The relationship among school contexts,principal time use,school climate,and student achievement

Abstract

While the significance of principals’ roles is widely recognized, and the impactful behaviors of principals are empirically delineated, little is known about whether principals spend time in an impactful way, whether principals’ time use varies across different school contexts, or whether principals’ time use is related to critical school conditions and outcomes such as school climate and student outcomes. We made an attempt to respond to these questions by conducting a secondary analysis of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study data. We found that American middle school principals’ job continues to be administration-bound, spontaneous and fragmented. In general, American principals could be classified into two major clusters: Eclectic Principals versus Balanced Principals. Higher school poverty, higher concentration of English language learners and more urbanity were associated with a higher incidence of Eclectic Principals. Nevertheless, except for teacher engagement, schools led by different clusters of principals did not differ in terms of parent/student engagement or student behavior. Although schools led by Balanced Principals tend to outperform those led by Eclectic Principals, this achievement difference was not statistically significant at .05 level. With a large national representative sample, the study fills knowledge gaps associated with small samples and limited attention to situational determinants of principal leadership activity.

Keywords

Principal leadership time use school contexts

Introduction

Principals play critical roles in the development of high-quality schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). While only a small body of research links principals directly to student achievement (Silva et al., 2011), a much larger knowledge base confirms that principals affect school effectiveness and student outcomes indirectly through such actions as (1) articulating vision and setting goals (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006); (2) coordinating teaching and curriculum (Marks and Printy, 2003); (3) participating in professional development as a lead learner (Bamburg and Andrews, 1991); (4) observing and initiating collegial discussions with teachers (Heck, 1992); (5) monitoring students’ learning progress (Heck et al., 1990); (6) establishing a safe and orderly atmosphere at school through clear rules for student behaviors (Heck et al., 1991); (7) creating a climate of trust (Hoy et al., 2003), and (8) strategic resourcing for optimal instructional purposes (Heck et al., 1991). Among the aforementioned leadership practices, Robinson et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis shows that promoting and participating in teacher learning and development is most strongly associated with positive student outcomes (Effect Size = .84; Effect size is abbreviated as ES hereafter.), followed by (a) planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum (ES = .42); (b) establishing goals and expectations for the whole school (ES = .42); (c) strategic resourcing (ES = .31), and (d) ensuring an orderly and supportive environment (ES = .27).

While the significance of principals’ roles is widely recognized, and the impactful behaviors of principals are empirically delineated, there is a lack of systematic, comprehensive empirical evidence about whether American principals spend time in an impactful way, whether principals’ time use varies across different school contexts (e.g. grade level, community characteristics, student demographics, school socioeconomic status, etc.), or whether principals’ time use is related to critical school conditions and outcomes such as school climate and student outcomes. For example, the two relatively recent high-profile principal time use studies took place at the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, a large urban school district in the southeastern part of the US state of Florida (Grissom et al., 2013; Grissom et al., 2015). Similarly, another widely cited principal time study, conducted by Goldring et al. (2008), identified the research site as “one urban, Southeastern district” (338). In light of these limitations, the main purpose of the present study is to find answers to these questions using a relatively large, representative sample of US middle schools that participated in the 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).

Conceptual framework

Typical activity patterns in principals’ work

To discover what principals do and how they spend their time, scholars in recent years used descriptive methods such as direct observations (Grissom et al., 2013; Horng et al., 2010), daily logs (Goldring et al., 2008; May et al., 2012; Sebastian et al., 2017), experience sampling (Spillane et al., 2010), and surveys (Lee and Hallinger, 2012; Smith, 2013). The researchers attempted to find answers to questions such as what percent of time principals spend on various leadership functions (administration, instruction, professional growth, fostering relationships) (Spillane et al., 2007); how much time principals spend on leading instruction in particular (e.g. coaching teachers, evaluating teachers, classroom walkthroughs, developing the educational program) (Grissom et al., 2013); how much time principals spend alone or with others (Sebastian et al., 2018); where principals spend their time (Horng et al., 2010), and whether the principals lead or co-lead the activity (Spillane et al., 2007). Our review of the recent empirical studies revealed some consistent activity patterns as described below. These patterns were largely similar to what was found in the earlier studies on principal time use (Kmetz and Willower, 1982; Martinko and Gardner, 1990; Martin and Willower, 1981; Morris, 1981; Willis, 1980) and patterns of managerial work in general (Mintzberg, 1973).

Nature of principals’ job: Long hours, spontaneous, and unplanned

The pace of principals’ work is hectic and unrelenting, and many activities that dominate a principal’s work day are reactive. Typically, American principals work long hours. Based on a recent analysis of the national Schools and Staffing Survey, American principals of regular public schools spend an average of 59 hours per week on the job (Lavigne et al., 2016), and many principals take work home (Davis and Hensley, 1999; Walker, 1990). Some scholars believe, in part, this workload can be traced back to the preferences of people in managerial positions. Others view the long work day as a necessary response to shifts in student demographics and increasing accountability for student achievement (Lavigne et al., 2016). In addition to staying long at work, principals typically engage in a multitude of activities and many of them are brief in duration. Spillane and Hunt (2010: 294) vividly portrayed this image as “brief encounters” and “fire-fighting.” Empirical support for this image is plentiful. Martinko and Gardner (1990) found that 40% of principals’ activities were unscheduled meetings consuming almost 30% of their time. In contrast, scheduled meetings comprised only 3% of all leadership events and 14% of total principal work time. Apparently, large amounts of time and events were spontaneous and not controlled by principals. Sebastian et al. (2017) observed a similar pattern of a fragmented work day in their recent study of 52 school principals in an urban school district.

Content of managerial events: Administration-bound

The policy environment of US public education has changed dramatically since the effective school movement in the 1980s, as state and federal policymakers have held school principals and teachers accountable for student achievement across all subgroups in core academic subjects. Principals are constantly reminded of the rightful focus of their job, the instructional core – teaching and learning. Yet, simultaneously, to maintain organizational stability – a condition indispensable to the efficient implementation of instruction – principals also have to direct their attention to managerial tasks (e.g. planning, gathering and sharing information, budgeting, hiring, scheduling, and maintaining the building). Caught in between instructional and managerial leadership demands, principals often succumb to meeting the immediate needs of managerial tasks. For example, in their classic study of principal time use, Martinko and Gardner (1990) found the most prominent purposes of contacts principals had throughout their day were giving and receiving information, each of which consumed 22% of principals’ time and 26% of their events, followed by monitoring/touring and review. This observation is generally consistent with other studies conducted in the same period (Martin and Willower, 1981; Morris 1981; Kmetz and Willower, 1982; Willis, 1980) and more recent observations, despite the outcry for instructional leadership. According to Horng et al. (2010), on average, principals spent the most time on administration activities, such as managing student discipline and responding to compliance requirements. Such activities often consumed about 30% of the principal’s work day. Additionally, principals spent 20% of their time on organizational management tasks, such as managing budgets and staff and hiring personnel, and another 15% and 5% respectively on internal and external relations. Principals appeared to have spent very limited time addressing day-to-day instruction (6%) and the general instructional programs (7%).

The changing role and new emphasis

Principals have consistently indicated that instructional leadership is important and an area they would like to spend their most time on (Sergiovanni, 2006); however, as suggested in most studies we reviewed thus far, principals rarely measure up to the ideal of instructional leadership. Nevertheless, instructional leaders appear on the rise. Spillane and Hunt (2010), in their study of 38 principals, found that as much as 22% of principals’ time was spent on curriculum and instructional matters. A similar time use pattern was also detected among Goldring et al.’s (2008) sample of principals (n = 46). Further, using cluster analysis of time use, Goldring et al. (2008) were able to classify American principals into three groups: principals who distributed their activities, endeavors, and initiatives more evenly (Eclectic Leaders); principals who focused their activities on instructional leadership (Instructional Leaders); and, principals who spent most of their time on student affairs (Student-centered Leaders).

Regardless, an overwhelmingly large proportion of principals’ work day is still spent on non-instructional, managerial functions. The drastic gap between realities and ideals seems to reflect the symbiotic relationship between management and leadership (Mintzberg, 2004). Consequently, “being an instructional leader requires the purposeful and intentional action of principals spending significant time doing those things that are important, but often not urgent” (National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), 2001: 31). Additionally, from a system perspective, significant support has to be made available to principals. This support may include but is not limited to (1) relevant preservice and inservice professional development on distributing leadership and team building; (2) organizational structures and personnel to assist with management tasks, and (3) sufficient resources to support staff development (NASSP, 2001).

Situational determinants of school leadership: Demands, constraints, and choices

In addition to being administration-bound, effective school leadership also has to be sensitive to a wide spectrum of internal and external environmental factors (Stewart, 1982, 1988), a model of management that speaks to what Yukl (2013: 32) called “a theory of demands, constraints, and choices.” Demands are the required duties, activities, and responsibilities of those who occupy a managerial position; constraints are characteristics of the organization and its external environment that limit what a manager can do; choices are the activities that a manager opts to do. While demands and constraints limit choices in the short term, over a long time period, a manager’s ingenuity may come into play and turn demands and constraints into opportunities for inventiveness, thereby expanding future choices. Thus, one hallmark of a successful principal is his/her ability to expand the area of choices and thus reduce demands and constraints. The extra margin of latitude makes an important difference in enhancing the overall school effectiveness (Sergiovanni, 2006).

Stewart’s broad perspective on the demands and constraints is not typical of most empirical research on the situational determinants of leadership behavior in educational contexts. Most studies investigate only one or two aspects of the situation at a time. For example, Lortie et al. (1983) included school socioeconomic status (SES); Hallinger and Murphy (1986) included both SES and school size; Martinko and Gardner (1983) included grade level and degree of urbanization, and Hallinger et al. (1996) included SES and level of parent involvement. The idiosyncrasy of individual studies led to a lack of understanding on what role context plays on leadership. In light of this limitation, the present study included a wider range of situational determinants and examined how principals led differently depending on a school’s SES, degree of urbanization, size, type and programs, as well as concentration of English learners, using a national representative sample. Our study also expanded the framework by linking principal time use to school climate and student achievement.

Methods used in gathering principal time data

Early studies on principals’ time use can be grouped into two broad categories: ethnographies (Martin and Willower, 1981; Morris et al., 1984, Wolcott, 1973) and self-report studies. Ethnographic studies allow for in-depth observations of subjects but a smaller number of subjects, resulting in limited generalizability. Self-reports, usually obtained by conducting surveys, allow for large samples but often sacrifice both depth and accuracy (Horng et al., 2010). Recent advances in self-report data collection methods, such as end-of-day logs (Goldring et al., 2008) and the experience sampling method (Spillane et al., 2007), have reduced some of those limitations. Drawing on the strengths of these two types of research, a group of scholars (Grissom et al., 2013; Horng et al., 2010) used in-person observations which allowed trained researchers to shadow principals throughout a full school day. The advantage of self-reported, end-of-day logs and experience sampling methods lies in the reduction of bias associated with self-reports, affordance of more detailed description of time use than is usually possible in surveys, coverage of the activities of a large number of principals, and minimal interruption to participants’ work day.

While these more recent studies (Goldring et al., 2008; Grissom et al., 2013; Horng et al., 2010; Spillane et al., 2007) rendered significant methodological progress in studying principal time use and deepened our understanding of principal leadership activities, they gathered data from a single school district, and were limited, therefore, in both representativeness of samples, ecological validity, and, consequently, generalizability. Another inherent limitation of a small sample is its limited statistical power to test the relationship between principals’ time use behavior and school performance as well as environmental and demographic factors. In addition to the weaknesses associated with small, homogenous samples, the existing body of empirical literature is also bounded by limited observation periods. For example, Goldring et al. (2015) based their study on principals’ end-of-day logs from six school days stretched over two weeks; similarly, Spillane and Hunt (2010) used the experience sampling method and gathered data from 42 principals for six days.

To fill the knowledge gap associated with limited samples in both participants and principals’ work day, the present study uses a large representative US sample and focuses on relationships between principals’ time use and internal and external environmental factors as well as student academic achievement. Specifically, this study seeks to address the following research questions:

What is the pattern of American principals’ time use? Do American principals prioritize on leadership activities that matter?

What homogenous clusters emerge based on the time principals invest across various leadership activities? In other words, are there prevailing profiles that characterize American principals based on the time they spend on various leadership activities?

Assuming principals do cluster based on their time use pattern, do schools, led by different clusters of principals, differ in terms of school contextual variables (e.g. size, poverty, type, urbanity, proportion of English learners), school climate, student behavior (e.g. safety and discipline, school attendance), teacher attendance, and average school academic achievement?

Methodology

Data

For this study, we used the existing data collected by TIMSS. TIMSS is the largest cross-national study of educational achievement conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Specifically, we used publicly available US data from TIMSS 2011. A total of 501 randomly selected US schools (public and private) participated in the study. Of the 501 case schools, 430 schools reported principal leadership time use activity. Consequently, the sample constitutes 430 schools randomly selected from the United States.

Although TIMSS principal survey uses self-report data, the strength of our study lies in the fact that the data comes from a nationally representative, random sample, rather than the focused, small convenience samples of prior studies. Moreover, the questionnaire provides a more extensive set of questions about principal time use and contextual variables than other typical surveys.

Measures

The study uses the following five domains of contextual variables measured through TIMSS’ School Questionnaire in addition to TIMSS’ student math achievement data.

School context variables include the following: school size, school poverty, urbanity, school type, and concentration of English learners. School size is measured by the total enrollment of students in a school. The average school enrollment was 726.90 with a fairly large standard deviation (SD = 335.40). School poverty is measured by the percentage of students who receive free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). Schools are classified into five groups based on their poverty status with 1 representing schools having 0-9.9% of students receiving FRPL; 2 having 10–24.9%; 3 having 25–49.9%; 4 having 50–74.9%; and 5 having 75–100%. Urbanity describes the immediate area in which a school is located with 1 indicating densely populated urban area; 2 indicating a suburban area on fringe or outskirts of urban area; 3 indicating a medium sized city or large town; 4 indicating a small town or village; and 5, indicating a remote rural area. School type classifies schools into 10 categories (1– regular public school; 2 – regular public school with a magnet program; 3 – a magnet school or school with a special program emphasis such as science or performing arts school; 4 – special education school that primarily serves students with disabilities; 5 – alternative school designed to address the needs of students typically at risk of educational failure; 6 – vocation school; 7 – charter school; 8 – independent private school; 9 – religiously affiliated private school; and 10 – other). Schools are further classified into eight categories based on their concentration of English learners. Type 1 schools have 0% of English learners; type 2 schools 1–5%; type 3 schools 6–10%; type 4 schools 11–25%; type 5 schools 26–50%; type 6 schools 51–75%; and type 7 schools more than 76%. See Table 1 for distribution of schools in the sample across various categories of these contextual variables.

Table 1.

Distribution of schools across various categories of the contextual variables.

	Mean	SD
School Size (n = 428)	726.90	335.40

%FRPL (n = 429)	Frequency	Percentage
0-9.9%	40	9.3
10-24.9%	60	14.0
25-49.9%	127	29.5
50-74.9%	106	24.7
75-100%	96	22.4
Urbanity (n = 427)
Urban	86	20.1
Suburban	145	34.0
Medium Size City	76	17.8
Small Town	95	22.2
Remote Rural	25	5.9
School Type (n = 428)
Public	375	87.6
Public Magnet	14	3.3
Magnet	6	1.4
Alternative	1	0.2
Charter	15	3.5
Private Independent	1	0.2
Private Religious	15	3.5
Other	1	0.2
%ELL (n = 427)
0%	52	12.2
1-5%	212	49.6
6-10%	66	15.5
11-25%	54	12.6
26-50%	23	5.4
51-75%	16	3.7
>76%	4	0.9

FRPL: free or reduced-price lunch; ELL: English language learners

Principal time use is measured using principals’ response to the following question: During the past year, approximately how much time have you spent on the following school leadership activities? Thirteen leadership activities were listed and each principal selected one of the three options: no time, some time, or a lot of time. Responses to the 13 questions were treated as categorical variables and later used for both descriptive analysis and as input for cluster analysis in order to derive the pattern and profile of American principals’ time use. Here, time use data was noted as the principal’s perceived time use on each activity – data was not quantified, actual time use data recorded by a field researcher.

School climate is measured using principals’ perception of the attitude and engagement of teachers, parents, and students on a Likert-type scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). We conducted exploratory factor analysis of principals’ perception ratings to form two latent variables – Teacher Engagement and Parent/Student Engagement – which we later used as correlates for the clustering variable. We computed school climate factor scores using a simple average of items that fell under each factor in order to keep the original metric for ease of interpretation. See Table 2 for the mean and standard deviation of each school climate as well as the factor structure and detailed factor loadings of the two aforementioned school climate factors.

Table 2.

Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for school climate (n=429).

Item			Rotated factor loadings
Item	Mean	SD	Parent–studentengagement	Teacherengagement
Parental involvement in school	2.96	1.07	0.88
Parental support for achievement	3.39	0.98	0.85
Students’ desire to do well	3.69	0.75	0.74
Students’ regard for school property	3.61	0.84	0.54
Teacher understanding of curricular goals	4.16	0.66		0.82
Teacher success in curriculum implementation	3.97	0.73		0.81
Teacher expectation	4.11	0.75		0.64
Teachers job satisfaction	3.89	0.69		0.62
Eigenvalues			4.30	1.31
% of variance			53.78	16.43
Cronbach’s Alpha			0.86	0.84

Similarly, problematic student behavior is measured using principals’ perception of 11 behavioral problems using a Likert–type scale from 1 (not a problem) to 4 (serious problem). We obtained two student behavior factors based on an exploratory factor analysis – Attendance; Discipline and Safety. Both also served as correlates for the clustering variable. We computed student behavior factor scores using a simple average of items that fell under each factor in order to keep the original metric for the ease of interpretation. Table 3 presents the mean and standard deviation of each behavioral indicator and the factor structure and detailed factor loadings of student behaviors.

Table 3.

Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for student behavior (n=425).

Item		Rotated factor loadings
Item	Mean	SD	Safety and discipline	Attendance
Vandalism	1.59	0.62	0.79
Intimidation and verbal abuse of teachers	2.30	0.66	0.78
Theft	1.61	0.60	0.74
Physical fights	1.57	0.58	0.71
Profanity	2.13	0.78	0.62
Physical injury to teachers	1.08	0.32	0.55
Cheating	1.63	0.56	0.52
Intimidation or verbal abuse among students	2.30	0.66	0.51
Classroom disturbance	2.07	0.68	0.45
Absenteeism	1.94	0.67		-.85
Arriving late at school	1.95	0.67		-.76
Eigenvalues			5.31	1.05
% of variance			48	10
Cronbach’s alpha			0.87	0.82

Teacher attendance behavior is principals’ perception of the extent of problem associated with (a) teachers arriving late or leaving early and (b) teacher absenteeism using a four-point Likert scale.

Student academic achievement is measured by the plausible values of students’ math test scores. Plausible values in TIMSS are obtained through a scaling approach that uses multiple imputations and a conditioning process that combines student responses to items with information about students’ background to help reduce measurement errors and enhance reliability (Foy et al., 2011). This variable is measured at the interval level.

Data analysis

To determine the distribution of time use among American principals and whether the general pattern of time use is consistent with the impactful behaviors delineated by the meta-analytic literature, we conducted simple descriptive analysis. Specifically, we calculated the percentage of principals who fell under each category of time use for all 13 leadership activities. We then aligned each of the 13 activities with the major dimensions of impactful leadership behaviors developed by Robinson et al. (2008) in order to determine whether American principals were spending their work day in an impactful way.

To respond to the research question related to the classification of US principals into separate clusters based on how they spend their work day, we conducted a cluster analysis of principals’ time use on 13 leadership activities. We used the TwoStep clustering method which resulted in two clusters. We adopted this procedure because it is an exploratory technique designed specifically to reveal natural groupings that would otherwise not be apparent, and it is flexible in handling categorical variables and incorporating evaluative variables, such as student math achievement in this study.

To determine the relationship between principals’ time use pattern and school contexts, school processes, and school academic performance, we conducted a series of bivariate analyses. To compare cluster differences in school enrollment, school climate which includes Teacher Engagement and Parent/Student Engagement, student behavior including Discipline and Safety and Student Attendance, and teacher attendance behavior, we performed one-way ANOVA using the cluster classification as the grouping variable. To detect differences between clusters in school contextual variables measured at ordinal level, such as school poverty, school urbanity, and English Language Learner (ELL) concentration, we conducted nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests. For contextual variables measured at the nominal level, such as school type, we conducted chi-square tests. Upon the detection of a significant relationship, we followed up with a corresponding effect size computation.

Results

Pattern of American principals’ time use

Table 4 shows the results of our descriptive analysis. As revealed by both the median value of time use on each leadership activity and the proportions (ranging from 57.2% to 75.3%) of principals who spend a lot of time on the selected activities, American principals, in general, tended to emphasize maintaining an orderly environment, developing/promoting/monitoring school goals, and nurturing a climate of trust among teachers. In contrast, activities related to teacher mentoring and professional development for self and others received less attention. To determine whether American principals spend time in an impactful way, we aligned leadership activities studied by TIMSS with the domains of high-impact leadership behavioral dimensions identified by Robinson et al. (2008) (see Table 5). It is apparent that American principals treated both ensuring an orderly environment and establishing goals/expectations as top priorities which yield only small to moderate effects. In contrast, high-yield leadership dimensions (ES = .84), such as promoting and participating in teacher learning, received utmost attention from only 57% of American principals. When it comes to planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and curriculum, American principals focused more on the monitoring aspect than on the leadership activities pertaining to collegial discussion of instructional matters and helping teachers to improve.

Table 4.

The percentage of principals reporting amount of time dedicated to types of activities.

Leadership activity	None(%)	Some(%)	A lot(%)	Median
Keeping an orderly atmosphere	0.5	24.2	75.3	3.00
Ensuring that there are clear rules for student behavior	0.7	32.1	67.2	3.00
Monitoring teachers’ implementation of school goals	1.6	32.3	66.0	3.00
Monitoring students’ learning progress	0.7	33.7	65.6	3.00
Promoting visions or goals	0.7	34.4	64.9	3.00
Developing curricular and educational goals	0.9	34.2	64.9	3.00
Creating a climate of trust among teachers	2.8	40.0	57.2	3.00
Addressing disruptive student behaviors	2.1	50.2	47.7	2.00
Initiating educational projects or improvements	2.8	53.0	44.2	2.00
Initiating a discussion to help teachers who have problems in the classroom	2.6	59.8	37.7	2.00
Advising teachers who have questions with teaching	1.6	60.7	37.7	2.00
Participating in professional development activities for principals	5.8	57.0	37.2	2.00
Visiting other schools or attending educational conferences for new ideas	15.6	70.2	14.2	2.00

Table 5.

The extent to which principals practice impactful leadership.

High-impact leadership dimensions	What has been practiced (% of principals who spent no time, some time, and a lot of time)
Promoting and participating in teacher learning (ES = 0.84)^a	Creating a climate of trust among teachers (2.8%, 40.0%, 57.2%)
Planning, coordinating, & evaluating teaching and curriculum (ES = 0.42)^b	Monitoring teachers’ implementation of school goals (1.6%, 32.3%, 66.0%) Initiating discussions to help teachers who have problems in the classroom (2.6%, 59.8%, 37.7%) Advising teachers who have questions with teaching (1.6%, 60.7%, 37.7%) Monitoring students’ learning progress to ensure that the school’s educational goals are reached (0.7%, 33.7%, 65.6%)
Establishing goals and expectations (ES = 0.42)^c	Developing curricular and educational goals (0.9%, 34.2%, 64.9%) Promoting visions and goals (0.7%, 34.4%, 64.9%)
Strategic resourcing (ES = 0.31)^d	N/A
Ensuring orderly environment (ES = 0.27)^e	Keeping an orderly atmosphere (0.5%, 24.2%, 75.3%) Ensuring that there are clear rules for student behavior (0.7%, 32.1%, 67.2%) Addressing disruptive student behaviors (2.1%, 50.2%, 47.7%)
N/A	Initiating educational projects or improvements (2.8%, 53.0%, 44.2%) Participating in professional development activities specifically for school principals Visiting other schools or attending educational conferences for new ideas

ES: Effect size

Note. ^{a, b, c, d, e} represent achievement-driven, high-impact leadership dimensions based on one of the most recognized meta-analyses conducted by Robinson and colleagues (Robinson et al., 2008).

Classification of principals by time use pattern

The results of the cluster analysis indicate that US middle school principals could be grouped by their tendencies to allocate attention across various areas of responsibilities. The most important predictors that differentiate these principals are how much time they spend on (1) advising teachers; (2) initiating discussion with teachers pertaining to instruction; (3) creating a climate of trust; and (4) monitoring student learning progress. Figure 1 visually displays the median activity profiles for each cluster.

Figure 1.

Cluster comparison of median value of time use on leadership activities.

Judging from the visual presentation, it is apparent that leaders in the first cluster were Eclectic Principals, a label coined by Goldring and colleagues (Goldring et al., 2008). The principals in this cluster did not differentiate particular leadership activities. For example, over 90% of the principals in this group reported that they spent a lot of time on (1) monitoring students’ learning progress (99.2%); (2) keeping an orderly atmosphere (99.2%); (3) ensuring there are clear rules for student behavior (96.0%); (4) monitoring teachers’ implementation of school goals (94.4%); (5) developing curricular and educational goals (93.5%); and (6) promoting vision and goals (92.7%). Principals in the eclectic group suggested they spent a lot of time across all areas of activities with the exception of the following two leadership activities – visiting other schools, or attending conferences and participating in professional development activities for principals. About one third (29.8%) and slightly over a half (55.6%) of Eclectic Principals reported to have spent a lot of time on these two latter activities. The cross-cluster comparison on median values of all activities provided additional evidence on our observation. This group fit into the classic profile of American K-12 school leaders in that their activities seemed to fragment more or distribute across a large number of emphases. Based on our analysis, about one third (28.8%) of US middle school principals belong to the eclectic group. Also, as Table 6 shows, schools led by Eclectic Principals tended to have below average math achievement.

Table 6.

The percentage of time principals reported dedicating to types of activities by cluster.

	Cluster 1 (n = 124)			Cluster 2 (n =306)
Leadership activity	None (%)	Some (%)	A lot (%)	None (%)	Some (%)	A lot (%)
Promoting vision and goals	-	7.3	92.7	1.0	45.4	53.6
Developing curricular and educational goals	-	6.5	93.5	1.3	45.4	53.3
Monitoring teachers’ implementation of school goals	-	5.6	94.4	2.3	43.1	54.6
Monitoring students’ learning progress	-	0.8	99.2	1.0	47.1	52.9
Keeping an orderly atmosphere	-	0.8	99.2	0.7	33.7	65.7
Ensuring there are clear rules for student behavior	-	4.0	96.0	1.0	43.5	55.6
Addressing disruptive student behaviors	0.8	22.6	76.6	2.6	61.4	35.9
Creating a climate of trust among teachers	0.8	5.6	93.5	3.6	53.9	42.5
Initiating a discussion to help teachers	-	16.1	83.9	3.6	77.5	19.0
Advising teachers who have questions with teaching	-	15.3	84.7	2.3	79.1	18.6
Visiting other schools or attending conferences	4.8	65.3	29.8	19.9	72.2	7.8
Initiating educational projects or improvements	-	25.0	75.0	3.9	64.4	31.7
Participating in PD activities for principals	3.2	41.1	55.6	6.9	63.4	29.7
		Mean	Median		Mean	Median
Math achievement		498.16	490.57		508.82	506.23

PD: personal development

Note. “-” in the No Time column indicates the value of 0.

Math achievement was computed as the mean of five plausible values representing math performance.

We call the second cluster of leaders Balanced Principals. In comparison to the Eclectic Principals, leaders in this group appropriated their time differently across the set of leadership activities. For instance, whereas almost every principal in the eclectic group spent a lot of time on monitoring students’ learning progress, keeping an orderly atmosphere, or setting clear rules for student behavior, the proportion of principals who spent a lot of time on such activities in the balanced group was 52.9%, 65.7%, and 55.6%, respectively. Such differences also existed across other activities. The balanced group is a definite majority, representing 71.2% of American middle school principals. Compared to schools led by the Eclectic Principals, those led by the Balanced Principals outperformed their counterparts in math. Table 6 provides detailed descriptive statistics on differences between the two clusters.

Comparison of clusters by student performance and contextual factors

To determine the interaction between principal time use and school environments, we conducted a series of bivariate analyses. The one-way ANOVA indicated that Balanced Principals and Eclectic Principals headed schools of approximately the same size, F(1, 425) = 0.06, p = .81. The average enrollment was 721 for the Balanced Principals and 729 for the Eclectic ones. Unlike school size, school poverty seemed to play a significant part in defining the activity pattern of the principal. The Mann-Whitney test suggested that Eclectic Principals were more likely to lead schools with A higher proportion of FRPL students, U = 14357.50, z = -4.02, p < .001, r = -.19; on average, 25–49.9% of students received FRPL in schools headed by Balanced Principals as opposed to 50–74.9% by Eclectic Principals. A similar effect was found with the school’s geographic setting. Whereas Balanced Principals were more likely to emerge in less urban schools, the trend for Eclectic Principals was the opposite, U = 16524.00, z = -2.02, p = .04, r = -.17. School type mattered as well, χ²(1) = 12.65, p =.08. The chance (56%) of being able to balance his/her time was significantly lower for those who led public schools with a magnet program as compared to other types of schools. Similar to school poverty but to a slightly lesser degree (r = -.14), the concentration of English learners was also related to principal time use pattern, with a higher presence of eclectic leaders in schools with higher concentrations of ELLs, U = 15554.00, z = -2.92, p < .001.

While there existed a somewhat consistent significant relationship between more objective measures of school contexts, such consistent significance was not visible between principal time use and school process variables, such as school climate, student as well as teacher behavior. As a matter of fact, except for Teacher Engagement, we detected no significant difference among schools headed by Balanced versus Eclectic Principals in terms of Parent/Student Engagement, Discipline and Safety, Student Attendance or Teacher Attendance behavior (See Table 7 for detailed statistics). Despite the lack of difference in the process variables, schools led by Balanced Principals outperformed schools headed by their eclectic counterparts and this achievement difference was only significant at .10 level (F(1, 428) = 3.00, p = .08, d = 0.14).

Table 7.

Comparison of clusters based on school contextual variables and student performance (n = 430).

Factor	Cluster	Median	Mean rank	U	z	p
% FRPL^a	Balanced	3	200	14357.50	-4.02	<.001
	Eclectic	4	252
Urbanity^b	Balanced	2	221	16524.00	-2.02	.04
	Eclectic	2	196
% ELL^c	Balanced	2	204	15554.00	-2.92	.004
	Eclectic	2	239
^aPoverty status coding: 1 = 0-9.9%; 2 = 10-24.9; 3 = 25-49.9%; 4 = 50-74.9%; 5 = 75-100%.
^bUrbanity coding: 1 = densely populated urban area; 2 = suburban area on fringe or outskirts of urban area; 3 = medium sized city or large town; 4 small town or village; and 5 remote rural area.
^cELL concentration coding: 1 = 0%; 2 = 1-5%; 3 = 6-10%; 4 = 11-25%; 5 = 26-50%; 6 = 51-75%; 7 = 76-90%.
Factor	Cluster	Mean	SD	F	p
School size^a	Balanced	721	318		.81
	Eclectic	729	348
Teacher engagement^b	Balanced	3.97	0.54	12.07	.001
	Eclectic	4.18	0.64
Parent/student engagement^b	Balanced	3.41	0.76	0.21	.64
	Eclectic	3.37	0.80
Student discipline and safety^c	Balanced	1.70	0.42	0.81	.37
	Eclectic	1.74	0.46
Student attendance^c	Balanced	1.92	0.60	1.39	.24
	Eclectic	1.99	0.63
Teacher attendance^c	Balanced	1.56	0.56	1.60	.21
	Eclectic	1.48	0.57
Math achievement	Balanced	508.81	57.24	3.00	.08
	Eclectic	498.16	59.21
^aOne extreme outlier was excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the value reported here was slightly different from what was reported in Table 1.
^bCoding: 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = Medium; 4 = High; 5 = Very high
^cCoding: 1 = Not a problem; 2 = Minor problem; 3 = Moderate problem; 4 = Serious problem
	Balanced		Eclectic
School type	n	%	n	%	Odds ratio (%)
Traditional public	271	72	104	28	261
Public magnet	5	36	9	64	56
Magnet	5	83	1	17	499
Charter	10	67	5	33	200
Private religious	11	73	4	27	275
χ ²					12.65
p					.08

FRPL: free or reduced-price lunch; ELL: English language learners

Note. Descriptives related to special education schools, alternative schools, vocational schools, regular independent private schools and schools identified as other were excluded in the report here due to extremely small cell size (n < 5).

Discussion and conclusion

Since the 1980s, effective school research has focused the attention of policymakers, scholars, and practitioners on instructional leadership (Bossert et al., 1982; Leithwood and Montgomery, 1982). The near de jure status bestowed on instructional leadership is evidenced by its influence on both the primary professional standards (e.g. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium [ISLLC]) and the prevailing program redesign philosophy utilized by higher education institutions. Yet, even in the heyday of effective schools, advocacy for principals to exercise strong instructional leadership was not without critics and skeptics (Barth, 2001; Cuban, 1988). To this day, many principals find it challenging to solely focus on instruction and continue to be pulled between managerial and instructional leadership activities.

Our data analysis speaks to this reality. Our analysis indicates American middle school principals treated both ensuring orderly environment and establishing goals/expectations as top priorities, which yield only small to moderate effects on student academic achievement according to Robinson et al. (2008). In contrast, high-yield leadership dimensions, such as promoting and participating in teacher learning (ES = .84), received close attention from only 57% of American middle school principals. When it came to planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and curriculum, principals focused more on the monitoring aspect than on the leadership activities pertaining to collegial discussion of instructional matters and helping teachers to improve.

Although TIMSS data did not allow us to calculate specific percentages of principal time use, our results were consistent with Horng, Klasik, and Loeb’s (2010) findings in general. These researchers found that principals from a large urban school district, on average, spent the most time on student services, managing budgets, and dealing with student discipline issues. Across the six main categories of principals’ actions – (1) administration; (2) organization management; (3) day-to-day instruction; (4) instructional program; (5) internal relations; and (6) external relations – Horng et al.’s principal participants were found to spend 30% of their day taking care of administrative responsibilities, such as supervising students, managing schedules, and fulfilling compliance requirements. They spent an additional 20% of their day engaging in organization management activities, such as hiring and managing staff and managing budgets. In sharp contrast, principals spent only a little over 10% of their day on instruction-related tasks, roughly equally split between tasks related to day-to-day instruction and broader instructional endeavors, such as conducting classroom observations and implementing appropriate professional development for teachers.

Our research, as well as earlier studies, empirically points to a collective urgency to look for ways that will support principals to become better instructional leaders. One approach focuses on changing conditions in schools that prevent principals from devoting more time to instructional leadership. This approach assumes that when relieved of the management responsibilities, principals will be able to commit to high-leverage instructional leadership activities. The implementation of a school administration manager (SAM) enabled tests of this assumption (Goldring et al., 2015). What is learned through this evaluative effort is that enactment of instructional leadership requires more than a simple organizational structural change (e.g. deployment of a SAM) but is a complex undertaking which requires coexistence of certain facilitative conditions working in harmony, such as principals’ ability in capacity building, team development, and the skillful distribution of leadership responsibilities across the whole school – an argument forwarded by the NASSP report mentioned earlier (NASSP, 2001).

Arguably, principals who know how to share, delegate, and distribute leadership would be less subject to burnout and have more time to engage in high-impact instructional leadership practices. Put differently, when the principal elicits high levels of commitment and professionalism from teachers and works interactively with teachers in a shared instructional leadership capacity, schools not only have the benefit of integrated leadership and more effective instructional leaders but also unleash the collective desire and expertise of all members (Marks and Printy, 2003). Our findings, therefore, raise awareness of the widespread presence of conventional managerial behavior pattern among US middle school principals: brief, fragmented, and spontaneous. Accordingly, such a reality calls for preservice and inservice professional development to sharpen principals’ distributive leadership expertise.

As compelling as the portrait of an instructional leader is, the empirical evidence emerging from our study manifests its slow diffusion into the real world in which American principals live. From a theoretical perspective, the universal viability of a dominant paradigm of school leadership is somewhat problematic considering situations and contexts are crucial elements to consider for principals to establish effective leadership. In addition to the nature of a managerial job, numerous other aspects of the contexts within which leadership takes place may influence the nature of leadership (Goldring et al., 2008). Several frameworks, such as those conceived by Bossert et al. (1982) and Dwyer (1984), argue for the influence of contextual factors on principal behavior, but the empirical work is limited when we look more closely at the contextual factors and the degree to which such measures truly affect principals’ behavior. First and foremost, much of what we know in this area can be considered a legacy of research on effective schools primarily focused on urban, elementary schools with a high concentration of low-income and minority student populations. Hence, generalizability from these findings is low (Goldring et al., 2008; Hallinger and Murphy, 1986). The corpus of studies that did focus on contextual variables, such as SES (Lortie et al., 1983; Hallinger and Murphy, 1986; Hallinger et al., 1996), school size (Hallinger and Murphy, 1986), grade level and degree of urbanization (Martinko and Gardner, 1983) and level of parent involvement (Hallinger et al., 1996), is hardly in unison on just what role context plays in leadership. By focusing on a relatively large array of contextual variables, such as school’s SES, degree of urbanization, size, type and programs and concentration of English learners, and using a national representative sample, we were able to confirm the influence of various situational factors on leadership profiles. If anything, our findings again challenges scholars to reconcile the theoretical and practical validity of different leadership models.

Our examination of this national sample revealed that two predominant profiles can characterize American middle school principals according to the ways they allocate their time across 13 leadership activities: Eclectic Principals vs. Balanced Principals. The Eclectic Principals allocated a lot of time to almost all selected leadership activities; Balanced Principals differentiated their focus. When pressed for time, Balanced Principals tended to prioritize goal setting and monitoring as well as other managerial functions over teacher advisement and self-development. Instructional leadership activities, associated with teacher advisement and teacher development, were placed as either secondary priorities among Balanced Principals or competed with other managerial functions for principals’ attention in a limited work day among Eclectic Principals.

The contextual factors that distinguish between the two aforementioned groups of principals included school SES measured in this study using the proportion of FRPL students, school type, school urbanity and ELL concentration. While Goldring et al. (2008) found the presence of more Eclectic Principals in less disadvantaged schools, our findings demonstrated the opposite. In our study, higher school poverty, higher concentration of ELLs and more urbanity were associated with a higher presence of Eclectic Principals. These findings cohere with Martinko and Gardner’s (1990) observation, which suggested that spontaneous requests, individuals, and organizational, environmental factors fragmented a principal’s work day.

A series of recent principal time use studies (Camburn et al., 2010; Goldring et al., 2008; Grissom et al., 2013; Horng et al., 2010; Spillane et al., 2007; Spillane and Hunt, 2010) highlighted the large and diverse set of leadership functions principals perform on a daily basis. The way in which principals leverage time as a scarce resource largely determines how effective they are. This capacity for making productive use of time is known both colloquially and in a relatively large literature in psychology and organizational behavior as time management. This literature suggests that better time management skills – which include the ability to set achievable goals, identify priorities, monitor one’s own progress – and remaining organized (Claessens et al., 2007) can lead to more effective time use and ultimately more positive personal and organizational outcomes, such as reduced job stress and increased organizational performance (Britton and Tesser, 1991; Jex and Elacqua, 1999). As a field, educational leadership has recognized the importance of time management. Yet, empirical examination of principal time management and connecting it to organizational outcomes is just emerging (Grissom et al., 2015; Horng et al., 2010). At present, we know principals with better time management skills allocate more time in classrooms and to managing instruction in their schools but spend less time on internal relationships. Being able to manage time well is associated with lower job stress among principals (Grissom et al.). We also know that not all activities principals spent in classrooms produce positive results. Time spent on evaluating and coaching of teachers is associated with higher school achievement growth; time spent on walkthroughs could lead to negative association with school outcomes unless principals use walkthroughs to provide teachers with effective feedback and to support purposeful teacher professional development (Grissom et al., 2013). This means principals, in order to become effective instructional leaders, need to manage their time in a way that allows for in-depth professional dialogs that encourage teachers to critically reflect on their learning and professional practice.

Using a nationally representative sample provided by the TIMSS project, our study answered many questions in regard to principal time use. Instead of acting as visionary, transformative, instructional leaders, most American middle school principals continue to face multiple challenges in developing the necessary school conditions that motivate, enable and support teachers’ efforts to learn about and change their instructional practices. The principals’ work day was consumed by hectic, unrelenting managerial activities. This administration-bound activity pattern was also more pronounced in urban and high-poverty communities. Yet, many questions remain. Is instructional leadership truly a universally viable model of leadership? What is the optimal way to allocate time in a principal’s work day and under what context? How principals in high performing schools in different contexts make the best use of other resources (e.g. assistant principal, teacher leaders) to balance overwhelming demands? Our study calls for more scholars to join this effort in continuing the effort in studying principals’ effective time use and time management for personal wellbeing and continuous organizational improvement.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Bamburg

Andrews

(1991) School goals, principals, and achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2(3): 175–191.

Barth

(2001) Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan 82(6): 443–449.

Bossert

Dwyer

Rowan

Lee

(1982) The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly 18(3): 34–64.

Britton

Tesser

(1991) Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 83(3): 405–410.

Camburn

Spillane

Sebastian

(2010) Assessing the utility of a daily log for measuring principal leadership practice. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5): 707–737.

Cuban

(1988) The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Darling-Hammond

LaPointe

Meyerson

Orr

Carol

(2007) Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development Programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, Stanford University.

Davis

Hensley

(1999) The politics of principal evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13(4): 383–403.

Dwyer

(1984) The search for instructional leadership: routines and subtleties in the principal’s role. Educational Leadership 41(5): 32–37.

10.

Foy

Brossman

Galia

(2011) Scaling the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 achievement data”, In: Martin

Mullis

IVS

(eds.), Methods and Procedures in TIMSS and PIRLS. Boston, MA: Boston College, pp. 1–28.

11.

Goldring

Grissom

Neumerski

Murphy

Blissett

(2015) Making time for instructional leadership. Volume 1: The evolution of the SAM process. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

12.

Goldring

Huff

May

Camburn

(2008) School context and individual characteristics: What influences principal practice? Journal of Educational Administration 46(3): 332–352.

13.

Grissom

Loeb

Master

(2013) Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher 42(8): 433–444.

14.

Grissom

Loeb

Mitani

(2015) Principal time management skills: Explaining patterns in principals’ time use, job stress, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration 53(6): 773–793.

15.

Hallinger

Bickman

Davis

(1996) School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal 96(5): 527–549.

16.

Hallinger

Murphy

(1986) The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education 94(3): 328–355.

17.

Heck

(1992) Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14(1): 21–34.

18.

Heck

Larsen

Marcoulides

(1990) Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly 26(2): 94–125.

19.

Heck

Marcoulides

Lang

(1991) Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: The application of discriminant techniques. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2(2): 115–135.

20.

Horng

Klasik

Loeb

(2010) Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education 116(4): 491–523.

21.

Hoy

Smith

Sweetland

(2003) The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal 86(2): 38–49.

22.

Jex

Elacqua

(1999) Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors and employee strain. Work & Stress 13(2): 182–191.

23.

Kmetz

Willower

(1982) Elementary school principals’ work behavior. Educational Administration Quarterly 18(4): 62–78.

24.

Lavigne

Shakman

Zweig

Greller

(2016) Principals’ Time, Tasks, and Professional Development: An analysis of Schools and Staffing Survey Data. Washington DC: Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.

25.

Lee

Hallinger

(2012) National contexts influencing principals’ time use and allocation: economic development, societal culture, and educational system. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23(4): 461–482.

26.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006) Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 201–227.

27.

Lortie

Crow

Prolman

(1983) Elementary Principals in Suburbia: An Occupational and Organizational Study, Final Report to the National Institute of Education. National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.

28.

Marks

Printy

(2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.

29.

Martin

Willower

(1981) The managerial behavior of high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly 17(1): 69–90.

30.

Martinko

Gardner

(1983) The Behavior of High Performing Educational Managers: An Observational Study. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

31.

Martinko

Gardner

(1990) Structured observation of managerial work: A replication and synthesis. Journal of Management Studies 27(3): 329–357.

32.

May

Huff

Goldring

(2012) A longitudinal study of principals’ activities and student performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23(4): 417–439.

33.

Mintzberg

(1973) The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.

34.

Mintzberg

(2004) Managers, Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

35.

Morris

(1981) The Urban Principal. Discretionary Decision-Making in a Large Educational Organization. Chicago, Il: University of Illinois.

36.

Morris

Crowson

Porter-Gehrie

Hurwitz

Jr (1984) Principals in Action: The Reality of Managing Schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

37.

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) (2001) Priorities and Barriers in High School Leadership: A Survey of Principals. Reston, VA: NASSP.

38.

Robinson

VMJ

Lloyd

Rowe

(2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.

39.

Sebastian

Camburn

Spillane

(2018) Portraits of principal practice: Time allocation and school principal work. Educational Administration Quarterly 54(1): 47–84.

40.

Sergiovanni

(2006) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

41.

Silva

White

Yoshida

(2011) The direct effects of principal-student discussions on eighth-grade students’ gains in reading achievement: An experimental study. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(5): 772–793.

42.

Smith

(2013) The relationship between principal time allocation and work effectiveness: Evidence across city, suburban, town, and rural school districts. National Teacher Education Journal 6(2): 27–36.

43.

Spillane

Camburn

Pareja

(2007) Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(1): 103–125.

44.

Spillane

Hunt

(2010) Days of their lives: a mixed-methods, descriptive analysis of the men and women at work in the principal’s office. Journal of Curriculum Studies 42(3): 293–331.

45.

Stewart

(1982) Choices for the Manager: A Guide to Understanding Managerial Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

46.

Stewart

(1988) Managers and Their Jobs. London: Macmillan.

47.

Walker

(1990) The skills of exemplary principals. NASSP Bulletin 74(524): 48–55.

48.

Willis

(1980) The work activity of school principals: An observational study. Journal of Educational Administration 18(1): 27–54.

49.

Wolcott

(1973) The Man in the Principal’s Office: An Ethnography. San Francisco, CA: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

50.

Yukl

(2013) Leadership in Organization. India: Pearson Education.