Understanding District Support for Leader Development and Success in the Accountability Era: A Review of the Literature Using Social-Cognitive Theories of Motivation

Abstract

As an intermediary between U.S. state and federal policy and the school, the school district, many scholars maintain, remains a key player in meeting the needs of school-level leadership. Moreover, the job of the principal is difficult and has become increasingly complex as a result of increased pressure, accountability, and oversight under the No Child Left Behind Act (now the Every Student Succeeds Act) in the United States. These two propositions raise important questions about what we know (and do not yet know) about how to support school leaders’ learning and development in their quest to effectively lead a school. In this review, we use extant social-cognitive theories of motivation to organize the research on district effectiveness in pursuit of the following question: How does the district as a key player in school/instructional improvement facilitate conditions under which school principals’ learning, development, and success are enhanced? In pursuing this question, we hoped to strengthen two particular weaknesses in this strand of scholarship: (1) the concern that research in this particular area is relatively atheoretical and (2) concerns about the applicability of this research to practice.

Keywords

accountability cognitive processes/development leadership motivation principals

The study of leadership is essentially the study of motivation. That is, to study what it takes to be an effective leader entails consideration of the role of human motivation in learning and development, and the conditions under which such individual and collective will is activated and channeled toward a common goal (or goals). To date, most scholarship has focused on the learning and development of the most salient groups of learners within schools—students and teachers—to the unfortunate neglect of school leaders (Ford & Ware, 2018). Yet, the job of the principal is difficult and has become increasingly complex (Lavigne & Good, 2019). This includes increasing intrusion and pressure as a result of heightened accountability and oversight (West et al., 2010) as well as the critical need to address issues of instructional (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015) and culturally responsive leadership (Khalifa, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016). Not surprisingly, today’s principals experience more stress and derive less satisfaction from their jobs. More than a quarter of principals leave their jobs every year (Battle & Gruber, 2010), only half still remain by year 5 (Baker et al., 2010), and only 20% to 40% remain by year 6 (Gates et al., 2006; Papa, 2007). Unless principals are supported in ways that address many of the concerns mentioned above, they will continue to leave the profession, impeding school improvement efforts.

These challenges coincide with a bevy of studies in the past few decades on the role of the school district in fostering school and/or instructional improvement (see, e.g., Anderson & Young, 2018; Bowers, 2008, 2010; Cobb et al., 2018; Elmore & Burney, 1998; Louis, 2015; Spillane, 1996; Sykes et al., 2009; Trujillo, 2013; The Wallace Foundation, 2013; Weiner & Woulfin, 2017). Definitions of the school “district” vary but generally include the organization writ large and the policies, structures, and stakeholders within it, as well as “the central office.” It is an unfortunate irony that what constitutes the “district” in many district studies is often not explicitly defined. However, in the studies that comprised this review, represented are a wide range of personnel within the “central office” whose role responsibilities directly influence the work of principals in their roles as school building leaders. District leaders—such as the superintendent, assistant, and “area” superintendent(s)—through their establishment of district vision, culture, as well as other structures and routines, often shape support for principals in important ways. There are other critical personnel at the district office level—for example, curriculum directors, data and information officers, and instructional coaches—who can also provide critical support in the instructional efforts of building leaders. Finally, an emerging area of research into the role of principal supervisors—relatively new intermediary positions between the district office and schools—suggests that they too can have positive effects on principal learning, development, and success.

As an intermediary between U.S. state and federal policy and the school, the school district, many scholars maintain, stands as a key player in meeting the needs of school-level leadership (Daly & Finnigan, 2016; Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Louis, 2015; Supovitz, 2006; The Wallace Foundation, 2013; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Indeed, many “district effectiveness” studies highlight various aspects of support for school leaders that appear to make a difference, including professional development, supervision and mentoring, increased autonomy, and improved instructional coherence (Honig & Rainey, 2012, 2015, 2019; Johnston et al., 2016; Knudson et al., 2011; Marsh et al., 2005; O’Day & Bitter, 2003; Supovitz, 2006). Despite the steady accumulation of evidence in these areas, scholars note that progress on improving district effectiveness has remained relatively stagnant (Anderson & Young, 2018).¹

Current Study

While collectively these findings help us understand the “what” of district support for principals, often missing is a clear explanation of why these district supports might lead to better outcomes for leaders and their schools. As Sutton and Staw (1995) point out, explicating the “why” of connections among phenomena is the purview of theory; to date, most district effectiveness studies have been limited in their use of theory to help explain why particular district actions improve results. In a recent analysis of more than 50 articles on district effectiveness, Trujillo (2013) found that only half were informed by theory and only a quarter used theory as the rationale for their chosen study variables. Instead, the absence of theory has, in effect, yielded a list of “what works,” that is, factors that are associated with district effectiveness (Trujillo, 2013, 2016). Of course, this shortcoming does not mean that important insights into how to support leaders’ learning, development, and success are absent; nevertheless, we argue that a lack of understanding about why such factors support effectiveness limits the degree to which districts can leverage these findings for improvement.

Theory building is an important part of scholarship in the social sciences because it helps us, among other things, take stock of where we are in a particular line of inquiry, see what patterns—if any—are emerging, and seek explanation for these patterns (Forsyth, 2017). When researchers do use theoretical approaches in the process of accumulating knowledge, theories can also undergo important modifications that help increase their explanatory power. This benefits the cumulative nature of science wherein later advances build on earlier ones, which in turn enhances both research quality and scientific innovation (Vartanian, 2017).

This article represents an effort to respond to current concerns about the state of the principalship by using extant social-cognitive theories of motivation for learning to organize the empirical findings on the role/influence of school districts on principal leadership. We do this for the purpose of illustrating both the challenges as well as the possibilities for the role of school districts in supporting, retaining, and sustaining principals in the complex educational environments in which they find themselves. The research question that drove this study was, “How does the district as a key player in school/instructional improvement facilitate conditions under which school principals’ learning, development, and success are enhanced?” In pursuing this question, we hoped to strengthen two particular weaknesses in this strand of scholarship: (1) the concern that research in this particular area is relatively atheoretical (Trujillo, 2013, 2016) and (2) concerns about the applicability of this research to practice.

As a precursor to our review of the literature, we first summarize the social-cognitive theories of motivation for learning that we used in the analysis. We follow with a brief discussion of our method for identifying research reports that fit our study criteria. Finally, in our review of the literature, we present a unified discussion of what we know about the role of districts in supporting principals’ needs for learning, development, and success according to key concepts within and across the five social-cognitive theories of motivation. Finally, based on these findings, we chart some directions for future studies in this area, highlighting the gaps in our knowledge of district support for school principals as well as discussing the implications these new directions have for policy and practice.

A Review of the Social-Cognitive Theories of Motivation

Motivation is a complex, multidimensional construct that attempts to describe and explain the process by which goal-directed behavior is initiated, sustained, changed, and/or stopped. As a subset of motivation theories, social-cognitive theories of motivation for learning in particular are concerned with those elements of the self (i.e., beliefs, values, psychological needs, emotions, capacities, etc.), in interaction with the environment, which intervene in and shape the process of starting, stopping, or maintaining motivation for a goal or task (Martin & Dowson, 2009).

There is no integrated or unified social-cognitive theory of motivation for learning; rather, five distinct social-cognitive theories coexist, as demonstrated in several reviews of this literature: self-efficacy theory, self-determination theory, expectancy-value theory, attribution theory, and goal theory (Cook & Artino, 2016; Savolainen, 2018). These theories represent the major frameworks for explaining motivation, engagement, learning, and/or achievement developed in the past half-century (Martin & Dowson, 2009).² They share considerable overlap, as will be evidenced in the review, but even so, they are better viewed as complementary—not competing—because they each focus on particular aspects of the cognitive process involved in learning and development. Thus, to capture a full picture of how districts support the learning, development, and success of principals, all five were considered in this review of the literature. Below, we describe the key components of each theory.

Self-Efficacy Theory

Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory—not to be confused with social-cognitive theory (with a hyphen), which is the umbrella term reserved for theories of motivation/learning of this general type—argues that human learning occurs as a function of triadic reciprocal causation, or the interacting influence of behavioral, cognitive, affective, and other personal factors, as well as factors present in the environment. Within this theory, Bandura points to the importance of self-efficacy in human agency and specifically motivation (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of successfully performing a given task. It helps explain how individuals experience their environments (Bandura, 1986) and thus predicts how successful principals will be, for example, in navigating their challenging work contexts. One’s analysis of a job task includes an assessment of the perceived resources and constraints involved in completing it, including perceptions of control over the situation. Thus, self-efficacy judgments are intimately tied to perceptions of autonomy and competence (see below under self-determination theory).

According to the theory, self-efficacy is derived from four main sources: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and arousal. Mastery experiences refer to our perceptions of past performance and how these successes and failures might predict future performance. Vicarious experiences are found in the witnessing of success or failure of others we might consider role models or who serve as models of practice. Verbal persuasion refers to the amount of encouragement we receive from important others within (or outside) the school related to our practice. Finally, arousal level, whether positive or negative in orientation, can significantly shape perceptions of self-efficacy with respect to a particular task. Anxiety signals stress to the body and lowers perceptions of ability whereas more positive mood states are related to higher levels of self-efficacy (Pajares, 1997). Arousal can manifest in many forms including increased heart rate, perspiration, shortness of breath, and trembling hands; it can be enabling or debilitating depending on context.

In schools, the beliefs that principals develop about their capabilities determine what they do with the knowledge and skills they acquire (Pajares, 1997). In essence, if principals do not believe they have the capacity to successfully execute a given task, they may alter their course of action, choose one course of action over another, or put forth insufficient effort—all of which could undermine success. Thus, self-efficacy is particularly salient in the context of challenging or difficult tasks, like those experienced daily by principals. High levels of self-efficacy have been found to be related to persistence in pursing goals and, in the face of challenges, the seeking out of effective strategies to address challenges and adapt to changes, as well as overall job satisfaction (Federici, 2013; Osterman & Sullivan, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).

Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy-value theory (EVT) posits that motivation for a particular task is driven by an individual’s expectation of success in performing the task (i.e., their self-efficacy) and the task’s value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Eccles (2005) describes four main areas that encompass value: interest/enjoyment value, attainment value (importance), utility value (usefulness), and relative cost. An individual’s interest/enjoyment value captures to what extent an individual experiences joy when engaging in a particular task and if they find it interesting. This area captures the intrinsic value of the task (and thus, overlaps with self-determination theory to some extent). Attainment value captures how an individual attaches performance importance to participating in or doing well on a given task. Therefore, attainment value taps into our individual identities (e.g., is this task central to my sense of self). When a certain task helps an individual achieve external goals (a degree, a raise, or entry to a higher position), it has utility value. Finally, all of these “values” are offset by relative costs. What is the cost to engage in a given task (e.g., time, effort, delegating or ignoring an existing task)? Together, these four components equate to a subjective task value that predicts the importance an individual attaches to a particular activity. Overall, the expectancy-value paradigm emphasizes the idea that individuals are more motivated to engage in a task they see as relevant, but this theoretical lens has not typically been used to consider principals’ motivations, especially with respect to their personal and professional goals. This is particularly valuable to explore when considering that principals often receive demands from central office that principals perceive as meaningless (West et al., 2010).

Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory is a multifaceted psychological theory of human behavior and personality development. A key maxim of self-determination theory is that of dialectical integration: an intrinsic desire to engage in and interact with the world, exercise capacities, and pursue connectedness toward a more complex sense of self. Basic psychological needs theory, a subtheory of self-determination theory, predicts that this intrinsic drive will remain intact so long as certain key psychological conditions are met, namely, the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Competence refers to the need to experience performances as effectively enacted; thus, individuals are necessarily driven to seek challenges that are optimally matched to their perceived skills and capacities. More important, however, they are driven to build upon existing skills and capacities in anticipation of future performance (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Autonomy concerns a perceived internal locus of causality, that is, the taking of action for which impetus derives from self-endorsed or determined values and beliefs rather than from the need to conform to external forces/expectations (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Finally, relatedness refers to the psychological need to feel connected to significant others, that is, to care and be cared for as well as share a sense of belongingness to others in one’s community (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

In the context of this theory, extrinsic motivators, specifically those that involve tangible rewards or threatened punishment, can undermine intrinsic motivation by either reducing support or actively thwarting an individual’s need for autonomy. This is also the case in performance-contingent rewards. Verbal rewards such as feedback can enhance an individual’s need for competence and, in turn, foster intrinsic motivation (as can performance-contingent rewards, but only when presented in an autonomy-supportive climate; Deci & Moller, 2005). Self-determination theory distinguishes between two types of internalization: autonomous and introjected. When people adopt a goal or behavior because of its inherent value and because they identify with it, their internalization is autonomous. With introjected internalization, goals and behaviors are adopted because of social acceptance, status, or self-worth. Because of the external/normative processes needed to identify social acceptance, status, or self-worth, this form of internalization is described as controlling and undermines autonomy (Deci & Moller, 2005).

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory is based on the premise that individuals behave in ways that reflect the knowledge they have gathered through trying to understand themselves and their environment (Weiner, 1992). Much of this information comes following the outcomes of an event and the causal inferences an individual makes about those outcomes (e.g., why they occurred). This, in turn, informs an individual’s subsequent motivation and behavioral responses (Weiner, 2005). According to Weiner (1986), casual attributions to outcomes (oftentimes defined as success and failure) exist along three dimensions—locus, stability, and controllability. Individuals can attribute outcomes to causes that they consider either within or outside of themselves (locus); malleable (variable) or enduring over time (stability); or within one’s control, such as skill, or outside of one’s control, such as luck (controllability). The overarching premise of attribution theory is that individuals will be more motivated, put forth more effort, and achieve at higher levels when they feel a sense of control over their achievements (Weiner, 1986). When individuals feel a sense of control over their achievements, they can attribute their success to their own competence.

Goal Theory

Goal theory was primarily spearheaded by Carol Ames, Carol Dweck, Marty Maehr, and John Nicholls in the 1970s. Their work distinguished between mastery goals—those aimed at developing one’s competence—and performance goals—those aimed at establishing competence that outperforms that of one’s peers (Elliot, 2005). This earlier work examined how these motivational goals manifested in students’ approaches to learning and the strategies they used to engage in the learning process. For example, students endorsing mastery goals were found to have more adaptive responses to achievement challenges. These students put forth more effort when faced with adversity primarily because they believed that their ability was malleable. These students were more likely to feel competent because they perceive mastery as attainable by many. In contrast, students who endorsed performance goals possessed less adaptive responses to achievement struggles in part because they were more likely to believe that ability was fixed. Furthermore, since the goal is to outperform peers, it is, by definition, only attainable by a few and this can undermine feelings of competence.

Research that has followed this early work continues to present mastery goals as adaptive; mastery goals foster students’ persistence, self-regulation, cooperativeness, positive affect, use of effective learning strategies, valuation of learning tasks, and successful navigation of conflict (see Senko et al., 2011, for a review). Eventually, a 2 × 2 model was proposed that divided each goal according to approach and avoidance. In other words, those with a mastery-approach goal would strive to acquire and learn skills, while those with a mastery-avoidance goal would avoid learning failures or declining skills. Those with performance-approach goals would seek to outperform peers, while those with performance-avoidance goals would strive to not be the worst (Senko et al., 2011).

Method

Research reports that were considered relevant for this literature review included primary source empirical research on district, school, or leader effectiveness broadly defined, including peer-reviewed journal articles and books, as well as technical reports from foundations, think-tanks, and regional and national research centers. From this broader set of literature, we focused our attention on research articles that addressed, either directly or indirectly, the school district/principal role relation, and whose findings and/or implications had potential bearing on principal motivation. Because we are primarily interested in understanding the principalship in the accountability era, we limited our review of the literature to research that spans the last two decades—more specifically literature after U.S. federal accountability policy shifts under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001. We excluded book chapters and meta-analyses to reduce redundancy in findings, but we did use them, where appropriate, for study background.

Three selection phases were used to determine the studies for inclusion (see Figure 1). In the first phase, literature was identified via the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Google Scholar, Education Source, Academic Search Premier, and PsychInfo, applying the following search criteria. First, the document’s abstract needed to include the keywords “principal” OR “school leader” OR “principal effectiveness” OR “school effectiveness” OR “district effectiveness.” Second, we conducted a second search utilizing the above-mentioned terms AND the following: “self-efficacy” OR “expectancy-value theory” OR “self-determination theory” OR “attribution theory” OR “goal theory” OR “goal orientation.” Duplicates were identified and removed. These two searches combined yielded a repository of 118 research reports.

Figure 1.

Flow of study selection through three phases of the systematic review.

A second phase entailed applying a second set of criteria to the selection process: (a) the document needed to be published in an academic peer-reviewed journal, monograph, or a foundation, think-tank, or national or regional research center technical report; (b) the article needed to be written in English; and (c) the publication date was required to fall between January 2002 and August of 2019.³ These research reports were also screened to exclude prospective principals and principal certification or preparation (i.e., preservice school leaders). We chose this wide range of research sources to capture as much research on district effectiveness as possible. Historically, district research has tended to be, to a significant degree, case study and practitioner-oriented (Sykes et al., 2009). For this reason, a significant amount of district research tends to be found outside of peer-reviewed journals in publications by foundations (i.e., the Wallace Foundation) as well as national and regional research centers and think-tanks.

We also recognize that around the globe, apart from the United Kingdom, the United States has one of the most significant accountability contexts (Smith & Kubacka, 2017). However, as increased accountability is a global phenomenon, we also recognize that the United States accountability context may not be unique (see Smith & Kubacka, 2017, for an international review on teacher evaluation reform). In the end, we decided to exclude any articles that included research on leader, school, or district effectiveness outside of the United States to recognize that the role principals play in the United States may vary significantly from that in other countries, and thus, different factors may support their development and success. For example, in the United States, teachers receive most of their feedback from principals, which can be remarkably different in other countries where peer feedback is common (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014). The one exception we made to this rule was in the case of Canada, which has an organizational structure similar to the United States, with local governance via school districts and boards. As a result, many Canadian scholars also engage in “district effectiveness” research and contribute to this literature.

Finally, in phase three we conducted a final review to exclude nonempirical documents and used the snowball method to locate any articles that might have been missed in the first phase. We did this by examining the literature reviews of the present studies and key references to cross-check for articles that would otherwise qualify based on the aforementioned inclusionary criteria (Greenhalgh & Peacock, 2005). These stages led to a final repository of 63 research reports for the analysis. Approximately 62% of these reports were peer-reviewed journal articles, 25% were reports from regional labs or research centers, 10% were from national research centers or think-tanks (e.g., RAND, AIR, Mathematica), and approximately 3% from monographs. All articles included in the review represent samples of public schools, with some studies also including charter schools and two studies including private schools.

Once the final set of articles were selected, all members of the research team collectively engaged in a second thematic review of the empirical findings from these articles (Braun & Clarke, 2006), using a thematic coding guide that included both descriptions of the focal theories as well as their subcomponents. As an example, in the description of self-efficacy theory in the coding guide, we included a broad definition of the theory, as well as definitions and examples of its main subcomponents: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and arousal. Any empirical findings that applied to particular theories and/or subcomponents were compiled and organized together, and these lists were continuously reviewed by other members for accuracy. Once these thematic lists were complete, the lists were re-analyzed to ascertain if larger themes existed that transcended the individual theories. Table 1 presents a summary table of all of the final papers included in the review. This table includes information about the publication type, study samples, overall methodological approach and research design, as well as the final results of our thematic coding process—in other words, our final conclusion about which (or more) of the five theories connected to each study’s findings.

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies.

Study	Coded theories	Methodology and research design	Sample	Urbanicity
Adamowski et al. (2007) ^a	AT	Mixed: Case study and survey	33 elementary principals in 3 states	Urban
American Institutes for Research (2004) ^a	SDT	Mixed: Case study and survey	Principals, teachers, and students at 5 model schools, 22 start-up schools, and 10 large schools	Mixed
Augustine et al. (2009) ^a	EVT, SET, and SDT	Mixed: Comparative case-study	600 principals in 17 districts	Mixed
Bauer & Silver (2018) ^b	SDT	Quantitative: Survey	203 first-year elementary, middle, high school, and alternative school principals	Mixed
Bennett et al. (2014) ^b	SET and AT	Mixed: Survey and case study	43 principals and 37 staff	Mixed
Bottoms & Fry 2(009)^a	SDT and AT	Qualitative: Case study	22 principals in 17 states	Mixed
Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis (2010) ^a	EVT, SDT, and SET	Qualitative: Case study	22 principals	Mixed
Brazer & Peters (2007) ^b	SDT	Mixed: Case study and survey	362 principals, 359 superintendents, and 367 teachers	N/A
Cannata et al. (2017) ^b	EVT	Mixed: Survey and in-depth interviews	Interviews of more than 100 central office personnel and 76 principals in 6 school districts and 2 charter management organizations; survey of 795 principals	Urban
Chang et al. (2015) ^b	SDT	Quantitative: Survey	1,501 principals	Mixed
Chrispeels et al. (2008) ^b	EVT, AT, and SDT	Qualitative: Case study	5 principals	Urban
Darling-Hammond et al. (2002) ^b	SDT, AT, and EVT	Mixed: Longitudinal study	22 school-level administrators and Board of Education members; 28 teachers; 31 students	Urban
Darling-Hammond et al. (2003) ^a	SET, EVT, and SDT	Mixed: Case study and survey	Teachers, principals, central office administrators, locally relevant community members, and state officials	Urban
Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) ^a	SDT, AT, SET, and EVT	Mixed: Case study	1,086 principals from preservice and in-service training programs	Mixed
Duncan & Stock (2010) ^b	SET and SDT	Quantitative: Survey	187 principals	Rural
Eilers & Camacho (2007) ^b	SET	Mixed: Case study	1 principal; teachers, district staff	Urban
Garet et al. (2017) ^a	EVT	Quantitative: Experimental design	Approximately 120 principals in 8 districts	Mixed
Goldring et al. (2018) ^a	SDT and EVT	Mixed: Case study and survey	Approximately 600 principals and 50 principal supervisors; central office personnel	Urban
Grissom & Harrington (2010) ^b	SET and SDT	Quantitative: Survey	7,410 principals and 37,960 teachers	Mixed
Hightower (2002) ^a	EVT and SDT	Qualitative: Case study	Approximately 60 central office administrators, 30 principals, and 38 teachers	Urban
Honig (2009) ^b	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	Principals and central office administrators part of the new small autonomous schools initiative	Urban
Honig (2012) ^b	SET and EVT	Qualitative: Case study	162 central office administrators, school principals, and representatives from outside organizations	Urban
Honig et al. (2010) ^a	SDT, EVT, and SET	Qualitative: Case study	162 central office administrators, school principals, and representatives	Urban
Honig & Rainey (2014) ^b	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	Approximately 80 principals	Urban
Hubbard et al. (2006) ^c\|	SET, EVT, and SDT	Qualitative: Ethnography	3 superintendents, 9 senior district staff, 10 instructional leaders, 12 principals, 140 teachers, and 14 community members in 6 schools	Urban
Iatarola & Fruchter (2004) ^b	EVT and SDT	Qualitative: Case study	Principals and district administrators in 4 districts and 13 schools	Urban
Jacob et al. (2015) ^b	SET	Quantitative: Experimental design	Principals and teachers in 126 schools	Rural
Jacobson (2011) ^b	GT	Mixed: Review and longitudinal study	Follow-up study of 1 principal (7 principals in original study)	Urban
Jacobson et al. (2007) ^b	SET	Qualitative: Case study	Principals, teachers, support staff, parents, and students in 3 schools	Urban
Johnson & Chrispeels (2010) ^b	SDT and EVT	Qualitative: Case study	45 school leadership team members, 5 principals, and 10 central office leaders	Urban
Johnston et al. (2016) ^a	SDT and EVT	Quantitative: Survey	175 principals	Mixed
Knapp et al. (2010) ^a	SET, SDT, and EVT	Qualitative: Case study and survey	School leaders and central office administrators in 7 districts	Urban
Knudson et al. (2011) ^a	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	8 school districts	Urban
Leithwood (2011) ^a	EVT and SDT	Mixed: Case study and survey	1,543 principals and 235 district leaders	Mixed
Leithwood & Jantzi (2008) ^b	SDT, SET, and GT	Mixed: Survey and case study	96 principals and 2,764 teachers	Mixed
Leithwood et al. (2002) ^b	EVT, GT, SET, and SDT	Qualitative: Case study	48 teachers and 15 administrators	Urban
Mangin (2007) ^b	SDT and EVT	Qualitative: Case study	15 principals, 12 teacher leaders, and 6 supervisors	N/A
Marsh et al. (2005) ^c\|	SDT and EVT	Mixed: Case study and survey	Principals and teachers in 3 school districts	Urban
Marshall et al. (2004) ^b	SDT, GT, EVT, and AT	Mixed: Case study	Teachers, principals, and central office administrators in 62 schools in 18 school districts	Urban and rural
Mascall & Leithwood (2010) ^b	SDT and EVT	Mixed: Survey and case study	Principals and teachers in 4 school districts and 80 schools	Urban
McCollum & Kajs (2009) ^b	GT	Quantitative: Survey	312 early-career principals	Mixed
McLaughlin & Talbert (2003) ^a	GT and SDT	Mixed: Longitudinal study (survey and case study)	Teachers, principals, district administrators in 58 reforming schools	Urban
Nitta et al. (2009) ^a	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	44 principals, 293 teachers, and 287 staff	Urban
O’Day & Bitter (2003) ^a	SDT, EVT, and AT	Mixed: Case study and survey	Approximately 350 district administrators in 134 districts, 265 external program evaluators, 502 principals, and 2,510 teachers	Mixed
Opfer et al. (2008) ^b	EVT and SDT	Mixed: Longitudinal study (survey and case study)	Teachers in 144 school districts in 6 states	Mixed
Orr et al. (2010) ^a	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	Principals in 8 large districts	Urban
Ouchi (2006) ^b	SDT	Mixed: Case study	188 principals	Urban
Panasonic Foundation (2006) ^a	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	2 school districts	Urban
Peck et al. (2013) ^b	SDT, EVT, and AT	Qualitative: Review	Principal-centered reform documents and policies	N/A
Plecki et al. (2009) ^a	SET, EVT, AT, SDT, and GT	Mixed: Case study and survey	14 schools in 4 school districts	Urban
Portin et al. (2009) ^a	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	Teachers, principals, assistant principals, and department heads in 15 schools in 4 school districts	Urban
Rigby et al. (2019) ^b	SDT and SET	Qualitative: Case study	Principals and district leaders in 3 districts	Mixed
Salazar (2007) ^b	SET and SDT	Quantitative: Survey	316 high school principals	Rural
Spillane et al. (2009) ^b	SDT	Quantitative: Survey	Principals and 2,400 school personnel	Urban
Springboard Schools (2006) ^a	SDT, GT, and SET	Mixed: Survey and case study	60 principals; central office staff and teachers	Mixed
Steinberg & Cox (2017) ^b	SDT	Mixed: Survey	Approximately 150 principals	Urban
Supovitz (2006) ^c	EVT, SDT, and SET	Mixed: Case study and survey	54 district leaders, 10 schools	Mixed
Thessin (2019) ^b	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	12 principal supervisor/principal partnerships	Urban
Togneri & Anderson (2003) ^a	SDT and GT	Qualitative: Case study	5 school districts	Mixed
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis (2007) ^b	SET	Quantitative: Survey	558 principals	Mixed
Weiner (2016) ^b	SDT, AT, and GT	Qualitative: Case study	9 principals	Urban
Weiner & Woulfin (2017) ^b	SDT	Qualitative: Case study	7 novice principals	Urban
Wohlstetter et al. (2013) ^b	SDT, SET, AT, and GT	Qualitative: Case study	Central office staff, network leadership teams, cluster leaders, and principals	Urban

Note. AT = attribution theory; EVT = expectancy value theory; GT = goal theory; SET = self-efficacy theory; SDT = self-determination theory.

Report. ^bJournal article. ^cBook.

District Support for Leader Learning, Development, and Success

Our discussion of the findings is organized around several themes related to the focal motivation theories we used in our systematic review of the literature. These themes provided an overall framework in which to view what we currently know about how districts can support school leaders in their endeavor to lead schools, as well as a roadmap as to where potential gaps and opportunities for future research exist. First, we present and discuss what is a substantial body of knowledge about district support for the development of principal competence and self-efficacy. This section includes a discussion of the ways in which (a) structures such as ongoing professional development and instructional coherence as well as (b) close collaborative relationships with mentors, fellow-principals, and principal supervisors, can be key to building principal efficacy. Second, we find a similarly robust body of evidence regarding the critical role of autonomy in fostering principal success, how structure and district vision support autonomy, and the consequences for principals, districts, and outcomes when it is absent. Third, we review an area of research into district support that is substantially weaker by comparison: concerns around how to frame district work environments in ways which activate and reinforce principals’ autonomous motivation, which evidence suggests is a beneficial long-term strategy for the health and vitality of individuals as well as the organization. These concerns center on how districts know and understand what principals value, how they shape what principals see as the causes of success or failure, and how they can shape principals’ pursuit of goals in ways that activate intrinsic interest in their work. Finally, we discuss the critical role of relationships and relatedness in principal learning, development, and success.

The Role of Competence-Support and Self-Efficacy

A basic question that one might ask upon confronting a challenging job or task is that of capability. Simply put, cognitive discernments about one’s capability come from some self-assessment of the alignment of their knowledge, skills, and abilities with those that the task or job will require—in other words, some assessment of competence. All five social-cognitive theories of motivation address, to some degree, the issue of competence and its role in motivation (Cook & Artino, 2016). In both self-efficacy theory and expectancy-value theory, perceptions of self-efficacy directly speak to perceptions of competence, but largely are more task-specific than in the case of self-determination theory, where competence perceptions are more generalized. Mastery and vicarious experiences, in the case of self-efficacy theory, provide a framework through which to drill down into the nature and purpose of particular activities supportive of competence/self-efficacy. In connecting all three, support for competence drives perceptions of self-efficacy, which, in turn, shapes motivation.

Support for principal competence is fostered most directly through district provision of on-going professional development for leaders as well as district office personnel, and this can include school-based principal supervision activities (Hightower, 2002; Johnston et al., 2016; Knapp et al., 2010; Knudson et al., 2011; Marsh et al., 2005; Supovitz, 2006; The Wallace Foundation, 2013). Authentic learning opportunities, like problem-based learning and on-the-job expert coaching/mentoring, are also examples of meaningful principal development activities that can be coordinated by school districts (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Stucher et al., 2017). Though evidence is still emerging, early research suggests that principal supervisors can play a critical role in development, particularly in the areas of racial equity (Rigby et al., 2019) and instructional improvement (Honig, 2012; Honig & Rainey, 2019; Thessin & Louis, 2019). Furthermore, at least one study has pointed to a specific area where principals might benefit from additional training and support to foster competence—using data to assess teacher effectiveness and to make hiring decisions (Cannata et al., 2017).⁴

Developing Principal Competence and Self-Efficacy

Effective inservice principal preparation programs offer learning activities that are well-coordinated, connected to a clear model of school leadership, and that build a coherent picture of teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). This is partly accomplished by providing leadership training for principals focused on supporting standards-based instruction (and the district vision) in their schools and creating professional growth opportunities for district leaders (Supovitz, 2006). In a study by Iatarola and Fruchter (2004), high-performing districts were differentiated from low-performing by the way they approached principal and school professional development. High-performing districts maintained a tight/loose balance, whereby they delivered highly conceptualized professional development. Instead of playing the role of provider, the district served more as a support resource for leaders in identifying, defining, organizing, and offering varieties of professional development opportunities. Workshops and coursework intentionally designed to enable school leaders’ learning might boost overall satisfaction, as noted in a study by Spillane et al. (2009), where 90% of surveyed principals reported being highly satisfied with their professional development opportunities, finding them to have provided useful knowledge and ample opportunities to improve. As one study noted, however, principal development can be challenging, particularly in a context of high superintendent turnover (Orr et al., 2010).

Professional development designed to improve principals’ instructional leadership through new content and pedagogy is a high priority in the current U.S. accountability climate. In two separate studies, principals improved their instructional leadership skills⁵ by attending professional development opportunities and by interacting with experts (Leithwood, 2011; Marsh et al., 2005). Highly supportive districts offer mentoring opportunities for current principals as well as teachers within the district who aspire to be principals (Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis, 2010).⁶ There is emerging, albeit limited, evidence that this process might be enhanced in big districts by assigning principals strategically to intermediary school leaders, giving them more time to focus on instructional leadership activities for a smaller set of principals (Goldring et al., 2018).

One approach to building competence is to leverage social capital in the building of human capital (e.g., Coleman, 1988). In two different large-scale reforms in San Diego schools, principals were participants in learning communities that focused on developing the instructional expertise of principals. These learning communities met regularly and were led by former principals who took on a new role of coaching and mentoring current principals. These instructional leaders visited school sites with principals to conduct “walk-throughs,” observing classrooms with principals and identifying the school’s needs related to teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003; Hubbard et al., 2006). The design of these learning communities was based on the understanding that, in order to develop effective teachers, the district must first invest in building the competence of those who would interact with teachers most frequently. In their study of three urban districts, Marsh et al. (2005) found that an intermediary organization, the Institute for Learning, was instrumental in helping build the instructional leadership skills of school leaders, develop their knowledge about learning, and facilitate the growth of a common language among leaders. However, key resources such as funds, dedicated time, and autonomy are essential to building principals’ competencies around instructional leadership (Knapp et al., 2010).

Furthermore, the advent of intermediary principal supervisory roles has precipitated increased study of these positions as potentially important vehicles for building principal efficacy as instructional leaders (Honig & Rainey, 2019; Thessin & Louis, 2019). In a study of three districts, Honig (2012) found that high variation in Instructional Leadership Director practices with respect to self-efficacy emphasized the importance of several key practices: (a) the degree to which principal supervisors worked to inculcate in principals the value of principal instructional leadership; (b) the use of modeling and its role in forging meaningful, productive relationships with principals; and (c) the use of tools as a basis for having challenging conversations and serving as information “brokers” (i.e., providing principals with connections to external resources). In schools where these practices were absent, it was largely due to a lack of experience and/or role conflicts of principal supervisors in working with schools, suggesting that they should be chosen and placed strategically. Furthermore, it is important to note that these principal supervisors’ caseloads or assignments varied significantly—from 9 to 28 principals—and were located in three large, urban districts: Atlanta, New York, and Oakland. The evidence on the role and influence of principal supervisors is still emerging, but scholars have emphasized that simply establishing these types of intermediary positions alone is no guarantee that effectiveness in instructional leadership will improve (Honig, 2012; Honig et al., 2010; Plecki et al., 2009).

Substantial evidence from a wide range of case studies suggest that principal competence is also fostered through intentional actions by districts to bring clarity, structure, and instructional coherence to the principalship (Marsh et al., 2005; Supovitz, 2006), which O’Day and Bitter (2003) found to be critical to meeting and surpassing academic growth targets. This practice brings specificity to district goals so that principals’ decision making can focus on how to meet those goals instead of determining which goals to prioritize. One way districts could do this is to define a set of teaching practices that principals use as a framework through which they may evaluate instruction and support instructional improvement (Augustine et al., 2009). This framework can then potentially serve as a tool that brings coherence to the within-school instructional improvement efforts of principals but also the district’s schools collectively. Above all, however, it is important to create a district-wide culture of learning where principals, assistant superintendents, and executive directors (supervising principals) are all learning together to support continuous improvement and tangible results (Augustine et al., 2009; Panasonic Foundation, 2006). Districts can go a step further by instituting training programs for new employees; however, this particular practice appears to be relatively rare, even in the healthiest and highest-functioning districts (Marshall et al., 2004). Furthermore, when districts themselves anticipate success and are confident about improving student, they may be more likely to be involved systematically in responding to high-stakes accountability by providing various resources and support to schools (Opfer et al., 2008).

Accompanying these fundamental support strategies is the consideration of evaluation standards for principals. For example, a study of 17 districts across 10 states found that one way districts support principal competence is by identifying a set of performance targets to serve as a guide for the work of principals across the district (Augustine et al., 2009). In some cases, these districts differentiated these performance targets by placing them along a continuum of developmental levels from novice to professional (Augustine et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007), understanding that principals with different levels of experience might benefit from tailored performance targets that appropriately match expectations of performance with the skills, knowledge, and leadership experience—a trend that has long been documented (e.g., Ortiz, 1978).

Mastery and Vicarious Experiences

For self-efficacy theory, grappling with one’s own capabilities with respect to a task happens as a result of work with others and also through critical self-reflection. Extant research suggests that principals have limited opportunities to learn vicariously through others, and this provides a significant barrier to establishing high levels of self-efficacy (MetLife, 2013). Although principals are constantly with others, they can feel very much alone in their responsibilities and pressures (West et al., 2010). Thus, mentoring and coaching opportunities provide principals vicarious experiences that build their efficacy as they interact and learn from expert principals and other instructional leaders (Duncan & Stock, 2010; Eilers & Camacho, 2007). One study by Garet et al. (2017) found that districts that provided ongoing feedback to principals about their leadership practice saw improvement in instructional leadership and teacher-principal trust over time as well as gains in student math achievement. In another study, principal mentoring by districts was found to be the factor most related to principal effectiveness on average, while university course-taking and principal networks were not (Grissom & Harrington, 2010). Furthermore, Eilers and Camacho (2007), in the study of a school that improved its culture and student achievement under a new principal, reported that the district supports that were critical to the school’s turnaround success were access to principal coaching, informal mentoring, and effective communication with the district office. There are few studies of how urban and rural principals differ in their professional development and mentoring needs. We located only one study by Salazar (2007) that found that rural principals were less interested in mentoring and coaching as well as opportunities to network in small study groups with fellow principals, but preferred more traditional approaches such as participating in seminars or attending conferences.

Principal mentoring can be done one-on-one as well as in networked groups and provide an opportunity for district staff to model ways of thinking and acting as an instructional leader (Knapp et al., 2010). As principals build trusting relationships with mentors, they can engage in regular dialogue related to issues such as instructional leadership, data-driven decision making, and dealing with difficult faculty and parents. District efforts to build collaborative structures and cultures in which principals are encouraged to work closely with peers promoted principals’ efficacy-building (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). In another study of New York City’s Children First Networks, communication, collective intelligence, and cross-learning were all enhanced through between-school collaboration among principals (Wohlstetter et al., 2013). These conversations may also serve as a source of verbal persuasion as mentors encourage principals and build their efficacy as they solve problems together. It is possible that collaborative opportunities, beyond helping principals establish mastery, also help thwart principals’ feelings of isolation and loneliness—a large and direct contributor to principals’ self-efficacy, particularly for new principals (Bauer & Silver, 2018).

Arousal

The often stressful and intense work situations that principals experience on a daily basis can incite a variety of leader emotions that are the result of both positive and negative states of arousal. School leaders’ emotional experiences and displays can be a function of various factors and can affect perceptions of self-efficacy. According to a review conducted by Berkovich and Eyal (2015), relevant factors include existing sociocultural power relations (e.g., gendered norms and expectations for emotional expression and experiences, emotional labor rules and practices), neoliberal macro policies (e.g., accountability and competition foster anger, fear, and high arousal), administrative supervision style (e.g., autonomy, performance pressure), and organizational climate (e.g., supportive) and the existence (or not) of crises. Given what we know about today’s principalship in the context of self-efficacy, of particular concern are the nearly half of principals that are feeling stress several times a week and those who experience the greatest amounts of stress—those who work in schools where fewer students perform at grade level (MetLife, 2013). This emotional state signals to principals that they may not have the skills or ability to do their job, leading potentially to a downward spiral of decreasing efficacy. Supporting principals who experience high stress and particularly those in schools with low levels of student performance is crucial. There is some evidence, as we discuss a little later, that district-level support, such as interpersonal support from both the superintendent and central office leaders, enhances principals’ efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2007); however, despite the importance of the role of arousal in self-efficacy, there are no known studies that examine explicitly examine this phenomenon with respect to district support.

Overall Effects of Competence-Support on Efficacy

While there are few studies that have examined the effects of in-service professional development on principals’ self-efficacy, the evidence that exists is robust, causal evidence. In a study of principals who participated in the McREL Balanced Leadership program, after 3 years, participating principals reported feeling significantly more efficacious than those in the control group with an effect size of 0.55. However, despite increases in self-efficacy (and participating principals’ reports of significantly more use of effective leadership practices and better instructional climate), teachers of those principals noted no change to instructional climate and no impact on student achievement outcomes (Jacob et al., 2015). In addition to this study, to date there are only two other studies we found that have examined the effects of principal professional development using a randomized control trial design, one of these having taken place outside of the United States (see Goldring et al., 2007; Petridou et al., 2017). More research is needed to determine how principal self-efficacy affects school outcomes in measurable ways as well as how districts can help establish and sustain self-efficacious principals (Petridou et al., 2017).

Regardless of how districts work to support principals’ self-efficacy, it must be coordinated in ways that build principals’ capacity to lead. Principals may perceive district initiatives and directives as enabling or hindering their ability to master the tasks required of them to do their work well (Bennett et al., 2014). Furthermore, careful, deliberate succession planning by districts can set principals up to experience success—or at a minimum small wins, particularly in challenging leadership environments such as underperforming schools (Jacobson et al., 2007)—so that principals’ self-efficacy can continue to be fostered, and in turn, their motivation.

The Role of Autonomy

The relevance of autonomy in motivation derives from the need as individuals to experience decision making and action as being self-determined—in other words, as emanating from our own thoughts, beliefs, and actions in achieving a given task, goal, or outcome. In self-determination theory, autonomy has particular importance, as it is posited as one of three key psychological needs of individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In self-efficacy theory and expectancy-value theory, autonomy is important but typically subordinate to perceptions of competence in driving behavior and success (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). In the context of the principalship, autonomy is arguably one of the most critical conditions for school leader success, since principals have substantial responsibility over school operations as well as staff and student well-being and success. However, it is important to also distinguish between the actual autonomy to act and the perception of support for autonomy. As it pertains to motivation, support for autonomy is necessary, because it is support for autonomy that leads to the psychological need being fulfilled for the individual; fulfillment of the psychological need for autonomy, along with the actual autonomy to act, is what drives motivation. It is entirely possible for a principal to have a high degree of actual autonomy, but not feel as though they do because of the policies and actions of the district office. Thus, an important role of the district office is in supporting and highlighting opportunities for autonomy among their building leaders, but also within a structure that helps principals guide action.

One of the most robust areas of evidence in the literature regarding district support for principals is in the area of autonomy. Districts’ actions to provide greater autonomy support to school leaders for running their school have demonstrated benefits from a wide range of district effectiveness case studies (Augustine et al., 2009; Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis, 2010; Honig & Rainey, 2012; Knapp et al., 2010; Ouchi, 2006; Supovitz, 2006), though there are substantially fewer studies that have linked autonomy more explicitly to important principal and school outcomes. Of those studies, one found that when principals are afforded higher degrees of autonomy and/or autonomy support, they experience higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Chang et al., 2015). Only one other study has established a tentative link between principal autonomy and student achievement (Ouchi, 2006). In a study of New York City School District, the central office turned over a large portion of authority to principals who then “gained real decision-making authority over staffing, budget decisions, and education programs in order to make consequential improvements” (Wohlstetter et al., 2013, p. 529). Principals were given a high-level autonomy to bring in the people they needed and to choose the resources and support that could be utilized to achieve their objectives, tentatively concluding that these actions resulted in increased efficiency and improvement in some measures of school performance (Wohlstetter et al., 2013). However, Steinberg and Cox (2017) found that while “full autonomy” principals spent more time on curriculum and instructional leadership than “nonautonomous” principals, the two groups did not differ in the degree of influence they had over key aspects of internal school operations after 5 years. They concluded that granting autonomy without clear communication regarding the nature and scope of that autonomy and support from the district on how to leverage it for improvement is not likely to lead to demonstrable changes in school leadership practice. These conclusions seem consistent with self-determination theory’s definition of autonomy, which is not simply freedom to make one’s own decisions—independence as it were—but entails the provision of support that enables leaders to take action that is self-endorsed free from external pressure and to be able to take full ownership of the outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, autonomy is, by definition, not freedom from interference; in fact, its effective use is predicated on support from the district.

One way districts provide structure to autonomy, according to Supovitz (2006), is through establishing a clear instructional vision and working to build the capacity of schools, principals, and teachers to carry it out. Autonomy without vision increases the likelihood that principals will pursue their own vision or work without direction. An important caveat is that this vision must have enough specificity—not be too general or vague—so that key actors share a common understanding of the district’s direction. Some might feel that specificity is antithetical to autonomy, but it actually works to support autonomy. As Ryan and Deci (2017) state, “Structure is in no way antithetical to support for autonomy, but this distinction can be lost when structure is described as or conflated with the concept of control” (p. 332). Absent structure and autonomy-supportive conditions, individuals regardless of context would undoubtedly struggle to identify the appropriate and adaptive patterns of action necessary for success, and this failure would ultimately be detrimental to their feelings of competence (Ryan & Deci, 2017). One study found that in highly supportive districts, the central office provides building-level autonomy while also offering clear expectations and structures for principals (Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis, 2010; Knapp et al., 2010). In these districts, the priority was not aligning all schools to be the same but rather creating a coherent and strategic vision that allowed principals to solve problems in their respective schools (Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis, 2010). Waters and Marzano (2006) refer to this balance of autonomy and structure as “defined autonomy.”

Findings from one study suggest that most principals wish to have at least some degree of autonomy to run their school but also believe that the district should provide targeted support to principals to learn how to use this autonomy effectively (Weiner, 2016). Administrators in high-performing districts saw their role as empowering others to take leadership roles in planning and implementing educational processes (Marshall et al., 2004). Achieving reform success necessitates autonomy over staff hiring in particular because this increases the likelihood that school personnel have the ability to select staff whose principles are congruent with their own (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Other ways that districts have supported principal autonomy is by creating school administrative management positions to absorb the burden of managerial tasks so that principals may direct their attention to the improvement of instruction (Augustine et al., 2009). As districts eliminate the “noise” that surrounds the task of principals, they enable school leaders to focus their efforts on the most essential components of their jobs. A key role of the district might be to “bridge” the conflict between central office and school policy and practice by helping schools to work within or to change existing district policy and practice to bring about more alignment (Honig, 2009).

Conversely, districts undermine principals’ psychological need for autonomy when they are controlling. In low-performance districts, fear, competition, intimidation, and pressure are used to hold teachers and principals accountable for student test scores (Marshall et al., 2004). Tight monitoring, observation, and display of external slogans (often based on performance goals) around the school that are imposed on teachers and students (rather that emerging from teachers and students) are other ways that districts with low levels of organizational health undermine principal, teacher, and student autonomy through the use of control (Brazer & Peters, 2007; Marshall et al., 2004). Particularly when principals perceive that their district is acting in an ineffective and even counterproductive manner, principals may deserve more autonomy and/or authority from the district to do what they think is best. In these cases, it is desirable and advisable for the district to act as a buffering (e.g., shielding principals from angry parents or teacher unions) or brokering agent (e.g., connecting principals to resources or promoting their work; Weiner & Woulfin, 2017).

District success is compromised when school personnel are not empowered to act on the change that is envisioned by the district (Nitta et al., 2009). For example, a study examining one district’s efforts to implement large-scale change revealed that individual school sites and administrators lacked the autonomy and resources to engage actively in decision making and implementation of the district-led initiative (Brazer & Peters, 2007). On the surface, the central office included representation from several school sites on planning committees; however, the structure and concentration of power within these committees mirrored the hierarchical structure of the district. Principals did not feel they had the latitude to adjust and make critical decisions when faced with unplanned difficulties during implementation; ultimately, this lack of autonomy was a barrier to the process of improvement designed by the district (Brazer & Peters, 2007). When districts respond to urgent external demands in ways that are controlling, they dismiss the critical role of school leaders and ignore the importance of building capacity within individual schools and through site principals. One study suggests that school-level autonomy might be particularly important in districts that have restructured large schools into several small schools (American Institutes for Research, 2004). Such an approach would surely give principals more latitude to make decisions regarding curriculum, instruction, assessments, budgeting, staffing, scheduling, and other organizational structures that are best suited to their particular school context.

Autonomy is one of the most critical elements of a successful principalship, but it is important to note that devolving increasing authority to school leaders often comes with an increased expectation (and sometimes pressure) for improved school performance (Peck et al., 2013; Wohlstetter et al., 2013). Higher expectations for performance are acceptable only when school leaders possess an explicit understanding of the purpose of their autonomy and have district support in activating and using it. A clear and specific vision at the district level assists in providing a supportive and empowering environment for principal effort and success, and there is limited evidence that other supports, such as control over staff hiring and school management positions, might assist principals in exercising their autonomy and focusing their efforts on school improvement.

Autonomous and Controlled Motivation in Principal Learning and Development

Closely related to perceptions of autonomy is an understanding of the underlying sources from which motivation toward a goal or task derives. Substantial experimental evidence suggests that individuals who are motivated primarily by external means (i.e., those based on control/compliance, rewards, or threats of punishment) will not likely develop long-term intrinsic motivation for their work (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), and might even risk harming existing intrinsic motivation (Ford et al., 2018). Furthermore, individuals who exhibit autonomous motivation are more likely to experience satisfaction than those for whom it has been externalized (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). It is important to note, however, that these orientations have overlap, and that it is possible for an individual to move from being predominately externally-regulated with respect to tasks or activities to wholly self-regulated (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Expectancy-value theory in particular emphasizes the importance of what one values in determining the degree to which an individual will be motivated to achieve a goal or outcome. What one values can be an important source of autonomous motivation, provided that it consonant with one’s own values and/or goals (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). For example, if asked, principals can say they value something, but the reason they value it might simply be that there are consequences or punishment attached to not completing it (i.e., controlled motivation). While expectancy-value theory does not address this distinction explicitly, it nevertheless becomes important as we think about what motivates principals and why.

Similarly, perceptions of attribution and goal-orientations are also important sources of autonomous motivation. To what sources (either internal or external) principals attribute success or failure is critically important to their motivation to work toward future goals. Principals who feel that the sources of control over school outcomes emanate from outside their locus of control (externalized) are going to exhibit decreased autonomous motivation toward their leadership work in the future and are more likely to have performance or ego-focused goal orientations (Ntoumanis, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2017). In contrast, principals who perceive that school outcomes are very much within their locus of control are more likely to be autonomously motivated and to appropriate more mastery-focused goal orientations. Though the evidence in this particular area is extremely limited, below we discuss how the unique aspects of expectance-value, attribution, and goal theories add nuance to the question of how districts might play a role in principal motivation in order to chart future directions for research.

Being Mindful of What Principals Value

Attainment and utility value

An important way that districts can encourage principal autonomous motivation by ensuring that experiences they provide are aligned with principals’ value orientations. Principals are more likely to be interested in professional development when it is job-embedded, particularly when the content is focused on capacities principals have identified as needed to achieve school goals or to remediate what is not working (Leithwood, 2011; Supovitz, 2006). This also includes professional development that is organized and driven by principals’ objectives and goals for leading the school (Hubbard et al., 2006) and is ideally tailored to the principal’s career stage (i.e., preservice, in-service/novice, in-service/professional, etc.; Augustine et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Indeed, evidence suggests that school leaders tend to place a higher value on supervision and mentoring support over traditional professional development when it is focused on building their leadership skills (Johnston et al., 2016). Structures that are intentionally created to encourage effective communication among principals and between principals and district leaders might also contribute to principals’ satisfaction (Leithwood, 2011), thus potentially increase the value they place on their daily tasks. Other supports include mentoring opportunities and partnerships with local universities to develop current and aspiring principals within the district (Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis, 2010).

Conversely, potential harm to perceptions of attainment value could be incurred, particularly in the context of accountability policies. Because accountability policies often emphasize a different set of goals or outcomes of educational activity than those that lead to the psychic fulfillment of teachers and leaders within schools, this dissonance can engender conflict, resentment, and frustration (Ford et al., 2018). In these cases, Leithwood et al. (2002) point out that districts and leaders need to become skilled in buffering followers from harmful policies and/or attempting to replace lost trust in government with trust from another source, namely that of the leader.

Interest/enjoyment value

When principals find interest and enjoyment in their day-to-day tasks, it stands to reason that they will be more motivated. However, there are no studies that we could find that address how districts can support or activate the interest and/or enjoyment of principals. In 2013, though, more than half (59%) of principals feel very satisfied with their job; down from 68% in 2008 (MetLife, 2013).⁷ More research is needed to determine why levels of satisfaction decreased during this period time, the satisfaction levels of principals today, what tasks principals enjoy the most, and how their busy schedules might be modified to support more global levels of interest and enjoyment across all of their tasks as principal to support their motivation.

Relative cost

Another related factor to satisfaction is the demands placed upon principals and the relative cost principals perceive from those demands. This includes how principals navigate costs and demands as they pertain to both remaining and succeeding in the profession. Policy assumes that principals should distribute leadership and delegate duties. If these duties and leadership assume a cost, this division of duties may reduce the relative cost to the individual principal, increasing their motivation (Peck et al., 2013). Furthermore, costs to principals are reduced (and their motivation supported) when districts assign intermediary principal supervisors to supervise small groups of principals instead of one or two superintendents to supervise all principals. However, they (and others) note that principal supervisors should be chosen carefully and assigned strategically to principals (Goldring et al., 2018; Honig, 2012; Thessin, 2019).

Honig (2012) and Honig et al. (2010) found that a key challenge in the use of principal supervisors as executive level administrators is the how to get principals to value and understand the importance of developing their instructional leadership role. One way successful principal supervisors did this is by formulating joint problems of practice. By increasing the amount of autonomy they gave principals in working on this role, supervisor actions likely assisted principals in recognizing the utility value of the principalship and its related tasks as well as increasing their capacity for such work (Plecki et al., 2009). Furthermore, Chrispeels et al. (2008) found that principals’ participation in school leadership teams facilitated the development of shared mental models around specific leadership tasks. They conclude that these teams could serve as an important intermediary between the district and school in building the value and commitment to district form among school leaders.

How Districts Can Shape Principals’ Perceptions of Causal Attribution

Applying attribution theory to district decisions about how to support principal practice could help districts be more responsive to principal needs for learning and development. Attribution theory can be used to help principals take fuller advantage of the control they have been given over achieving desired outcomes (e.g., student achievement growth). It could also help districts retrain and/or reset principals’ attributional styles, as well as remove barriers to principal control. According to attribution theory, feedback to principals about their performance should be focused on process and, in the context of failure, should point to unstable and changeable causes. However, as noted above, this is difficult given the current context in which principals work (one of limited control); it is not difficult to hypothesize that the limited control that principals have over a number of tasks for which they are held accountable may shape their attributional thought processes in ways that undermine their motivation and efforts. This is perhaps why district research that explicitly examines the casual attributions that principals make to their successes and failures is virtually nonexistent. The findings of a small number of studies, however, point to some promising avenues in how districts could shape principals’ perceptions of causal attribution, though current evidence is weak at best.

U.S. policies tend toward attributing the failure or success of a school entirely to the principal (Peck et al., 2013); however, it is possible that much or some of this success or failure is outside of a principal’s control, as noted earlier (MetLife, 2013). For example, one U.S. urban principal was removed from his/her position in a school district by the superintendent due to lack of progress toward school improvement, under a “no excuses” approach that held principals accountable for school improvement (Peck et al., 2013). The “no excuses” approach or the “one strike and you are out” approach inherently assumes that school success or failure is within the principal’s control. In the example mentioned above, failure is assumed to be stable—it will endure—therefore, a “no excuses” approach penalizes individuals on one or few instances of failure because it is believed that the behavior will continue. Finally, in the context of principals being reassigned or fired for low performance, the “no excuses” approach also assumes that the principal cannot improve—the low performance is fixed (not variable). The consequence of actions like these for principals who either experience or witness these events is a likely the reinforcement of a fixed mindset, loss of a sense of control, and an overall decrease in motivation toward school goals.

Control is a salient factor in principal motivation. The context of principal leadership has been described as an “autonomy gap”—a significant barrier to effective school leadership (Adamowski et al., 2007). In the Adamowski et al. (2007) study, principals felt they lacked control in decision making about program adoption, curriculum pacing and sequencing, and instructional methods and materials. Furthermore, principals in Kentucky (N = 640) and Tennessee (N = 380), 84% and 64% of principals, noted the need for greater control over their ability to move and dismiss teachers (Bottoms & Fry, 2009). Particularly problematic is principals’ lack of participation in (or the invitation to participate in) defining the problems currently facing schools as well as the development of solutions to those problems. Often this occurs at the state or district level, undermining school-level leadership control.

The school district can have overly mundane and too frequent demands that keep principals from the kinds of instructional improvement that are most needed to improve their school. Principals from districts with low-performing schools need district support to succeed; however, such districts often lack strong principal supports (Weiner, 2016). District initiation of multiple programs and directives can present barriers to principals’ work as they perceive the initiatives to be competing priorities that limit their capacity to facilitate improvement in coordinated, focused ways (Bennett et al., 2014).

School networks would relieve principals of certain operational responsibilities and nonacademic functions so that they could make more efforts toward school improvement (Wohlstetter et al., 2013). One study found that districts used school leadership teams to align the mental models of central office officials, principals, and teachers (Chrispeels et al., 2008). Specifically, they developed collective understanding of the leadership roles of each subgroup (central office, principals, and teachers). In doing so, they developed both clarity and coherence in how each role group viewed their actions as contributing to the achievement of desired outcomes. This practice may help leaders distinguish which components of their jobs are seen as within their control and which are beyond their control and thus the responsibility of different role groups.

How Districts Support Mastery and Performance Goal-Orientations

A basic application of the early goal theory model to principal policy and practice suggests that providing comparative data to schools would likely encourage performance-goal orientations and would undermine principal motivation and effort. This includes report card data, as well as school letter grades (A–F grades, which are currently policy in 16 U.S. states). School letter grades ostensibly allow parents, citizens, policymakers, as well as teachers, principals, and other district personnel to quickly compare schools on a variety of factors, such as student growth, percent proficient, as well as teacher effectiveness. Senko et al. (2011) reviewed seven critiques of this approach and found evidence that performance goals may interfere with collaborative learning and may encourage cheating. Given the cheating scandals that have emerged in relation to NCLB’s practices of labelling failing schools, one would suspect that on a policy level (with limited evidence of how goal theory translates to principal practice or outcomes), mastery support structures may yield practices that better align with the expectations of principals today.

Although there is limited research on the application of achievement goal theory to the motivations of principals, at least one study indicates that principals with mastery goal orientations are more efficacious (McCollum & Kajs, 2009). Districts can emphasize and support mastery learning approaches in their principals by modeling mastery learning at the district level. This includes a focus on continuous improvement and the elimination of competitive approaches such as test comparisons—at the teacher, school, and district levels (Marshall et al., 2004). Direction setting, such as setting goals and improvement plans, seems to be a critical practice for successful principals. Of the seven principals studied, only one principal managed to sustain their school’s success, achieving the remarkable turnaround of a once-failing urban school (Jacobsen, 2011).

Districts might also support principals’ mastery orientations by using building-specific and customized (Wohlstetter et al., 2013) data to set clear expectations and targets to match the specific needs of particular schools (Bottoms & Schmidt-Davis, 2010). Furthermore, continuous improvement that is focused on teaching and learning might also allow districts to protect themselves from changing reform agendas and accountability efforts that focus narrowly on student achievement outcomes (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). For turnaround schools, clear improvement goals that are reinforced by a focus on principals’ instructional leadership skills are vital for success (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008) and capitalize on principals’ goals for instructional leadership and capacity building (Weiner, 2016). Ultimately, districts promote mastery approaches when resource allocation communicates a goal of improvement and growth by supporting administrators’ leadership capacity and collaboration, as opposed to competition and performance (Springboard Schools, 2006; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). A narrow focus on a limited subset of outcomes that are primarily outside of a principal’s control undermines teaching and learning and is shortsighted. Instead, principals need to be supported in a comprehensive approach to school success, acknowledging that it usually takes new principals 5 to 7 years to acquire gains from any school improvement efforts (Borman et al., 2003; Fullan, 2001; Gross et al., 2009).

The Role of Relationships and Relatedness

Principals, by the very nature of their positions, are isolated from important others upon which they could lean for information, knowledge and skills, or collegial/moral support. One way that districts can support relatedness is through collaborative activities whereby individuals feel connected to one another through shared goals, efforts, and activities (Thessin & Louis, 2019). There is a moderate-to-strong level of evidentiary support for this particular area of district support for leader development—some of which has been covered in the previous sections. Principals’ sense of relatedness can be fostered through mentoring opportunities as well as connections of principals to others across district schools, or as a result of participation in social networks or principal professional learning communities (Honig & Rainey, 2014; Knapp et al., 2010). Duncan and Stock (2010) reported that while most principals value mentoring and coaching programs, only 13% of surveyed principals had opportunities to participate in formal mentoring. However, more than half of the novice principals that were surveyed were participants in informal mentoring and cited the importance of social networking and trust in their mentoring relationships (Duncan & Stock, 2010), though one particular study found no average effect of district provision of principal networking on effectiveness (Grissom & Herrington, 2010). Trust, one indicator of relatedness needs support, was found to be instrumental in two different studies of support for a district-wide reform. In one study, restoring trust between the district and the school laid the groundwork for other pathways for reform, including schools’ receptivity to administrative directives, opening the door for new learning (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010). In other, trust was found to play an instrumental role in healthy, productive principal-principal supervisor instructional teams (Thessin, 2019).

Building networks of instructional experts (central office staff, principals, and teachers) from the central office to the classroom helps unite people in common instructional and learning goals (Honig & Rainey, 2014; Portin et al., 2009; Thessin, 2019; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Schools systems (districts) that utilized these tools greatly increased the use of systemically collected evidence, which informed school improvement and principals’ decision making. Furthermore, principals’ sense of relatedness was further enhanced when their relationship with district leaders was close, supportive, and collaborative (Bottoms & Fry, 2009; Leithwood, 2011; Thessin, 2019). Collaborative work can also come in the form of carefully planned distributed leadership (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010; Togneri & Anderson, 2003).

Districts’ communication networks, focusing on communication with principals and teacher leaders, can influence principals’ support, interaction, and knowledge. The communication between school districts and principals is critical for teacher leadership (Mangin, 2007; Portin et al., 2009). School leadership teams can serve as a vehicle through which communication travels among district officials, principals, and teachers (Chrispeels et al., 2008). These teams can be resources that build congruence within the organization when districts work to intentionally align the mental models of district officials, principals, and teachers (Chrispeels et al., 2008).

Communication efforts between the district and schools can also emphasize the linkages between relatedness and autonomy (Steinberg & Cox, 2017). Building instructional coherence requires good communication along with trusting relationships. It requires a clear, consistent message, emphasizing the instructional core, but trust must be present in order to weather the challenges to individual autonomy that come with working on a system-wide reform. This can lead to increased ideological coherence across the district (Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010).

Discussion

Our review illustrates that literature that uses theory, and in this context, motivational theory, is relatively limited. For the roughly 60 articles that were a part of this review, a substantial proportion had to be explicitly connected to a theory, as one was not previously identified in the manuscript. This finding supports more general patterns noted by others—that school effectiveness and school leadership research is relatively atheoretical (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Trujillo, 2013). Our purpose in this article was to begin the process connecting existing social-cognitive theories of motivation for learning to existing evidence—effectively organizing lists of factors related to “district effectiveness” into an organized framework that might offer more explanation for how principals’ motivation might be activated via various district actions. It is, however, important to point out that our purpose in conducting this review is not necessarily to make claims about to what degree these practices are supported by the evidence—in many cases it remains quite sparse—but simply to suggest that these lines of research are promising avenues for enhancing principal motivation. Much more evidence is needed for many, if not all, of the claims presented here, but hopefully this article can serve as a guide for future research in the area of district effectiveness as it pertains to supporting building leaders.

Our first recommendation is to encourage scholars, particularly those whose research falls under the areas of district, school, and leader effectiveness, to employ theory in their quest to inform subsequent research. Building good theory from the practice of using existing theories to design research studies and organize and interpret their findings is difficult work. Sutton and Staw (1995) conclude that descriptions of strong theory read “more like a wish list than a set of realistic expectations. This may be why pleas for better theory fall on receptive ears but recalcitrant hands” (p. 378). As Forsyth (2018, p. v) contends, if human understanding is “rooted in the ability to model cognitively how and why things work . . . [through] an incremental record of concordant evidence,” then our attempt to understand the conditions that precipitate teacher, leader, school, and district effectiveness must necessarily be informed by theory of some kind. It is our contention that it is this explanation that will better guide practitioners’ (as well as researchers’) “cognitive modeling” of the phenomenon, as they attempt to apply empirical findings to practice.

Learning theories offer the opportunity to focus on practices as the unit of analysis and the underlying cognitive dimensions that go unmeasured in studies with the organization as the unit of analysis (Honig, 2012). We extended the work of Honig (2012) on the cognitive dimensions that underlie principal practice by presenting a number of social-cognitive motivational frameworks that may be useful for conceptualizing and understanding the work of a principal—by no means is the list exhaustive and they admittedly share some overlap. Our choice to examine multiple theoretical lenses simultaneously, despite their overlap, was intentional; research on principals often highlights the value in considering multiple lenses, such as the positive relationship between perceived job autonomy and self-efficacy (Federici, 2013). Effective use of theory and even multiple theoretical lenses will help address current limitations of the extant body of research such as hyperrationalized and overly technical models of district leadership, simplistic notions of district improvement, and decontextualized explanations of district effectiveness (Trujillo, 2013).

Using motivational theory in particular can potentially help researchers focus more on the mediating conditions of the district role in school effectiveness, thus avoiding the common pitfall of simply examining how district support results in improved student achievement (Trujillo, 2013). Principal learning and motivation, we argue, is a key mediating condition of the relationship between district action and school effectiveness, and it is unlikely to be addressed through a singular focus on test scores. By refocusing on principal learning and motivation, we might begin to open up the “black box” of district effectiveness to see how district actions lead to improved results at the school level, and also rediscover that role that addressing the needs of other learners in the district (teachers and leaders) can also assist in realizing substantive improvement in school performance.

Furthermore, our use of theories of motivation to organize the findings in the area of district effectiveness for principal leadership has highlighted some of the gaps that exist in our knowledge of how districts can effectively motivate principals for optimal learning, development, and success. Of the five theories we utilized, it seems clear that self-efficacy and self-determination theories are the most robust in terms of the alignment of the current research base with their respective frameworks. One might easily conclude that these are the theories most useful in advancing explanation of how districts support the motivation of principals. However, this could also simply be a methodological artifact—due to, for example, the prevalence of case study research studies of districts (Anderson & Young, 2018; Sykes et al., 2009). What is evident after conducting this review is that, to arrive at a satisfactory understanding of underlying processes, the other three theories—expectancy-value, attribution, and goal theory—would require substantially more in-depth investigations of principals’ experiences, perhaps those provided by ethnographic study.

Some critics of theory suggest that it can be harmful for an emerging field of research; that the purpose should first be to build a fundamental knowledge of the “narratives” that underlie the phenomenon (Sutton & Staw, 1995; Van Maanen, 1989). While this position is debatable, it points to a critical point of cleavage in the direction for future research on the role of districts in support principal learning, development, and success. With the first two theories, ample findings suggest that the time is ripe for advancing and/or building theory. From our review of the literature, we see a number of possibilities for future research. With respect to self-efficacy theory, one area for further research concerns how pressure from districts or larger accountability systems moderates principals’ development of self-efficacy—in particular, how pressure alters principal behavior and the consequences this has on their perceptions of efficacy. Furthermore, how arousal states and the moral support of significant others in the school or district might mitigate or exacerbate this relationship. From a self-determination theory perspective, what is evident is the types of action on the part of districts that constitute support for principals’ basic psychological needs. What is needed in our estimation is more empirical support for the effectiveness of these support strategies in improving principal autonomous motivation, as well as reducing other negative outcomes, such as principal well-being, burnout, commitment, and retention.

The other three theories—expectancy-value theory, goal theory, and attribution theory— have rarely been directly applied to research on school leaders, and more significant work to build the narrative is needed. What seems clear from our attempt to theorize in the absence of empirical evidence is that the role of the larger motivational environment cultivated by the district can have far-reaching ramifications for what principals do and, to a larger extent, what happens in schools. Given the lack of research, we believe there is value in first establishing how each theory replicates when applied to the study of school leadership (especially since many of these emerged from the study of student motivation). For example, as it pertains to expectancy-value theory, how do school leaders perceive the current tasks required of them and their importance or attainment value as well as their utility value? Subsequently, how can districts structure tasks in ways that increase their attainment and utility value for principals? How can districts offset costs for school leaders so that they can engage in activities that support their success as school leaders? We think the issue of costs to principals is particularly important to explore since we know that principals are overworked and are often expected to do more with less, making them choose between one task or another or delegating tasks when possible (which may also accrue a cost from the school leader’s perspective). This leads us to our next question: How can principal stress be reduced to foster more space and opportunities for interest and enjoyment?

The application of achievement goal theory to school leadership might benefit from examining whether principals’ goal orientations yield similar outcomes and practices as has been shown in research in K–16 settings (see Emery et al., 2018, for a student–teacher–administrator example) and in the preservice teacher literature (Daniels & Poth, 2017). In other words, are school leaders who adopt mastery goal orientations, and engage in adaptive motivational behaviors, more successful school leaders? In addition, it would also be important to explore if such orientations are sustainable (Fryer & Elliott, 2007) and to explore to what extent goals are adopted because of personality characteristics, in response to environmental conditions or context, or as a function of fit. If environmental conditions and/or context plays a role, only then would it be useful to examine what structures, policies, and practices districts can adopt to foster mastery goal orientations, particularly when external forces may promote performance orientations.

Finally, we see a number of possibilities as it pertains to attribution theory. A number of studies in mental health have linked attributional style to various outcomes such as depression and loneliness (see Sweeney et al., 1986, for a review) as well as the interaction between attributional style and the very factors discussed in this article—heavy work demands, intrinsic and extrinsic effort and rewards, and job control (Mark & Smith, 2012). The work of Mark and Smith (2012) underscores the value in exploring the extent to which components from multiple theories can be leveraged to support principals. If our work here has done anything, it has hopefully demonstrated the merit of such a project and the implications it might have for, among other things, increased principal motivation, mental health, success, and retention.

An increase in theory-based research in the context of schools and school improvement would position the field well for additional theory-based intervention studies. This would allow ample opportunity to conduct a subsequent review of theory-based intervention studies to determine whether theory-based strategies achieve their hypothesized outcomes in measurable ways. Of particular interest would be to examine how contextual factors (like school or school type) play a role in how theory can be successfully applied as schools may share a common goal, but may differ in important ways (e.g., resources, geographic locale, size, performance history, turnaround status) that shape both barriers and opportunities. In particular, we see a great need for more research on promising district practices, broadly defined, in rural districts, but more specifically with respect to unique issues of principal motivation in those contexts.

Finally, we recognize that case studies offer rich insight, particularly into how and why certain processes may support principals. However, the dominance of case study design in the literature we reviewed here points to opportunities to engage in different methodologies that may either affirm or extend how theories of motivation can be applied in meaningful ways. As expected in educational research, experimental design was rare; however, we realize quasi-experimental designs are feasible and can be useful in extending lines of research, particularly where correlational patterns have been well documented. We imagine that such approaches could even include multiple treatment conditions derived from different theoretical approaches and matched comparison groups. In better understanding what approaches work best for whom and under what conditions, such designs are imperative.

Conclusion

It is not surprising that, in the context of schools and school improvement, student motivation, learning, and development are prioritized in research, policy, and practice (Ford & Ware, 2018). But often this myopic focus distracts the field from recognizing that principals are also learners with a need to develop and evolve as leaders in their quest to improve their school. It is in the interests of districts, therefore, to think about how they best support principals in their individual development, as well as how this development might be coordinated across schools within the district. Our analysis, it is hoped, provides a preliminary demonstration of how the application of motivational paradigms can be used to theorize about the conditions needed to increase principals’ satisfaction, enjoyment, and expectations for success, fostering a motivational climate that seeks to support, sustain, and ultimately retain them.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Timothy G. Ford

Notes

Authors

TIMOTHY G. FORD is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Oklahoma, 4502 E. 41st Street, Building 4W, Suite 122, Tulsa, OK 74135-2553, USA; email: tgford@ou.edu . He examines the role of policy and school leadership in shaping teacher and leader working conditions and in supporting teachers’ and leaders’ psychological needs as learners.

ALYSON L. LAVIGNE is an assistant professor of instructional leadership at Utah State University, 2805 Old Main, Logan, UT 84332, USA; email: alyson.lavigne@usu.edu . Using her training as an educational psychologist and classroom researcher, her research focuses on teacher retention, teachers’ beliefs, teacher supervision and evaluation, and Latinx students’ experiences.

ASHLYN M. FIEGENER is a doctoral student and research associate for the Oklahoma Center for Education Policy at the University of Oklahoma, 4502 E. 41st Street, Building 4W, Suite 122, Tulsa, OK 74135-2553, USA; email: agilbert@ou.edu . Building on her experience as a classroom teacher and a curriculum developer, she has focused her research on instructional program coherence, teacher well-being, and educational leadership.

SHOUQING SI is a doctoral student and graduate research assistant in Curriculum and Instruction at Utah State University, 2805 Old Main, Logan, UT 84332, USA; email: shouqing.si@aggiemail.usu.edu . His research interests focus on teacher retention, cultural responsiveness in schools’ dual language education, and educational equity.

References

*Adamowski

Bowles Therriault

Cavanna

A. P.

(2007). The autonomy gap: Barriers to effective school leadership. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496189.pdf

*American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2004). The National School District and Network Grants Program: Year 2 evaluation report. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Gates_Year_2_Report_0.pdf

Anderson

Young

M. D.

(2018). If they knew then what we know now, why haven’t things changed? An examination of district effectiveness research. Frontiers in Education, 3, Article 87. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00087

*Augustine

C. H.

Gonzalez

Ikemoto

G. S.

Russell

Zellman

G. L.

Constant

Armstrong

Dembosky

J. W.

(2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. RAND Education. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG885.html

Baker

B. D.

Punswick

Belt

(2010). School leadership stability, principal moves, and departures: Evidence from Missouri. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 523–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10383832

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175

Battle

Gruber

(2010). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008–09 principal follow-up survey (NCES 2010-337). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

*Bauer

S. C.

Silver

(2018). The impact of job isolation on new principals’ sense of efficacy, job satisfaction, burnout, and persistence. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(3), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2017-0078

10.

*Bennett

J. V.

Ylimaki

R. M.

Dugan

T. M.

Brunderman

L. A.

(2014). Developing the potential for sustainable improvement in underperforming schools: Capacity building in the socio-cultural dimension. Journal of Educational Change, 15(4), 377–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9217-6

11.

Berkovich

Eyal

(2015). Educational leaders and emotions: An international review of empirical evidence 1992–2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 129–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314550046

12.

Borman

G. D.

Hewes

G. M.

Overman

L. T.

Brown

(2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125

13.

*Bottoms

Fry

(2009). The district leadership challenge: Empowering principals to improve teaching and learning. Southern Regional Education Board.

14.

*Bottoms

Schmidt-Davis

(2010). The three essentials: Improving schools requires district vision, district and state support, and principal leadership. Southern Regional Education Board.

15.

Bowers

A. J.

(2008). Promoting excellence: Good to great, NYC’s District 2, and the case of a high-performing school district. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(2), 154–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701681108

16.

Bowers

A. J.

(2010). Toward addressing the issues of site selection in district effectiveness research: A two-level hierarchical linear growth model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 395–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375271

17.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

18.

*Brazer

D. S.

Peters

E. E.

(2007). Deciding to change: One district’s quest to improve overall student performance. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 2(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2007v2n5a60

19.

*Cannata

Rubin

Goldring

Grissom

J. A.

Neumerski

C. M.

Drake

T. A.

Schuermann

(2017). Using teacher effectiveness data for information-rich hiring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 180–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16681629

20.

*Chang

Y. J.

Leach

Anderman

E. M.

(2015). The role of perceived autonomy support in principals’ affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Social Psychology of Education, 18(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9289-z

21.

*Chrispeels

J. H.

Burke

P. H.

Johnson

Daly

A. J.

(2008). Aligning mental models of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124508319582

22.

Cobb

Jackson

Henrick

Smith

T. M.

(2018). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press.

23.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

24.

Cook

D. A.

Artino

A. R.

Jr. (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Medical Education, 50(10), 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074

25.

Daly

Finnigan

(2016). Thinking and acting systemically: Improving school districts under pressure. American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-46-2

26.

Daniels

L. M.

Poth

C. A.

(2017). Relationships between pre-service teachers’ conceptions of assessment, approaches to instruction, and assessment: An achievement goal theory perspective. Educational Psychology, 37(7), 835–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1293800

27.

*Darling-Hammond

Ancess

Ort

S. W.

(2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of the coalition campus schools project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 639–673. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039003639

28.

*Darling-Hammond

Hightower

A. M.

Husbands

J. L.

LaFors

J. R.

Young

V. M.

Christopher

(2003). Building instructional quality: “Inside-out” and “outside-in” perspectives on San Diego’s school reform. A research report. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/InstructionalQual-09-2003.pdf

29.

*Darling-Hammond

LaPointe

Meyerson

Orr

M. T.

Cohen

(2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/Preparing-School-Leaders.pdf

30.

Deci

E. L.

Moller

A. C.

(2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 579–597). Guilford Press.

31.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

32.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

33.

*Duncan

H. E.

Stock

M. J.

(2010). Mentoring and coaching rural school leaders: What do they need? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2010.492947

34.

Eccles

J. S.

(2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement related choices. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). Guilford Press.

35.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

36.

*Eilers

A. M.

Camacho

(2007). School culture change in the making: Leadership factors that matter. Urban Education, 42(6), 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304906

37.

Elliot

A. J.

(2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). Guilford Press.

38.

Elmore

Burney

(1998). School variation and systemic instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

39.

Emery

Sanders

Anderman

L. H.

S. L.

(2018). When mastery goals meet master learning: Administrator, teacher, and student perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1341863

40.

Federici

R. A.

(2013). Principals’ self-efficacy: Relations with job autonomy, job satisfaction, and conceptual restraints. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0102-5

41.

Ford

T. G.

Urick

Wilson

(2018). Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 26(59), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3559

42.

Ford

T. G.

Ware

J. K.

(2018). Teacher self-regulatory climate (TSRC): Conceptualizing an indicator of leader support for teachers’ learning and development. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1197283

43.

Forsyth

(2017). Editorial introduction: A theory renaissance? Journal of Organization in Education, 1, v-ix.

44.

Forsyth

(2018). “What theory is not” revisited. Journal of Organization in Education, 2, v-x.

45.

Fryer

J. W.

Elliot

A. J.

(2007). Stability and change in achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.700

46.

Fullan

(2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.

47.

*Garet

M. S.

Wayne

A. J.

Brown

Rickles

Song

Manzeske

(2017). The impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals, executive summary (NCEE 2018-4000). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184001/pdf/20184001.pdf

48.

Gates

S. M.

Ringel

J. S.

Santibañez

Guarino

Ghosh-Dastidar

Brown

(2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.01.008

49.

Goldring

Camburn

Huff

Sebastian

May

(2007). Effects of the National Institute for School Leadership: Early results from a randomized field trial. Consortium of Policy Research in Education.

50.

*Goldring

E. B.

Grissom

J. A.

Rubin

Rodgers

L. K.

Neel

Clark

M. A.

(2018). A new role emerges for principal supervisors: Evidence from six districts in the principal supervisor initiative. Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Pages/A-New-Role-Emerges-for-Principal-Supervisors.aspx

51.

Greenhalgh

Peacock

(2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68

52.

*Grissom

J. A.

Harrington

J. R.

(2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: An examination of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 583–612. https://doi.org/10.1086/653631

53.

Gross

Booker

T. K.

Goldhaber

(2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709333886

54.

*Hightower

A. M.

(2002). District bureaucracy supports culture of learning. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/SanDiego-AH-01-2002.pdf

55.

*Honig

M. I.

(2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of new small autonomous schools initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 387–422. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329904

56.

*Honig

M. I.

(2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals’ development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12443258

57.

*Honig

M. I.

Copland

M. A.

Rainey

Lorton

J. A.

Newton

(2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

58.

Honig

M. I.

Rainey

L. R.

(2012). Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Policy, 26(3), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811417590

59.

*Honig

M. I.

Rainey

L. R.

(2014). Central office leadership in principal professional learning communities: The practice beneath the policy. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–48.

60.

Honig

M. I.

Rainey

L. R.

(2015). How school districts can support deeper learning: The need for performance alignment (Deeper Learning Research Series). Jobs for the Future. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560756.pdf

61.

Honig

M. I.

Rainey

L. R.

(2019). Supporting principal supervisors: What really matters? Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2019-0089

62.

*Hubbard

Mehan

Stein

M. K.

(2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203943656

63.

*Iatarola

Fruchter

(2004). District effectiveness: A study of investment strategies in New York City public schools and districts. Educational Policy, 18(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804265020

64.

*Jacob

Goddard

Kim

Miller

Goddard

(2015). Exploring the casual impact of the McREL Balanced Leadership program on leadership, principal efficacy, instructional climate, educator turnover, and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714549620

65.

*Jacobson

(2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111100107

66.

*Jacobson

Brooks

Giles

Johnson

Ylimaki

(2007). Successful leadership in three high poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701431553

67.

*Johnson

P. E.

Chrispeels

J. H.

(2010). Linking the central office and its schools for reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 738–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377346

68.

*Johnston

W. R.

Kaufman

J. H.

Thompson

L. E.

(2016). Support for instructional leadership (RAND Report #RR1580-1). RAND. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1580-1

69.

Khalifa

(2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard University Press.

70.

Khalifa

M. A.

Gooden

M. A.

Davis

J. E.

(2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

71.

*Knapp

M. S.

Copland

M. A.

Honig

M. I.

Plecki

M. L.

Portin

B. S.

(2010). Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. http://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/LeadershipStudySynthesis-08-2010-NovCoverFix.pdf

72.

*Knudson

Shambaugh

O’Day

(2011). Beyond the school: Exploring a systemic approach to school turnaround. Policy and Practice Brief. California Collaborative on District Reform, American Institutes for Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526853.pdf

73.

Lavigne

A. L.

Good

T. L.

(2019). Enhancing teacher education, development, and evaluation: Lessons learned from educational reform. Routledge.

74.

*Leithwood

(2011). Characteristics of high performing school systems in Ontario, Part 1 Final report. Ontario Institute for Educational Leadership. http://www.ecolesecuritaire.ca/application/files/1314/9434/8681/Part_1_-_Final_Report_-_Characteristics_of_High_Performing_School_Systems_in_Ontario.pdf

75.

*Leithwood

Jantzi

(2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501

76.

Leithwood

Louis

K. S.

(2012). Linking leadership to student learning. John Wiley.

77.

*Leithwood

Steinbach

Jantzi

(2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02381005

78.

Louis

K. S.

(2015). Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.30321

79.

*Mangin

M. M.

(2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07299438

80.

Mark

Smith

A. P.

(2012). Effects of occupational stress, job characteristics, attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 25(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.548088

81.

*Marsh

J. A.

Kerr

K. A.

Ikemoto

G. S.

Darilek

Suttorp

Zimmer

R. W.

Barney

(2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the institute for learning. RAND. https://doi.org/10.7249/MG361

82.

*Marshall

Pritchard

Gunderson

(2004). The relation among school district health, total quality principles for school organization and student achievement. School Leadership and Management, 24(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243041000695813

83.

Martin

A. J.

Dowson

(2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583

84.

*Mascall

Leithwood

(2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2010.493633

85.

*McCollum

D. L.

Kajs

L. T.

(2009). Examining the relationship between school administrators’ efficacy and goal orientations. Educational Research Quarterly, 32(3), 29–46.

86.

*McLaughlin

Talbert

(2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/ReformingDistricts-09-2003.pdf

87.

MetLife. (2013). The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Challenges for school leadership. https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/metlife-teacher-survey-2012.pdf

88.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders (formerly known as ISLLC). http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2015/ProfessionalStandardsforEducationalLeaders2015forNPBEAFINAL.pdf

89.

Niemiec

C. P.

Ryan

R. M.

(2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

90.

*Nitta

K. A.

Wrobel

S. L.

Howard

J. Y.

Jimmerson-Eddings

(2009). Leading change of a school district reorganization. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(3), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576320305

91.

Ntoumanis

(2001). Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self-determination theory in sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 19(6), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404101300149357

92.

*O’Day

Bitter

(2003). Evaluation study of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999: Final report. American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/PSAA_Evalaution_Final_Report_0.pdf

93.

*Opfer

Henry

Mashburn

(2008). The district effect: Systemic responses to high stakes accountability policies in six southern states. American Journal of Education, 114(2), 299–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/521242

94.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-en

95.

*Orr

M. T.

King

LaPointe

(2010). Districts developing leaders: Lessons on consumer actions from eight urban districts. Education Development Center. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Districts-Developing-Leaders.pdf

96.

Ortiz

F. I.

(1978). Midcareer socialization of educational administrators. Review of Educational Research, 48(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543048001121

97.

Osterman

Sullivan

(1996). New principals in an urban bureaucracy: A sense of efficacy. Journal of School Leadership, 6(6), 661–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268469600600605

98.

*Ouchi

W. G.

(2006). Power to the principals: Decentralization in three large school districts. Organization Science, 17(2), 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0172

99.

Pajares

(1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In Maehr

Pintrich

P. R.

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). JAI Press.

100.

*Panasonic Foundation. (2006). Instruction at the core. Strategies for School System Leaders on District-Level Change, 12(1), 1–16. https://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Resources/White_Papers/Strategies/Strategies1206.pdf

101.

Papa

Jr. (2007). Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760701263725

102.

*Peck

Reitzug

U. C.

West

D. L.

(2013). Still waiting for “superprincipal”: Examining US policymaker expectations for school principals, 2001–2011. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 14(1), 58–68. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105264.pdf

103.

Petridou

Nicolaidou

Karagiorgi

(2017). Exploring the impact of professional development and professional practice on school leaders’ self-efficacy: A quasi-experimental study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1236734

104.

*Plecki

M. L.

Knapp

M. S.

Castañeda

Halverson

LaSota

Lochmiller

(2009). How leaders invest staffing resources for learning improvement. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/sites/default/files/ctpmail/PDFs/S3-Resources-10-2009.pdf

105.

*Portin

B. S.

Knapp

M. S.

Dareff

Feldman

Russell

F. A.

Samuelson

Yeh

T. L.

(2009). Leadership for learning improvement in urban schools. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Leadership-for-Learning-Improvement-in-Urban-Schools.pdf

106.

*Rigby

Donaldson Walsh

Boten

Deno

Harrison

Merrell

Pritchett

Seaman

(2019), A view from the field: The process of improving equitable systems leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0181

107.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.

108.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

109.

*Salazar

P. S.

(2007). The professional development needs of rural high school principals: A seven-state study. Rural Educator, 28(3), 20–27. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ783878.pdf

110.

Savolainen

(2018). Self-determination and expectancy-value: Comparison of cognitive psychological approaches to motivators for information seeking about job opportunities. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2017-0242

111.

Senko

Hulleman

C. S.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646

112.

Smith

W. C.

Kubacka

(2017). The emphasis of student test scores in teacher appraisal systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(86). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2889

113.

Spillane

J. P.

(1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904896010001004

114.

*Spillane

J. P.

Healey

Mesler

(2009). School leaders’ opportunities to learn: A descriptive analysis from a distributed perspective. Educational Review, 61(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910903403998

115.

*Springboard Schools. (2006). Minding the gap: New roles for school districts in the age of accountability—A study of high-performing, high poverty school districts in California. Author. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532059.pdf

116.

*Steinberg

M. P.

Cox

A. B.

(2017). School autonomy and district support: How principals respond to a tiered autonomy initiative in Philadelphia public schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(1), 130–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1197278

117.

Stucher

Podolsky

Espinoza

(2017). Supporting principals’ learning: Key features of effective programs. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Supporting_Principals_Learning_REPORT.pdf

118.

*Supovitz

J. A.

(2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Harvard Education Press.

119.

Sutton

R. I.

Staw

B. M.

(1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

120.

Sweeney

Anderson

Bailey

(1986). Attributional style in depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 974–991. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.974

121.

Sykes

O’Day

Ford

T. G.

(2009). The district role in instructional improvement. In Sykes

Schneider

Plank

D. N.

(with Ford

T. G.

) (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 767–784). Routledge.

122.

Teddlie

Reynolds

(2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. Falmer Press.

123.

*Thessin

(2019). Establishing productive principal/principal supervisor partnerships for instructional leadership. Journal of Education Administration, 57(5), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0184

124.

Thessin

Louis

K. S.

(2019). Supervising school leaders in a rapidly changing world. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2019-228

125.

*Togneri

Anderson

(2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Learning First Alliance, & Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. https://learningfirst.org/sites/learningfirst/files/assets/biefullreport.pdf

126.

Trujillo

(2013). The reincarnation of the effective schools research: Rethinking the literature on district effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 426–452. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325640

127.

Trujillo

(2016). Learning from the past to chart new directions in the study of school district effectiveness. In Daly

A. J.

Finnegan

K. S.

(Eds.), Thinking and acting systematically: Improving school districts under pressure (pp. 11–47). American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-46-2_1

128.

Tschannen-Moran

Gareis

(2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410554070

129.

*Tschannen-Moran

Gareis

C. R.

(2007). Cultivating principals’ self-efficacy: Supports that matter. Journal of School Leadership, 17(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460701700104

130.

Van Maanen

(1989). Some notes on the importance of writing in organization studies. Harvard Business School Research Colloquium, 27(33), 133–143.

131.

Vansteenkiste

Lens

De Witte

Feather

N. T.

(2005). Understanding unemployed people’s job search behavior, unemployment experience and well-being: A comparison of expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X17641

132.

Vartanian

(2017). The contributions of theory choice, cumulative science, and problem finding to scientific innovation and research quality. In Makel

M. C.

Plucker

J. A.

(Eds.), Toward a more perfect psychology: Improving trust, accuracy, and transparency in research (pp. 13–32). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000033-002

133.

The Wallace Foundation. (2013). Districts matter: Cultivating the principals urban schools need. Author. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Districts-Matter-Cultivating-the-Principals-Urban-Schools-Need.pdf

134.

Waters

J. T.

Marzano

(2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. A working paper. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/asc/4005rr_superintendent_leadership.pdf

135.

Weiner

(1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1

136.

Weiner

(1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Sage.

137.

Weiner

(2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of perceived competence. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.73–84). Guilford Press.

138.

*Weiner

(2016). Possibilities or paradoxes? How aspiring turnaround principals conceptualise turnaround and their place within it. School Leadership & Management, 36(5), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247037

139.

*Weiner

J. M.

Woulfin

S. L.

(2017). Controlled autonomy: Novice principals’ schema for district control and school autonomy. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2016-0032

140.

West

D. H.

Peck

Reitzug

U. C.

(2010). Limited control and relentless accountability: Examining historical changes in urban school principal pressure. Journal of School Leadership, 20(2), 238–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000206

141.

*Wohlstetter

Smith

Gallagher

(2013). New York City’s Children First Networks: Turning accountability on its head. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 528–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325686