WHO WOULD BE LEADER?
A person does not become a leader by virtue of the
Possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern
Of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some
Relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities and
Goals of the followers…… It is not difficult to find
Persons who are leaders. It is quite another matter to
Place persons in different situations where they will be
Able to function as leaders.
(Stogdill, 1948 p65)
This paper is about those leaders who fail in their role
and some perceptions of why they fail, and thus cease to
function as a leader.
Demotion and Dismissal: The Impact in an Educational Setting.
Jennifer M. Fraser
‘School administration is walking a tightrope, and administrators
always work without a net’ (Brock and Grady, 1995)
This article presents the findings of a study that examined the literature related to involuntary
departure of leaders. The findings suggest that leaders and specifically administrative leaders in
schools are removed from the position due to unprofessional behaviour, personal inadequacies, or
general incongruence with the norms of the employing organisation. The findings further suggest
that postgraduate qualifications in administration or leadership, previous success as a leader, or the
ability to perform well at an interview are not of themselves a panacea for continued achievement.
Therefore, the findings raise issues which suggest themselves as topics for future research.
Introduction
In the current educational arena the principalship in both primary and secondary schools is
demanding and challenging, with one of the challenges vested in security of tenure for the principal.
In many school systems classroom teachers are more likely to enjoy tenure than those employed to
manage and lead the school community. Demands by the employing authority to maintain or
develop an excellent school through the provision of a teaching environment that sustains real
learning often does not take into account the ability of either the staff or the principal.
There is however, an expectation that the principal will demonstrate leadership traits that enshrine
collaborative approaches to decision-making in aspects of school life which include staff selection,
class placement, and curriculum content and delivery. There is also an expectation that the principal
will be a visionary, empathetic leader as well as a manager of human and material resources and
crisis situations.
Literature which focuses on the principal role suggests that the person who demonstrates the above
equalities to the satisfaction of the employing authority and the school community will enjoy a
degree of position stability (eg Goldring, 1993; Brock & Grady, 1995; Pounder, Ogawa & Adams,
1995; Yukl, 1998).
There is however, little research on the causal factors associated with the demotion or dismissal of
principals. The contention that these people seemingly gained their position because of proven
skills is difficult to align with the diminution in those same skills which prompt an involuntary
departure. The literature describes as voluntary, departure from a position which occurs as a result
of promotion, resignation, retirement or death, whereas demotion and dismissal are described as
involuntary departure (Allen & Panian, 1982, Yukl, 1998).
My interest in the causal factors surrounding the departure of leaders with specific reference to
involuntary departure emerged from research recently completed for the partial fulfilment of a
Doctor of Education degree. This research examined the variables associated with the succession
of primary school principals and one of the variables of that phenomenon was the reason for the
succession. Twenty-seven per cent of my research population succeeded a predecessor who was
demoted or dismissed.
Common sense would suggest that neither the demoted nor dismissed principal nor the employing
authority would be likely sources of objective data. Furthermore, as this paper is a preliminary study
of review of available literature would suggest areas for future ethnographic research.
Prior research suggests that weakness in leadership both past and present are likely to be features
of schools in trouble (Learmouth & Lowers, 1998, p.141). My succession research suggested that
the successor principal whose predecessor was demoted or dismissed was not provided with the
reasons wither for the action or with reasons why the school appeared to be in crisis. Having
reviewed the data generated by my research design, my interest was piqued about the availability of
research specifically related to the involuntary departure of organisational leaders.
Purpose of this study
The purpose of this study then is to review the literature related to the involuntary departure of
leaders. From the results of the review it is intended that the knowledge gained will assist successor
or prospective school leaders in their sense making of the impact that involuntary departure has on
an organisation. A further intention of the study is to alert school leaders to some of the issues that
could impact upon their own success in the leadership role. Thus two questions guided the study:
1. What are the causal factors associated with the involuntary departure of schools leaders? and
2. What measures both at a personal and organisational level could be implemented to avoid or
prevent involuntary departure of school leaders.
Background
The replacement of school principals occurs in a fairly undramatic way in most instances on a
regular basis in schools across Australia. When a new principal is required the employing authority,
whether associated with Government, independent or Catholic systemic schools selects and then
appoints a principal whom it has gauged will best suit a particular school. The hope of the
employing authority is that the person selected will operate within the organisational norms, within
the context of the terms of employment, and will also demonstrate congruency with the
organisational culture. When the organisational norms appear to be violated or the terms of
employment are not adhered to, it has been shown that the leader achieves an involuntary
departure (Sachen, 1996, Davis, 1998).
The review of literature focuses on demotion and dismissal, the two major descriptors for
involuntary departure and the following provides a fairly simplistic description of the terms:

Demotion occurs when a leader is removed from his or her position. Variations in the type of
position the organisation offers to the demoted leader appear to reflect the initial contract the
employee had with the employing authority. Demotion is initiated by the employing authority and
appears to follow after a sustained period of support, or when the organisation perceives the
employee is not fulfilling with competence the terms of his or her contract.

Dismissal occurs when a leader is discharged from his or her position. The dismissed leader is
not offered any further position in the organisation. Dismissal usually follows when the
organisation is able to prove that the leader is grossly incompetent in all areas covered by the
terms of employment.
In many organisational settings including schools it is highly probably that a successor leader will be
in the position of succeeding a person who departure was involuntary. The situation then to be
avoided by the successor principal is of course an involuntary departure from the organisation. The
review of the literature on involuntary departure suggests that this situation can be prevented if
there is open effective communication between the principal, the employing authority and the school
community (Greenfield, 1995, Yukl, 1998).
Conceptual Framework
One of the earliest studies on involuntary departure was completed by Gephart (1978) who in
researching his own dismissal, suggested that following the event, members of the organisation
grouped together to affect the degradation of his previous status because they believed he had not
complied with the group norms. Since then there have been a number of studies completed on the
involuntary departures of leaders. Unlike Gephart’s study data which were analysed were obtained
from employing authorities. These more recent studies found that leaders were removed from their
position for a variety of reasons; some because of insubordination or grossly unprofessional
behaviour (eg) Hogan, Curphy and Hogan, 1994; Robinson and Bennett, 1995; Sachen, 1996; Yukl,
1998), some through perceived personal inadequacies and an inability to develop teams (eg House,
Spangler and Woycke, 1991; Puffer and Weintrop, 1991; Hogan, Curphy and Hogan, 1994; Clark,
1995; Ostell and Oakland, 1995; Hagberg, 1996 Leslie and Velsor, 1996; Yee and Cuban, 1996,
Davis, 1998, and some were removed through lack of influence with the employing authority (eg
Pfeffer and Moore, 1980; Elmaleh, 1988, 1989; Harrison, Torres and Kukalis, 1998; Boeker, 1992;
Gronn and Ribbins, 1996).
Review of the Literature on Involuntary Departure
The causal factors associated with involuntary departure of leaders were identified in a search of
the literature. Therefore the review of the literature will be grouped under the three areas identified
in the conceptual framework which emerged from this (a) unprofessional behaviour (b) personal
inadequacies (c) and lack of influence with the employing authority.
Unprofessional Behaviour
There is little empirical research that has specifically addressed leader or employee behaviours
which by organisational norms could be described as deviant or unprofessional. Previous literature
has tended to concentrate on the effects in an organisation of theft or sabotage on the part of the
leader, whereas, Robinson and Bennett (1995) found in their study which explored personal
behaviour of leaders and employees, that behaviour in a leader which could be described as
deviant was verbal abuse, favouritism, being inflexible or gossiping and denigrating employees. This
type behaviour was also cited by Yukl (1998) as a factor contributing to a leader losing his or her
position. However, these studies did not examine the variables associated with the leader’s
background or whether he or she came from within or outside the organisation. Prior research has
shown that these are variables which can affect how a leader is viewed and then be either accepted
or rejected by those new followers already in the organisation (Lutz, 1972; Jenner, 1989).
On the other hand Sachen (1996) who examined the patterns of behaviour of school principals
which results in a punitive response from the employing authority, found that some of these leaders
exhibited behaviours which were inexplicable given the nature of the profession. This research
suggested that some principals had been demoted or dismissed because it had been shown by the
employing authority that they had misused school funds, or were involved in sexual misconduct or
harassment of either staff or students.
Another variation of unprofessional behaviour is when a principal publicly berates staff and parents
or shows litter interest in the educational outcomes of the students. Sachen (1996) asserts that
demotion for principal is a return to the classroom and relates the story of the principal who could
demonstrate that while he had the ability to work successfully with 25 or so nine year olds, was not
able to demonstrate that ability in order to work successfully with 25 or so thirty year olds. Davis
(1998) supports this particular premise with his description of a middle – manager promoted
because of his attention to detail, who was subsequently demoted because he could not adopt a
more global view of the organisation or delegate time consuming tasks to others.
That teaching is a team-oriented, conservative profession was acknowledged by Sachen and that
school leaders invariable came from the teaching staff was also acknowledged. His research
suggests that irrespective of university leadership programs, and other self-education courses,
teachers who become middle-managers (Sachen describes principals as middle managers because
he contends their authority is limited) and whose career path ends I demotion or dismissal could
attribute it to their unprofessional conduct which hinges on their seeming inability to gauge exactly
what is expected of them in a leadership role.
Principals or leaders who demonstrate ‘arrogance, moodiness selfishness, compulsiveness,
abrasiveness or insensitivity toward others’ are exponents of unprofessional behaviour (Hogan et al,
1994, p 499). It can be stated that it is relatively easy to recognise those traits in others, but
acknowledging that they are part of one’s own style requires a good deal of self knowledge and an
understanding of their affect in the work place and with the employer.
Whether their unprofessional behaviour was related to sexual deviance, an inability to lead the
teaching staff, or to establish a cohesive relationship with parent groups, there is some validity in
the assertion that some principals are often seen by teachers, parents and the employing authority
as administrators placed in the position not because of their leadership skills but because of their
desire to be administrators. Sachen (1996) and Yukl (1998) cite instances of principals and other
organisational leaders who are removed from their position because they alienate the employing
authority, staff and in the case of principals, parents.
Stogdill (1948) suggests that some individuals who under one situation are leaders may under other
conditions take the role of a follower, that is transfer from teacher-leader to middle-manager
follower. However, Davis (1998) cites current research which suggests that effective leaders are
able to adapt their leadership styles and behaviours to meet the needs of particular sites. This is
supported by Brock and Grady (1995) who state that leaders should know what style suits the suits
the situation. Leader principals need to be socially conditioned to the role they are expected to play
within a school, they also need to be aware that their behaviour needs at all times to be seen as
professional in the eyes of staff, parents and the employing authority.
Personal Inadequacies
Some prior research suggests that principal leaders should have personal qualities associated with
‘problem-solving effectiveness; affective mood states; inclination to be reflective; and reference to
professional, moral, human, social, and political values in the context of group problem solving’
(Greenfield, 1995, p. 76). There is also an expectation from those in organisations that the leader
will hold a clearly articulated vision for the organisation or will adopt the vision that those already in
the organisation hold. But what is a vision? Yukl (1998 p 443) suggests that the vision is something
that conveys an image of what can be achieved, why it is worthwhile, and how it can be done. He
also suggests that it should be flexible.
Successful leaders are lauded for their vision, for the personal strengths they bring to the role, for
their ability to develop a team concept among the followers and for their understanding of
organisational norms, whereas the leader who is not successful fails to fit with the demands of the
job (Leslie & Velsor, 1996). However, Mann (1959) contends that intelligence is found to be
positively related to leadership and popularity.
That middle-managers fail to achieve what they have been engaged to do by those in charge of the
organisation is not a new concept. Leslie & Velsor (1996) identified the following as being the major
factors contributing to the demotion of a leader:
1. An inability to develop or adapt;
2. Poor working relations.
These findings were supported by Hogan et all (1994) who also suggested that leaders fail because
they can no longer rely solely on their own skills, they need to work through others to be successful;
that is they need to have the interpersonal skills and the ability to build a team. Katzenbach (1997)
supports this by suggesting that a team’s collective capabilities allow it to accomplish more than its
members could have working on their own, and Badaracco (1998) asserts that leaders must learn to
negotiate their ethical vision with other team members, who in the school situation are staff, parents
and the employing authority.
In describing earlier research on involuntary departure, Hogan et al cited Beng (1985) who
concluded that the failed executive often had an overriding character flaw that alienated
subordinates and was a preventive factor to team building, whereas House et al (1991) suggests
that the charismatic leader that is the one who transfers the needs values and aspirations of
followers has the personal skills to forge loyalty even when his or her goals were not totally
congruent with organisational norms.
Davis (1998) suggests that personal inadequacies relate to poor interpersonal skills, poor decision
making skills, and ineffective management of time, task and people. Sachen (1996 p426) supports
this concept because he asserts that the principal, the person in the middle with multiple audiences
to please requires good interpersonal skills, good decision making skills and effective skills in
managing time, task and people.
While leaders must act according to their own unique personality dynamic, they can with training
and understanding find strength in the diversity of others and work so that teams develop, Clark
(1995). She further argues that principals who lose the ability to dream need to recapture it. The
principal whose vision is blurred and who has become only a manager of crises is maybe on the
tightrope where a fall could lead to demotion or dismissal. That leaders must have an understanding
of human nature is a theory supported by Ogawa & Bossert (1995) and Leslie & Velsor (1996).
Research has found that even the most effective principals experienced periods when their
performance was marginal and that these periods of marginal performance were characterised by
the principal having difficulty with staff and failing to follow through the employing authority
commitments (Raisch & Rogus 1995). Davis (1998 p85) in his study of the perceptions of 99, school
superintendents found that behaviours relating to a principal’s personal characteristics and
relationships with others far outweighed any other factors attributed to job failure.
Leaders, albeit college presidents are still viewed with enthusiasm by the faculty at the end of their
tenure if they maintain enthusiasm, open commitment to interaction and a desire to learn where if
they are bored, jaded, self-centred, and distant faculty affection and support will be eroded
(Birnbaum 1992). This concept of the leader maintaining an enthusiastic demeanour is supported by
Ostell and Oakland (1995) who found in their study of principal stress and coping strategies that the
ability to handle problems with the minimal emotional reaction suggested that the principal who felt
victimised by the behaviour of others was perceived not to be coping. This is further supported by
Hagberg (1996) who asserted that leaders who strike trouble do so because of their lack of social
and communication skills. Leaders who are facing demotion are usually so occupied with their own
problems that they have difficulty in addressing organisational interests. Another of Hagberg
propositions is that the employing authority can assist troubled leaders in the following ways:
1. Assume that behaviour can change;
2. Provide feedback.
3. Teach managers to be leaders.
An emphatic belief proposed by Yukl (1998) and supported by Greenfield (1995) suggests that
leaders can be trained and it is the responsibility of organisations to design programs which cater
for the organisational needs through the experiences it creates for current and prospective leaders.
Lack of Influence with the Employing Authority
Davis (1998) contends that the employing authority displays a certain degree of reluctance in
disclosing the reasons behind the involuntary departure of principals because of potential legal
repercussions. Loss of confidence in the principal was usually the reason given. This contention is
supported by Elmaleh (1988, 1989) who found in his study which examined the high frequency in
the turnover of elementary principals in Jewish day schools, that the most common reason for
termination related to the loss of confidence of the school board in the principal. His study which
analysed data from both the board members and principals suggested that the lack of confidence
was a direct result of unclear role definition.
Research into leader turnover or termination (euphemistic terms for demotion or dismissal) has
tended to focus on the consequences of the dismissal rather than the causes (Harrison et al, 1988).
The reasons for involuntary departure are not usually attached to the leader during his or her
tenure. Following the dismissal or demotion it is relatively easy to attach causes for the event
particularly if the demoted or dismissed leader is no longer in the organisation. Among the causes
for involuntary departure suggested by Harrison et al was the board composition within firms. When
the board members were inside or management directors as opposed to outside directors, there
was more chance that leaders would be secure in their position. Loyalty to the person rather than
the position appeared to be a significant factor.
That frequent termination of school principals created considerable uncertainty in the institution is
supported by Elmaleh (1988). He cites Braun 1966 in his 1989 study and suggests that allowing
differences of opinion on critical issues to become personal is a major cause used by the employing
authority for the dismissal of a principal. Elmaleh (1989) further suggests that the inability of the
employing authority that is the school board to define its role and the role that it expects of the
principal contributes to either the voluntary or involuntary departure of the principal. He cites the
need for the development of an effective relationship between the employing authority and the
principal.
In another example of lack of congruence with the organisation, Brock and Grady (1995) cite the
case of a principal who was unsuccessful because he did not investigate prior to his appointment to
the school, the administrative procedures employed by those already in the organisation. He
realised that he would probably need to change his behaviour and also accept that any changes he
wanted to effect would occur in the maximum amount of time and with the maximum amount of
effort. This supports the contention that all key players in an organisation need to be acknowledged
(Pounder, Ogawa & Adams 1995) and that prior information from the employing authority may be a
factor in influencing behaviour.
Gephart’s (1978) exemplary description of his own degradation or dismissal supports the view that
the leader should be aware of the nuances of the employing authority or in his case of the
committee he thought he led. Cited from the perspective of the employing authority, Haston (1996)
suggests that a person who is under threat of dismissal must be given adequate notice regarding
performance. He further suggests the use of appropriate documentation. On the other hand Murray
and Murray (1996) assert that role ambiguity and role conflict contribute to job dissatisfaction of
academic chairs. They did however, not differentiate between voluntary or involuntary departure
and whether the departure was as the result of organisational dissatisfaction with performance.
Pfeffer and Moore (1990) in their study of academic department heads suggest that those heads
who were attune to the importance of their own growth were more likely to enjoy longer tenure.
There is very little research on the effect of whistle blowers in organisations. However, Barnett and
Cockram (1991) suggest that in every organisation there should be policies and procedures that
protect whistle blowers. Though they do not specifically address leader whistle blowers who report
on negative procedures, the implication is that no matter what the status, the whistle blower should
be protected.
While a principal’s life outside the school should be above reproach Bergsman (1991) suggests that
the employing authority needs to be very careful in dealing in a punitive manner with employees
who commit crimes outside the workplace. In a similar vein, Finaldi (1995) suggest that
organisations need to be very certain that when they dismiss they are not viewed as capricious.
Hostrop (1995) in his summary of his impending dismissal ensured that he received his entitlements
prior to his resignation. He was aware that his tenure was about to cease.
Boaker (1992) found that poor organisational performance can lead to a leader being dismissed or
replaced and he also asserts that dismissal can suggest that the person does not have any
positional power. While lack of influence with the employing authority has been identified as one of
the causal factors association with dismissal and demotion, there are situations which suggest that
the influence an be maintained where there is effective communication between the related parties.
Implications of the Results
This study was undertaken for the reasons stated in an earlier section of the paper, but as I
undertook the search of documentation I realised there is little research in this area which could be
described as seminal. Research methodology which would result in ‘thick’ data would need to be
proposed so that all participants in demotion and dismissal would form the research population. I
chose to demarcate the research to a review of the literature because of the complexity involved
with using the principal, the employing authority and the school community.
Discussion
Have the questions been answered? The causal factors associated with demotion and dismissal
have been discussed, but the measures to avoid the phenomenon need further clarification, for the
phenomenon of involuntary departure is a factor which some principals and their employing
authority encounter as a participant or as a protagonist. Hallinger and Heck (1996 p6) contend that
the principal role is best perceived as part of a web composed of the environment, personal and inschool relationships which all combine to influence organisational outcomes including the career
path of the principal. No universal paradigm or theory exists for examining organisational behaviour
which takes into context the principal and the three identified causal factors.
Professional behaviour involves the leader principal in establishing and building relationships within
the school, its community and with the employing authority. Professional behaviour as opposed to
unprofessional behaviour provides the principal with some guarantee of role continuity and maybe a
promotion in the guise of a larger school or as an office administrator. Professional behaviour in one
site does not however, guarantee similar behaviour in a different site. The complacent principal in
his or her second or third assignment may falsely assume that the methods used to develop a
happy and successful working environment in one place may not have the same result in other
places. The principal commencing a new place should at all times be alert to the vagaries that are
part and parcel of his or her behaviour and the possible affect on the staff, the community and
eventually on the employing authority.
In particular the following suggestion from Greenfield (1995 p63) should be viewed by all involved in
principal selection including principal candidates:
The work of school administrators involves intensive face-toface communication, is action oriented, is reactive, the
presented problems are unpredictable, decisions frequently
are made without accurate or complete information, the work
occurs in a setting of immediacy, the pace is rapid, there are
frequent interruptions, work episodes themselves tend to be
of very brief duration, responses often cannot be put off until
later, resolution of problems often involves multiple factors,
and the work is characterised by a pervasive pressure to
maintain a peaceful and smoothly running school in the face
of a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty.
It would be reasonable to suggest that many current and prospective principals would not be always
aware of what Greenfield describes so well. It would be well for those who would be school
administrators to examine before commitment the realities of the position.
That the role of school leader has differing expectations from the three school groups, staff, parents
and the employing authority is a given. However there is a common expectation from these groups
that they will all be satisfied with the results of the leader’s actions. The leader also needs to be
aware that as groups change so will dynamics alter and the ability to adapt to the differing norms
should be part of his or her personal and professional skills.
Future Research
The findings of this study suggest that the concept of leadership as an organisational quality offer
potentially fallow ground for research in schools (Pounder, Ogawa & Adams 1995 p587) and the
concept of successful leadership as opposed to unsuccessful leadership could be a significant
variable.
REFERENCES
Allen, MP & Panian, SK (1982). Power, performance and succession in the large corporation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 538-547.
Badaraco, JL (1998). The Discipline of Building Character. Harvard Business Review, March, April
115-124.
Barnett, T & Cochran, DS (1991). Making room for the Whistleblower. Human Resources Magazine,
58-61.
Bergsman, S (1991). Employee Conduct outside the Workplace. Human Resources Magazine,
March, 62-64.
Birnbaum, R (1992). Will you love me in December as you do in May? Why experienced college
presidents lose faculty support. Journal of Higher Education, 63, 7-24.
Boeker, W (1992). Power and Managerial Dismissal: Scapegoating at the Top. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 37, 400-421.
Brock, B., Grady, M (1995). Principals in Transition: Tips for Surviving Succession. Eric Document
Reproduction Service, No. ED385910.
Clark, SS (1995). What Leadership skills do Principals really need? The School Administrator, 52,
8-11.
Davis, SH (1998) Superintendents’ Perspectives on the Involuntary Department of Public School
Principals: The Most Frequent Reasons Why Principals Lose Their Job. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 34, 1 58-90.
Duke, DL (1998). The Normative Context of Organisational Leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 34, 2, 165-195.
Elmaleh, H (1988). Principals: Musical Chairs in the Jewish Day Schools. Eric Document
Reproduction Services ED308614.
Elmaleh, H (1988). Causal Factors for Termination of Jewish Day School Principals. Eric Document
Reproduction Services ED308615.
Finaldi, AK (1978). Chalk Talk. The Vaksman Approach to Academic Dismissals: A Different Beat to
the Same Drum. Journal of Law and Education, 24, 499-503.
Gephart, R (1978). Status degradation and organisation succession. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27, 553-581.
Goldring, EB (1993). Principals, Parents and Administration Superiors. Education Administrative
Quarterly, 29, 93-113.
Greenfield, WD (1995). Towards a Theory of School Administration: The Centrality of Leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 61-88.
Gronn, P & Ribbins, P (1996). Leaders in Context: Postpositivist Approaches to Understanding
Educational Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 3, 452-473.
Hagberg, R (1996). Identify and Help Executives In Trouble. Human Resource Magazine, August
88-93
Hallinger, P & Heck, RH (1996). Reassessing the Principal’s Role in School Effectiveness: A
Review of Empirical Research 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44.
Harrison, JR, Torres, DL & Kukalis, S (1988). The changing of the guard: Turnover and structural
change in the top-management positions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 211-232.
Haston, C (1996). Enlightening Chairs and Deans about liability: How to avoid employment
litigation. Eric Documentation Reproduction Services ED394563.
Hogan, R, Curphy, GH & Hogan, J (1994). What We Know About Leadership. American
Psychologist, June, 493-501.
Hostrop, RW (1995). Prairie State: The civil right of administrators. ETC Publications. Palm Springs.
House, RJ, Spangler, WD & Woycke, J (1991). Personality and Charisma in the US Presidency: A
Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396.
Jenner, SM (1989). The effects of leadership succession and predecessor reassignment on group
performance and satisfaction. Houston, Texas. Eric Document Reproduction Services ED309382.
Katzenbach, JR (1997). The Myth of the Top Management Team. Harvard Business Review, NovDec, 83-91.
Leslie, JB & Velsor, EV (1996). A Look at Derailment today: North America and Europe – The
Centre for Creative Leadership. Nth Carolina. Eric Document Reproduction Service ED 393195.
Learmouth J & Lowers, K (1998). A Trouble-shooter Calls: The role of the Independent Consultant.
In L Stoll and K Myers (Eds.), No quick fixes: Perspectives on Schools in Difficulty (P133-143)
London: Falmer Press.
Lutz, FW (1972). Executive succession in higher education: Cosmopolitan-local and outsiderinsider. Planning and Changing, 3,3, 165-175.
Mann, RD (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, -267.
Murray, J & Murray, J (1996). Job Dissatisfaction and Turnover among Two Year College /
Department / Divisions Chairpersons. Eric Document Reproduction Service, ED394579.
Ogawa, RT (1991). Enchantment, Disenchantment and Accomodation! How a Faculty Made Sense
of the Succession of Its Principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 30-60.
Ostell, A & Oakland, S (1995). Head-teacher Stress, Coping and Health. London: Ashgate
Publishing Co.
Pfeffer, P & Moore, WL (1980). Average tenure fo academic department heads. The Effects of
Paradigm, Size and Departmental Demography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 387-406.
Pounder, DG, Ogawa, RT & Adams EA (1995). Leadership as an Organisation-wide Phenomena:
Its Impact on School Performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 4, 564-588.
Puffer, SM & Weintrop, SB (1991). Corporate Performance & CEO Turnover: The Role of
Performance Expectations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 1-19.
Raisch, CD & Rogus, JF (1995). Helping the Troubled Principal. The School Administrator, 52, 1215.
Robinson, SL & Bennett, RJ (1995). Deviant Workplace Behaviour. A Multi-dimensional Scaling
Study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 2, 555-572.
Sachen, DM (1996). Sad Stories of the Death of Kings: Demotions and Dismissals of
Administrators. Journal of Law and Education. 25, 419-437.
Stogdill, RM (1948). Personal Factors Association with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature.
Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Yee, G, Cuban, L (1996) When is Tenure Long Enough? A Historical Analysis of Superintendent
Turnover and Tenure in Urban School Districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 615-641.
Yukl, G (1998). Leadership in Organisations (4th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.