Business skills. The magnitude of the
relationship was such that Strategic and Business skills were more strongly related to
organizational level than Interpersonal and Cognitive skills, which means that the amount
of Strategic and Business skills required by educational leaders tends to increase more
rapidly from one organizational level to the next than do Interpersonal and Cognitive
skills. This suggests that it would be more important for an aspiring leader to focus on the
development of Strategic and Business skills over Cognitive and Interpersonal skills as
this leader progresses from lower leadership positions to higher as Strategic and Business
126
skills tend to increase the most from level to level. This finding was somewhat surprising
in that generally, educators and educational leaders are thought to rely heavily on soft
skills, such as the ability to empathize, communicate, work with, and influence others.
However, this study revealed that educational leaders may in fact be more similar to
leaders in other organizations, than we tend to believe. The strong relationships between
Strategic and Business management abilities and a leader’s position would suggest that
our traditional assumptions about educational leaders might not be true. Educational
leaders and leaders of other organizations seem to need very similar amounts of Strategic
and Business skills, especially as you move towards executive levels such as
superintendent.
It is important to note that while these findings suggest practitioners focus more
strongly on the importance of Strategic and Business skill development, continued
development of all four skills is necessary. This relationship does not indicate the order
of importance of each skill at each level, but rather only indicates that Strategic and
Business skills increase at the highest rates from level to level. The cumulative nature of
these four leadership skills, demonstrated by the tendency of educational leaders to report
needing greater and greater amounts of each skill as they move from lower to higher
leadership positions, necessitates a continued focus on the development of all four
leadership skills by leaders at all levels.
Extension, findings, and interpretations. Analysis beyond the scope of the
original 2007 study found that the multivariate main effect of organizational level on all
four leadership skills was significant. This means that an educational leader’s position in
the organization has a meaningful impact on the combination of leadership skill amounts
127
reportedly required by those leaders. Through the use of MANCOVA, the researcher
was able to eliminate the effects that experience, education, and district setting have on
the required leadership skills reported by leaders. In addition, this statistical technique
allowed the researcher to account for the positive relationships that existed among all
four leadership skill types. This means that the use of MANCOVA allowed the
researcher to account for the effects that resulted from the tendency of all four leadership
skills to increase as one or more of the other skills increases. The ability to remove the
impacts of experience, education level, and district setting, while also accounting for the
relationships that existed between the four leadership skill types, provided a clearer
picture of the unique influence an educational leader’s position has on the leadership
skills required of that leader. Educational leaders of public schools in New York State
reported that overall Strategic skills were needed in the greatest amounts. This was
followed by Interpersonal and Cognitive skills which seemed to be needed in very similar
amounts to one another at all four of the organizational levels studied. Finally, leaders
reported that Business skills were needed in the smallest amounts at each of the four
levels. It is important to remember that while Business skills were needed in the smallest
amounts at all four levels; they also tended to increase at a much more rapid rate from
one level to the next than Cognitive or Interpersonal skills. Overall, the amounts of
leadership skills reported suggests that educational leaders at all levels need Strategic
skills in the highest amounts, followed by Interpersonal and Cognitive and Business.
Analysis at the univariate level allowed the researcher to examine the differences
in the amounts of each of the four leadership skill types among the four organizational
levels studied. Because MANCOVA was utilized, these results again accounted for the
128
impact of experience, education level, and district setting on the leadership skill amounts
reported. Unlike the multivariate analysis, which measured the overall effect of
organizational level on leadership skills required, a univariate analysis examined the
differences in the amounts of leadership skills reported among leaders at each of the four
organizational levels. This univariate analyses revealed important inconsistencies
between this researcher’s findings and the hypothesized Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
model. It was discovered that while overall, educational leaders required Strategic skills
the most, followed by Interpersonal, Cognitive, and Business skills, the order of
importance and amount of each leadership skill varied from level to level. This means
that unlike the original 2007 study, this study’s findings did not show meaningful
increases in all four leadership skills at all four organizational levels. This was true
specifically between building principals and assistant superintendents.
Instead, this researcher found the following results: First, rather than reporting
distinctly different required amounts of each of the four leadership skills, assistant
principals tended to require equally high amounts of Cognitive and Interpersonal skills,
followed by lower amounts of Strategic and Business skills (Figure 5). Second, the
amount of each of the four leadership skills tended to increase as leaders moved from
assistant principal to building principal and again from assistant superintendent to
superintendent. However, from assistant principal to building principal, the increases in
the amount of Strategic, Interpersonal, and Cognitive skills resulted in leaders reporting
that they needed very similar amounts of all three skills. This suggests that building
principals may require the most balanced amounts of Strategic, Interpersonal, and
Cognitive skills than leaders at any of the other three organizational levels examined.
129
Third, the largest inconsistency between this studies results and the theorized Leadership
Skills STRATALEX model was found between building principals and assistant
superintendents. The researcher found that the required amounts of Cognitive,
Interpersonal, and Strategic skills remained roughly the same for building principals and
assistant superintendents. Moreover, Interpersonal and Cognitive skills decreased slightly
when moving to the assistant superintendence from the principalship, though in a nonstatistically significant way. This finding, which is inconsistent with hypothesis 3,
suggests that despite holding very different levels in the organizational structure, building
principals and assistant superintendents tend to report very little difference in the amount
of Strategic, Interpersonal, and Cognitive skill levels required to do their jobs. This
anomaly demonstrates that the leadership skills of educational leaders do not always
increase from organizational level to organizational level as previously hypothesized.
This finding led this researcher to conclude that the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX
model, in its current form, could not be completely generalized to leaders of K-12 public
education in New York State. However, due to the many similarities found between the
original 2007 study and the current study, this researcher suggests a reconceptualization
of the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX that may better account for the leadership skills
required by leaders of complex multi-tracked leadership structures such as are found in
public education.
Conclusions/Implications
Implications for professional development. Like Mumford et al.’s (2007)
study, this study demonstrates that leadership skills tend to increase as you increase in
organizational level, as conceptualized in educational leadership. This increase intimates
130
that leadership skills are cumulative, such that all skills required at lower levels of the
organization are also required at higher levels. In terms of professional development, this
suggests that professional development opportunities should, to an extent, focus on
supporting the development of all four skill areas (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Business, and
Strategic), regardless of the leader’s current organizational level. Professional
development must also be individualized, taking into account the unique amounts and
proportions of each skill category at each organizational level. Therefore, professional
development must consider both the requirements of the leader’s current level in the
organization and those of successively higher levels, allowing the leader to sharpen the
skills needed for his/her current position, while developing the leader’s skills necessary at
the next level.
Organizational level matters. When looking to develop leaders within an
organization, having a clear understanding of the skills needed at each level of the
organization is imperative. Matching appropriate experiences, instruction, and
professional development to the needs of a leader’s position, rather than the individual
person, provides a more efficient way of offering targeted professional development. The
findings of this study suggest a clear place to start.
Finally, the findings of this study would implore organizations to focus additional
professional development efforts on Strategic and Business skills. The findings
demonstrate that as you increase in organizational level, the need for Business and
Strategic skills increase at the fastest rates. Knowing this allows professional
development programs to target the skills that have the greatest ability to differentiate
leaders of higher and lower organizational levels. Increasing a leader’s ability to
131
understand downstream consequences construct a vision for the organization; and
manage resources, people, and equipment will prepare these leaders to assume new
responsibilities. A strong focus on Strategic and Business skills will ensure that leaders
are prepared for the challenges of their current position and beyond.
Implications for leadership preparation programs. Unlike professional
development, leadership preparation programs and certification programs are a
requirement for leaders of public schools in New York State. Again, understanding that
leadership skills are identifiable, cumulative, and required in different proportions at
different organizational levels, has important implications for these programs. First,
leaders must prioritize the acquisition and exercise of Strategic skills. Strategic
leadership courses should therefore be the centerpiece of a strong leadership preparation
program becoming even more important when preparing executive level leaders.
Providing leaders the skills necessary to successfully navigate novel, ill-defined problems
of practice is essential for leadership programs as the responsibilities of all leaders
continue to change (Fullan, 2001; Heifetz, 1994; Kellerman & Webster, 2001; Mumford
et al., 2000b). While the study of leadership is complex and disagreement persists in the
field over how to define it, leadership development programs would do well to pay
particular attention to skills based theories, with an emphasis on strategic planning.
Unlike leadership traits, leadership skills are, by definition, developable. That they can
be developed is suggests by the findings of this study and others (Bass, 1990; Mumford et
al., 2007; Mumford et al., 2000a; Mumford et al., 2000b; Mumford et al. 2000d).
Preparatory programs can use this study’s findings to further refine their curriculum to
provide potential leaders with the foundational skills required for the job. In fact, the
132
specific findings of this study might be worthy of sharing with students in educational
leadership programs, superintendent development programs, and practicing educational
leaders alike.
Implications for leadership skills theory development. In light of the study’s
findings and interpretations, the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model was
reconceptualized to offer a more highly developed and realistic model of the complex
relationship between organizational level and skill level. As all leadership skill
requirements were not found to increase between all organizational levels, a simple
reorganization of required leadership skills within the existing model’s structure (Figure
1) was not possible. The failure of Cognitive, Interpersonal, and Strategic skills to
increase from organizational level “building principal” to “assistant superintendent”
created an interesting anomaly. Visual observations of Figure 5 led this researcher to
consider dividing the four organizational levels into two, with levels assistant principal
and building principal forming one sub-group, and assistant superintendent and
superintendent forming another. The STRATAPLEX model’s assumption that skills will
increase at all organizational levels is satisfied when the data are re-examined in this way.
Each new leadership subgroup then creates its own unique STRATAPLEX
triangle. This triangle contains the subgroup’s unique amount and proportion of the four
required leadership skills. Therefore, the STRATAPLEX triangle housing the two
organizational levels “assistant principals” and “building principals” are arraigned such
that the overall lower amount of total leadership skills (size of the triangle), and more
balanced proportions of these skills (bands within the triangle) are reflected. The
STRATAPLEX triangle housing the two organizational levels “assistant superintendents”
133
and “superintendents” reflects the overall larger amounts and less balanced proportions of
the four leadership skills required (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Schematic of multiple Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX pyramids of varying
size denoting the total amount of leadership skill required. Internal divisions represent
the amounts and proportions of the four leadership skill types (Cognitive, Interpersonal,
Business, and Strategic) required at each organizational level (Assistant Principal,
Building Principal, Assistant Superintendent, and Superintendent).
Next, this new model suggests that each STRATAPLEX triangle can be thought to
be operating in three dimensions. The horizontal x-axis represents the total amount of
leadership skills required. Along this axis, the base of the equilateral triangle increases or
decreases (moving out from the origin) based on the total amount of leadership skills
required by the leaders represented by that triangle or sub-group. The vertical y-axis
represents the organizational level within and among each STRATAPLEX triangle. The x
and y-axis are related in that as the base of the equilateral triangle broadens along the xaxis, indicating greater amounts of total leadership skills required, the peak of the triangle
also increases, indicating higher organizational levels. This positive relationship between
“leadership skills” and “organizational level” was found by both the current study and the
original 2007 study and is graphically represent here. The third dimension of this
134
reconceptualized model is represented by the addition of the z-axis. This axis graphically
represents the differences found between leadership subgroups. As a leader and their
sub-group gain a greater sphere of direct influence relative to the whole organization, the
triangle moves out from the origin along the z-axis. This third dimension was not
considered or accounted for in Mumford et al.’s original model and is an original
contribution to the field of leadership skills theory (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Leadership skills interacting on a three-dimensional plane. The x-axis denotes
amount of total leadership. The y-axis represents organizational level and the z-axis
represents the leadership sub-groups sphere of direct influence relative to the whole
organization.
This reconceptualization of the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX not only
accounts for the leadership skill requirements of leaders at each organizational level but
adds a third dimension that accounts for the leader’s sphere of direct influence relative to
the whole organization. Specifically, this model better represents the differences found
135
between educational leaders who operate at the building level (assistant principals and
building principals) and those who operate at the district level (assistant superintendents
and superintendents) while also representing the overlap in skill requirements found to
exist between building principals and assistant superintendents. As such, this researcher
proposes that educational leadership is not one STRATAPLEX triangle, but rather two or
more triangles along a continuum that varies by the leader’s leadership skill amounts,
organizational level, and scope of direct influence relative to the whole organization
(Figure 12).
Figure 12. Schematic of the reconceptualized Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model.
The smaller triangle represents the leadership sub-group “School Building Leaders” made
up of Assistant Principals and Building Principals. The larger triangle denotes the
leadership sub-group “School District Leaders” comprised of Assistant Superintendents
and Superintendents. Note. The “School District Leaders” sub-group is larger denoting
greater amounts of total leadership required and is located further from the origin along
the z-axis, representing this group’s increased sphere of direct influence relative to the
whole organization, as compared to sub-group “School Building Leaders”.
136
This new conceptualization of the Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX differs from
previous leadership skills models such as Katz (1955) and (1974) and Mumford et al.
(2007). Unlike Katz (1974), who proposed that at different organizational levels some
skills are present and others are not, this model proposes that all four-skill categories are
present at every organizational level. This new model, like Mumford et al. (2007),
suggests that the required amount of each leadership skill increases as the leader’s
position increases. However, unlike Mumford et al.’s model, this new model suggests
that organizational levels may exist in bands and represents increases in overall
leadership through individual, successively larger triangles. This new
reconceptualization allows the ability to place these leadership sub-groups along a third
axis representing that group’s sphere of direct influence relative to the whole
organization. This more sophisticated model suggests that skills are cumulative, increase
as organizational levels increase, and are required in different amounts and proportions at
each level. This is supported by the differences found between the current and original
2007 studies such that building principals required a more balanced amount of Cognitive,
Interpersonal, and Strategic skills than did assistant principals. In addition, this model
suggests that organizational levels are not continuous and can be grouped based on the
sub-groups sphere of direct influence relative to the whole organization. Therefore,
leaders at higher organizational levels within a sub-group who exercises less influence
(building principals) can share leadership skill characteristics with leaders at lower
organizational levels within a higher sub-group who exercises more influence (assistant
superintendents). This is supported by the lack of differentiation in three of the four skill
categories between building principals and assistant superintendents.
137
The reconceptualized Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model could be
hypothesized to extend beyond the traditional school leaders examined by this study.
Teacher leaders, who hold non-traditional or informal leadership roles, are hypothesized
to require increasing amounts of Strategic, Interpersonal, Cognitive, and Business skills
as they advance from the role of classroom teacher to department chair, grade, and team
leader. The amounts and proportions of these leadership skill requirements would also be
moderated by the scope of the leader’s sphere of direct influence relative to the whole
organization (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Schematic of the hypothesized, reconceptualized Leadership Skills
STRATAPLEX model with extension. The smallest triangle represents the leadership
sub-group “Teacher Leaders” and is made up of classroom teachers and teacher leaders”.
The small triangle located closest to the origin along the z-axis denotes the lower overall
skills required and limited sphere of direct influence relative to the whole organization.
138
The medium sized triangle represents the leadership sub-group “School Building
Leaders” made up of Assistant Principals and Building Principals. This sub-groups
triangle represents its’ increased skill requirements and sphere of direct influence, in
relation to “teacher leaders”. The larger triangle denotes the leadership sub-group
“School District Leaders” comprised of Assistant Superintendents and Superintendents.
Note. The “School District Leaders” sub-group is larger denoting greater amounts of
total leadership required and is located further from the origin along the z-axis,
representing this group’s increased sphere of direct influence relative to the whole
organization, as compared to sub-group “School Building Leaders”.
Finally, this new leadership skills model may be useful for the examination of
other complex organizations. Organizations like the military that require increasing
levels of leadership skill requirements as you increase in organizational level and have
organizational sub-groups that can be divided based on their spheres of direct influence
relative to the whole organization provide a clear parallel. Like the educational leaders
studied by this researcher, military leaders require increasing amounts of leadership skills
as they rise in rank and also need these skills in different amounts and proportions at each
level (Mumford et al., 2000b).
For example, the first STRATAPLEX triangle, signifying a sub-group of leaders
within a school building, is comprised of teachers and teacher leaders. A teacher who
leads a class of 30 students is much like a non-commissioned staff sergeant in the United
States Army who leads a squad of 6-10 soldiers. In both cases, this is the smallest
organizational group who requires leadership. Next, a team leader, grade level leaders, or
department chairperson is a teacher leader who leads groups of teachers and assists the
building administrator, much like a lieutenant who leads a platoon made up of 3-4 squads
assists the captain who leads a company. These two organizational levels, teachers and
teacher leaders, sergeants and lieutenants, make up the basic unit of school and military
leadership and is the first STRATAPLEX triangle in this new model.
139
At the school building level, another organizational sub-group emerges with
broader direct influence relative to the whole organization. An assistant principal is often
the leader of several grade levels or departments, comprised of several teacher leaders
who lead groups of classroom teachers. Assistant principals are often assisted by teacher
leaders and in turn support the building principal. The assistant principal and building
principal make up a group of educational leaders who must hold New York State School
Building Leader (SBL) certification. The building principal is charged with leading the
whole school building made up of multiple grade level teams or departments and is
supported by assistant principals and teacher leaders. Again, a parallel can be made
between school building leaders and an army company commander or captain who is a
commissioned officer and leads 3-4 platoons each of which is made up of 3-4 squads of
soldiers. The captain is supported by the lieutenants and staff sergeants in much the same
way the building principal is supported by the assistant principal(s) and teacher leaders.
The captain and lieutenant, building principal, and assistant principal make up the second
STRATAPLEX pyramid with broader overall amounts of direct influence relative to the
whole organization.
Despite the general differences in the overall scope of direct influence held by
teachers and teacher leaders, and assistant principals and building principals, teacher
leaders, and assistant principals tend to share responsibilities and in turn may require
similar amounts of the four leadership skills studied. This overlap from the top of one
sub-group to the bottom of the next is thought to exist much like the overlap between
building principals and assistant superintendents found in this study.
140
Limitations
While this study controlled for factors like “years of experience,” “level of
education,” and “district setting,” suspected to directly or indirectly affect the leadership
skills of public school leaders in New York State, other factors may exist. The omission
of these potential factors and the overall lack of skills-based leadership research
conducted in the public school setting are major limitations of this study.
Cross-sectional research designs, used by this researcher, present several
weaknesses, including the inability to observe changes over time or the ability to account
for the specific mood of the respondent at the time the survey was completed. Collecting
data at a single point in time can affect the reliability and generalizability of the survey
data collected.
As a theoretical model, The Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX was originally tested
and validated in a sample of professional government employees. This group operated
within an “up or out” promotional system. Consequently, if you failed to be promoted
within a specific period of time, you were forced to retire, much as is the case in the U.S.
military. This left a sample of leaders in positions who demonstrated upward mobility
within the organization and an absence of leaders who had reached their highest level
without the ability to progress. Conversely, this dynamic does not exist when studying
leaders of public schools. Educational leaders hold positions in the organizational
structure for many reasons, both personal and professional, opting at times to remain at a
particular organizational level for long periods of time for a multitude of reasons.
Additionally, some leaders remain at their current organizational level for many years
despite attempts to move up. This may suggest in part, that there could be limits to an
141
individual’s capacity or desire to acquire the levels of skills necessary to operate at higher
levels in the organization.
This study attempted to examine the perceived leadership skills required of
educational leaders at different organizational levels in New York State. Because of the
state-specific sample, the findings cannot be generalized easily to other states, nonpublic
schools, or other occupations.
Finally, descriptive research methodology was used, and, by its nature, descriptive
research seeks to describe rather than predict. This eliminates the ability of this study’s
findings to be used as a predictive tool.
Recommendations
While this study was able to quantitatively examine a large sample of public
school leaders in New York State, future research should focus on non-traditional
leadership positions, such as teachers and teacher leaders. The addition of this subgroup
of leaders would further test this new leadership skill model and potentially validate the
construct “sphere of direct influence.” Additionally, future researchers are encouraged to
conduct skills-based research in different states, thus establishing the generalizability,
limits, or boundaries of this study’s findings.
Future research should be conducted to validate this new reconceptualized
Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model, as proposed by this researcher. In order to test
the three-dimensional nature of this new model, it is necessary that this research be done
in settings/contexts with highly stratified organizational levels and distinct variations in
the sphere of influence relative to the whole organization. It is also suggests that future
research be conducted in settings like the military, where leadership is distributed along
142
multiple tracts, (non-commissioned and commissioned officers) and clear delineations
exist in the sphere of direct influence between and among these groups.
Future, researchers are also encouraged to conduct qualitative and mixed methods
studies of leadership skills across organizational levels. These studies would better
capture nuances that exist between and among leadership skills at different organizational
levels, which were not captured by the purely quantitative approach of this study.
Finally, leadership skills research, specifically related to public school leaders
would benefit from longitudinal designs. This methodological design would enable the
researchers to evaluate specific changes over time and better protect against the potential
variation in the moods of individuals at the time of the survey. This could also include
following a junior leader from the start of his or her career to retirement. A longitudinal
study would serve to complement cross-sectional studies by protecting against the
limitations inherent in their design.
Chapter Summary
This study tested a previously established, skills-based leadership model within a
large sample of public school leaders in New York State. Results suggests that the
Leadership Skills STRATAPLEX model did not fully generalize to this new context and
setting. However, several aspects of the model’s core tenets did. Specifically, the four
leadership skills (Cognitive, Interpersonal, Strategic, and Business) as conceptualized by
Mumford et al. (2007) were empirically distinguishable. Next, leadership skills are
positively related to organizational level. In addition, leadership skills tended to be
cumulative such that all the skills required at lower organizational levels were still
needed at higher levels. Finally, a clear violation of the models assumptions occurred;
143
the leadership skill interactions between building principals and assistant superintendents
did not follow the hypothesized trends. In fact, three skill types (Cognitive,
Interpersonal, and Strategic) were required in essentially the same amounts for building
principals and assistant superintendents. This difference between the theorized model
and this study’s findings became the basis for a reconceptualized Leadership Skills
STRATAPLEX model. This new model not only reorganized the skill requirements
within the existing model’s triangle, such that Strategic skills were required the most,
followed by Interpersonal, Cognitive, and Business but also suggests that multiple
STRATAPLEX triangles exist and can be conceptualized as differentiating along a third
dimension. This third dimension, representing a leader’s “direct sphere of influence”
relative to the whole organization, then becomes a potentially important additional factor
in understanding leadership skill requirements across organizational levels.
144
References
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). The nature of
leadership. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the
contemporary human sciences (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational
effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 431-449.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038047
Burman, L. E., Reed, W. R., & Alm, J. (2010). A call for replication studies. Public
Finance Review, 38(6), 787-793. doi: 10.1177/1091142110385210
Butin, D. W. (2010). The education dissertation: A guide for practitioner scholars
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
Carter, L. F. (1952). Leadership and small-group behavior. Army Field Forces Human
Research Unit No. 2.
Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A
review. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(3), 145153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0045186
145
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 13041312. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1304
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P., (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
L. Erlbaum Associates.
Connelly, M. S., Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, & M. A., &
Mumford, M. D.(2000). Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and
knowledge to leader performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 65-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00043Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis:
Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
146
Duvendack, M., & Palmer-Jones, R. (2013). Replication of quantitative work in
development studies: Experiences and suggestions. Progress in Development
Studies. 13(4), 307-322. doi: 10.1177/1464993413490480
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Education research: An introduction (7th
ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London:
Macmillan and CO.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference (11th Ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Gibb, D. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (pp. 877-918). Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier
labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(400), 1147-1149.
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1987.10478551.
Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules
for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 991999. doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478363
147
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian
Journal of Statistics, 6 (2), 65-70. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9469
Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont,
CA.: Thomson Wadsworth.
Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field:
An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), 129–144. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(99)000015-610.
Iglewicz, B., & Banerjee, S. (2001, August). A simple univariate outlier identification
procedure. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical
Association. Retrieved from
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2001/proceed/00523.pdf
Jago, A, G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management
Science, 28 (3), 315-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.3.315
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jose, V. R. R., & Winkler, R. L. (2008). Simple robust averages of forecasts: Some
empirical results. International Journal of Forecasting, 24(1), 163-169. Retrieved
from http://doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2007.06.001
148
Katz, R. L. (1955, January-February). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard
Business Review, 33(1), 33-42. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
Katz, R. L. (1974, September-October). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard
Business Review, 52(5)., 90-102. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
Kellerman, B., & Webster, S. W. (2001). The recent literature on public leadership:
Reviewed and considered. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 485-514.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00091-1
Kennedy, J. J., & Bush, A. J. (1985). An introduction to the design and analysis of
experiments in behavioral research. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter?. The Executive,
5(2), 48-60. doi:10.5465/AME.1991.4274679
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahnik, S., Bernstein,
M.J….Noresk, B.A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many
labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142-152. doi:10.1027/18649335/a000178
La Sorte, M. (1972). Replication as a verification technique in survey research: A
paradigm. The Sociological Quarterly, 13(2), 218-227. doi:10.1111/j.15338525.1972.tb00805.x.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
149
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta analysis of the relations
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7(3), 402-410.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402
Malone, B. A., & Caddell, T. A. (2000). A crisis in leadership: Where are tomorrow’s
principals? The Clearing House, 73(3), 162-164.
doi:10.1080/00098650009600938
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance
in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-270. doi:10.1037/h0044587.
Markow, D., Macia, L., & Lee, H. (2013). The MetLife survey of the American teacher:
Challenges for school leadership. 1-120. Retrieved from MetLife, Inc. website:
https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/MetLife-Teacher-Survey2012.pdf
Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in
managing principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367-383.
doi:10.1080/1570000763.2010.493633
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods:
Practical application and interpretation. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.
Mumford, T. V, Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills
strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 154-166. doi:10.16/j.leaqua.2007.01.005
150
Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R.
(2000a). Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. The
Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 87-114. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00044-2
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, M. S., & Marks, M. A. (2000b). Leadership
skills: Conclusions and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 155170. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00047-8
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T.O., & Fleishman, E. A.
(2000c). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social
problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35. doi:10.1016/S10489843(99)00041-7
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Johnson, J. F., Diana, M., Gilbert, J. A., & Threlfall,
V.K. (2000d). Patterns of leader characteristics: Implications for performance and
development. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 115-133. doi:10.1016/S10489843(99)00045-4
Nadler, D, A., & Tushman, M. L. (1988, June 6). What makes for magic leadership.
Fortune, 117(12), 261-262. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/
Norsek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the
credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137-141.
doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and
prediction (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.
151
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1),
104-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1977.4409175
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor
analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 13-43 doi:
10.1207/S15328031US0201_02
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Tinio, P. (2014). Pipeline revisions: a call to change. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 8(1), 13-14. doi: 10.1037/a0035845
Rosenthal, S. A. (2012). National leadership index 2012: A national study of
confidence in leadership. Center for Public Leadership, Harvard Kennedy
School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Retrieved from
http://andresraya.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/cpl_nli_2012.pdf
Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research.
American Psychologist, 25(10), 970-975. doi: 10.1037/h0029774
Stogdill, R. M., (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York: The Free Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). SPSS for windows workbook to accompany
large sample examples of using multivariate statistics. HarperCollins College
Publishers.
152
Teddie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research:
Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral
sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torraco. R. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples.
Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-366.
doi:10.1177/1534484305278283.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Leader skills: Introduction and overview. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(1), 5-9. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00040-5
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Sage
Zaccaro, S, J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62,
(1), 6-16. doi: 10.137/0003-066X.62.1.6
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J.
Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg.(Eds.), The nature of
leadership. (pp. 101-123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zaccaro, S. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Marks, M. A., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000).
Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities. The Leadership Quarterly, 11
(1), 37-64. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00042-9
153
APPENDIX A
MANHATTANVILLE COLLEGE IRB APPROVAL LETTER
154
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
APPENDIX C
SURVEY RECRUITMENT CARD
170
PERMISSION LETTERS TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
PERMISSION TO USE THE STRATAPLEX SURVEY
171
PERMISSION TO USE THE STRATAPLEX FIGURE 1
The following is an excerpt of a License Agreement between Gregory Brown and
Elsevier. A full copy of the License Agreement can be obtained by contacting the author
of this dissertation.
172
173
Biography
Gregory S. Brown was born December 15, 1979, in Poughkeepsie, New York.
He attended Arlington High School in LaGrangeville, New York, graduating in 1998.
During his undergraduate program at the State University of New York, College
at Oneonta, Gregory was inducted into the National Residence Hall Honorary Society
before graduating in 2003 with a Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education with a
concentration in Social Studies. He received initial and then permanent New York State
Teacher Certification in the area of Social Studies grades 7-12.
Gregory began teaching in the North Rockland Central School district in 2003
leaving in 2011. In 2006 he earned a Master of Arts in Educational Psychology from
Marist College, followed by a Master of Science in Education in Educational Leadership
and Administration in 2009 from Iona College. Additionally, he received New York
State Teacher Certification in both School Building and School District Leadership.
In 2011 Gregory became an assistant principal at Arlington High school where he
supervised a cohort of more than 850 students and 250 teachers. During this time he was
accepted into Manhattanville’s Doctoral program in Educational Leadership where he
earned the 2016 Doctoral Award for Academic Excellence.
Gregory took the position of Regional Coordinator for Social Studies and Blended
Learning at Putnam Northern Westchester BOCES in 2015. Besides speaking regionally
and nationally, on a variety of topics such as leadership and social studies, he plans to
continue working in K-12 and Higher Educational settings after graduation.