Leadership Personality Implications for School Improvement A Research Presentation Dr. Ryan A....

Leadership Personality Implications for School Improvement

A Research Presentation

Dr. Ryan A. Donlan

Scholarship & Research

• Michigan Department of Education High School Redesign• Michigan Department of Education Graduation

Requirements Surveying & Design• Traditional Doctoral Research - Dissertation• Tri-C’s Model Research – Federally Funded Study• School Communication Study• Books – “Published” and “In-Publication”• Partner Contractor/Researcher for Upcoming Classroom

Efficacy Educational Study• Designs Forthcoming …

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MICHIGAN CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS’ PERSONALITY

STRENGTHS AND THE SCHOOLS’ PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

UNDER EDUCATION YES!Research Presented at the 2009 International

Process Model Congress in Washington D.C. by Dr. Ryan A. Donlan

Daggett (2004a) Notes RIGOR, RELEVANCE, and

RELATIONSHIPS, as Keys for High School Improvement

Yet, Varying Notions of Redesign Options as Inspirations for Research

• Hallinger & Murphy (1986); Cherry (2004); Gambone (2005) – School Leader’s Role in Relationship Building through Communication as a Key Determinant of Effective Schools (Leader as Living Logo)

Varying Notions of Redesign as Inspirations for Research

• Yet, Oftentimes … Professional Development for Failing School Leaders is Geared Toward Instructional Leadership through Data-Driven Decision Making and Notions of ACADEMIC RIGOR for ALL

Varying Notions of Redesign as Inspirations for Research

• Owens (1995) – Healthy versus Unhealthy Organizations and “Crash Programs” or “Concentrated Drives”

Searching for MEASUREMENT of effective schools that went beyond a “concentrated drive” toward higher STUDENT TEST SCORES and involved whole-school collaboration toward lasting success.

Originally Considered Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (1991)

• Open Schools/Healthy Schools• Technical Aspects• Managerial Aspects• Institutional Aspects

Discovery: Something more directly aligned to school performance in Michigan.

McGuire (2002) stated:

The common denominator in nearly every high school reform initiative is the high school principal who is key to successful school improvement.

Factors of Physiology &Personality

General Ways Leaders Differ

Who am I prior to age 7 and beyond, discounting for other factors?

How am I doing with who I am?

What must I deal with while I am doing what I do?

Searching for a MODEL that would both explain and measure how leaders influence school performance, one that is rooted in relationships and communication [Hallinger & Murphy (1986); Cherry (2004); Gambone (2005) ].

Dr. Taibi Kahler

Dr. Taibi Kahler, 1981

• Model of Profiling, Identification, and Predictive Behavioral Analysis (PCM)

• Six Perceptual Frames/Personality Types as Building Blocks for Model of Communication

• One Dominates, yet All Occupy a Space in Mental, Emotional, and Social Structure

• All are “OK”

18

Personality & Character Types Strengths

Thinker

Believer

Feeler

Dreamer

Funster

Do-er

Responsible, Logical, Organized

Dedicated, Observant, Conscientious

Compassionate, Sensitive, Warm

Reflective, Imaginative, Calm

Spontaneous, Creative, Playful

Persuasive, Adaptable, Charming

ú Copyright Taibi Kahler Associates, Inc. 2001

6 Personality Types

• Developed Early in Life• Each is NO BETTER or NO WORSE, NO

MORE OK or LESS OK than the others• Every person has a combo of ALL SIX• Each Type has: MOTIVATORS, NEEDS,

CHARACTER STRENGTHS, and FAVORED COMMUNICATION CHANNELS

Personality Structure

Believer

Thinker

Feeler

Funster

Do-er

Dreamer

Searching for a setting that would allow for an optimal analysis of leader interaction and school improvement efforts.

CHARTER SCHOOLS

• Pure Relationships – Leaders & Staff, Unfettered by Collective Bargaining Agreements

• Smaller Schools – More Opportunities for Direct Leader Involvement with Staff & Students

• Assumption: Interested in Researching Best Practices and Fostering Innovation

A Study of School Performance that has nothing to do with “Crash Programs” or “Concentrated Drives” toward Higher Test Scores

Owens (1995)

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

MICHIGAN CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS’ PERSONALITY

STRENGTHS AND THE SCHOOLS’ PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

UNDER EDUCATION YES!

History of American High School = Model’s Purpose Meeting Needs of Society

Changing World

Static Model

High School Redesign Initiative

Rigor Relevance Relationships

Gambone (2002, 2005) Connectivity, Productivity, & Responsibility.

Gambone, Klem, & Connell (2002) Support, Guidance, and Instrumental Help.

Hargreaves (2005) Relationships as Key Ingredients

Dryfoos (2002) Full Service Schools Meeting Basic Needs.

Daggett (2003), Hargreaves (2005), McGuire (2002)

Theoretical Knowledge

Communication

Michigan Department of Education (2007)

Leader Personality Strengths

Kahler (2001),Gilbert (2004), Pauley, Bradley, & Pauley (2002)

Methodological Planning• A desire for calculating, or at minimum making inferences

through multiple regression, a school’s success with five domains of school improvement via relationships with the independent variables of a school leader’s six key strengths of personality;

• Factoring-in other contributing variables that significantly explain any additional variances identified (Factors of School Intervention by State Department, Measures of School Health, etc.).

• Identifying any curvilinear relationships if they existed;• Establishing the proportion of the variance in school

improvement scores accounted for by school leader strengths of personality.

Yet – Limited by Population and Sample

• 103 charter high schools initially selected (entire population of Michigan charter high schools);

• 17 were not required to submit School Performance Indicators to MDE;

• Thus, the sample narrowed to 86;• 10 of 86 opted for North Central Association

Accreditation submission method;• 76 schools were in final research sample.

Factors of Physiology &Personality

Implications of Sample SelectedX

X

Thus -- Overall Research Question

To what extent is there a relationship between the personality strength of

building-level charter school leaders and the School Performance

Indicators for Education YES!

And … Research Subquestions

• What are the predominant personality types and of charter school leaders?

• To what extent is there a relationship between personality strengths of school leaders and the Strand scores embedded within the Performance Indicators for Education YES!

Instrumentation

Personality Pattern Inventory (PPI) Quick Reports from Kahler

Communications, Inc., and School Performance Indicators for Education YES!, from the Michigan Department

of Education and AdvancED.

Limitations

Delimitations

Data Collection, School Leaders

• 1st Round – Letters/Packets, Nov/Dec 2008• 2nd Round – E-Mail, January 10, 2009• 3rd Round – Fax, February 8, 2009• 4th Round – Pres. Of Charter School Association

Website Posting & E-Mail, February 26, 2009• 5th Round – Monogram Cards, March 14, 2009• 6th Round – Final Letter, April 2, 2009

Data Collection, School Performance Indicators

The Michigan Department of Education and AdvancED Opened a Secure Portal from Decatur, Georgia

Data Collection and Tabulations

• Personality Pattern Inventory (PPI) offered scale-level scores for each Personality Type within Charter School Leaders (0-100)

• School Performance Indicators offered four response options for each Key Characteristic housed under each Strand (Getting Started, Partially Implemented, Implemented, and Exemplary), which were then coded 1, 2, 3, or 4. These were then totaled under each Strand area for Data Analysis.

• Bivariate Regression Analysis was performed.

Findings …

Data Analysis – Personality Energy Levels for Leaders

PromoterRebelDreamerReactorPersisterWorkaholic

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

Mea

nPPI Personality Energy Level Means for Leaders

Data Analysis – Base Personality

Thinker Base

Personality

BelieverBase

Personality

FeelerBase

Personality

DreamerBase

Personality

FunsterBase

Personality

Do-erBase

Personality

8 Participants

[24%]

14 Participants

[42%]

10 Participants

[30%]

0 Participants

[0%]

1 Participant[3%]

0 Participants

[0%]

Data Analysis – Phase Personality

Thinker Phase

Personality

Believer Phase

Personality

FeelerPhase

Personality

DreamerPhase

Personality

FunsterPhase

Personality

Do-erPhase

Personality

8 Participants

[24%]

22 Participants

[67%]

3 Participants

[11%]

0 Participants

[0%]

0 Participants

[0%]

0 Participants

[0%]

Personality Strengths, Relationships to Overall School Performance

Personality Type to Overall Performance

Correlation Coefficient (r)

Statistical Significance (p < .05)

Thinker r = -.357 p = .041*

Believer r = .040 p = .827

Feeler r = -.122 p = .498

Dreamer r = -.149 p = .409

Funster r = .009 p = .959

Do-er r = -.052 p = .775

What does this mean?

• Thinkers are highly structured; they are concrete learners and have specific expectation of others (Gilbert, 2004a).

• THEY PREFER ONE-ON-ONE INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS TO THOSE OF GROUP INTERACTION

• Thinkers are task-oriented.• Research has demonstrated that leaders predisposed to task-specific

communication with subordinates offset positive school performance (Rettig, McCullough, Santos, and Watson, 2009).

• School Performance Indicators were designed as much to foster and measure relationships in a building, as they were to measure tasks (Camaal-Canul, Forward, & Kent, 2005a).

• Without a communication shift, the potential exists for a communication disconnect with divergent personalities involved in school improvement, such as those more creative, vocal, or sensitive.

• Could it be that given the penalties associated with NCLB, the potential for Thinker leader distress is present?

Personality Strengths, Relationships to Strand I, Teaching for Learning

Personality Type and Strand


Level of Significancep < .05

Thinker and Strand I

r = -.345 p = .049*

Believer and Strand I

r = -.047 p = .795

Feelerand Strand I

r = -.101 p = .577

Dreamer and Strand I

r = -.807 p = .629

Funster and Strand I

r = .019 p = .918

Do-er and Strand I

r = -.007 p = .971

What does this mean? • Thinkers are highly structured and are more adept at focusing on tasks than

relationships (Gilbert, 2004; Kahler, 2001; Kahler 2006; Pauley, Bradley, & Pauley, 2002; Pauley & Pauley, 2009).

• Relationships are necessary for quality teaching and learning to occur (Blankstein, 2004).

• Michigan School Performance Indicator Strand I, Teaching for Learning, measures relationships as well as tasks, by focusing on collaboration, dialogue, and communication (Camaal-Canul, Forward, & Kent, 2005a).

• Those with Thinker personality are particularly susceptible to a focus on rigor, because it is quantifiable, measurable, and logically organized in the scope and sequence of a school’s curriculum.

• Under NCLB, a school’s focus on rigor is oftentimes at the expense of relevance and relationships, leading to short-term gains, yet long term regression in performance, affecting school improvement (Hargreaves, 2005).

• Plus, quality teaching and learning are spontaneous, energetic, divergent, fun, individualized, and generated through dialogue and a leader’s coaching, modeling, and guidance –not natural fits to the Thinker’s personality.

• Could it be that Thinker leaders are prone to distress under No Child Left Behind’s mandates when their schools (and themselves) are cited for underperformance?

Personality Strengths, Relationships to Strand II, Leadership




Thinker and Strand II

r = -.261 p = .143

Believer and Strand II

r = .070 p = .700

Feeler and Strand II

r = -.191 p = .286

Dreamer and Strand II

r = -.156 p = .385

Funster and Strand II

r = -.053 p = .769

Do-er and Strand II

r = -.028 p = .879

Personality Strengths, Relationships to Strand III, Personnel and Professional Learning Personality Type

and StrandCorrelation Coefficient (r)


Thinker and Strand III

r = -.346 p = .049*

Believer and Strand III

r = .095 p = .598

Feeler and Strand III

r = -.157 p = .381

Dreamer and Strand III

r = -.223 p = .212

Funster and Strand III

r = .027 p = .882

Do-er and Strand III

r = -.069 p = .702


• Those with high levels of Thinker energy prefer one-on-one communication to that in groups

• Yet, personnel issues and professional learning opportunities involve a great deal of communication in groups.

• With no shift, the Thinker’s preferred communication style will not resonate most effectively with at least four other personality types.

• Communication that interferes with optimal school functioning is typically that which communicated task expectations over relationships (Rettig, McCullough, Santos, and Watson, 2009).

• Many state and federal task edicts are carried downward to employees in schools through leader communication and could have adverse impacts on achievement if relationships are not maintained (Hargreaves, 2005).

• With the orderly, sequential, and convergent nature of a leader strong in Thinker, the creativity and flexibility needed for planning and implementing effective professional development may not present itself in leadership.

Personality Strengths, Relationships to Strand IV, School and Community Relations

Personality Type and Strand IV



Thinker and Strand IV

r = -.287 p = .106

Believer and Strand IV

r = -.116 p = .519

Feeler and Strand IV

r = -.002 p = .991

Dreamer and Strand IV

r = -.026 p = .884

Funster and Strand IV

r = -.046 p = .801

Do-er and Strand IV

r = -.064 p = .722

Personality Strengths, Relationships to Strand V, Data and Information Management




Thinker and Strand V

r = -.369 p = .034*

Believer and Strand V

r = .000 p = .999

Feeler and Strand V

r = -.058 p = .749

Dreamer and Strand V

r = -.146 p = .417

Funster and Strand V

r = .073 p = .687

Do-er and Strand V

r = -.080 p = .656


• Perplexing at first …• Yet, not a direct correlation between Thinker

strength of personality and data• Measures dialogue over data … feelings about

data … teamwork with data• Measures a school’s ability to breathe life into a

data culture through conversation, collaboration, cooperation, and communication

• Yet, could it have been a small sample phenomena that would have been mollified with a larger sample?

OVERALL REFLECTIONS

Well …School Performance Indicators

demonstrate, through their criteria, that much School Improvement work

operates in the classic leadership concept of a “Social System.”

Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell (1968)

Social System

• Interdependence of its parts (departments and people);

• A larger goal (moreso than providing employment for those working in schools);

• Constant interplay of INSTITUTIONAL and INDIVIDUAL entities (with leadership providing the filter for the institution).

Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell (1968)

Let us consider a Thinker personality’s place in all of this for leaders who embody stronger personality energy …

Kahler (2001) can assist ….

Internal

Involving Withdrawing

External

PEOPLE GOAL

ú Copyright Taibi Kahler Associates, Inc. 2001

On the Assessing Matrix, the vertical line is the axis of goal involvement. The

horizontal line is the axis of people involvement.

What does this mean? Why is it relevant? Because …

• Without a communication shift, the potential exists for a communication disconnect with divergent personalities involved in school improvement, such as those more creative, vocal, or sensitive.

• Given the penalties associated with NCLB, the potential for Thinker leader distress is present.

Implications:

If you are a charter leader strong in Thinker personality, then you must provide for your psychological needs so that you can SHIFT your energies based on others’ needs and communication channels, while working under the School Improvement Framework’s School Performance Indicators.

Other Conclusions

Charter school leaders are in a Believer phase personality much

more often than educators as a whole.

What could this mean?

• Sense of purpose and mission drives charter school community in Michigan.

• Movement champions the rights and values of parental choice … fills a void, rights a wrong, & serve an unmet need.

• Believer phase personalities oftentimes will demonstrate a professional need to fulfill a certain mission or a psychological need of recognition of work or convictions.

• Believer phase leaders presented themselves disproportionately in schools in this small sample study.

• Does mission draws them in? Caution: (33 of 103).• One’s trip through charter school leadership was most frequently

traveled in Believer phase in this study.

Conclusion

Leaders strong in Believer personality should recognize a potential to access their Do-er

personality, which is moderately, yet positively correlated to Believer.


• Since positive correlates between Believer and Do-er leader personality were demonstrated;

• Since mean Do-er energy in Believer phase leaders was slightly above “40.”

• “Energy scores of 40 or more indicate that the person is able to experience and demonstrate the positive characteristics associated with that Personality Type” (Kahler, 2008).

• Since only 4 out of 22 have Do-er bandwidth of 20 or less (Kahler, 2008).

• Do-er personality can assist leaders in a competitive, high-stakes business. There is a potential here …

• Leaders should recognize just that.

Future Research Interests

The Process Communication Model’s Influence on School Achievement,

Turn-of-Mind’s Impact on the Health and Efficacy of Educational Leaders, and Leadership for School Redesign

and Sustainability of Multi-Contextual School Excellence

Why am I transitioning into a career that will provide the opportunity for lifelong research?

Question: What do even the best educational leaders provide their schools and communities without the guiding light of quality, ongoing RESEARCH?

Answer: Simply a “Momentary Stay Against Confusion” (Frost, 1949)

Thank you.

Dr. Ryan A. Donlan

Leadership Personality Implications for School Improvement A Research Presentation Dr. Ryan A....

Documents

Transcript of Leadership Personality Implications for School Improvement A Research Presentation Dr. Ryan A....