the role of resilience among k-12 principals and
TRANSCRIPT
Seattle Pacific University Seattle Pacific University
Digital Commons @ SPU Digital Commons @ SPU
Education Dissertations Education, School of
Winter 12-20-2018
The Role of Resilience among K-12 Principals and Administrators The Role of Resilience among K-12 Principals and Administrators
Leading Transformational Change Leading Transformational Change
Paige Evans Wescott
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/soe_etd
Part of the Educational Leadership Commons
The Role of Resilience among K-12 Principals and Administrators Leading
Transformational Change
by
PAIGE WESCOTT
Dissertation presented to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of Education at
Seattle Pacific University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Education
2018
Dedication
I lovingly dedicate this dissertation to my beautiful family; my husband Gary,
daughter Renate and sons Nathan, and Miles. Thank you for your amazing patience; the
hours at Starbucks and Anthem, the nights and days at the Maus-Haus, the seemingly
endless disruptions of family activities so Mom could finish her work. I love you all so
much! Gary, thank you for being my greatest team member, as I worked through so many
stages and this final mile with you. Thank you for being an amazing Dad and husband!
You make our worlds beautiful!
SO MUCH LOVE and so many THANKS to my supportive parents, Don and
Mona and the dream that began with Tekla… Thank you, Mom and Dad, for your never-
ending care, support and love- especially during these past three years! I love you!
Thanking God for getting me through this and allowing me to LEARN SO
MUCH through the process! So grateful for you, beautiful family! Thank you for walking
with me and loving me through every step…
Acknowledgements
Thank you, amazing dissertation committee, for your support through this long
journey! Each one of you has played a powerful role in my growth- long before we
reached this point of a Dissertation Defense. Thank you, Dr. John Bond, Dr. Bill Nagy
and Dr. Bill Prenevost for your continued inspiration, advice, feedback, frequent
meetings for clarity and wisdom in my life and above all, your input into this dissertation
and its defense. Special thanks to my Chair, Dr. Bond! Your patience, your
understanding, but above all your encouragement has been a powerful support in this
final phase. All three of you have empowered me as a researcher, but you’ve also
inspired me as men of integrity, insight, faith and excellence. I have loved learning and
growing because of each of your influences on my life and career.
Dr. Linda Hoopes! What a wonderful mentor, encourager and inspirer in this
process! Thank you for your belief in me, your interest in my research and your
generosity in sharing your work and your time during the data collection process. YOUR
WRITING and RESEARCH is fascinating and your work on resilience is changing lives.
Thank you, too, to our SPU “personal librarian” Cindy Strong, who has been here
for support and feedback throughout the duration and to my great helps with editing, John
Harrell and Karen Law and their diligent work giving APA support and continued
interest in this research.
Huge thanks to the many administrator friends and co-workers who networked
with their administrator colleagues to increase my sample size and be an active part of
this research study! Special thanks to my beautiful teaching staff, Dr. Pi and coworkers at
my K-6 School in Bothell; you have been the best encouragement! Additionally, grateful
thanks to ACSI Research for advocating for my study to administrators all over the
United States! Thank you so much!
Finally, thank you to several powerfully influential people in my life who have
inspired, empowered, equipped and sustained me during these past few years: Dr. Glenna
Frederick, Dr. Debi Miller, Dr. Ken Townsend, Mrs. Debbie Schindler, Mr. Don
Johnson, Dr. Ken Friesen, Mrs. Holly Leach, Mrs. Darlene Kasper, Dr. Chris Sink, Dr.
Thomas Alsbury, Dr. Nyaradzo Mvududu, Dr. Arthur Ellis, Dr. Reinhard Goelz, Dr.
Sharon Chiang, Dr. Rick Eigenbrood, Dr. Laura Wideburg, Dr. Manfred Bansleben and
Ms. Megan Hamshar. Thank you so much for your continued inspiration, encouragement,
direction, and wisdom!
Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. iv
List of Bar Graphs .......................................................................................................... v
List of Appendices ........................................................................................................ vi
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................. 3
Observation and Rationale ................................................................................. 3
Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 3
Statement of Purpose .......................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 8
Overview of the Study ........................................................................................ 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................. 11
Purpose ............................................................................................................. 27
Theoretical Underpinnings of Resilience ......................................................... 28
The Historical Context of Resilience ............................................................... 32
Defining Resilience .......................................................................................... 34
Resilience Definitions ...................................................................................... 34
The Theoretical Underpinnings of Educational Leadership ............................ 41
Definitions of Key Terms ................................................................................. 42
Empirical Research .......................................................................................... 43
Critical Analysis ............................................................................................... 53
Synthesis and Implications: Suggestions for Further Research ....................... 57
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 62
Chapter Three: Methodology ....................................................................................... 64
Purpose of the Investigation ............................................................................. 64
The Problem ..................................................................................................... 64
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 65
Research Design ............................................................................................... 66
Participant Selection ......................................................................................... 67
Data Collection Instruments ............................................................................. 67
Data Collection ................................................................................................. 69
Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 70
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 73
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................... 74
Survey Results; Data Preparation ..................................................................... 74
Correlational Analyses ..................................................................................... 82
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 85
Summary .......................................................................................................... 95
Chapter Five: Findings ................................................................................................. 96
Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………96
Discussion: Limitations of the Research ........................................................ 105
Implications for Practice ................................................................................ 106
Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................ 110
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 111
References .................................................................................................................. 114
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 142
List of Figures
Figure 1. Transformational leadership characteristics ................................................. 16
Figure 2. Transformational and transactional leadership ............................................. 17
Figure 3. Foundational traits of resilience .................................................................... 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Primary Distinctions among Three Leadership Theories ............................... 20
Table 2. Accepted Definitions of Resilience by Discipline ......................................... 35
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Correlations between MLQ and PRQ .................... 83
Table 4. Correlational Coefficients for Age, Ed. Level, Years of Teach/Admin ......... 87
Table 5. MANOVAs for Leader. Level, Public/Private, Urban/Rural & Gender ........ 88
Table 6. Univariate Tests for Gender and the PRQ Dimensions ................................. 88
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Gender Differences and Resilience Dimensions ... 89
Table 8. Significant Correlations with Educational Level & Resilience ..................... 91
Table 9. MANOVA Results for MLQ Dimensions ..................................................... 92
Table 10. Univariate Tests for Gender and the MLQ .................................................. 93
Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for Gender and the MLQ ........................................... 94
List of Bar Graphs
Bar Graph 1. What is your age? ................................................................................... 76
Bar Graph 2. What is your gender? .............................................................................. 76
Bar Graph 3. Which of these best describes your position? ......................................... 77
Bar Graph 4. What is your marital status? ................................................................... 78
Bar Graph 5. What is the highest educational level you have completed? .................. 79
Bar Graph 6. How many years of teaching experience do you have? ......................... 79
Bar Graph 7. Which of the following best describes your administrative role? .......... 80
Bar Graph 8. Which of these best describes your area of service? .............................. 81
Bar Graph 9. How many years of administrative experience do you have? ................ 81
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Facebook Invitation .............................................................................. 142
Appendix B. Mind Garden License ............................................................................ 144
Appendix C. Letter to ACSI Administrators .............................................................. 146
Appendix D. IRB Application .................................................................................... 148
Appendix E. Extramural Research ............................................................................. 150
Appendix F. Scatter Plots ........................................................................................... 151
Appendix G. Administrator Invitation ....................................................................... 156
Abstract
The United States government holds high expectations for principals and
administrators, as they are responsible for enacting significant change to actualize school
improvement and meet national agendas. Schools have specific characteristics that make
change extremely challenging to implement, and it is within this context that fostering
resilience holds promise. This study was a quantitative, correlational study that looked
critically at the relationship between self-perceived resilience and self-perceived
transformational leadership among US principals and administrators in K-12 settings.
Peer-reviewed research studies addressing resilience and transformational leadership in
K-12 education have been minimal, although similar questions in research continue to be
posed in other fields outside of education. This study used the PRQ (Personal Resilience
Questionnaire), with its seven resiliency dimensions (Conner, 1990; 2004), and the MLQ
(Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) from Bass and Avolio (1995; 2015), which
contains nine leadership factors, five of which represent transformational leadership, and
three transformational leadership outcomes. Demographic variables collected included
age, gender, leadership level, educational level, public or private school service, and
years of experience as teachers and administrators. Resilience and transformational
leadership did not appear to be correlated with age, leadership level, area of service
(public or private school administration), or region of service. However, there was a
strong, statistically significant positive correlation between self-perceived resilience and
self-perceived transformational leadership within the K-12 administrative arena.
Additionally, resilience and transformational leadership appeared to be correlated with
gender, with transformational leadership positively and significantly correlated with
educational levels achieved.
Keywords: resilience, leading change, educational leadership, transformational
leadership, positive psychology, second-order change.
3
Chapter 1: Introduction
Observation and Rationale
School leadership has always been considered a significant contributing factor for
overall success in academic, social, and moral spheres of American schools. Indeed,
leadership has been described as second only to classroom practice in terms of the impact
on leading change in American school culture and outcomes (Robinson, 2011).
Problem Statement
The role of principals and administrators in schools encompasses much more than
basic leadership practices, attitudes, and policies. Administrators affect an institution’s
culture for learning and powerfully impact people, systems, and beliefs in their day-to-
day work, all of which are factors indirectly linked to student achievement (Brockmeier,
Starr, Green, Pate, & Leech, 2013; Miller, 2013; Negis-Isik & Gursel, 2013). These day-
to-day actions impact students by improving their educational experiences, improving
school culture, and promoting a positive environment that can lead to improved academic
outcomes (Harris, 2006; Meyer & Macmillan, 2011; Miller, A., 2009; Miller, P., 2016).
Leadership in education has a long history of research and scholarly criticism, and
authors have sought to challenge influencers to higher levels of performance through
many unique models (Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978;
Drucker, 2005; Palmer, 1990; 2005; Senge, McCabe, Lucas, Kleiner, Dutton, & Smith,
2012). These authors labeled their models with differing terminology and with varying
critical attributes. Leadership theories referred to as “visionary,” “servant,”
“transformational,” “emotional,” “legacy,” “resilient,” “distributive,” “democratic,”
4
“autocratic,” “participatory,” and “transactional” were some of the labels used by the
authors as mentioned earlier.
Why, in particular, was transformational leadership selected as the focus of this
study? Why was it identified as a viable style for effective leadership in schools?
Transformational leaders are described as leaders who tend to employ a visionary
and creative style in their leadership, a method that inspires, motivates, and encourages
team members to expand their interests in their work and foster innovation and creativity
in their teams (Burns, 1979). In their book, Academic Leadership; Turning Vision into
Reality (2000), Moore and Diamond stated, “Leaders of . . . academic units know that
unimproved, today’s excellence will be tomorrow’s ordinary” (p. ii).
Additionally, there was evidence that the transformational leadership style had
strong, statistically significant positive correlations with employee psychological well-
being (Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, & Munir, 2009). In light of current research and the
needs of K-12 administrators to incubate innovation, ingenuity, and creativity within their
own leadership, as well as in their teams, transformational leadership has been chosen for
this study. Transformational leadership has often been paired with resilience in research
(Wasden, 2014), but strong empirical research is lacking regarding the specific
relationship between these two conceptual frameworks in K-12 educational leadership, as
well as in higher educational leadership research. It is with a focus on transformational
leadership and resilience and their relationship in K-12 administration that this study
moves forward.
K-12 administrators require not merely training and knowledge, but also
resilience, or positive development under stress and the ability to cope with adversity—to
5
regroup and grow after defeats, failures, or setbacks (Ungar, 2012). Resilience training
has been sorely absent in graduate school leadership training for K-12 administrators, as
well as preparatory training for graduate and postgraduate higher education leaders across
the United States and the world (Halinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Patterson &
Kelleher, 2005; Pepe, 2011; Wasden, 2014). Yet there is a strong reason to believe that
resilience is a trait vital to developing and sustaining transformational leadership in
schools. Given the need for consistency in leading change and the turnover rates now on
the rise for administrators at all levels, it is relevant to note that recent research has linked
administrative turnover to drops in student achievement (Anderson, Meyer, Pencavel, &
Roberts, 1994; 2009). Similarly, the challenge of consistent adversity negatively affects
the role of K-12 administrators, who are frequently under public opinion attacks (Allison
& Reeves, 2001; Allison, 2012).
So why was there little or no resiliency training in university K-12 educational
leadership preparation programs? Furthermore, if the United States were to mandate
resilience training for educational leaders nationwide, has there been enough knowledge
about the nature of resilience and its role in supporting transformational leadership
practices in K-12 schools? Resilience was described in many varying ways by a myriad
of definitions, but Hoopes and Kelly (2004) pinpointed its role as the essential component
that helped transform the mystery of change into a manageable process. The current study
addresses the need as mentioned earlier of additional research by examining the
relationships between these two multidimensional constructs, resilience and
transformational leadership within established change-leadership behaviors, and
analyzing the demographic data gathered from K-12 principals and administrators
6
nationwide. The problem of the absence of resilience training in pre-service educational
administration programs is also addressed. Additionally, this study contributes to existing
literature that reflected this training deficit and advances research towards establishing a
deeper understanding of how the practice of effective transformational leadership relates
to resilience. Lastly, this study reveals how resilience could potentially become a
powerful and critical support to leading change in K-12 schools (Bass & Avolio,1994;
Mittal, & Dhar, 2015).
According to Bass & Avolio (1994), transformational leadership is a style of leading and
influencing in which leaders work to improve their teams’ awareness of what is critically
important. Transformational leaders assist their teams in learning to see themselves, their
environment, and their capacities in a new and empowered way. These leaders strive to
optimize development, innovation, and performance by being proactive, inspirational,
encouraging, and visionary (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Mittal, & Dhar, 2015). Two other
forms of leadership will be looked at as well: transactional leadership (with a reward-and-
punishment component) and laissez-faire leadership, otherwise known as management by
exception, both passive and active (Bass, 1985). These will be explained in more detail in
Chapter 2.
Many studies over the past 20 years have shown transformational leadership
behaviors to have a strong and positive influence on a wide range of individual and
organizational outcomes in a variety of contexts. These included studies in the military
(Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, Bass, & Shamir, 2002), in
sports (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001), business (Barling, Weber, &
Keloway, 1996; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
1990; Howell & Avolio, 1993), in the public sector (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004), and in
7
education (Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1991). Some of these studies will be highlighted in
more detail in Chapter 2.
Studies suggested that it could take five to seven years following an
administrative turnover before true, measurable signs of success or failure in reform
actions could be observed (Akiba & Reichardt, 2004; Partlow, 2007). Consistent and
resilient leadership increase trust and growth, but when administrative turnover rates
climb, the stability of the staff, the school, and the district is at risk (Macmillan, Meyer,
& Northfield, 2004; Partlow, 2007; Peterson & Deal, 1998). It is here, in this
predicament, as well as in others, that resilience in transformational leadership, through
support and training, may play a pivotal role. A purposeful fostering of resilience training
could contribute to the leadership consistency and longevity of K-12 administrators
seeking to implement second-order change (Conner, 2014).
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to identify relationships among the
dimensions of transformational leadership practices and levels of resilience. By testing
the nature of these relationships, resilience dimensions that were most strongly related to
transformational leadership were identified. Ultimately, determining the aspects of
resilience that would deserve the most attention in the pre-training development of K-12
leadership was an essential underlying goal of this study. Additionally, this study sought
to identify, through the use of self-report surveys, which administrators perceived
themselves to be strong, transformational leaders and those who viewed themselves to be
strong in resilience as well. “Leaders who perceive themselves to have both resilience
and transformational leadership strengths may have leadership practices meaningful to
8
discover” (Wasden, 2014, p. 2). Knowing how specific dimensions of resilience related to
transformational leadership behaviors may also shape how these aspects could best be
addressed in future resilience training. A final purpose was to extrapolate insights for
leaders by using demographic data and discovering how the data correlated to resilience
dimensions and transformational leadership factors. For example, did resilience and
transformational leadership factors correlate negatively or positively with age or correlate
with gender? Moreover, did years of experience in administration or teaching correlate
with transformational leadership and resiliency dimensions?
Research Questions
This investigation attempted to answer the following three research questions:
Research Question 1: Are there significant positive relationships between resiliency
dimensions and transformational leadership practices among American K-12 school
principals and administrators?
Null Hypothesis. There are no significant positive relationships between resiliency
dimensions and transformational leadership practices among American K-12 principals
and administrators.
Research Hypothesis. The researcher hypothesizes that resiliency variables will be
positively correlated with some or all of the five transformational leadership dimensions
in the MLQ (building trust, acting with integrity, encouraging others, encouraging
innovative thinking, and coaching and developing people), not significantly correlated
with the two transactional factors (rewarding achievement, also known as contingent
reward, and monitoring deviations and mistakes, also known as management by active
exception) and negatively correlated with the two passive/avoidant factors (fighting fires,
9
or management by passive exception, and avoiding involvement, also known as laissez-
faire).
Research Question 2: Are there significant differences in resiliency dimensions
among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators, defined in terms of
demographic variables?
Null Hypothesis. There are no significant differences in resiliency dimensions
among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators, defined in terms of
demographic variables.
Research Question 3: Are there significant differences in transformational
leadership dimensions among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators,
defined in terms of demographic variables?
Null Hypothesis. There are no significant differences in transformational leadership
dimensions among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators, defined in
terms of demographic variables.
Overview of the Study
This study was conducted during a 60-day period. In this investigation, Facebook,
Instagram and e-mail were used to deliver an electronic link to the two connected surveys
(the PRQ and the MLQ), and the corresponding demographic questions that were
uploaded onto the same SurveyMonkey platform with one SurveyMonkey link. School
principals and district administrators from Oregon, Washington, Montana, California,
Idaho, New York, Boston, (and states throughout the country into every region of the
U.S.) were alerted through social media and email and received the PRQ and the MLQ.
10
Answers were anonymously transmitted to SurveyMonkey for the purpose of storing and
compiling the response data.
Organization of the Dissertation
The remaining four chapters of this investigation are organized as follows:
• In Chapter 2 is a review of the literature for the resiliency dimensions and
transformational leadership factors and practices.
• In Chapter 3 is an explanation of the research methodology and procedures of the
investigation.
• In Chapter 4 is an analysis and interpretation of the data gathered by the
researcher.
• Chapter 5 consists of a summary, conclusions, implications, discussion,
limitations, and recommendations for further study.
11
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The Role of Resilience among K-12 Principals and Administrators
Leading Change
In the midst of the new millennium and the changes that have been occurring
rapidly and consistently in public and private schools around the United States, leading
with stamina, consistency, and excellence are critical to sustaining culture, trust, and
second-order change. Ellis and Fouts (1994) in their book, Research on Educational
Innovations, spoke to school restructuring, and they argued that second-order changes
were required for educational reforms to be successfully completed and sustained over
the long term. Goodman and Steckler (1997) found that changes that brought meaningful
and lasting improvement to the classroom, the school, the district, or the community,
altered the underlying philosophical beliefs that drove practice and were considered
second-order change. These changes established deep and sustainable progress within an
organization. According to Ellis & Fouts (2004):
There is evidence that one of the reasons schools remain unchanged
is that the reforms or changes have been superficial in nature and/or
arbitrary in their adoption. Teachers and schools often went through
the motions of adopting new practices, but the changes were neither
deep nor long-lasting. In other words, the outward manifestations of
the changes were present, but the ideas or philosophy behind the
changes were either not understood, misunderstood, or rejected.
Consequently, any substantive change in the classroom experience
or school culture failed to take root.
12
The illusion of change is created through a variety of activities, but
the qualitative experience for students in the classroom remains
unchanged when the ideas driving daily practice remain unchanged.
(p. 203)
Studies by both Leithwood & Jantzi (2006) and Robinson (2011) reported that the
influence of leadership could be much more significant in academic, social, and
emotional spheres, especially where leaders engaged directly with teachers and staff
together to lead and implement change and enhance classroom practices consistently.
Effectively leading change in schools is an ongoing effort that includes appropriate
preparation, training, experience, and tenacity along with much professional support.
Most specifically, however, Hoopes (2017) stated that stamina and consistency, in the
form of being positive, focused, proactive, flexible, and organized, could lead to
sustainable, resilient leadership.
In the introduction to their book, Beyond Change Management, Anderson and
Ackerman-Anderson (2010) discussed attributes of second-order change that were the
trademark of transformational leaders of the 21st century and the need for
transformational leaders in every organization and field: “Change is happening
everywhere; its speed and complexity are increasing, and the future success of our
organizations depends on how successful our leaders are at leading that change. In
today’s marketplace, change is a requirement for continued success, and competent
change leadership is a most coveted executive skill” (p. 1).
Transformational leadership is a genre of leadership that must be addressed and
described more fully. The term was first introduced in 1973 in Rebel Leadership:
13
Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process by J. V. Downtown and referred
to full, multi-dimensional leadership. James MacGregor Burns (1978), a leadership
theorist, described transformational leadership as “a relationship of mutual stimulation
and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral
agents” (p. 3). Green’s article (2014), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership, cited Francis Yammarino (Yammarino, Spangler & Bass,
1993) as Yammarino described the process that developed from the influence of effective
transformational leadership.
The transformational leader arouses heightened awareness and interests in the
group or organization, increases confidence, and moves followers gradually from
concerns for existence to concerns for achievement and where followers are able
to take on leadership roles and perform beyond established standards or goals…
(p. 28)
Transformational leadership, according to Bass and Avolio (1994), is needed in
order to navigate the tumultuous times of change that are already taking place and will
continue to occur in our lifetimes. They proposed that in order to remain relevant and
viable in rapidly changing environments, establishments and their leaders must
continually experience, undertake, and lead change transformationally. Diverse ideas,
innovative alternatives, creative methods and a willingness to develop a new paradigm
must be developed. This change-leadership, stated Bass and Avolio (1994), requires the
attributes of transformational leadership. Successful leaders must be transformational
because of the ever-escalating technological growth and extreme and rapid changes that
our country and the world are experiencing.
14
According to Bass and Steidlmeier (1999), “authentic transformational
leadership provides a more reasonable and realistic concept of self; a self that is
connected to friends, family, and community whose welfare may be more important to
oneself than one’s own. One’s moral obligation to them is grounded in a broader
conception of individuals within community and related social norms and cultural
beliefs…” (p.186). Additionally, Bass, Waldman, Avolio & Bebb (1987) stated that
“transformational leaders do not necessarily react to environmental circumstances; they
create them” (p. 36). Finally, Bass (1985) brought attention to transformational research
and its role in moving the term forward:
Transformational leaders attempt and succeed in raising colleagues, subordinates,
followers, clients, or constituencies to a greater awareness of issues of
consequence. This heightening of awareness requires a leader of vision, self-
confidence, and inner strength to argue successfully for what [he/she] sees is right
or good, not for what is popular or is acceptable according to established wisdom
of the time. (p. 17)
Burns (1978), Bass and Avolio (1994), and Bass and Bass (2008) introduced a
transformational leadership framework in survey form, which was used as one of the
measurement instruments for this dissertation study. Avolio and Bass (2004) described
transformational leaders as possessing five “I” attributes in their leadership style. The
five “I’s” of transformational leadership are: (a) Idealized Influence-Attributes (Builds
Trust); (b) Idealized Influence-Behaviors (Acts with Integrity); (c) Inspirational
Motivation (Encourages Others); (d) Intellectual Stimulation (Encourages Innovative
15
Thinking); and (e) Individualized Consideration (Coaches and Develops People). These
attributes are included in Figure 1.
The (MLQ) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio and Mind
Garden, Inc., 2014) contains these five transformational leadership traits in a scale that is
measurable and quantifiable. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire User Manual
(Avolio and Bass, 2004) contains the following descriptors for the five “I” s of
transformational leadership:
A leader who embodies the Idealized Influence-Attribute instills pride in others
for being associated with the leader; they place the group first before self-interest,
act in ways that build self-respect, and display a sense of power and confidence.
Leaders who exemplify Idealized Influence-Behavior have a moral compass and
discuss what is important to them. They consider the moral and ethical
consequences of their decision-making. Inspirational Motivation leaders behave
in a motivational, optimistic, and enthusiastic manner. They can articulate a team
vision or plan and can express anticipated achievement confidently. Leaders who
stimulate their followers’ attempt to be innovative and creative by questioning
assumptions and reframing problems, and ‘approaching old situations in new
ways,’ characterize Intellectual Stimulation (Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 102).
Finally, a transformational leader is one who possesses Individualized
Consideration. The leader who brings a positive mentor or coach-type mentality to lead
their followers is focused on the individual. A transformational leader will foster a
supportive climate, and the leader’s focus on ‘the one,’ rather than just the group, will be
16
apparent to the group and the individual. These five leadership attributes are represented
in Figure 1 (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Figure 1. Transformational leadership characteristics were identified by Bass & Avolio
(1994) and measured in the MLQ.
Inspirational Motivation Idealized
Influence- Attribute
Intellectual Stimulation
Idealized Influence- Behavior
Transformational Leadership Individualized
Consideration
17
In the current literature, the multiple terms used with leadership have led to misuse of
the trans-leadership delineation of terms. Transformative leadership, transactional
leadership, and transformational leadership are three very different frameworks for
leadership but are still very closely related terms visually and easily mistaken for each
other. Transactional leadership, like transformational leadership, was first elucidated by
Burns (1978; 2003) and Bass (1987) and holds an interesting place in its role as a
leadership dimension. In this transactional style of leadership (Bass, 1987), the emphasis
was on a reward-and-punishment. According to Albritton (1998), a transactional leader is
“rooted in two-way influence: a social exchange in which the leader gives something and
gets something in return” (p. 188).
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER
Charisma: Provides vision and a sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect and trust.
Inspiration: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts,
expresses important purposes in simple ways.
Intellectual Stimulation: Promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem-solving
and consideration.
Individualized Consideration: Gives personal attention, treats each employee individually,
coaches, and advises.
TRANSACTIONAL LEADER
Contingent Reward: Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards
for good performance, recognizes accomplishments.
18
Management by Exception (active): Watches and searches for deviations from
rules and standards, takes corrective action.
Management by Exception (passive): Intervenes only if standards are not met.
Laissez-faire: Abdicates responsibilities ; avoids making decisions.
Figure 2. Characteristics of Transformational and Transactional Leadership
A transactional leadership description was presented in Bass (2000)’s Hooijberg
and Choi interview, of the Leadership Quarterly:
[Pseudo-transformational leadership] looks like a transformational leader, it acts
like a transformational leader, but in fact, it is not. A typical example would be
the executive who cries crocodile tears when downsizing, but then gives himself a
big bonus. I even developed a series of charts contrasting the authentic and
pseudo-transformational leaders. However, assessing it in reality is hard because
you do not know exactly what people’s intent is. I think that authenticity and
ethical behavior are closely associated with transformational leadership. I think
that there are great differences between transformational leaders who have a dark
side and those who do not. Transformational leaders with a dark side will not
upgrade the moral level of their followers. (p. 298)
Bass (1994) described transactional leadership (as opposed to transformational)
as a style of leadership in which the leader assumed that the relationship between the
leader and the follower was mostly an exchange in self-interests. Bass further identified
four types of transactional leadership: active management by exception, meaning that
the leader focuses on subordinates' mistakes and takes corrective actions; passive
management by exception, meaning that the leader only acts when there is a problem;
19
and contingent reward, meaning that the leader clarifies expectations and makes rewards
contingent on meeting such expectations; the fourth category, non-leadership, includes
laissez-faire behavior, in which the leader avoids tasks and responsibilities (Bass, 1999).
With transformational and transformative leadership, these styles appeared to
have similar roots (Shields, 2010). Burns (1978) frequently referred to “transforming”
leadership as well as “transformation” and “transformational,” yet it is surprising that the
term “transformative,” often seen in Burns’ work (Shields, 2010), was clearly absent
from these other works. Still, according to Shields (2010), the implications of Burns’
conception of transformation pointed directly to transformative leadership. For example,
Burns (1978) emphasized the need for “real change (in leadership); that is, a
transformation to the degree of attitudes, norms, institutions, and behaviors that structure
our daily lives” (p. 414). Shields (2010) explained:
Statements such as these clearly indicate that neither transactional nor
transformational leadership adequately exemplifies Burns’ understanding of
transforming leadership—leadership that explicitly attends to the moral and
ethical issues related to power relationships of entire social systems that often
perpetuate inequity and inequality in organizations. For this, we turn to
transformative concepts of leadership, found first in other social sciences and,
more recently, in our field of education. (p. 565)
Emergent transforming (or transformative) leadership, then, as conceived by
Burns (1978), occurs when the leader “recognizes and exploits an existing need or
demand of a potential follower, ... looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to
satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower” (p. 4). “Transformative
20
leadership,” Burns stated (of transforming leaders), “is more concerned with end-values,
such as liberty, justice, and equality” (p. 426). These are all aspects of both
transformational and transformative leadership theories today. The comparisons are
presented in Table 1. Additionally, Burns (1979), the father of transformational
leadership, stated:
Transforming leadership . . . occurs when one or more persons engage with others
in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of
motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate
but related, [in contrast to] …transactional leadership become fused. Power bases
are linked not as counterweights, but as mutual support for common purpose (p.
382).
Table 1
Primary Distinctions among Three Leadership Theories (Shields, 2010)
Transactional
Leadership
Transformational
Leadership
Transformative Leadership
Starting
Point
A desired
agreement or
item
Need for the organization to
run smoothly and efficiently
Material realities & disparities outside
the organization that impinge of the
success of individuals, groups, &
organization as a whole.
Found-
ation
An exchange Meet the needs of complex
& diverse systems
Critique & promise
Emphas
is
Means Organizational Change-
Leadership
Deep & equitable change in social
conditions
21
Process
es
Immediate
cooperation
through mutual
agreement and
benefit
Understanding of
organizational culture;
setting directions,
developing people,
redesigning the organization,
and managing the
instructional program
Deconstruction and reconstruction of
social/ cultural knowledge frameworks
that generate inequity, acknowledgement
of power, & privilege; dialectic between
individual & social
Key
values
Honesty,
responsibility,
fairness, and
honoring
commitments
Liberty, justice, equality Liberation, emancipation, democracy,
equity, justice
Goal Agreement;
mutual goal
advancement
Organizational change;
effectiveness
Individual, organizational, & societal
transformation
Power Mostly ignored Inspirational; empowerment;
role model
Positional, hegemonic, tool for oppression
as well as for action
Leader Ensures
smooth and
efficient
organizational
Transactional
Looks for motive, develops
common purpose, focuses on
organizational goals
Transformational
Leadership
Lives with tension, & challenge; requires
moral courage, activism
Transformative
Leadership
22
The emphasis on the moral purposes of leadership has led to both
transformational and transformative leadership concepts, but the latter (transformative)
places more emphasis and focus on moral and justice societal issues. It seems evident that
both theories of leadership confer the meaning of transforming or changing something.
Shields concluded:
Even the Random House dictionary lists, as adjectives related to the verb
transform and the noun transformation, both the words transformational and
transformative; it is little wonder that the two terms have frequently been used
synonymously and, without clarifying the distinctions, to describe educational
leadership. (p. 565)
For this study, however, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire would address
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership factors exclusively and their
relationship to dimensions of resilience in K-12 educational leaders surveyed.
When Bass and Avolio (2004) researched leadership characteristics exhibited by
the most effective leaders, they asked all levels of managers, students, project managers
Leadership
(continued...)
(continued...) (continued...)
Related
theories
Bureaucratic
leadership;
Scientific
management
School effectiveness, School
reform, School
improvement, Instructional
leadership; resilient
leadership
Critical theories (race, gender), Cultural
and social reproduction, Leadership for
social justice;
23
and corporate leaders from around the world to describe the most influential and
efficacious leaders they had worked with in the past. Words used to delineate those who
had extended the most profound influence on them were: transformational, challenging,
visionary, development-oriented, intellectually stimulating, inspirational, determined to
maximize performance and charismatic. Expanding the definition of exemplary
leadership was a significant motivation for Bass and Avolio (2004) but discovering what
could potentially and consistently fuel this type of strong and empowering leadership was
a major motivation for this study. Resilience and its attributes appeared to show potential
as a possible source of strength and stamina for leaders as they persevere through the
challenges and obstacles, they face daily.
In transactional leadership, associates’ needs are met through transactions
(contingent rewards), but the “focus on the identification of needs and their elevation is
what constitutes the base of transformational leadership” (Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 28).
Transformational leadership “builds” on transactional leadership and it is associated with
motivating and empowering associates to do more than they originally thought was
achievable (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Transformational leaders assist associates in fostering
goal setting and establishing objectives in collective leadership groups. Individuals and
groups begin to “shift from being purely transactional to being transformational because
of a developmental orientation” (Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 28). This transition assists in
developing a teammate’s capacity to determine one’s course of action. The assumption is
that team members become leaders within the process and leaders transform into
exemplary team players. According to a series of leadership studies, cited by Howell and
Avolio (1993), leadership behaviors were articulated by military personnel and business
24
leaders as they reported on the actions and attitudes of their immediate supervisors in the
military and business sectors. The results of these reports showed that transformational
leaders achieved their results in one or more of the following ways (Avolio & Bass, 2004,
p. 28):
• Transformational leaders become a source of inspiration to others through
their commitment to those who work with them, their perseverance to a
mission, their willingness to take risks, and their strong desire to achieve.
• Transformational leaders diagnose, meet and elevate the needs of each of their
team members through Individualized Consideration. They believe in
promoting continuous people improvement.
• Transformational leaders stimulate their team to view the world from new
angles and informational sources. They question even the most successful
strategies to improve them over time.
• Associates trust their transformational leaders to overcome any obstacle,
because of their hard work, their willingness to sacrifice their self-interest, and
their prior successes.
• Finally, a principle characteristic of transformational leadership is that the
success of this kind of leader is measured not only by their personal outcomes,
such as unit performance and productivity but also by how well the leader has
developed associates into effective transformational leaders… Thus,
transformational leadership is measured both by the target leader’s
performance and development and by the degree to which team members are
developed to their full potential. To this end, teams are encouraged to use the
25
techniques of effective transformational and transactional leadership (Bass &
Avolio, 2004, p. 29).
Transformational leadership possesses an others-centeredness quality for the
leader; an original call to empower those they lead. This call appears to be pursued and
accomplished by mentoring and exemplifying the characteristics their followers profess
to esteem.
Further, the transformational leadership process results in team members who are
more capable of leading themselves, taking responsibility for their own actions
and gaining rewards through self-reinforcement. Teams become like their leaders;
eventually, they model their leader in becoming more transformational (Bass &
Avolio, 2004, p. 33).
With a greater understanding of the scope meant by transformational leadership,
reports of higher commitment levels were generated in the following two studies (Avolio
& Yammarino, 2003; Koh, Terborg, & Steers, 1991) and showed greater organizational
commitment in schoolteachers and students if the school principals were rated (self and
peer) as more transformational in their leadership style. A meta-analysis by Fuller,
Patterson, Hester, and Stringer (1996) reported that there was consistently greater
follower compliance when leaders were more transformational (in self-rater and peer-
rater feedback) than transactional in their leadership behaviors.
In addition to their daily challenges, administrators of all styles of leadership
have more recently been confronted with demanding state and national reform mandates.
In 2010, President Barack Obama shared his plan on how the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) law was to be amended to improve education. States would be required to
26
develop their definitions for teacher and principal effectiveness. In response to the federal
requirements, state education departments required school boards to shift their focus from
prior standards and grade level expectations to annual standardized tests, data reports, and
achievement gaps. Principals were expected to increase student achievement, regardless
of any challenging circumstances. However, detrimentally, according to Tirozzi (2013),
the challenges that educational administrators consequently faced now appear to
undermine commitments to long-term leadership that would allow principals and
administrators to adapt, delegate and more consistently and effectively lead amidst
continually changing circumstances.
Across America, tremendous challenges have continued to face schools as the
turnover rates of superintendents, principals and administrators have continued to rise
(Meeks, 2016; Norton, 2003). The current principal turnover rate for high school
principals in the U.S. is a change in leadership once every 3.6 years (Cullen & Mazzeo,
2008). Referencing administrative data from Texas, it was reported that about 22% of
principals and administrators switched jobs from one year to the next (Cullen & Mazzeo,
2008). Miller (2009) stated that declining principal tenure appeared to negatively affect
sustainable and consistent change and reform efforts in public schools. Given the current
expectation of continuous growth for all, coupled with budget cuts, program elimination,
accountability issues, school closures, and workforce reductions, this is a difficult time
for school principals and administrators to lead in U.S. schools.
Additionally, research evidence suggested that schools were slow to change.
Many teachers resist change, and the role of the principal as the change agent is
frequently under immense pressure (Allison & Reeves, 2001; Patterson, 2001; Tirozzi,
27
2001). The challenge continues as short-term principals struggle to anticipate the
challenges of rapid and continual change. More importantly, how can principal turnover
be slowed in the wake of the challenges overwhelming school leaders? Are principals and
administrators resilient enough to withstand the adversity and stay in a position long
enough to enact, establish and follow-through second-order change implementation in a
building or a district?
Allison and Reeves (2001) prompted many in their research to examine the
assessment of leader preparation and encouraged interest in how university programs
foster and develop resilience in educational leaders. What is the prevailing belief and
empirical evidence regarding whether resilience can be imparted to future school leaders?
Can resilience be taught or only developed experientially over time through conflict or
tragedy? Does increased resilience better prepare educational leaders to lead change?
Purpose
The purpose of this literature analysis is to identify studies that define the concept
of resilience in relation to leading change in schools, specifically, to uncover studies that
measure relationships between the resilience dimensions of principals and administrators
and how those correlations may influence school leaders’ ability to effect and lead
change. This investigation also focuses on how to prepare leaders who can withstand and
thrive in the current school culture of constant demands, change, and complex problems.
Because resilience theory supports a more stable foundation for change (Conner, 2004;
Flach, 1988), it is relevant to look more closely at its possible role in the area of school
change leadership (Isaacs, 2003). According to Conner (2004), when resilient school
principals faced the ambiguity, the anxiety, and the loss of control that accompany
28
change, they tended to grow stronger rather than become defeated. A final purpose of this
analysis is to uncover and identify dimensions of resilience that may affect the level of
productivity, effectiveness, physical, and emotional stability reached by principals and
administrators while they are leading change, as well as identifying some protective
factors that may lead to increased resilience in school leaders. Furthermore, the results of
this study propose to support the addition and integration of a resilience curriculum into
pre-service principal and superintendent university preparation programs.
The Theoretical Underpinnings of Resilience
Resilience appears to have its roots in Hans Selye's early work on stress (1938)
and Kobasa's work on hardiness (1979). These two areas of study contributed greatly to
establishing a robust foundation that fostered Positive Psychology (Kalantar, Khedri,
Nikbakht, & Motvalian, 2013; Szabo, Tache, & Somogyi, 2012). Positive Psychology,
which had its beginnings in the humanistic psychology of the 20th century (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), has boosted the visibility of the resilience construct and moved
it forward in current research. During this humanistic “positive psychology”
development, the field of psychology began to focus primarily on studying what was
right with the individual. Prior to this, psychology had been seeking answers to what was
ailing, wrong, or missing in the person, and employing a deficit paradigm. Earlier
influences on psychology stemmed from philosophical and religious foundations. In a
detailed description of positive psychology, Peterson (2006) outlined the precursor to
positive thinking, which developed as a counterweight to Calvinism, a highly influential
theology emphasizing humanity’s total depravity, and was built on the foundation of the
19th century’s New Thought movement, which elevated humanity based on an
29
assumption that God is in all things (Peterson, 2006). According to Seligman (2007),
positive psychology is concerned with three issues: positive emotions, positive individual
traits, and positive institutions. Positive emotions reflect optimism and self-efficacy;
individual traits focus on one’s strengths and virtues while positive institutions are
developing strengths to better serve and thrive in a community of people (Seligman,
2007).
Included within this positive psychology realm is the idea of flourishing, or
optimal human functioning (Frederickson, 2005). Here, flourishing comprises four
factors: goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience. Resilience was described as
survival and growth after enduring hardship and has been characterized by bouncing back
from adversity, working through challenges, and overcoming obstacles (Compton, 2013).
Conner (2004) noted: “Resilience is that ineffable quality that allows some people to be
knocked down by life and come back stronger than ever” (p. 47). Psychologists have
identified some of the factors that make someone resilient: among them a positive
attitude, optimism, the ability to regulate emotions, and the ability to see failure as a form
of helpful feedback. Even after a misfortune, choosing such an outlook, resilient people
can lead change in self and others and continue to grow and flourish (Conner, 2004).
Resilience continues to be a construct that is often debated. Is resilience taught or
developed? Is resilience a latent construct or is it malleable? Researchers continue to
question whether an adaptive construct like resilience is trait-like (fixed) or state-like
(malleable). Part of this answer involves the concept of a trait-state continuum, where
some constructs behave as more fixed than others. This continuum also allows
researchers to see resiliency as developable (Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006) or
30
able to be taught, improved, or enhanced. In an attempt to operationalize resilience,
researchers measured specific pathways to resiliency with the hopes of increasing
employee performance (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). In Youssef and Luthans’ book,
Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge, the authors continued
their research in positive organizational behavior (POB) and moved forward toward
moving organizations into a new paradigm that is no longer based merely on the scarcity
of physical, technological and financial resources. PsyCap (Youssef & Luthans, 2007)
begins with human and social resources as its foundation and is the psychological capital
that can be initiated, developed, fostered and sustained through brief, and highly focused
interventions. Organizational leaders can use planned interventions, but also unplanned
positive and negative events that occur daily, to trigger and facilitate their associates and
their own PsyCap within the context of their regular work hours. More discussion of
Youssef and Luthans’ research findings will be provided in Chapter 5.
Resilience in the context of educational leadership has not been fully defined in
the literature. Prior definitions of resilience focused on identifying the particular risk or
protective factors that enabled resilience to grow. Other definitions focused on particular
traits that characterized the capacity of resilient individuals. Definitions of resilience have
included not just recovery from stress to a previous level of health but also sustained
growth as a healthy response to stressful situations (Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2010). In
recent years, researchers have begun to conceptualize resilience from a social-ecological
perspective, where resilience was defined as “a set of behaviors over time that reflects the
interactions between individuals and their environments, in particular, the opportunities
for personal growth that are available and accessible” (Ungar, 2012, p. 14).
31
In the context of principals and administrators, resilience could be conceptualized
as a capacity, a process, and also an outcome (Mansfield, Beltman, Broadley, &
Weatherby-Fell, 2016). Resilience involves the capacity of an individual leader to
harness personal and contextual resources to navigate through challenges. It is the
dynamic process whereby characteristics of educational leaders interact over time with
their personal and professional contexts as they use particular strategies, enabling the
outcome of a resilient leader who experiences professional engagement and growth,
commitment, enthusiasm, satisfaction, and well-being through the process (Mansfield,
Beltman, Broadley, & Weatherby-Fell, 2016).
According to Mansfield et al., (2016), principals and administrators (and teachers)
may develop a capacity for resilience through building personal resources (e.g.,
motivation and social and emotional competence), understanding ways to mobilize
contextual resources (e.g., relationships, support networks), and developing a range of
adaptive coping strategies (e.g., problem-solving, time or priority management,
maintaining work-life balance) to manage challenges with a view towards maximizing
adaptive resilient outcomes (e.g., commitment, job satisfaction, well-being, and
engagement).
Although resilience studies are just emerging in the area of educational
leadership, empirical research and training with resilience are currently taking place in
the field of medicine (Howe, Smajdor, & Stöckl, 2012), the military (Bates, Bowles, &
Hammermeister,2010), and the corporate workplace (Waite & Richardson, 2004). In a
cross-disciplinary approach, these programs were being established based on empirical
findings from both clinical and developmental psychology (Masten & Reed, 2002).
32
Masten and Reed’s research asserted that resilience could be developed through asset-
focused, risk-focused, and process-focused strategies that were relevant and applicable to
the workplace. Bananno (2004) stated that dynamic, state-like resilience can be
developed through training interventions, and he added to Block and Kremen’s research
(1996) as they maintained that resilience was measurable, extensible, and elastic.
Resilience, too, has been shown to be applicable and related to enhanced performance in
the workplace (Coutu, 2002; Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005; Luthans
et al., 2005; Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006; Waite & Richardson, 2004; Worline
et al., 2002; Zunz, 1998). Finally, Henderson and Milstein (1996) stated: “The process of
resiliency development is, in fact, the process of life, given that all people must overcome
stress and trauma and disruption in the process of living” (p. 4).
The Historical Context of Resilience
Leadership dimensions of administrators (Conner, 2004) include the areas of
perception, thinking, and behavior and are correlated to the concept of resilience and how
people deal with controversy and circumstances in a changing world. According to
Conner (2004), resilient dimensions are mutually reinforcing and not independent of one
another; they are self-enhancing with one another so that each of them facilitates the use
of the others.
School leaders, stated Patterson (2001), should see change as an acceptable
challenge and move forward in their responsibility to direct change in the face of
adversity because by embracing change and its corresponding responsibilities, they
would become more resilient. To provide sound leadership and to champion change in
their schools is the mission of school administrators (Patterson, 2001). Consequently, it is
33
logical to suggest that resiliency-trained school leadership can play an essential role in
helping districts stay the course of their missions and goals, and even contribute to
reversing high turnover in times of significant change, disruption, and adversity in
schools (Isaacs, 2012). Figure 3 depicts common traits of resilience.
Figure 3. Traits of resilience commonly found in the literature (Wasden, 2014).
Research regarding the appropriate definition of resilience and its importance in
education and other disciplines has increased significantly over the past several decades
(Isaacs, 2012). This growth in interest and usage makes clear the need to define this trait
and to study further the protective factors that facilitate resilience, especially those factors
concerning educational leaders. In this time of turmoil, pressures, and challenges for
principals and administrators all across the United States, defining what is meant by the
word “resilience” is critical. Mining resiliency’s depths and revealing its characteristics,
its inconsistencies, and properties, can challenge or confirm the belief that resilience
plays a role in the consistency or hardiness of a leader. Debating the importance or the
Ability to Recover
Strength to Confront
Ability to Bounce Back
Ability to Withstand Hardship
Resilience Ability to Cope & Adapt
Ability to Overcome Adversity
Ability to Implement
Change
34
role of resiliency in effective transformational leadership will help to determine whether
it should indeed be a focus for development in educational administrator pre-service
training.
Defining Resilience
Resiliency has the Latin root meaning to jump (or bounce) back (Latin: Salir, to
jump and re, to go back) and is surprisingly varied in its applications. For the purpose of
this review of the literature, Luthans (2002a) stated that resilience was “the capacity to
rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events or
progress, and move to increased responsibility” (p. 702). As Table 2 shows, however,
researchers from various academic fields describe resilience through varying lenses.
Included in the table are psychology, psychiatry, education, developmental
psychopathology, human development, change management, epidemiology, nursing,
religion/spirituality, social sciences, and medicine. As academic researchers have
critically analyzed resilience and its role in their fields, the meanings of this construct
have seemed to evolve somewhat independently.
Resilience definitions. The definitions that follow (see Table 2) reflect their
discipline of origin for articulating resilience. Throughout the table, resilience descriptors
reflect a wide variety of meanings ranging from surviving to thriving and beyond.
In light of the many and varied definitions listed in Table 2 (Isaacs, 2003), the
terminology does interrelate and allows one to make certain inferences when viewing the
variations. Resilience is described here as an influence over the environment. This
influence is either external or internal. Flach (1988) asserted that resilience was a strength
that individuals could develop to turn trauma to benefit and not to view oneself as a
35
victim. Similarly, Rotter (1966) described his theory of internal locus of control: the
perception that positive and negative events were the consequences of one’s actions or
behaviors. Another perspective derived from the above descriptions is that resilience can
represent a sense of success, survival, or accomplishment. In 1993, Werner’s work on his
longitudinal study in Kauai stated that despite the impoverished and unfortunate home
lives of the high-risk children they studied, most of the children became successful
individuals in their adult life. Moskovitz (1983), too, mentioned in his study, that resilient
individuals had the internal strength to survive their tragic situations and conditions in
wars and concentration camps. Colgate (1996) called this achievement possible because a
resilient individual had developed cognitive processes that created an amplified sense of
power that did not have to be shared. Colgate’s research supported this malleable, grow-
able, learnable and attainable skill set, which these definitions of resilience characterize.
Table 2.
Accepted Definitions of Resilience by Discipline
Discipline Definition
Change Management Resilience is the ability to demonstrate both strength and
flexibility during the change process while displaying minimal
dysfunctional behavior (Conner, 2004).
Development of
Psychopathology
Resilience is the ability to cope with challenges and threats
while maintaining an internal and integrated sense of self
(Garmezy & Masten, 1986).
36
Education Resilience in an individual refers to successful adaptation,
despite risk and adversity; it refers to a pattern over time,
characterized by good eventual adaptation, despite the
developmental risk, acute stressors, or chronic adversities.
Resilience is the ability to thrive, mature, and increase
competence in the face of adverse circumstances (Gordon,
1995).
Epidemiology Resilience is the ability to survive stress and to rise above
disadvantage (Rutter, 1979).
Human Development Resilience is the ability to withstand or successfully cope with
adversity (Werner, 1993).
Medicine Resilience is the ability to recognize pain, acknowledge its
purpose, tolerate it for a while until things begin to normalize
(Flach, 1988).
Nursing Resilience is the ability to develop regenerate power to
respond to the internal or external environment for survival,
growth, or development (Jones, 1991).
Psychiatry Resilience is the psychological and biological strength humans
require to master change successfully (Flach, 1988).
Psychology Resilience is the ability to bounce back: to withstand hardship
and repair oneself (Wolin & Wolin, 1993; Higgins, 1994).
37
Social Sciences Resilience is the ability to bounce back from negative life
experiences and become stronger while overcoming them
(Henderson & Milstein, 1996; Conner, 2003).
Spirituality/Religion Resiliency is the ability to cope with stress and adversity and
bounce back to a previous state of normal functioning or using
the exposure to adversity to produce a “steeling effect” and
function better than expected. Resilience is a process and not
an individual trait that some have, and others do not; it is a
learned/acquired trait (Scheer, 2011).
Another inference produced from the various descriptors was that resilience could
imply action or strength (Colgate, 1996), and can be seen in the characteristics listed—
bouncing back, managing frustration, and persevering in the face of adversity. Modifying
behavior or environment and negotiating with strength were also correlated with
characteristic resilience responses. Researchers who supported this were Conner (2004),
who stated that resilience was the ability to demonstrate strength, Wolin and Wolin
(1993), Dugan and Coles (1989), and Joseph (1994), all of whom described resilience as
the ability to bounce back from a negative or difficult circumstance. In each of the
definitions described above, individuals with resilience thought, felt, or acted in the face
of challenging circumstances by drawing on strengths, skills, and past experiences to
identify an adequate solution for a particular situation (Colgate, 1996).
Finally, coping with or adapting to unique and challenging situations has also
been identified as a strong reflection of the presence of resilience in individuals (Wang &
38
Gordon, 1994). In a more thorough description, Garmezy and Masten (1986) described
resilience as not only the ability to adapt to situations in general but also as the ability to
cope with challenges and threats while maintaining an internal and integrated sense of
self.
Patterson and Kelleher (2005) defined resilience as “using one’s energy
productively to emerge from adversity stronger than before” (p. 21). Luthar, Cicchetti,
and Becker (2000) referred to resilience as a dynamic process encompassing positive
adaptation within the context of significant adversity. Implicit in this definition were two
vital conditions: (a) exposure to a significant threat or a severe adversity, and (b) the
achievement of positive adaptation, despite major adversity in the developmental process
(Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). Resilience continues to be
viewed as a dynamic process exhibiting positive patterns of adaptation in the context of
adversity (Garmezy, 1990). This dynamic process that exhibits positive patterns should
result in the individual “bouncing back” to a previous state of normal functioning (or
beyond), or simply not showing negative effects (Masten, 2009). A final, more
controversial form of resilience is often referred to as posttraumatic growth or steeling
effects, wherein the experience of adversity can lead to better functioning, much like an
inoculation gives one the capacity to cope well with future exposure to disease (Rutter,
2008).
Understanding resilience as a process and not as an individual’s character
attribute has been studied by Masten (1994), in order to increase understanding of
resilience. Masten contended that resilience was the result of individuals being able to
interact with their environments. It was the role of protective factors or processes that
39
either promoted well-being or protected individuals against the overwhelming influence
of risk factors (Zautra, Hall, & Murray, 2010). These processes were recognized as
individual coping strategies, helped by supportive families, schools, communities, or
social policies or practices that may make resilience more likely to occur (Leadbeater,
Dodgen, & Solarz, 2005). Resilience occurred when protective factors, both internal and
external, accumulated and assisted the individual with dealing with the risk factors to
which they have also been exposed.
Finally, Patterson and Kelleher (2005) related resilience leaders to leaders who
perform as “realistic optimists.” Such resilient individuals are not surprised easily; they
have already decided that changes, disruptions, and challenges will happen and that
growth from these experiences will occur. Patterson and Kelleher (2005) described
resilient school leaders as follows:
• They work to understand what is happening because of the adversity:
including how they may have contributed to the adversity.
• They are positive; believing that good things can happen within the
constraints of the situation and that the leaders themselves can play a role in
making good things happen.
• They are anchored in their core personal and organizational values; they stay
focused on what is important, not allowing adversity to knock them off
course.
• They are persistent in tough times, recovering quickly from setbacks, growing
from them and celebrating small victories along the way.
40
• They invest their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual energy wisely;
they know when and how to build in recovery time, so their energy is not
drained.
• They act on the courage of their convictions, taking decisive action when
adversity strikes, and the stakes are high; their courage mainly comes from
being clear about what matters most. (p. 35).
Resilience, defined by Zolli and Healy (2012), was “the capacity of a system,
enterprise, or a person to maintain its core purpose and integrity in the face of
dramatically changed circumstances” (p. 15). Zolli and Healy (2012) argued further that
the mindset of a resilient individual allows them to adapt quickly to technological,
cultural, and environmental change much faster than others. “Preserving adaptive
capacity, or the ability to adapt to changed circumstances while fulfilling one’s core
purpose, is an essential skill in an age of unforeseeable disruption and volatility” (Zolli &
Healy, 2012, pp. 8-9).
If organizations and schools do commit to training leaders in resilience, what is
known in the research regarding resilience training effectiveness and the strategies of
implementation? Hoopes (2013) addressed this question, in reference to resilience
research initially conducted for the Personal Resilience Questionnaire (ODR, 1996).
Studies by Wang (2003), Sylvester (2009), and Fletcher (2011) have produced research
reflecting statistically sound, positive correlations between resilience and
transformational leadership behaviors (Sylvester, 2009), resilience and international
students’ adjustments/successful integration into university life (Wang, 2008), and
trained resilience and increased sale performance (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013) and increased
41
sport performance (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014). Several of these studies will be discussed
further in Chapter 5.
The previous studies show resilience playing a role in the description of effective
performance outcomes and the behaviors of transformational change leaders. A powerful
message regarding the preparation of pre-service principals and administrators could
potentially be produced, by looking ahead at the research on change and interrelated roles
of resilience and leading change together. Additionally, combining this research with data
on demographic qualities or characteristics associated with strong transformational
leadership could have the potential of affecting future curriculum choices for pre-service
administration training courses.
The Theoretical Underpinnings of Educational Leadership:
Historical Context for Change Leadership
Leadership has been defined and articulated from Biblical times and throughout
history, yet researchers have found it difficult to describe accurately. Nearly 350
definitions appear in literature, but the definition that holds the most in common with the
others is the idea of influence—a leader has influence and can motivate followers to
achieve organizational objectives (Conner, 2004).
In this review of the literature, researchers conclude differences between the roles
of leaders and managers in education but agree that the two roles overlap at all levels of
educational leadership. School effectiveness research indicates that a strong leadership
contribution is necessary to administer school change effectively (Snowden & Gorton,
2002). According to Henderson and Milstein (1996), most authors in the field of
42
educational administration today agree that the school principal role is critical for school
improvement.
Regarding the literature on leading educational change, Fullan (2001) and Sparks
(1994) both pointed out that the management and leadership of change and improvement
in schools are some of the most complex tasks of school leadership. Sparks (1994)
asserted that school leaders must understand the change process in order to manage and
lead change effectively. Overcoming barriers, coping with chaos, and remaining resilient
through the challenges that accompany change are vital actions required of effective
change leaders (Fullan & Miles, 1992).
Conner (2004) stated that the single most important factor in leading change
successfully is the degree to which people demonstrated resilience. Conner maintained
resilience to be the willingness and capacity of a leader to absorb high levels of adversity
and change while demonstrating an insignificant dysfunctional response or performance.
The assumption, according to Conner (2004), was that resilient educational leaders would
be better equipped to lead effectively through change because they have developed the
capacity to absorb and work through high levels of challenge during the process and were
prepared not only to see the change or challenge through to completion but to grow from
the experience and become more effective as leaders.
Definitions of Key Terms
In the literature on resilience in leaders, a common language has developed. The
following phrases epitomize critical ideas within the literature.
Authentic Leadership: A pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes
both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate. Authentic leadership
43
fosters greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of
information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers,
fostering positive self-development (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, &
Peterson, 2008).
Positive Psychology: A field of psychology that recognizes individual positive
traits, promotes positive experiences, thoughts, and perspectives, and attempts to expand
communities and organizations around these positive qualities (Frederickson, 2002).
Protective factors: Factors that modify (ameliorate, buffer) a person’s reaction to
a situation that in ordinary circumstances would lead to maladaptive outcomes (Werner,
1993).
The Trait-State Continuum: The continuous extent to which resiliency is referred
to as dispositional and trait-like; as opposed to dynamic or state-like and open to
development (Luthans, Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006).
Transformational Leadership: A relatively recent term, first established in 1973
by J.V. Downton in his book, Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in a
Revolutionary Process. According to Burns, transformational leadership is… “a
relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and
may convert leaders into moral agents” (Burns, 2004).
Empirical Research
A majority of resiliency research focused on resilience in children and youth or
corporate management. There is a paucity of research linked exclusively to schools and
school leadership that reflect investigations of student and teacher resiliency. Only one
peer-reviewed study focused on resilience and K-12 educational leaders (Isaacs, 2012).
44
The study was based partly on Isaacs’ doctoral dissertation (Isaacs, 2003) and applied
similar methodology and measures. The findings, however, were not statistically sound—
an insufficiently large convenience sample and some erroneous reporting of the data
made for a somewhat incomplete study. Nevertheless, Isaacs raised some very intriguing
research questions. These will be addressed further in Chapter 5 of this dissertation.
Another dissertation study was Wasden (2014), which was a correlational study as
well, but studied the relationships between transformational leadership and resilience at
the collegiate level among higher educational leadership administrators. Before beginning
discussion of Isaacs’ 2012 study and Wasden’s dissertation, it is appropriate to review
previous research on resilience and the reliability of resilience measures. Understanding
the instruments and what they measure will increase insight in interpreting the findings in
Chapter 4.
The Conner Personal Resilience Questionnaire (PRQ; Conner, 2004) measures the
ability to adapt to change in a 70-item survey that uses resilience characteristics to
discover related leadership behaviors. Specifically, the PRQ measures five resilience
characteristics that include seven subscales each, and it has been used with more than
75,000 participants. Measurements of reliability, internal consistency, and stability have
been determined by Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient and measured at .65, .83 and .85,
respectively, for the entire measure. The PRQ has been tested in terms of convergent,
discriminant, and predictive validity (Conner, 2004). The validity psychometrics of the
PRQ were derived from a study on 226 undergraduate students at the Georgia Institute of
Technology in 1993. The population contained a fairly even split on gender (121 males,
104 females), and the participation was anonymous, contingent upon informed consent,
45
and available for extra credit (ODR, 1996). Each participant completed the PRQ and 26
other tested instruments that had similar, validated, constructs.
After analyzing the data, a final set was chosen for internal consistency.
Individual scores on the resilience sub-scales were compared to scores on other validated
scales that were used to measure the same constructs, and this established construct
validity for the PRQ. Conner (2004) then obtained data from 86 employees of a leading
financial institution. The financial institution was undergoing a drastic change. Of the
employees, 66 were described as high performers, and the rest were considered low
performers. Conner compared the scores of these groups on the seven components of
resilience, worked through the statistical analyses and discovered that the high performers
scored higher than the lower performers on the resilience characteristics. The data
resulting from this study suggested that scores on the PRQ might be used to reliably
predict job performance in organizations undergoing change (Conner, 2004). These
studies and the validation of the PRQ offer a tool for potentially measuring correlations
between resilience and leadership effectiveness.
Isaacs’ work (2003) used the PRQ instrument from Conner and the Leadership
Practices Inventory, based on the Florida State Principal Competencies, which was
designed by Kouzes and Posner (1993). This quantitative study (using both Conner’s and
Kouzes and Posner’s instruments) was a cross-sectional research design and investigated
resilience dimensions and leadership practices concerning high school principal personal
demographics. A convenience sample of 340 teachers was selected for the study from six
school districts in Florida. There were 68 high school principals who were contacted from
rural and urban schools, along with 136 assistant principals. Data showed significant
46
positive correlations between principal personal demographics, resilience levels, and
change-leadership characteristics, but there were many shortcomings to this research.
This study validated a significant, positive relationship between some dimensions of
resilience and effective school leadership; however, the inconsistencies in the study
affected some of the overall reliability of the findings. Nevertheless, some of the findings
will be discussed in Chapter 5 of this study.
A dissertation by Shane Wasden from the University of Idaho (2014) added to the
short supply of research available that reflects the combining of these two conceptual
frameworks of resilience and transformational leadership in the field of educational
leadership. Wasden’s study took place within the confines of higher educational
leadership at a private university in Idaho. Wasden used the 25-point Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC, 2003) instead of the 1993 PRQ currently used in this study.
Avolio and Bass’ Multi Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was used for both dissertations.
In Wasden’s dissertation (2014), a review of the literature showed a similarly
limited amount of research (also found by this researcher) that had been performed with
the combination of transformational leadership and resilience within the context of
education and within higher educational leadership. The 45-point Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) and the 25-point Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
were administered. The study was conducted at Brigham Young University within the
confines of higher education leadership. Wasden (2014) chose to use the following
demographic data variables: individuals’ gender, age, leadership position level, years of
employment with the university, years of experience in higher education, and completed
level of education. Included in the sample were Level 1 through Level 4 administrators,
47
with a total of 131 respondents. The structure of this university’s leadership had multiple
ranks, including vice president, associate vice president, managing director, director, and
manager. The university’s leadership was divided further into four areas of responsibility,
with vice presidents over each area. All administrators and staff personnel at Level 1,
Level 2, Level 3 or Level 4, who also had managing authority over other personnel or
staff, were invited to participate in the study. Of the 131 leaders, only 80 administrators
completed the transformational leadership-resilience questionnaire.
Eighty leaders completed Wasden’s survey, with 90% of the participants being
male and 10% female. The age of the participants was spread fairly evenly with 38% at
41-50 years of age, 25% at 21-40 years of age, and 37% at 55-70 years of age. Forty
percent of the sample participants had 16-35 years of experience being employed at that
university.
The results of Wasden’s study showed that a moderately strong, statistically
positive correlation existed between self-perceived transformational leadership and self-
perceived resilience within this university’s higher education leadership.
Transformational leadership and resilience did not appear to be affected by age, gender,
experience in teaching or administering, leadership level, or educational attainment.
However, transformational leadership and resilience were affected by years of
employment/institutional longevity within the university where this research was
performed. Past research done by Bass, Avolio, and Atwater (1996) showed women
rating higher in transformational leadership than men. Wasden’s study (2014), however,
showed no evidence of this. Further prior findings will also play a role in the data
discussions comprising Chapter 5 of this study.
48
The undeniably limited amount of research done on the promising correlational
interplay between resilience and transformational leadership in the field of educational
leadership highlights the need for more research. Researchers in education must look to
other disciplines and studies and learn from measurements of and work with
transformational leadership and resilience.
Business
In the field of business leadership, transformational leadership has become one of
the most dominant paradigms in contemporary leadership literature (Judge & Piccolo,
2004). It has been linked with desirable employee outcomes, such as wellbeing (Nielsen,
Yarker, Randall, & Munir, 2009), creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2003) and task performance
(Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006).
In an entrepreneurial business study from Bullough and Renko (2013),
researchers looked at how successful entrepreneurs bounced back from uncertainty and
poor financial markets, failures, and supply and demand challenges to become prosperous
in their respective markets. After self-report surveying 500 profitable entrepreneurs in the
US and abroad, significant correlations existed between self-efficacy and resilience.
Findings from the study urged business leaders to engage in entrepreneurial business
training to enhance self-efficacy; to seek out networking and mentoring opportunities in
order to build protective factors of support and empowerment; to be active in
entrepreneurial pursuits, cultivate business connections and build business acumen.
Finally, researchers suggested that entrepreneurs seek feedback, encouragement, wisdom
and support, from those who could foster their growth and achievement. (Bullough &
Renko, 2013).
49
Resilience in entrepreneurs was also studied by Ayala and Manzano (2014)
regarding several dimensions of the resilience construct, such as hardiness,
resourcefulness and optimism. The longitudinal study took place in 2008 in Spain within
the tourist industry with a sample size of 534 Spanish entrepreneurs who were randomly
selected from a secured government data base representing founding entrepreneurs with
10-50 employees, who had been successfully operating their businesses for a minimum of
42 months. Following a 5-year waiting period, researchers interviewed the businessmen
and women again, which allowed measurements of business expansion and resilience
dimensions to be measured in relation to growth.
Results showed that three dimensions of resilience were positively and
significantly correlated with successful growth in the entrepreneurial businesses.
Resourcefulness, hardiness and optimism all helped to predict entrepreneurial prosperity
in the business arena. Additionally, the study showed the influence of optimism on
entrepreneurial success was positively and significantly correlated with women
entrepreneurs and not men (Ayala & Manzano, 2014).
Nursing and Healthcare
Within the field of nursing and healthcare, a 2009 research study by Danish
researchers (Nielsen et al., 2009) surveyed 274 elderly care employees, who were mostly
nurses and health care professionals, by using a cross-sectional survey, in which the
employees were asked to identify their own self-efficacy and the level of efficacy in their
team. Both TEAM, with its protective factors and self-efficacy were positively and
significantly correlated with transformational leadership, as was employee wellbeing and
job satisfaction. Self-efficacy has been named in numerous studies as a protective factor
50
in developing resilience (Bandura, 2008; Cassidy, 2015; Hamill, 2003; Ozer & Bandura,
1990).
Another study by Munir, Nielsen, Garde, Albertsen, and Carneiro (2011) used a
longitudinal design with staff in an elderly care facility in order to explore the mediating
effects of the health-care professional’s work-life conflict, transformational leadership,
job satisfaction and healthcare employee well-being. Here regression analyses produced
data that showed that transformational leadership was positively and significantly
correlated with a positive effect on work-life conflict, job satisfaction and psychological
well-being.
In the Journal of Advanced Nursing (Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007), a
literature review was conducted exploring resilience as a possible strategy for responding
positively to adversity in the workplace. Strategies for building resilience in nurses and
healthcare workers were analyzed that could empower personal resilience within the
profession. The review delineated studies that described the benefits of building
resilience as seen through lowering vulnerability to adversity, improved personal well-
being and achieving increased care outcomes. Effective strategies included developing
mentoring relationships, achieving life balance, pursuing spirituality, fostering positive
emotions and increasing personal growth and reflections as protective factors.
Developing the aforementioned protective factors could contribute to achieving improved
personal outcomes (Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007).
Team Dynamics and Self-Efficacy
Bandura (2008) stated, “Without a resilient sense of efficacy, people are usually
overwhelmed by adversities in their efforts to improve their lives and that of others” (p.
51
4). Bandura defined efficacy as resilience in agentic action, embedded in human agency.
“Resilience factors should be described in proactive, agentic terms, rather than in
epidemiological terms of protective factors buffering against the negative effects of
adversity” (p. 6). Both team and self-efficacy in the study as mentioned earlier (Nielsen et
al., 2009) were found to act as mediators to the relationship between transformational
leadership and individual well-being. Team efficacy was found to mediate the
relationship (to some degree) between transformational leadership and job satisfaction.
Team efficacy, also, was positively correlated as a mediator to the relationship between
transformational leadership and employee wellbeing (Nielsen et al., 2009).
Military
A military field experiment, which focused on motivation, morality, and
empowerment was undertaken by Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002), as they
pursued their longitudinal, randomized military field experiment using transformational
leadership strategies and behaviors, enhanced by training, on follower development and
performance. This study had a participation sample of 54 military leaders, their 90 direct
followers, and 724 indirect followers. The measures were pretested in a pilot study of 320
infantry commanders and followers, and the researchers deleted and revised the measures
based on the results of the pretest. Alpha coefficients for each measure at the group level
were calculated in line with the unit of randomization, treatment, and analysis. The
experimental group of military leaders received transformational leadership training, and
the control group of military leaders received eclectic leadership training. Results showed
the military leaders in the experimental group had a more positive impact on their direct
followers’ development and their indirect followers’ development than the military
52
leaders in the control group. MANCOVA revealed a significant treatment effect (F7, 30 =
2.44, p < .05) for the combination of the seven developmental variables after pre-test
adjustments of the differences (Dvir et al., 2002).
Another study conducted in Belgium (Doci & Hofmans, 2015) measured
transformational leadership in light of task complexity in an experimental design created
to measure the effects of contextual antecedents on transformational leadership behavior.
A laboratory experiment was conducted measuring the relationship between task
complexity and the emergence of transformational leadership behaviors. In this study, a
convenience sample of 111 first-year college students was randomly placed in groups of
three, with randomly assigned group roles of leader and two subordinates. All
participants were instructed to solve three decision-making tasks with differing levels of
complexity. Results of this study revealed that task complexity was “negatively
correlated to transformational leadership behavior and that this relationship was partially
mediated by the leaders’ state core self-evaluations. In other words, when leaders
encounter tasks that are overwhelmingly complex, they act in less transformational ways
because they momentarily lack the psychological resources (resilience) to do so” (p. 436).
The “practical implications” and “conclusions” sections of Doci’s and Hofmans’ 2015
study were summarized thusly:
If organizations want their leaders to act effectively in a wide range of contexts,
they may help them to become aware of their negative self-evaluations in
challenging situations that interfere with transformational behaviors, and teach
them how to modify these appraisals…Our findings also contribute to
organizational practice by revealing situational conditions and cognitive skills that
53
organizations need to promote if they want to facilitate the emergence of
transformational leadership behavior. (p. 445)
As in the Doci and Hofman study (2015), resilience training was described as a
means to potentially empower leaders to more consistently and effectively lead positive,
second-order, change.
Critical Analysis
Because of the multiple and varied definitions of resilience, many inconsistencies
exist across multiple domains, and scientists’ question whether resilience is a “veridical
construct as opposed to a mythical entity” (Fischer, Peterson, Gardner, & Gordon, 2009,
p. 36). Although uneven clarity and functioning across different domains should not
invalidate resilience as a construct (Isaacs, 2003), there is a very critical message here for
researchers. A scientific basis for intervention research necessitates precise terminology
to build on earlier classifications and ensure continued validity and vitality for the
construct (Kumpfer, 2002; Sameroff & Rosenblum, 2006; Tolan, 1996).
According to Masten and Obradovic (2006), some questions currently challenging
the development of resilience research are:
1. Who decides or defines the criteria for judging good adaptation resulting from
resilience or some other construct?
2. Does resilience refer to positive internal adaptation, positive external
adaptation, or both?
3. Can an individual be resilient in one context and not another, at one time and
not another, for one kind of stressor and not another, for one kind of adaptive
domain and not another?
54
4. Without answers to the previous questions, how are optimal indicators for
resilience delineated?
5. How can knowledge be aggregated, if the criteria for defining and analyzing
resilience often varies so much across studies?
6. Is the concept of resilience viable, or is it just a positive renaming of the
underlying phenomenon of vulnerability, risk-taking and coping?
7. Does the focus on resilience distract society from addressing the burden of
risk in the lives of children and adults facing real adversity?. (p. 72)
These questions remained at the core of the argument on the role, the study and
the research relating to resilience and its viability as a construct.
In studies outside of educational leadership, resilience was measured with the
presupposition of individuals exposed to significant risks (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker,
2000). Because there was no common level of risk or adversity assigned to resilience, it
was difficult to determine comparable levels of risk or adversity between studies (Hamel
& Välikangas, 2003).
According to Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000), research findings on resilience
are often problematic. Statistical findings found from the tail of continua are always
problematic because they involve smaller numbers. In areas involving resilience,
researchers deal with two tails of continua: high adversity and high competence. Because
stringent criteria are often used in resilience studies, small numbers are commonly a
reality in the research, and small numbers are often viewed as a weakness in studies for
reasons of generalizability and sample adhesion to the true population.
55
Ontogenetic instability is also a reality in the phenomenon of resilience (Luthar et
al., 2000) because individuals at high risk rarely maintain consistently positive
adjustment over the long term. This concern may invalidate, for some, the value of
studying resilience. This lack of stability, according to Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker
(2000), has slowed the development of confidence in the construct by researchers from
all disciplines.
According to Froh (2004), many believe that resilience is nothing more than a
“positive adjustment” and that resilience theory does nothing to augment developmental
theory. Other questions and concerns surrounding resilience as a viable uni-dimensional
construct, were raised by Richardson (2002). Richardson suggested that because of the
abundance of research examining the multitude and diversity of protective factors, that a
multi-dimensional instrument would best measure them, and that the single dimensional
construct was not ideal. Bobko and Stone-Romero (1998) argued that if a measure did not
assess all of the components or the facets of a construct that are theoretically related, then
the measure should be considered “deficient” (p. 375).
In response to this criticism, Luthans and Youssef (2007) provided an application
that considered resilience as one component of four positive psychological principles:
optimism, hope, self-efficacy, and resilience. These four principles comprised a higher-
order construct called psychological capital (PsyCap), discussed earlier in this chapter.
With cross-sectional designs, which were within organizations in the workplace, Luthans
and colleagues demonstrated that PsyCap was significantly and positively correlated to
supervisor-rated performance, job satisfaction (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007)
and employee psychological well-being (Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010).
56
In addition to PsyCap, the Workplace Resilience Inventory (McLarnon &
Rothstein, 2013) has been developed as a theoretically grounded resilience assessment
that has demonstrated incremental validity above the PsyCap instrument. These PsyCap
instruments are actively being used in the corporate world. In educational leadership
research, multidimensional constructs like PsyCap or the Workplace Resilience Inventory
could hold promise as viable applications for future studies in schools.
According to Harland et al., (2005), individuals who experienced positive support
from leadership through adverse conditions and traumatic events, and also reported on
the supportive interventions, exhibited substantially and significantly more resilience than
participants who did not report support. The question Harland and colleagues raised was,
“Do leaders make a difference in helping employees become more resilient in the midst
of their adversities” (Harland et al., 2005, p. 2)? The results of their study suggested
strongly that resilience was significantly and positively correlated to leader behaviors and
that there appeared to be a variety of leadership behaviors that had the capacity of
positively influencing subordinate resilience.
Finally, the empirical literature regarding the role of protective factors and
resilience is centered on the specific attributes or situations that are necessary for the
process of resilience to occur (Dyer & McGuinness, 1996). Compiled lists of protective
factors were apparent in the research, but Rutter (2012) questioned the meaningfulness of
these factors. Although Rutter acknowledged the importance of protective factors as
“robust predictors” of resilience, he proposed that the protective factors, or processes,
were of greater value in determining approaches to enhancing resilience and thereby
preventing negative outcomes (Rutter, 2012). Kumpfer (2002) stated: “Part of the process
57
of developing resiliency characteristics in individuals is modifying the environment to
remove stressors and find a better goodness-of-fit” (p. 210).
If leaders, from any arena of leadership, are to effectively support leaders they
oversee in exhibiting growing levels of resilience, it is critical to provide protective
factors to bring strength and support to this process (Kumpfer, 2002). These preceding
questions, concerns, and inconsistencies continue to plague researchers of resilience and
may contribute to the reasons for research gaps regarding this construct, especially in the
area of educational leadership.
Synthesis and Implications
Laying aside the somewhat challenging concerns surrounding the construct of
resilience, and the lack of empirical studies on resilience in educational leadership in the
principal and administrative realms, resilience offers substantial potential for ongoing
refinements in existing theories of healthy human development (Luthar, Cicchetti, &
Becker, 2000). Terminology continues to evolve around emerging constructs and
resilience is no different. Although resiliency in K-12 educational leadership has
relatively no substantial empirical research studies to date, there are established
approaches for purposefully fostering resiliency in the workplace that are developing
from empirical studies in the business (Youssef & Luthans, 2007), medical (Waite &
Richardson, 2004) and military sectors (King, King, Fairbank, Keane, & Adams, 1998;
Masten & Powell, 2003; Reivich & Shatte, 2002). These fields are producing empirical
evidence focused on strategic programs that build resilience through the enhancement of
variable inventories. These resilience variable inventories purportedly work against the
risk factors of stress, conflict, job insecurity, lack of communication and feedback,
58
ineffective leadership and counterproductive group dynamics (Masten & Reed, 2002).
According to Masten (2009), these resilience variable inventories stabilize individuals as
they encounter and work through adversity in the workplace. Although similar studies
have not yet taken place in the K-12 educational leadership field, these studies from the
business, medical and military fields could potentially be replicated within education to
research further possible correlations between resilience variables and change leadership
in schools.
Moreover, the main focus of the established clinical psychology applications of
resiliency is bringing individuals back to their normal level, or stasis level, of
performance following times of adversity. However, in these programs, as well as in
today’s competitive workplace, progress from deficient performance to just average is
hardly adequate (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Resilience incorporates “bouncing back” and
beyond, so that adversities and setbacks become opportunities for learning, development,
and flourishing (Bananno, 2004). This ‘bouncing back” and beyond is what positive
psychologists continue to investigate as a type of posttraumatic growth (Tedeschik, Park,
& Calhoun, 1998); and if developed, such growth could help educational leaders lead
through change (Hoffman, 2004).
Looking further at the potential role of resilience in the workplace or within
schools, it becomes evident that resilience cannot be limited to just a reactive capacity
that is expressed solely during times of adversity (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Resilience
appears to incorporate a proactive dimension that promotes discrepancy creation or an
intrinsic motivation for goal setting and efficacy, even in the absence of external threats
(Bandura & Locke, 2003). Resilience allows adversities and setbacks to be viewed as
59
opportunities for learning, growth, and development. It activates creative and flexible
adaptive mechanisms, guided by ethical values and robust belief systems, toward the
achievement of personally and organizationally meaningful goals. Although this full
extension of resilience growth has only been substantiated within self-report studies and
very few 360-degree studies within fields outside of education, the statistics are,
nevertheless, promising. The resilience construct has been supported empirically as a
predictor of work-related outcomes and is shown to be open to definition, recognition,
development and management in the workplace (Conner, 1993; Harland, Harrison, Jones
& Reiter-Palmon, 2005; LaMarsh, 1997; Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans, Vogelgesang, &
Lester, 2006; Reivich & Schatte, 2002; Vickers & Kouzmin, 2011; Waite & Richardson,
2004; Waterman, Waterman, & Collard, 1994; Zunz, 1998). It is through this research
that a theoretical foundation has been established that invites researchers to competently
and confidently move forward with developing and implementing empirical studies for
measuring resiliency and its role in effective educational leadership administration.
Suggestions for Further Research
As one views current work in the military, medical, and corporate fields to
incorporate resilience interventions and training into the respective organizations, it is
possible to see leadership parallels between these fields and K-12 educational leadership.
Resilience is a dynamic capacity that can allow people to thrive on challenges, given
appropriate social and personal contexts and training. The dimensions of resilience being
measured in these empirical studies, including self-efficacy, self-control, the ability to
engage support and help, learning from difficulties, and persistence (despite failure or
resistance to progress), are all qualities that are vital to educational leaders as well.
60
According to Kumpfer (2002), although many empirical studies show the power of
resilience to equip individuals regardless of context, some have entered uncharted waters,
and without protective factors in certain circumstances, growth in resilience will most
likely not be sustainable (Kumpfer, 2002). Further research is needed in this area, as
growth in resilience that cannot be sustained is hardly beneficial for any organization.
Because resiliency research is largely based on studies of children who are
vulnerable and have experienced severe trauma and adversity, the use of the term
“resiliency” in adult contexts, without clear delineations of what exactly connotes risk,
stress, and adversity, is confusing for researchers who seek to compare studies for
behavioral predictions and for insight into further research. As was previously discussed,
although these studies show improvement in resilience in a respective context, sustained
growth in resilience from interventions will most likely not transpire without
environmental changes happening simultaneously (Rutter, 2008).
Projecting these studies into the field of K-12 educational leadership, similar
challenges would most likely occur. Colleges, universities and local school districts using
resilience curriculum and interventions would most likely report interpersonal changes
apparent in self-reported surveys from their students; but without school environmental
changes taking place simultaneously, as purposefully established protective factors to
mitigate some of the adversity faced by leaders, there is no probable projection of hope
for the individual to make sustainable changes in the areas of resilience (Rutter, 2008).
Persevering through adversity without hope of change in the longevity or severity of the
adversity, i.e., principal pressures, tragedies, stressors or overwhelming responsibilities,
does not promote growth in resilience. Hope is a strong motivator toward change, and
61
without concurrent changes made within the environment, in the form of second-order
transformational change, resilience growth is thwarted (Leadbeater et al., 2005).
Before districts, colleges, or universities consider resilience training or
interventions for their leaders, a commitment to growth and support from the part of the
organizational leaders should likewise be made. Without protective factors, resilience
interventions will most likely not succeed in the long term. As was articulated earlier, the
single most important factor in managing change successfully is the degree to which
people demonstrate resilience (Conner, 2003). In light of this, protective factors of
assigned mentors, forms of adversity mitigation, modeled interventions, and establishing
a culture of authentic growth through challenges, are environmental changes that could
support educational leaders as they seek to grow, at an interpersonal level, with
resilience.
Finally, considering the many controversial beliefs articulated above regarding the
cross-discipline resiliency construct, it is vital that researchers in this relatively new area
of positive psychology do cogent, theoretically, and methodologically sound research
within well-described frameworks and parameters. Additionally, a noticeable stigma
appears to exist within the current research surrounding resilience and positive
psychology. This stigma is reflected in an underlying bias, quite unsupported, that the
concepts derived from positive psychology are not considered scientific, and that the
study of these structures and constructs is therefore not vital or essential to the growth of
psychology as a whole (Froh, 2004).
Researchers must assume an ethical imperative to objectivity and to viewing each
side of a concept critically, not unfounded biases in any form. For this reason, when
62
existing developmental theories are applied in researching and studying resilience, they
must be done with integrity; there must be explicit conceptual consideration of how
interrelations among the matrix of constructs will be affected through the research under
study. These considerations must become a serious research expectation, an ethical
responsibility, and an imperative to which researchers adhere.
Due to the many challenges that researchers face in working to develop a
commonly accepted definition and construct of resilience, many educational leadership
areas and their potential relationship with resilience currently lack scholarship in sound,
empirical research. Yet this is during a time of great need for educational leaders who can
meet challenges and adversity head on. We must now raise our sights and focus on
principals and administrators as pivotal and crucial leaders in a culture of change. School
improvement depends on principals and administrators who can foster and create the
conditions necessary for sustained education reform in a complex, rapidly changing
society. Never has the time been riper for resilient change leaders to rise up than right
now (Fullan, 2001).
Conclusion
Change leadership in education holds many challenges and presents daily
obstacles for administrators in various forms. Bandura (2008) saw resilience and
optimism as a powerful combination in effecting personal and societal change.
Human wellbeing and attainments require an optimistic and resilient sense of
efficacy. This is because the usual daily realities are strewn with difficulties. They
are full of frustrations, conflicts, impediments, adversities, failures, setbacks and
inequities. To succeed, one cannot afford to be a realist. Realists forgo the
63
endeavor, are easily discouraged by failures, should they try, or they become
cynics about the prospect of effecting personal and social changes. (Bandura,
2008, p. 168)
The area of K-12 administrative resilience development currently contains little
research. As was shown in the workplace studies previously described (Nielsen et al.,
2009; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), resilience has been measured and has been positively
correlated to workers’ flexibility, positive affect toward change, and self-efficacy in
personal and career expectations. These correlations have not yet been shown in
empirical studies in the realm of educational leadership, but the studies as mentioned
earlier from the military, from medicine, and from the corporate workplace, show
resilience as a teachable, expandable and dynamic trait (Conner, 2004). It is an exciting
time for research in an area that may render substantial support to educational leaders
who are in great need of wisdom and training in a resilience paradigm that has the
potential to bring strength, flexibility, and growth in times of adversity.
64
Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapters 1 and 2 provided background and support for the role of fostering
resilience and transformational leadership development in K-12 schools. A possible
foundation was set for establishing school improvement, lasting second-order change,
and transformational leadership growth through the pursuit of resilience and
transformational leadership. This chapter describes the purpose of this study’s
investigation and the methods, assumptions, and procedures used in collecting the data,
then organizing, analyzing and assessing the data acquired by the survey process.
Purpose of the Investigation
This study will potentially add to the research that indicates that resilience and
transformational leadership are not static traits, but rather ones that can be developed, and
that this development can potentially be used to improve K-12 leadership in schools.
Personal resiliency scores and transformational change leadership results from this study
for principals and administrators were not shared with them individually but will be used
in the research to reflect the population who are managing and affecting change in
represented schools.
The Problem
Educational administrators are agents able to establish a positive culture of
stability within the school environment (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Macmillan et al., 2004).
Policy change, organization, student academic growth and improvement, and teacher
collaboration are all connected to decisions made by administrators (Deal & Peterson,
1990). Furthermore, consistency and longevity in school leadership influence school
culture (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Macmillan et al., 2004), so understanding the role
65
resilience may play is vital. The existence of developed resilience in administrators has
been implied as a factor that positively impacts sustainability and school growth (Connor,
2014).
Research Questions
The quantitative studies on resilience and resilience’s role have been increasing
over the past ten years, but specific studies targeted on public and private school
administrators working in effective K-12 school leadership are in short supply. This study
will build on the limited but vital research that could potentially benefit college and
university administrator preparation programs and help enhance the readiness and
training of their graduates.
Research Question 1: Are there significant positive relationships between
resiliency dimensions and transformational leadership practices among American K-12
school principals and administrators?
Null Hypothesis. There are no significant positive relationships between resiliency
dimensions and transformational leadership practices among American K-12 principals
and administrators.
Research Question 1 Hypothesis. It was hypothesized that resiliency variables
would be significantly and positively correlated with some or all of the five
transformational leadership dimensions in the MLQ (building trust, acting with integrity,
encouraging others, encouraging innovative thinking, and coaching and developing
people), not significantly correlated with the two transactional factors (rewarding
achievement, also known as contingent reward, and monitoring deviations and mistakes,
also known as management by active exception) and negatively correlated with the two
66
passive/avoidant factors (fighting fires, or management by passive exception, and
avoiding involvement, also known as laissez-faire non-leadership).
Research Question 2: Are there significant differences in resiliency dimensions
among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators, defined in terms of
demographic variables?
Null Hypothesis. There are no significant differences in resiliency dimensions
among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators, defined in terms of
demographic variables.
Research Question 3: Are there significant differences in transformational
leadership dimensions among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators,
defined in terms of demographic variables?
Null Hypothesis. There are no significant differences in transformational
leadership dimensions among groups of American K-12 principals and administrators,
defined in terms of demographic variables.
Research Design
This study was a quantitative investigation using cross-sectional surveys, with
data being collected during the same period of time. The study investigated the
relationships of two dependent variables, whose outcome or variation was studied: 1)
resilience dimensions, and 2) transformational leadership practices, both in an
educational setting. Using an online survey method, SurveyMonkey was the platform for
the two instrument measures; the PRQ for Resilience and the MLQ for Transformational
Leadership. The SurveyMonkey link was distributed to K-12 Educational Administrators
67
on Facebook and within e-mails sent to their personal or school e-mails, securing a more
extensive distribution for a more diverse sample size and demographic content.
Participant Selection
Principals, superintendents, and K-12 school administrators were contacted in
Oregon, Washington, California, and Montana, as well as administrators in many other
states who had expressed interest in participating in this study. ACSI distributed the links
with an introductory letter to ACSI (private school) administrators around the country.
The sampling method was purposive sampling; the survey was self-reporting in nature
and reached a mix of school administrators from small, large, rural and urban public and
private schools and districts throughout the Northwest and in every region of the United
States. Public and private school administrators were contacted directly with the survey
link through direct e-mail or “tagged” or messaged on social media.
Data Collection Instruments
The Personal Resilience Questionnaire and the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire were both loaded onto one SurveyMonkey platform.
The Personal Resilience Questionnaire shows consistency reliability for the
subscales and characteristics of resiliency that measure the resiliency construct, showing
high alpha values. The internal consistency reliability for each of the PRQ subscales was
computed with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Cronbach’s alpha is a mathematical formula
that measures the reliability of an instrument’s measurement by estimating the extent to
which the measurement produces the same results on repeated trials. Values produced by
Cronbach’s alpha that are near 0 indicate low reliability, but values near 1 indicate high
reliability. Each subscale variable for resilience had the following Cronbach’s alpha
68
coefficient: Positive (Yourself) 0.81, Focused 0.82, Flexible (Thoughts) 0.71, Flexible
(Social) 0.74, Organized 0.68, Proactive 0.65. The psychometrics of this scale were an
indication that the PRQ exhibits acceptable validity and reliability. The values for each
subscale indicated that the items that make up each scale have a fairly high level of
covariance; that is, people tend to respond similarly to the various questions asked in
each scale. This covariance shows that the questions constituting a given sub-scale are all
measuring the same concept (ODR, 1996; 2001). The Personal Resilience Questionnaire
contains seven resilience dimensions (based on empirical studies) that are strong
reflections of resilience: Positive (the World), Positive (Yourself), Focused, Cognitive
Flexible, Social Flexible, Organized and Proactive. The PRQ instrument has consistently
produced the same results under the same conditions at different times (Gliner & Morgan,
2000).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is a well-established instrument in the
measure of Transformational Leadership, as well as being extensively researched and
validated during the past two decades. Avolio and Bass’s MLQ manual shows strong
evidence for validity; the MLQ has been used in thousands of research programs,
doctoral dissertations, and master’s theses over the past 25 years (Antonakis, Avolio &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Construct validity was established with the final nine-factor
model for the MLQ with three positive leadership outcomes measured. Transformational
measurements produced Cronbach’s alpha coefficients within the following scales:
Idealized Attributes 0.77, Idealized Behaviors 0.70, Inspirational Motivation 0.83,
Intellectual Stimulation 0.75, and Individual Consideration 0.80. Within the scales of
transactional leadership are Contingent Reward 0.73 and Management by Exception
69
(Active) 0.74, and within the Passive Avoidant sphere are Management by Exception
(Passive) 0.70 and Laissez-Faire (Non-Leadership) 0.74. The instrument also reflected
the Leadership Outcomes of Extra Effort 0.84, Effectiveness & Satisfaction 0.84 and
Satisfaction with the Leadership 0.84, respectively, which added dimensions to the
Transformational Leadership measurement. A study conducted by Antonakis and
colleagues (2003), supported the nine-factor transformational leadership model and its
stability, validity, and reliability in “adequately measuring the nine components
comprising the full range model of leadership and its underlying theory” (Antonakis,
Avolio, & Sivasubramanium, 2003).
Demographic Variables
The PRQ and the MLQ survey questions formed the beginning portion of the self-
report questionnaire shared with the participating administrators in a five-point Likert
Scale format. The following demographic variables constituted the final portion of the
survey requiring administrator responses: Administrators’ Age, Gender, Leadership Level
(administrators’ role), Educational Level Achieved, Public vs. Private, Years of Teaching
Experience, Urban vs. Rural and Marital Status.
Data Collection
Personal contacts were made with many superintendents, principals, districts and
schools. Facebook connections were refreshed and fostered to encourage social media
connections to contact and share the survey link with K-12 administrators in both public
and private school settings throughout the nation to participate in this combined survey.
A research license with the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) was
applied for and received, which allowed the link to be distributed to ACSI affiliated
70
school administrators in districts and schools across the United States. E-mails, as well,
were sent to public and private school administrators in all regions of the US. This study
collected data for 60 days in early February 2018 through early April 2018.
Data Analysis
Three statistical procedures were employed to analyze the data collected in this
study. These included the MANOVA or the Multivariate Analysis of Variance, the
Pearson’s r, and the Spearman’s rho (or Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient).
Although the perfect conditions for parametric statistical analyses were violated with this
study’s convenience sample, made up of many known and previously identified
administrators from across the United States, most conditions were met for the previously
listed statistical procedures.
The MANOVA was chosen for the categorical data sets over the ANOVA
because an ANOVA is used when there is only one dependent variable, but in this case,
there were multiple dependent measures, because of the PRQ dimensions (Optimism,
Esteem, Focus, Cognitive Flexibility, Social Flexibility, Organize, and Pro Active) and
the MLQ factors (Idealized Attributes, Idealized Behaviors, Inspirational Motivation,
Intellectual Stimulation, Individual Consideration, Transactional Contingent Rewards,
Transactional Management by Exception, Passive Avoidant by Exception and Passive
Avoidant Laissez-Faire). Three outcome variables were also included as dependent
variables as well: The outcomes of Extra Effort, Effectiveness & Satisfaction and the
outcome of Satisfaction. MANOVA was used to avoid Type I error from needing to
implement multiple ANOVAs. The Pearson’s r was chosen (for the MLQ and PRQ) over
the Spearman’s rho, a non-parametrical equivalent, because of the fairly robust sample
71
size of 195 administrators who self-reported with this survey. The Spearman’s rho was
still applied to the Age, Educational Level, Years of Teaching Experience and Years of
Administrative Experience demographic variables only because their data were ordinal in
form. Spearman’s rho is typically used for analyzing metrical or ordinal data and was
thus used exclusively for the ordinal variables in this study. The categorical demographic
variables of Gender, Leadership level, Public versus Private and Urban versus Rural were
analyzed with the MANOVA. The MANOVA and Pearson’s r (for the MLQ and PRQ
linear relationships) were employed where appropriate, as they are generally more
powerful than non-parametric tests. The SPSS computer program was used to complete
the statistical analyses of the data.
The Pearson’s r was used to measure Research Question #1: Are there significant
positive relationships between resiliency dimensions and transformational leadership
practices among American K-12 school principals and administrators? Pearson’s r, or
the Pearson correlation coefficient, measured the strength of the linear association
between the two variables X and Y and gave a value between +1 and -1. Fundamentally,
Pearson’s r attempts to draw a line of best fit through the data points of two variables and
indicates how far away all the data points are to the line of best fit. A value greater than 0
reflects a positive association, that is, as the value of one variable increases, so does the
value of the other variable. A value of less than 0 shows a negative association, that is, as
the value of one variable increases, the value of the other decreases. The stronger the
association of the two variables, the closer the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r, will be
to either -1 or +1, showing a negative or positive relationship. Pearson’s r was a measure
of the strength of the linear dependence between X and Y and in this study, X and Y
72
represented resilience dimensions and transformational leadership characteristics as they
related to K-12 public and private school administrators surveyed.
The MANOVA, which is similar to an ANOVA with several dependent variables,
was used to measure relationships between leadership and resiliency dimensions in
relation to the categorical demographic variables of Gender, Public versus Private, Urban
versus Rural and Leadership Levels of the administrators. The MANOVA analyzed the
differences in means between groups defined by these four demographic variables. The
ANOVA, or Analysis of Variance, tests for differences of means between two or more
groups. The MANOVA tests for differences, also, but is used when there are two or more
dependent variables. The MANOVA, Spearman’s rho and the univariate tests were
implemented with Research Questions 2 (Are there significant differences in resiliency
dimensions between groups of K-12 principals and administrators in terms of
demographic variables?) and 3 (Are there significant differences in transformational
leadership dimensions between groups of K-12 principals and administrators in terms of
demographic variables?). The MANOVA was not implemented with Marital Status, one
of the demographic variables measured within the study, due to an unequal distribution of
the data. The MANOVA was implemented, however, with the variables representing the
Administrative Role held, Gender, Public versus Private, and Urban versus Rural. The
MANOVA assisted in the avoidance of Type I error, due to the multiplicity of ANOVAs
that would have been required for the number of dependent variables represented within
the study.
73
Conclusion
This study examined the relationships of levels of leadership and resiliency
dimensions in principals and administrators in private and public sectors. The following
two chapters will analyze the data and discuss possible ways resiliency and
transformational leadership interrelate, and how resilience can be more effectively
fostered in university leadership preparation programs to better equip principals and
administrators as leaders of change with the resources of resilience that can foster
strength, wisdom, stamina, and longevity in K-12 leaders.
74
Chapter 4: Results
Chapter 4 contains the findings and analyses undertaken from the raw data
obtained from the online surveys—the PRQ, the MLQ, and the demographic data loaded
onto SurveyMonkey. The outset of this chapter provides a brief background of the
respondents that was gathered from the data retrieved from the nine demographic
variables, descriptively analyzing the demographic responses from the administrators. A
brief explanation follows the findings and the analyses of the data about the prior
hypotheses provided. The chapter concludes with the summary. Tables and diagrams
were used to allow for ease and readability of the findings.
Survey Results
Approximately 70 subjects were contacted up to two months before the
commencement of this study through connections on Facebook and Instagram. This was
done in order to establish a target audience of administrators through administrative
connections in public and private schools from every region of the United States.
Networking with other administrators in the public and private sectors, sending emails
and using contact “tagging” with social media alerted administrators of the upcoming
request to participate in this dissertation study. “Tagging” an individual on social media
assigns a specific content to that individual for them to notice and gain access to at a later
time. Individuals were “tagged” by the researcher, as well as some K-12 administrators
who sought to alert other administrators of this study. An explanation was also given that
these results would contribute to the research supporting the improvement of pre-service
administrative training for K-12 administrators in the United States.
75
Approximately 1,050 emails were sent to administrators in every state in the US,
with the assistance of a grant from the Association of Christian Schools International
(ACSI) Research Support, through social media and through cold contacting the public-
school administrators through emails. The public-school emails were purchased or
obtained from updated State School Directories from across the nation. State School
Directories contain administrative email addresses from most public and private schools
within state boundaries, and these were obtained or purchased for increased email access
to administrators in K-12 schools. A total of 260 responses were returned, a 25% return
rate, but only 195 were validly measurable responses from the targeted 1,050 potential
administrator recipients, securing a 19% return rate. Many administrators opened their
surveys and completed parts or all of their surveys, but 60 respondents left more than
30% of their surveys incomplete. These responses could not be reliably validated for use
in this study’s data analyses.
The respondents were comprised of public and private school administrators from
all regions of the United States. They varied in age, experience, years of teaching and
administrating. They differed by location, rural and urban, being married or unmarried,
and by their job descriptions and roles as educational leaders.
The first demographic question from this anonymous survey was age. The
responding administrators ranged in age within five divided age sections: 20-30, 31-40,
41-50, 51-60 and 60+. The results are displayed on bar graph 1 and for all of the
respective age brackets.
76
Bar Graph 1. What is your age?
The next demographic variable measured was gender; 56% of respondents were
female, 44% were male.
Bar Graph 2. What is your gender?
The third bar graph shows the measurement of public versus private school
administration, which was the third demographic variable.
77
Bar Graph 3. Which of these best describes your position (public or private)?
The high volume of private school respondents was derived from ACSI’s
(Association of Christian Schools International) active support of this research study, as
they shared their official email lists of all private school administrators within their US
portion of their organization. This opportunity was made possible by a grant that
furthered this resilience/leadership research in this study. After this researcher applied for
support through ACSI’s research department, the organization approved the application
and advocated for this research for two months, inviting responses from private school
administrators from all regions of the United States. This advocacy helped tremendously
in obtaining a larger sample size, but the private sector greatly overshadowed the “cold
contacts” made with the public-school administrators.
This measurement of marital status was common and shared as a demographic
variable for the resilience model (PRQ) and was used in many (see Bar Graph 4) of their
78
prior studies (by Conner Partners) to give supporting details of a population possessing
potential support from a significant other. This data remained in the study for possible
future inquiries and because it met resilience research interests. However, for the record,
87% of the administrators were married or currently in a domestic partnership, and 13%
were not.
Bar Graph 4. What is your marital status?
For the Highest Level of Education Completed demographic variable, the
population had 80% of the total administrative respondents with at least a master’s
degree. Educational Administrators may work in K-12 educational arenas with four-year
79
degrees, Master’s or equivalent degrees, specialist degrees, or with Ph.D. degrees or an
equivalent degree.
Bar Graph 5. What is the highest educational level you have completed?
This data (see Bar Graph 6) showed 71% of the administrators who responded
had at least nine years of teaching experience.
Bar Graph 6. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
80
Bar Graph 7 identified 81% of the respondents to be principals or heads of
schools, with other administrative roles and superintendents representing much smaller
percentages.
Bar Graph 7. Which of the following best describes your administrative role?
The location demographic of Urban versus Rural (Bar Graph 8) shows a strong
urban representation from administrators across the country, with 66% of the respondents
being urban school administrators.
81
Bar Graph 8. Which of these best describes your area of service?
Experience as an administrator was the final demographic variable measured by
this study. The sample population was comprised of 64% with nine or more years of
experience in an administrative role and 37% with 16 or more years of experience as
administrators (see Bar Graph 9).
Bar Graph 9: How many years of administrative experience do you have?
82
The demographic representations displayed in the previous nine bar graphs
assisted in the interpretation of the statistical analyses to follow, as the responses from the
population (N) were studied and observed.
Correlational Analyses
Because of the number of resilience, leadership and demographic variables within
this study, alpha was set at p < .01. In findings from this study, effects that might have
both practical and statistical significance have been deemed most critical. Significant
effects, then, with instructional relevance for educators and administrators, would be
much more likely at the p < .01 alpha level than p < .05, and further reports from this
study reflect that significance level.
In Table 3, correlations between resilience qualities from the PRQ and the MLQ
leadership attributes for Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-Faire models are
visible.
83
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics for correlations between the MLQ and the PRQ
Optimism Pos/world
Esteem Pos/self
Focus Cognitive Flexibility
Social Organized ProActive
T-Form Attributes .42** .55** .41** .31** .37** .18 .31**
T-Form Behaviors .41** .45** .40** .29** .44** .19** .40**
T-Form Inspir.
Motivation .52** .50** .46** .31** .50** .17 .43**
T-Form Intel. Stim. .31** .37** .34** .43** .38** .03 .40**
T-Form Indiv.
Consideration .45** .44** .46** .30** .49** .20** .39**
Transact
Contingent/Reward .26** .37** .39** .14 .31** .32** .25**
Transact Mgt. by
exception/active -.32** -.15 -.15 -.09 -.21** .02 -.20**
Transact Mgt. by
exception/passive -.25** -.22** -.32** -.01 -.26** -.17 -.21**
Pass/avoidance
Laissez-Faire -.30** -.34** -.46** -.18 -.35** -.25** -.24**
Out/Extra Effort .49** .46** .44** .26** .42** .20** .36**
Out/Effectiveness .41** .44** .38** .19** .47** .30** .29**
Out/Satisfaction .39** .35** .33** .17 .42** .23** .25**
Note. Significance at the p < 0 .01 level is denoted with ** on Table 3. MLQ and PRQ
data were calculated using Pearson’s r.
The resilience attributes of Optimism (the world), Esteem (positive self), Focus,
and Proactive were all significantly correlated with transformational leadership qualities.
All significant correlations for the resilience attributes with the transformational
84
leadership characteristics were between .30 and .50 for Optimism, Esteem, Focus, Social
and Proactive resilience dimensions (see Table 3).
There was one attribute of resilience that did not correlate with the forms of
transformational leadership; the “Organized” resilience attribute was not consistently
correlated, nor was it significantly correlated with transformational or transactional
leadership attributes. It was the lowest correlation among all of the significant
correlations, with many of its relationships showing no statistical significance
whatsoever.
Self-report outcome variables (Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction with
the Leadership) were significantly and positively correlated with all seven of the
resilience attributes, but Organized and Cognitive Flexibility, or Flexible Thoughts, were
much weaker, forming weak to low-moderate correlations.
Transactional Contingent Reward leadership appeared to be acting, statistically,
much like a transformational leadership attribute. It was positively and moderately
correlated with all seven of the resilience dimensions but was not defined in the MLQ as
part of the transformational leadership primary model attributes. Transactional
Contingent on Rewards, although impressive in its significant correlations with most
resiliency variables, showed, nevertheless, weaker significant correlations compared to
the transformational leadership dimensions. Transactional by Exception, both Passive and
Active, and Laissez-Faire non-leadership were all negatively correlated with all seven of
the resilience attributes. The MLQ has four forms of transactional leadership, but
Transactional Contingent on Rewards statistically mirrored transformational leadership
characteristics. All of the Transactional Leadership styles by Exception, Active and
85
Passive and Laissez-Faire leadership, were all either negatively correlated or not
significantly correlated at all with any of the resilience characteristics.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: Are there significant positive relationships between
resiliency dimensions and transformational leadership practices among American K-12
school principals and administrators? Six out of seven resilience variables were
positively correlated with transformational leadership. Additionally, they were all
negatively correlated with ineffective forms of leadership (Transactional Management by
Exception Active/Passive Avoidance and Laissez-Faire Leadership).
Research Question 1 Research Hypotheses: It was hypothesized that resiliency
variables would be positively correlated with some or all of the five transformational
leadership dimensions in the MLQ (building trust, acting with integrity, encouraging
others, encouraging innovative thinking, and coaching and developing people). The first
hypothesis was confirmed. Some or all resiliency variables were statistically significant
and positively correlated with all five transformational leadership dimensions within the
MLQ. Only the Organized variable was not consistently significantly correlated with the
transformational leadership dimensions.
Hypotheses Continued: It was hypothesized that resiliency attributes would not be
significantly correlated with the two transactional factors (rewarding achievement, also
known as Contingent Reward, and monitoring deviations and mistakes, also known as
Management by Active Exception). The second hypothesis was not confirmed.
Transactional leadership with Contingent Reward was statistically significant and
86
positively correlated with all seven resilience characteristics, but Management by Active
Exception was significantly correlated (negatively) with three resilience attributes.
Hypotheses Continued: It was hypothesized that resilience attributes would be
negatively correlated with the two passive-avoidant factors (fighting fires, or
Management by Passive Exception, and avoiding involvement, also known as Laissez-
Faire non-leadership). The correlations between resiliency dimensions and the passive-
avoidant leadership attributes were negatively correlated and produced some significant
relationships (see Table 3).
Research Question 2: Are there significant differences in resiliency dimensions
between groups of K-12 principals and administrators in terms of demographic
variables? MANOVAs were implemented with the categorical demographic variable
data sets from the survey that were proportionately viable, and Spearman’s rho was used
for the ordinal demographic variables. Separate analyses for each viable independent
variable were run with resiliency dimensions used as dependent variables.
Looking critically at significant differences in resilience dimensions for the
responding administrators in terms of demographic data, three demographic areas were
determined to be significant. These three were Gender, Educational Level and the Years
of Experience in Administration. Because their MANOVA and Spearman’s rho
correlational coefficients were significant (see Tables 4 and 5), univariate tests were later
applied.
The Spearman’s rho test used with Resilience dimensions (see Table 4) related to
Age, Educational Level, Age, Teaching Experience, and Administrative Experience
reported some significant correlational coefficients and significance levels for
87
administrators’ educational levels in relation to the resilience dimensions of Positive Self-
Esteem, with p < .001 Focused, with p < .01, and Proactive, with p < .01, respectively.
PRQ resilience variables showed both significant and insignificant correlations
with the following correlational coefficients and significance levels. The ordinal
demographical variables of Age, Educational Level, Years of Teaching and Years of
Administration were calculated with Spearman’s rho.
Table 4. Demographic variables in relation to Resilience attributes
Demographic Variables
in relation to the
Resilience Attributes
Age Educational
Level
Years Of
Teaching
Years of
Administration
Optimism-Pos.Wrld. .095 .095 .084 .134
Positive Self-Esteem .088 .307** .118 .136
Focused -.033 .206** .154 .060
Cognitive Flexibility -.011 .159* .093 .013
Social Flexibility .051 .062 .125 .051
Organized .070 .080 -.074 .022
Proactive .019 .218** .076 .044
The univariate scores (see Table 5) for all seven resilience variables in relation to
Gender, Leadership Level, Public vs. Private, and Urban vs. Rural, were noted with
significant correlations. The demographic variable of Marital Status was unequally
distributed and was not analyzed with the PRQ or the MLQ attributes.
88
MANOVA results for the PRQ variables for Gender, Leadership Level, Public vs.
Private and Urban vs. Rural found Gender to be significant. Significant univariate
findings with Gender are reported through Wilk’s L, p, and η2 (partial eta squared).
Table 5. MANOVA results for demographic variables with Resilience dimensions
MANOVAs for Gender, Lead.
Level, Pub. vs. Private, Urban vs.
Rural
Gender Leadership
Level
Public vs.
Private
Urban vs.
Rural
PRQ Resilience DIMENSIONS in
relation to the four categorical
demographic variables.
L = .86
p = .000**
η2 = .14
L = .84
p = .066
η2 = .06
L = .94
p = .117
η2 = .06
L = .96
p = .422
η2 = .06
Beginning with the statistically significant PRQ variables (see Table 6) with Gender,
Table 6.
Univariate Tests for Gender and the Dependent Variables of the PRQ
Gender Tests of Between-Subj. Effects Sum of Sq. Sig. F
PRQ- Positive World Optimism 1442.14 .00** 12.93**
PRQ-Positive Self- Esteem 206.66 .16 2.03
PRQ-Focused 1015.45 .00** 9.56**
PRQ-Cognitive Flexibility (thoughts) 128.97 .30 .93
PRQ-Social (Flexibility) 93.16 .42 .63
PRQ-Organized 326.80 .11 2.18
PRQ-Proactive 88.47 .47 .74
89
Positive the World and the Focused dimensions proved to be significant at p <
.01. Additionally, Gender produced some notable descriptive statistics (see Table 7).
Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics for Gender Differences in Relation to Resilience Dimensions
Gender: Means Male
(N=84)
Female
(N=107)
PRQ- World Optimism 72.86 78.37
PRQ- Positive Self-Esteem 77.57 79.64
PRQ- Focused 75.40 80.13
PRQ-Cognitive Flexibility 62.19 60.41
PRQ- Social Flexibility 70.26 71.70
PRQ- Organized 64.31 67.20
PRQ- Proactive 59.98 61.16
The Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices tested the null hypothesis that
the observed covariance matrices of the PRQ dependent variables were equal across
groups. The Box’s M checked the assumption of homogeneity of covariance across the
groups using p < .001 as a criterion. For the PRQ variables in relation to Gender, Box’s
M (38.44) was not significant, p (.121) > α (.001). Additionally, the MANOVA for the
PRQ variables in relation to Gender showed significant and positive correlations and a
substantial effect size, with a partial eta squared of .14 (see Table 5).
Reporting on the PRQ dimensions in relation to Educational Level, the
educational level of the administrators was significantly and positively correlated with
90
the resiliency attributes of Positive Self-Esteem, Focused, Cognitive Flexibility and
Proactive (see Table 4).
Research Question 3: Are there significant differences in transformational
leadership dimensions between groups of K-12 principals and administrators in terms of
demographic variables? MANOVAs and Spearman’s rho were run for each of the viable
demographic data sets in relation to the transformational leadership dimensions contained
in the MLQ.
Focusing on the four demographic variables analyzed with Spearman’s rho (see
Table 8), Educational Level and Years of Administrative Experience demographic
variables produced some significant correlations with the MLQ leadership dimensions.
The self-reported educational level of the administrators was significantly correlated at p
< .01 with the transformational leadership attributes of Idealized Attributes and Behavior,
Intellectual Stimulation, and Individual Consideration. Additionally, the outcome
variable of Extra Effort was significantly correlated at p < .01 with the Educational Level.
The demographic variable of Years of Administration was correlated with the MLQ
outcome variable of Effectiveness & Satisfaction also at p < .01 (see Table 8).
91
MLQ correlational data showing correlational coefficients and significance levels
for the self-reported demographical variables of Age, Educational Level, Years of
Teaching and Years of Administration in relation to MLQ variables. These correlational
coefficients and significance levels were calculated with Spearman’s rho.
Table 8. Demographic variables with significant correlations with MLQ attributes.
Significant Correlations between MLQ,
Age, Ed. Level, Years of Teaching and
Years of Administration
Age ED. Level Yrs. Of
Teach.
Yrs. Of
Admin.
MLQ- Transformational Ideal. Attributes .051 .194** -.011 .097
MLQ-Transformational Ideal. Behavior .062 .179* .126 .073
MLQ-Transform. Inspiration. Motivation .041 .122 .044 .134
MLQ- Transform. Intellect. Stimulation -.023 .283** .153* .100
MLQ- Transform. Indiv. Consideration .098 .204** .153* .110
MLQ-Transactional Cont. Reward .025 .071 .157* .084
MLQ-Transactional Mgt. Except. Active -.033 .037 -.115 .105
MLQ-Transactional Mgt. Except. Passive .102 .036 .073 .103
MLQ-Passive/Avoidance Laissez-Faire .000 -.073 -.090 -.026
MLQ- Outcome: Extra Effort .026 .204** .021 .095
MLQ-Outcome: Effectiveness & Satisf. .150 .157* .023 .216**
MLQ-Outcome: Satisfaction .017 .141 .010 .116
For the MLQ variables in relation to Gender, Box’s M (126.22) was also not
significant, with p (.003) > α (.001). These statistics showed that there were no significant
92
differences between the covariance matrices. Therefore, the assumptions were not
violated, and Wilk’s Lambda was chosen as an appropriate test to use for the Gender data
in relation to the MLQ dimensions.
The MANOVAs run for Gender, Leadership Level, Public vs. Private and Urban
vs. Rural showed Gender possessing significant relationships with transformational
leadership dimensions as well (see Table 9).
Table 9.
MANOVA results for the MLQ variables for Gender, Leadership Level, Public vs. Private
and Urban vs. Rural found Gender to be significant. Significant univariate findings with
Gender are reported through Wilk’s L, p, and η2 (partial eta squared).
MANOVAs for Gender,
Leadership Level (Role), Public
versus
Private, Urban versus Rural
Gender Leadership
Level
Public vs.
Private
Urban vs.
Rural
MLQ Transformational Leadership
Dimensions
L = .85
p = .001**
η2 = .15
L = .76
p = .066
η2 = .09
L = .89
p =.037
η2 = .11
L = .94
p = .502
η2 = .06
The MANOVAs for Gender, Administrative Leadership Level, Public versus
Private, and Urban versus Rural used the Wilk’s Lambda test to determine whether there
were significant differences between the means of these groups on the combination of the
dependent variables. Using an alpha level of .01, it was clear that the test was significant
for the MLQ variables and Gender with Wilk’s L = .85, F (7, 183) = 4.26, p < .001,
multivariate η2 (partial eta squared) = .15. The multivariate η2 = .15 indicated that
93
approximately 15% of multivariate variance of the leadership dimensions were associated
with Gender.
Table 10.
Univariate tests for Gender and the dependent variables of the MLQ
Gender Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variables
Type III Sum of Sq.
Sig. F
MLQ Transformational Leadership 1 Idealized Attributes
.171 .45 .577
MLQ Transformational Leadership 2 Idealized Behaviors
.161 .45 .574
MLQ Transformational Leadership 3 Inspirational Motivation
.776 .13 2.273
MLQ Transformational Leadership 4 Intellectual Stimulation
.066 .64 .224
MLQ Transform. Leadership 5 Individual Consideration
1.455 .01** 6.121**
MLQ Transactional Leadership 1 Contingent Rewards
.776 .08 2.273
MLQ Transactional Leadership 2 Management by Exception Active
3.783 .01** 8.022**
MLQ Passive Avoidant 1 Management by Exception Passive
7.306 .001** 21.675**
MLQ Passive Avoidant 2 Laissez Faire
.841 .05 3.883
MLQ OUTCOME Extra Effort
2.744 .01** 7.211**
MLQ OUTCOME 2 Effectiveness and Satisfaction
.966 .05 3.928
MLQ OUTCOME 3 Satisfaction
1.020 .06 3.699
Table 10 reported the univariate scores for the Gender MANOVA in relation to
the MLQ dimensions, which included four significant relationships. The
Transformational and Transactional variables, the Management by Exception and the
94
Extra Effort Outcome leadership dimensions from the MLQ were calculated with the
MANOVA and descriptive statistics were run (see Table 11).
Table 11.
Descriptive Statistics for Administrative Gender and Transformational Leadership
Attributes
Gender: Means Male
(N=84)
Female
(N=107)
MLQ- Transformational Ideal. Attributes 2.99 3.05
MLQ- Transformational Ideal. Behavior 3.33 3.40
MLQ- Transform. Inspiration. Motivation 3.16 3.30
MLQ- Transform. Intellectual Stimulation 2.96 3.01
MLQ- Transform. Individual Consideration 3.19 3.36
MLQ- Transactional Contingent Reward 2.78 2.91
MLQ-Transactional Mgt. Except. Active 1.71 1.43
MLQ-Transactional Mgt. Except. Passive 1.40 .99
MLQ-Passive/Avoidance Laissez-Faire .70 .56
MLQ- Outcome: Extra Effort 2.84 3.09
MLQ- Outcome: Effectiveness 3.17 3.31
MLQ- Outcome: Satisfaction with Leadership 3.17 3.32
The descriptive statistics representing Gender and the MLQ leadership variables
(see Table 11) showed a consistently higher mean with female administrators for the
transformational leadership dimensions, as well as Transactional Contingent by Reward
95
and the MLQ Outcome variables. Additionally, the higher means lied with the male
administrators for the Transactional Management by Exception (Active and Passive) and
the MLQ non-leadership, Passive/Avoidance Laissez Faire leadership dimension.
Summary
Seven of the nine variable data sets showed comparable data that were balanced
enough in quantity for measurement and comparison; the Marital Status and the Public
versus Private demographic variables were grossly uneven in their distributions. Because
of the keen interest expressed by participants in the study’s results pertaining to the
public and private sector differences, the MANOVA was run for the Public versus Private
demographic variables. No significant relationships were found. Three of the other
demographic variables, however, produced correlations that were statistically significant
(p < .01) with the PRQ resiliency and MLQ leadership attributes. These three variables
were the administrators’ Gender, their Educational Level achieved and the Years of
Administrative Experience.
An interpretation of the statistical analyses and results of this study in detail will
be discussed in Chapter 5, especially in respect to the originally stated hypotheses.
Inferences and possible conclusions are articulated, limitations of the study are discussed,
suggestions are made for further research and a final interpretation of the significance of
the outcomes is expressed.
96
Findings
This study was an attempt to investigate the many attributes of resilience, their
correlational ties to transformational leadership and their relationships to the
demographic data represented by a K-12 administrative sample of participants from
across the United States. The foundational purpose of this research was to define the
dimensions and character of resilience and their capacity to support, empower and equip
educational administrators. Understanding and identifying which specific attributes of
resilience statistically and positively correlated with transformational leadership traits
might contribute to increased and consistent growth in transformational change-
leadership in American K-12 school communities.
Summary of Findings
In general, the research questions for this study introduced in Chapter 1 regarding
the significant positive relationships between resilience dimensions and transformational
leadership practices were consistently apparent in the data. Table 3 from Chapter 2
addressed this first Research Question: Are there significant positive relationships
between resiliency dimensions and transformational leadership practices among
American K-12 school principals and administrators? With the findings reiterated from
Chapter 2 (see Table 3), there were statistically significant positive relationships between
resilience dimensions from the PRQ and the transformational leadership attributes from
the MLQ. The research hypothesis, however, stated that transactional leadership would
not be positively correlated with resilience attributes, and this received no statistical
support. Transactional leadership (as measured by the MLQ) was significantly and
positively correlated with all resilience traits (as measured by the PRQ) except for
97
Cognitive Flexibility. Resilience traits, however, were, as hypothesized, negatively
correlated with Management by Exception Passive and Laissez-Faire, two
Passive/Avoidant leadership factors.
Beginning with the correlational analysis in Table 3, Proactive, Esteem (Positive
Self) and the resilience attribute of Focus were the strongest resilience correlations that
were significantly and positively correlated (p < .01). Significant correlations were found
with all five of the transformational leadership dimensions (see Table 3). These three
resilience attributes were also positively and significantly correlated (p < .01) with
transactional leadership Contingent Rewards, but at a much weaker level when compared
with the five transformational leadership attributes (see Table 3).
All resilience characteristics, except for Cognitive Flexibility and Organized,
were negatively correlated (p < .01) for Transactional Leadership by Exception Passive
and Laissez Faire Passive/Avoidance, but Transactional Management by Exception
Active was significantly and negatively correlated with Optimism the World, Social
Flexibility, and Proactive. The other correlations were negatively correlated as well, but
their correlations were all non-significant. Each of the outcome variables of Extra Effort,
Effectiveness, and Satisfaction with Leadership were significantly and positively
correlated to all resilience traits, except for Cognitive Flexibility and that was a non-
significant correlation.
As reported in Chapter 4, the correlations between the five transformational
leadership dimensions and six of the seven resilience characteristics were all significant
and positive (p < .01) and their correlations were consistent between .30 and .50. The
resilience dimension Organized was the one characteristic that was not significant, but all
98
other transformational leadership and resilience correlations were moderately significant
correlations, with the sole exception of Organized. The Organized characteristic is
descriptive of value for structure, process and attention to detail (Hoopes, 2013). The
strongest correlation with Organized was the Transactional/Contingent Reward factor,
which, considering their descriptors, appears to be a logical relationship. Organized was
the lowest correlation with every pairing, with several pairings showing insignificant
correlations and was the one attribute of resilience in this study that did not correlate with
transformational leadership. Organized, according to Conner (1992), is the ability to
respond decisively amidst uncertainty rather than merely reacting to circumstances”
(Conner, 1992, p. 238). An organized person sorts through information quickly, can bring
order from chaos, can plan for efficient use of resources and “avoids acting on impulse”
(ODR, 1995a, p.17).
All resilience variables were positively and significantly correlated with all three
Outcome Variables included in the transformational leadership paradigm, with the one
exception of Cognitive Flexibility. The Transformational Leadership Outcome Variables
are:
1. Extra Effort: getting others to do more than expected; encouraging others’
desire to succeed and increasing others’ willingness to try harder;
2. Effectiveness: meeting others’ needs; representing team to a higher authority
and leading an effective group;
3. Satisfaction with Leadership: using satisfying leadership methods and
competently working with others.
99
In the sample data, Organized, as a resilience attribute, was correlated very low
and Cognitive Flexibility was correlated even lower with transformational leadership
outcomes. For Conner (ODR, 2001), Cognitive Flexibility is “the person’s ability to look
at situations from multiple points of view, to suspend judgment, while considering
alternative perspectives, and to accept and live with paradoxes and contradictions as part
of life” (p. 5).
Transactional Leadership with Contingent Rewards appeared to behave
statistically very similarly with each of the five transformational leadership attributes.
However, as was discussed in Chapter 2, when the transformational leader elevates
individual needs from a team to a priority (Bass & Avolio, 1994), the leadership
exchange begins its shift from transactional to transformational. “The foundation for
effective transformational leadership with Contingent Rewards, then, is the focus on the
identification of needs” (p. 28) and elevating those needs to a priority among the team.
Here it becomes much more transparent why transactional leadership mimics
transformational leadership in its statistical relationship to the resilience variables in
Table 3. All resilience variables were positively and significantly correlated with
transactional leadership with Contingent Rewards Active except for Cognitive Flexibility.
Another observation of Table 3 is the higher-level, yet still moderate, correlations
with several of the transformational leadership attributes. The transformational leadership
characteristic with Idealized Attributes had a significantly positive correlation that was
above .50 with the resilience attribute: Positive Self. This resilience characteristic
“enables one to build a solid base to sustain strain and ambiguity and provide one with
100
the confidence to endure failure” (ODR, 2001, p. 4). This correlation appeared to be a
statistically robust and logical relationship.
Other statistical correlations from Table 3 with positive and significant
correlations above .50 were Positive Self (self-confidence), Positive World (optimism),
Social Flexibility, or the ability to draw on the assistance of others, Focus, and the
transformational leadership trait Inspirational Motivation, which expresses a vision for
the future and a confidence that goals will be achieved.
A final resilience attribute that also had a stronger correlation than most was
Focus with transformational leadership. Other traits with stronger correlations were
Inspirational Motivation, which articulates a compelling vision and Individual
Consideration, which considers each team member’s needs and attributes and seeks to
coach and develop others.
Additionally, each of the resilience variables was negatively correlated with all of
the negative transactional Passive-Avoidant leadership attributes as well; with some
being significantly negatively correlated (p < 0.01). These negatively correlated non-
leadership attributes were: Management by Exception Passive and Laissez-Faire or non-
leadership.
Research Questions 2 and 3: Research Question 2: Are there significant
differences in resiliency dimensions between groups of K-12 principal and administrators
in terms of demographic variables? Research Question 3: Are there significant
differences in transformational leadership dimensions between groups of K-12 principal
and administrators in terms of demographic variables? These two research questions
were analyzed and answered with multiple MANOVAs for each viable categorical
101
demographic variable and Spearman’s rho was used for ordinal demographic variables.
The purpose of the study was to research the differences within the K-12 administrator
sample population in relation to the seven resilience attributes and the twelve
transformational leadership characteristics. Out of the nine demographic variables (age,
gender, area of service, marital status, highest educational level, teaching experience,
administrative role, location of service and administrative experience), three demographic
variables produced significant correlations with either resilience or transformational
leadership attributes or both. These three demographic variables were the educational
level of the administrators, the years of experience of the administrators and gender. All
three demographic variables were significant at p < 0.01.
Reporting first on Gender, the resilience characteristics of Positive the World and
Focused were significantly correlated with a higher correlation in the female sample
population for this study. The male responses were correlated with Cognitive Flexibility,
but this was a non-significant correlation. In relation to Gender and significant
differences within transformational leadership dimensions, the female administrators
studied reported statistically higher significant relationships with all five of the
transformational attributes, the transactional leadership with Contingent Reward and all
three of the transformational leadership outcomes of Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and
Satisfaction with the Leadership. Male administrators were more highly correlated with
the other forms of transactional leadership: Management by Exception Active and
Management by Exception Passive, but these were non-significant correlations. Laissez-
Faire or Passive Avoidant non-leadership was significantly correlated with the male
administrators’ responses as well.
102
In their anecdotal and meta-analytical research over the past 15 years of studies,
Bass and Riggio (2006) have consistently measured differences between male and female
leaders in relation to transformational leadership behaviors in various professional
realms. Bass & Riggio (2006) stated:
There is a tendency for women in leadership to be somewhat more
transformational and to display less Management-by-Exception and Laissez-Faire
leadership than their male counterparts. Concomitantly, they are perceived by
their subordinates and colleagues, as slightly, but significantly, more effective and
satisfying as leaders. (p. 115)
Antiquated perceptions of leaders as tough and aggressive power wielders have
changed to contemporary approaches to a change leadership that is more collaborative,
with leaders sharing power more frequently with followers and colleagues (Pearce &
Conger, 2003). With contemporary approaches to leadership changing and focusing more
on establishing collaborative relationships and sharing power with followers, this invites
leadership opportunities for women to work from a somewhat common strength zone;
one with a relation-orientation, which is oftentimes a group strength attribute (Pearce &
Conger, 2003).
Other significant differences that became apparent during the statistical analyses
were within the educational levels of the surveyed administrators in relation to the
resilience and transformational leadership characteristics. The four educational level
options available to the administrators surveyed were: Ph.D., Master’s, Bachelors or the
Specialist Degree. The Ph.Ds. were highly significantly and positively correlated with
Positive Self-Esteem, Focused and Proactive. Similarly, administrators with Ph.Ds.
103
recorded responses that were positively and highly correlated (p < 0.01) with the
transformational leadership attributes of Intellectual Stimulation, Individual
Consideration and the Outcome variable, Extra Effort. Higher levels of education
correlated powerfully with each of these resilience and transformational leadership
attributes denoted above. Finally, the Years of Administration demographic variable was
significantly correlated (p < .01) with the MLQ Outcome dimension of Effectiveness &
Satisfaction.
An interesting finding regarding the behavior of the resiliency dimensions, was
the dimension of Organized within the sample data. Organized, according to Conner’s
model (1993) manifests itself in people:
• who bring order to chaos and structure to ambiguity.
• who have the discipline to assess information.
• who choose a direction and plan steps accordingly.
• who create workable detailed plans, systematically and sequentially.
These “Organized” attributes align with the reviewed literature for being critically
important to individuals leading change. Looking at prior published peer-reviewed
studies, the PRQ’s resilience dimensions have been fairly consistent in correlations with
change leadership populations surveyed. Looking at two fairly recent studies, Wang
(2008) and Isaacs (2012), both exhibited data from the resilience dimension of Organized
as being positively and significantly correlated with multiple demographic leadership
dimensions. Kouzes and Posner’s LPI (2002) was used in Isaac’s (2012) study and
Organized was positively and significantly correlated with “challenging the process,”
“inspiring a shared vision,” “enabling others to act,” “modeling the way” and
104
“encouraging the heart.” The behavior of Organized within the data of this study appears
to be a possible anomaly.
Finally, the behavior of the leadership dimension of Transactional Contingent
Rewards, although expected to not be as consistently associated with the transformational
leadership characteristics, was strongly supported as a transformational leadership quality
in this sample population. It was consistently positively and significantly correlated with
most resilience dimensions and it acted in tandem with many transformational leadership
qualities in relation to several of the demographic variables. As was already discussed in
Chapter 2 of this dissertation, transactional leadership may often behave as a
transformational leadership dimension. As leaders serve, lead and work with their teams,
associates’ needs are met through transactions (contingent rewards), but the “focus on the
identification of needs and their elevation is what constitutes the base of transformational
leadership” (Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 28). Transformational leadership “builds” on
transactional leadership and it is associated with motivating and empowering associates
to do more than they originally thought was achievable (Bass & Avolio, 2004).
Transformational leaders assist associates in fostering goal setting and establishing
objectives in collective leadership groups. Individuals and groups begin to “shift from
being purely transactional to being transformational because of a developmental
orientation” (Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 28). This study’s data appeared to align with this
description of the Transactional Contingent Rewards leadership dimension.
105
Discussion
Limitations of the Research
This study had many limitations. One of the most critical limitations was the
underrepresentation of the public-school administrators. Using Facebook and Instagram
and tagging administrators through contacts from around the United States, and then
sharing the link to connect with public school administrators, may have reduced the
perception of professionalism of the research study. Although over 8,000 emails were
sent to public school administrators from every region of the United States, these were
cold contacts with no accompanying recommendations from reliable sources advising
administrators to complete the attached survey. ACSI Research Support provided their
grant to reach out and advocate for this study to the private school administrators from
around the country, but the public school offered no such grant or opportunity.
Professional emails with a known contact or hardcopy mailings mentioning known
educators supporting this researcher, might have raised the expectations of the sample
population and made a difference in the low return rate.
Additionally, there were no monetary or measurable incentives to complete the
survey. The resilience podcast attached to the surveys, which was available at the
completion of the demographic survey questions, was instructional, inspirational and
geared toward administrators and growing their resilience levels. But for professionals
with very little time, and no known connection to the researcher, it was very possibly not
a suitable enough incentive for the administrators to complete the online survey.
Not having equal representation of public and private K-12 administrators was not
ideal for measuring a sample, which did not truly reflect the many schooling options and
106
experiences available to administrators in U.S. schools. Unequal representation could
have potentially given the data a somewhat biased influence from the perspective of the
U.S. public sector and could have potentially affected the viability of the results.
Using MANOVAs to discover the differences between groups of administrators
according to demographic variables was facilitated to avoid Type I Researcher Error,
however, by using so many MANOVAs, with even a fairly robust sample size (195), this
may cause some researchers to question the reliability of the data.
The original sample size was 255 participants, but because of incomplete surveys
by administrators, 60 surveys were not viable for analysis. With at least 30% of the non-
viable surveys left incomplete, 60 surveys were removed from the data set. This removal
of data could potentially cause the study that initially surveyed every region of the United
States to possibly no longer have a full representation from certain states or regions.
Since the survey was completed anonymously, it is impossible to know who completed
the study and in what area of the United States they resided.
Finally, this study was a self-report study and as such, it carried a different level
of reliability. Making this study a 360-degree study with self-report and feedback from
supervisors, peers and subordinates would have significantly increased the study’s
reliability.
Implications for Practice
Reflecting both the findings of this study and a substantial amount of prior
research (Avolio & Bass, 2004), transformational leadership characteristics and resilience
attributes were highly correlated and purposefully pursuing one will most likely lead to
growth in many aspects of the other (Patterson, Goens, & Reed, 2009). In their book,
107
Resilient Leadership for Turbulent Times, Patterson, Goens, and Reed (2009) wrote
specifically to educational leaders: “Pressure and turmoil are a part of leadership. The
true challenge, however, is developing a sense of efficacy in the ability to contribute and
meet the challenge. That is when leadership assumes its deepest meaning…” (p. 68). One
of the educational administrators at Columbine discovered that the Columbine tragedy
“…built on my skills as an administrator. I learned that I had the ability to deal with the
issues and be steady and not panic.” Later, after being asked what helped him have the
strength, wisdom, and stamina to work through the difficult aftermath, he responded: “I
depended on my inner circle of colleagues because I knew I couldn’t do it on my own”
(Patterson, et al., 2009, p. 68). Fostering the empowerment of connections, the inner
circle and the relationships that give educational leaders collective wisdom are powerful
and sustaining protective factors for educators. The corporate support and a team’s
synergy can equip educational leaders to successfully face adversity, even to the extent of
Columbine (Patterson, Goens, & Reed, 2009).
Resilience training and transformational leadership attributes are slowly being
introduced in business schools, public and health care administration, educational
administration through leadership curriculum in classroom formats, and in mentoring
programs (Pounder, 2003). Other components of training for transformational leadership
use guidance to facilitate self-understanding, modeling behaviors used by effective
transformational leaders, counseling to foster awareness and mindfulness of default
behaviors, and feedback. All of these are being used in order to promote trigger
awareness for learned transformational leadership and for resilience attributes to manifest
and be developed (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
108
The strategy of Team Leadership is continuing to grow in terms of shared
leadership and is highly esteemed by both scholars and practitioners. Foundationally, all
team members work to develop strategies in resilience to empower their transformational
leadership skills (Pearce & Sims, 2002). Additionally, all members learn to mentor,
coach, facilitate, teach and delegate to develop others on the team (Pearce & Conger,
2003). “High-performance team members display transformational leadership toward
each other, and, under certain conditions, teams using shared transformational leadership
and developed resilience can outperform teams led by traditional, vertical leadership”
(Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 164). According to Kouzes and Posner (2002), principals and
administrators who embrace and develop resilience dimensions possess a commanding
competitive advantage as change leaders. Resilient principals lead change successfully
when they remain ahead of change and not behind it, attempting to catch up. Developed
resilience provides greater change adaptability (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
Patterson and Kelleher (2005) addressed the need for transformational leaders to
keep the greater good as a focus; to continue to build resilience attributes to develop the
vision, foster the fortitude, and stay the course. “School leaders must stay connected to
their deepest values if they are to persist and withstand the adversity sure to come their
way, and for many leaders, those deepest values and resilience spring from their
spirituality” (p. 123). Regardless of what spirituality means for the individual leader, it
translates into developing a common language at a practical level (Bolman & Deal,
2008).
Leaders with a deep sense of spirituality transfer this sense to others. They help
people find meaning and faith in their work. They also help people answer
109
fundamental questions about themselves and about their organizations. What
legacy should we leave? Can we rise above adversity to realize our mission.
(Patterson, Goens, & Reed, 2009, p. 90)
Spirituality is also a potential protective factor to fostering resilience in
transformational leaders. Regardless of the form that it takes, it provides a way of
thinking and behaving that allows leaders’ best selves to be apparent to those they
influence through transformational leadership (Patterson, Goens, & Reed, 2009).
Developing a resilience capacity as a transformational leader comes from
developing the resilience strengths needed to fulfill the requirements demanded of
transformational leadership (Patterson, Goens, & Reed, 2009). The following resilience
strengths can be developed in transformational leaders to increase their resilience
capacity. These are instructable, trainable and self-teachable in curriculum format or
through Patterson, Goens, and Reed’s text on resilience. Developing Optimism, like the
first two characteristics of the PRQ, can be fostered as a foundational strength, as well as
the following strengths: Personal Values (ethical values or Positive the World), Personal
Efficacy (true belief in personal abilities and resilience or Positive Self), a Strong Support
Base (protective factors of the inner circle or Flexible Social), Personal Wellbeing
(physical, spiritual & emotional health), Perseverance (relentlessly pursuing a course of
action or Focus), Adaptability (willing to monitor and adjust or Flexible Thoughts),
Courageous Decision-Making (acting in concert with one’s convictions or ProActive) and
Personal Responsibility (moral responsibility and accountability or Organized). These
attributes are inherent in the PRQ attributes and are all developable attributes (Patterson,
Goens, & Reed, 2009).
110
Recommendations for Research
In addition to clearly defining resilience and thoroughly and succinctly defining
leadership, future research is needed in all areas of positive psychology, but especially in
those areas that relate to resilience and transformational leadership. Further research is
needed in the following areas, specifically. The role of resilience in leadership
preparation; in a leaders’ ability to engage paradox and second-order change and in
identifying, discovering and developing a leader’s strengths. Other areas for further
research are the areas of tolerating and working through ambiguity and building and
fostering protective factors as a leader. Building resilience for managing and alleviating
stress and developing a skill and attitude “set” to assist leaders in preparing themselves
for adverse situations will also be critical for pre-service administrators and would
enhance any pre-service curriculum. If resilience interventions can foster ‘bouncing back
and beyond,’ empirical interventions could keep educational leaders growing in
leadership effectiveness, and remaining in leadership positions long enough, to affect
positive, systemic, and lasting second-order change in schools (Hoffman, 2004).
Additionally, further research is needed in developing resilience in all educational
leaders; principals, administrators, teachers, and superintendents; including university
level administrative leaders and their roles in fostering the critical protective factors for
growth within their spheres of influence. Research measuring resilience training with pre-
test/post-test designs with current educational leaders, too, will contribute to growing a
more comprehensive and theoretically integrated conceptualization of resiliency in order
to better prepare K-12 transformational leaders to effectively lead change in schools.
111
Conclusion
Working through the research data for this study helped to bring to light some
significant relationships between resilience and transformational leadership dimensions.
Bringing together U.S. K-12 administrators from all areas across America and
statistically measuring significant correlations among resilience attributes,
transformational leadership characteristics and demographic variables representing the
sample population of the administrators surveyed was fascinating and insightful. This
study identified dimensions of resilience that were positively and statistically significant
in their correlations with transformational leadership traits. Resilience attributes shown to
be statistically significant in relation to transformational leadership traits may potentially
be able to actively affect the level of productivity, the level of effectiveness, the physical,
the emotional and spiritual stability of transformational administrators leading change.
The resilience attributes of Optimism Positive: the World, Positive: Yourself,
Focused, Flexible Thoughts, Flexible Social and Pro-Active were positively significant,
and moderately correlated with all five of the transformational leadership characteristics.
Transactional leadership with Contingent Rewards was also moderately significant,
positively correlated with each of the resilience attributes mentioned earlier as well.
Transformational leaders lead with rewards, charisma, and inspiration (Avolio & Bass,
2004). Higher levels of education appear to play a role in how this study’s sample
population self-reported their relationships with resilience and transformational
leadership. Female administrators self-reported a higher statistical relationship with
transformational leadership attributes and transformational outcomes and with all
resilience attributes except Cognitive Flexibility (Flexible Thoughts). With these results,
112
individual administrators who desire to build their resilience or transformational
leadership capacity can derive starting points. Additionally, these statistically significant
positive correlations are an addition to existing research for administrative training
programs and a possible incentive to continue research and more fully develop pre-
service K-12 administrative programs. The statistical correlations suggest to researchers
of change leadership and resilience another perspective that may add to further research
that more fully defines what developed resilience characteristics look like when they are
being articulated through the behavior of a transformational leader.
As has already been discussed, resilience in the context of Educational Leadership
has not fully been defined in the literature. Prior definitions of resilience focused on
identifying the specific risks and protective factors that enabled or constrained resilience
and the particular traits that characterized resilient individuals. Definitions of resilience
have included not just recovery from stress to a previous level of health but of sustained
growth resulting from a healthy response to stressful situations (Reich, Zautra, & Hall,
2010). In recent years researchers have begun to conceptualize resilience from a social
ecological perspective. Resilience is there defined as a “set of behaviors over time that
reflect the interactions between individuals and their environments, particularly the
opportunities for personal growth that are available and accessible” (Ungar, 2012, p. 14).
In the context of principals and administrators, resilience could be conceptualized
as a capacity, a process and as an outcome (Mansfield, 2016). Resilience involves the
capacity of an individual leader to harness personal and contextual resources to navigate
through challenges. It is the dynamic process whereby characteristics of educational
leaders and their personal and professional contexts interact over time as administrators
113
use specific strategies, to enable the outcome of a leader who experiences professional
engagement and growth, commitment, enthusiasm, satisfaction, and wellbeing
(Mansfield, Beltman, Broadly, & Weatherby-Fell, 2016).
According to Mansfield (2016), principals and administrators (and teachers) may
develop a capacity for resilience through building personal resources (e.g. motivation;
social and emotional competence), understanding ways to mobilize contextual resources
(e.g. relationships, support networks), and developing a range of adaptive coping
strategies (e.g. problem- solving, time and priority management, maintaining work-life
balance) to manage challenges with the purpose of maximizing adaptive, resilient
outcomes (e.g. commitment, job satisfaction, well-being, engagement).
Specifically identifying protective factors through research within the K-12
administrative sector may assist in fostering and facilitating resilience growth. It has the
potential to play a vital role in moving this area of educational leadership research
forward. Further research will inform districts, leaders, and organizations seeking to
produce effective transformational leaders on how to best equip, prepare and empower K-
12 transformational administrators for success as they lead change.
114
References
Akiba, M., & Reichardt, R. (2004). What predicts the mobility of elementary school
leaders? An analysis of longitudinal data in Colorado. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 12(18), 1-21.
Albritton, R. (1998). A new paradigm of leader effectiveness for academic libraries: An
empirical study of the Bass (1985) model of transformational leadership.
Books.google.com: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Allison, E., & Reeves, D. (2001). Renewal coaching field guide: How effective leaders
sustain meaningful change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Allison, E. (2012). The resilient leader. Educational Leadership, (1), 79-82.
Anderson, D., & Ackerman-Anderson, L. (2010). Beyond change management: How to
achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Anderson, P., Meyer, B., Pencavel, J., and Roberts, M. (1994, 2009). The extent and
consequences of job turnover. Microeconomics, (1), 177-248.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
Avey, J., Luthans, F., Palmer, P., & Smith, J. (2010). The influence of pre-training
positive psychological capitol development on training motivation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 18-37.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F.J. (2003). Transformational and charismatic leadership:
The road ahead. Oxford: Elsevier Press.
115
Avolio, B., Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and
the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organizational Studies, 12(1), 73-87.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B.M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1996). Construct validation of the multifactor
leadership questionnaire MLQ-Form 5X (CLS Report 96-1). Binghamton: State
University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies.
Avolio, B., & Howell, J. (1992). The impact of leader behavior and leader-follower
personality match on satisfaction and unit performance. In K. Clark, M. Clark, &
D. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of Leadership. Greensboro, NC: The Center for
Creative Leadership.
Ayala, J., & Manzano, G. (2014). The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the
success of the business. A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology,
42, 126-135.
Bananno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma and human resilience: Have we underestimated the
human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist,
59(1), 20-28. doi:10.1037.0003-066X.59.1.20
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (pp.71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurevpsych.521.1.
116
Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. Lopez (Ed.),
Positive psychology: Explaining the best in people (pp.167-196). Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.1.87
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996) Effects on transformational leadership
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(6), 827-832.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Boston, MA: Collier
Macmillan.
Bass, B. (2000). Hooijberg and choi interview. Leadership Quarterly, 11, p. 298.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance
by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better
managers. Human Resource Management, 33(4), 549-560.
Bass, B.J., & Bass, B. M., (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ).
Mind Garden 29, 2004.
Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
117
Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology, 45(1), 5-34.
doi:10.111/j.1464-0597.1996.tb00847.x
Bass, M. & Bass, R. (2008). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and application.
Palo Alto, CA: Free Press.
Bass, M. & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
Bates, M., Bowles, S., & Hammermeister, J. (2010). Psychological fitness.
Military Medicine, 175(8), 21-38.
Beltman, S., Mansfield, C., & Price, A. (2011). Thriving not just surviving: A review of
research on teacher resilience. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 185-207.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.001
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American
Psychologist, 62(1) 2-5. doi:10.1037/0003-006X.62.1.2
Block, J., & Kremen, A. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical
connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
70(2), 349-361.
Bobko, P., & Stone-Romero, E. (1998). Meta-analysis may be another useful research
tool, but it is not a panacea. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management, (pp. 359-397). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice. Leadership,
1(1), 1-10.
118
Bowles, S., & Bates, M. (2010). Military organizations and programmes contributing to
resilience building. Military Medicine, 175(6), 382-385.
Brockmeier, L. L., Starr, G., Green, R., Pate, J. L., & Leech, D. W. (2013). Principal and
school level effects on elementary school achievement. International Journal of
Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 49-61.
Bullough, A., & Renko, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times.
Business Horizons, 56(3), 343-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.001
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. M. (1979). Two excerpts from “Leadership.” Educational Leadership, 36(6),
380-383.
Byrd, J. K., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent turnover:
Lessons from the field. ERIC, online submission, 2006.
Canterbury Primary Principals Association, (2012). Online Wellbeing Survey. Canterbury
Primary Principals Executive.
Cashman, K. (2017). Leadership from the inside out. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Cassidy, S. (2015). Resilience building in students; the role of academic self-efficacy.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1781-1788.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, K. (2001). Transformational leadership and
sports performance: the Mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521-1534.
119
Christman, D., & McClellan, R. (2008). “Living on barbed wire:” Resilient women
administrators in educational leadership programs. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 44(1), 3-29. doi:10.1177/001361X7309744
Colgate, M. (1996). A secondary analysis assessing the Personal Resilience
Questionnaire exploring the relationship between resilience and exercise.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
eLibrary ID: 5603997
Conner, D., & Havinga, R. (1992). Resilience and managing diversity-key areas for
effecting change. Human Resource Management Journal, 6(1).
Conner, D. (2004). Personal resilience profile handbook. Atlanta, GA: Conner Partners.
Conner, D. (2014). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed
and prosper where others fail. New York, NY: Random House.
Connor, K. M. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Psychiatry Research, 18, 76-82.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. (2007). An abbreviated version of the Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the CD-RISC2: Psychometric properties and
applications in psychopharmacological trials. Psychiatry Research, 152(2- 3),
293-297. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2007.01.006
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) Construct validity in psychological
tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302. doi:10.1037/h0040957
Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., & Sanderson, K. (2013). Building on the positives: A
120
psychometric review and critical analysis of the construct of psychological
capital. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(3), 348-370.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
325914).
Doci, E., & Hofmans, J. (2015). Task complexity and transformational leadership: The
mediating role of the leaders’ state core self-evaluations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 26(3), 436-447. doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.008
Drucker, P. (2005). The essential Drucker: In one volume the best of sixty years of Peter
Drucker. The Journal of Leadership Education, 2(1), 1-18.
Duignan, P. (2006). Educational leadership: Key challenges and ethical tensions. Port
Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press.
Dugan, T., & Coles, R. (1989). The child in our times: Studies in the development of
resiliency. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735-744.
Dwyer, P., Bono, J., Snyder, M., Nov, O., & Berson, Y. (2013). Sources of volunteer
motivation: Transformational leadership and personal motives influence volunteer
outcomes. Non-Profit Management and Leadership, 24(2), 181-205.
Dyer, J. G., & McGuinness, T. M. (1996). Resilience: Analysis of the concept. Archives
of Psychiatric Nursing, 10(5), 276-282. doi:10.1016/SO883-9417(96)80036-7
121
Ellis, A., & Fouts, J. (1994). Research on school restructuring. Princeton Junction, NJ:
Eye on Education.
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real life
problems of innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fischer, J., Peterson, G. D., Gardner, T. A., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Integrating resilience
thinking and optimization for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
24(10), 549-554. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.
Flach, F. (1988). Resilience: Discovering a new strength at times of stress. New York,
NY: Fawcett Columbine.
Fletcher, D. & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of
definitions, concepts and theory. European Psychologist, 1(1), 1-19.
Frankl, V. E. (1992). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Frederickson, B. L. (2002). Positive emotion. In B. L. Fredrickson & R. Branigan (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 151-191). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Froh, J. (2004). The history of positive psychology: Truth be told. NYS Psychologist,
16(3), 18-20.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi
Delta Kappan, 73(10), 745-752.
122
Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1986). Stress, competence and resilience: Common
frontiers for therapist and psychopathologist. Behavior Therapy, 17(5), 500-521.
doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(86)80091-0
Gliner, J., & Morgan, G. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated
approach to design and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (Eds.) (2004). Encyclopedia of
leadership. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Goodman, R., and Steckler, A. (1997). Mobilizing organizations for health enhancement:
Theories of organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, M. (1995). Promoting resilience in urban African American adolescents: Racial
socialization and identity as protective factors. Social Work Research, 16(2), 239-
245.
Green, M. (2014). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Leadership, 2, p. 28.
Grotberg, E. H. (Ed.) (2003). Resilience for today: Gaining strength from adversity.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Grusky, O. (1960). Administrative succession in formal organizations. Social Forces,
39(2), 105-115.
Hagevik, S. (1998). Resilience required. Journal of Environmental Health, 60(10), 37-39.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:2(81)
Haith, M. (2009). Strengthening the warrior spirit: Linking the development of the
warrior spirit to soldier resilience. Fort Leavenworth Ethics Symposium, 16-18
November, 2009. Ft. Leavenworth, KS. Retrieved on June 29, 2013 from
123
http://leavenworthethicssymposium.org/resource/resmgr/2009_other_papers/warri
orspiritsoldierresililie.pdf.
Halinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal. 96(5), 527-549,
1996.
Hamel, G., & Välikangas, L. (2003). The quest for resilience. Harvard Business Review,
81(9), 52-65.
Hamill, S., (2003). Resilience and self-efficacy: The importance of efficacy beliefs and
coping mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate University Journal of the
Sciences, 35(1), 115-146.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 8-13.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership
behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 11(2), 2-14. doi:10.1177/107179190501100202
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement; leading or
misleading? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-
24. doi:10.1177/1741143204039297
Hartland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors
and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
11(1), 2-14.
124
Henderson, N. (2012). The resiliency workbook: Bounce back stronger, smarter and with
real self-esteem. Solvang, CA: Resiliency in Action.
Henderson, N. (2013). Havens of resilience. Educational Leadership, 71(1), 22-27.
Henderson, N., & Milstein, M. M. (1996). Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for
students and educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Higgins, G. O. C. (1994). Resilient adults: Overcoming a cruel past. San Francisco, CA:
Josey Bass.
Hoffman, J. (2004). Building resilient leaders: Many universities and school districts are
creating support mechanisms that increase administrator resiliency and lead to
greater retention. Leadership, 9(1), 1-5.
Hogden, R., & Wylie, C. (2005). Stress and well-being among New Zealand principals.
Wellington, NZ: NZCER.
Hoopes, L. (2013). Perspectives on coping and resilience. New Delhi, Authorspress
Global Network.
Hoopes, L. (2017). Prosilience: Building your resilience for a turbulent world. Atlanta,
Georgia: Dara Press.
Hoopes, L., & Kelly, M. (2003). Managing change with personal resilience: 21 keys fo
bouncing back and staying on top in turbulent organizations. Raleigh, NC: Mark
Kelly Books.
Howe, A., Smajdor, A., & Stöckl, A. (2012). Towards an understanding of resilience and
its relevance to medical training. Medical Education, 46(4), 349-356.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04188.x
125
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-
business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78(6), 891-901.
Isaacs, A. J. (2003). An investigation of attributes of school principals in relation to
resilience and leadership practices. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State
University). Retrieved on March 15, 2013 from
http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=etd
Isaacs, A. J. (2012). Resilience and the individual demographics of school leaders:
Making a difference in the quality of educational leadership. Journal of Research
in Education, 22(1), 128-162.
Jones, P. S. (1991). Adaptability: A personal resource for health: A scholarly inquiry for
nursing practice. An International Journal, (5)1, 95-108.
Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy for
surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: A literature review.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04412.x
Joseph, J. (1994). The resilient child: Preparing today’s youth for tomorrow’s world.
New York, NY: Plenem Kirkley, KO, & Medway.
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-
768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in
enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 525-544.
126
Kalantar, J., Khedri, L., Nikbakht, A., & Motvalian, M. (2013). Effect of psychological
hardiness training on mental health of students. International Journal of A
cademic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(3), 68-88.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into
hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-11.
Kobasa, S., Maddi, S., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: a prospective study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 168-177.
King, G. A., & Rothstein, M. G. (2013). Resilience and leadership: The self-management
of failure. Self-Management and Leadership Development, 6(2), 361.
King, L. A., King, D. W., Fairbank, J. A., Keane, T. M., & Adams, G. A.
(1998). Resilience-recovery factors in post-traumatic stress disorder: Hardiness,
postwar social support, and additional stressful life events. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74(2), 420-434. doi:10.1037/0022.351474.2.420
Klumpfer, K. L. (2001). Factors and processes contributing to resilience. Resilience and
Development, 12(1), 179-224.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1991). The effects of transformational
leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319-333.
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85(1), 96.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1993). Leadership practices inventory. A self – assessment and
analysis (expanded edition). San Francisco, CA: Josey – Bass.
127
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2002). Leadership challenge (3rd Ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Josey-Bass.
Kumpfer, K. (2002). Factors and processes contributing to resilience. Resilience and
Development: positive life adaptations, edited by Glantz and Johnson. New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 179-224.
LaMarsh, J. (1997). The resilient worker; employees who can cope with change. Hospital
Materiel Management Quarterly, 19(2), 54-58.
Lane, K. E., McCormack, T. J., & Richardson, M. D. (2013). Resilient leaders: Essential
for organizational innovation. International Journal of Organizational
Innovation, 6(2), 7.
Langvardt, G. (2007). Resilience and commitment to change: A case study of a non-profit
organization. (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Retrieved on June 15,
2013 from http://www.peaklearning.com/documents/PEAK_GRI_langvardt.pdf
Leadbeater, B., Dodgen, D., & Solarz, A. (2005). “The resilience revolution: A paradigm
shift for research and policy,” In R. Peters, B. Leadbeater, & R. McMahon (Eds.),
Resilience, Families and Communities (pp. 47-61). New York, NY: Kluwer.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale
reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. Psychology,
17(2), 201-227. DOI: 10.1080/09243450600565829
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2005). Adaptive fit versus robust transformation:
How organizations respond to environmental change. Journal of Management,
31(5), 738-757. doi:10.1177/0149206305279367
128
Luthans, F., Luthans, K., Hodgetts, R., & Luthans, B. (2001). Positive approach to
leadership (PAL): Implications for today’s organizations. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 8(2), 3-20. doi:10.1177/10717919010080020
Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695-706.
doi:10.1177/0149206307305562
Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of
Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and
Organization Review, 1(1), 247-269
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the psychological
capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review, 5, 25-44.
doi:10.1177/1534484305285335
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33(3), 321-349. doi:10.1177/0149206307300814
Luthans, F., Youssef, C., & Avolio, B. (2007a). Psychological capital: Developing the
human competitive edge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C., & Avolio, B. (2007b). Psychological capital: Investing and
developing positive organizational behavior. In D. Nelson & C. I. Cooper (Eds.).
Positive Organizational Behavior: Accentuating the positive at work (pp.9-24).
Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Luthar, S., & Cushing, G. (1999). Measurement issues in the empirical study of
resilience: An overview. In M. D. Glantz, J. L. Johnson, (Eds.), Resilience and
development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 129-160). New York, NY: Sage
129
Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164
Luthar, S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: a review of research on
resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 6-22.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J., & Norman, S. (2007). Positive psychological capital:
Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personal
Psychology, 60(1), 541-572.
Maddux, J. E. (2002). Stopping the madness: Positive psychology and the deconstruction
of the illness ideology and the DSM. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp.13-25). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. C., & Cooper, C. L. (2009). Authentic leadership as a pathway
to positive health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 453-458.
Macmillan, R., Meyer, M., & Northfield, S. (2004). Trust and its role in principal
succession preliminary examination of a continuum of trust. Leadership & Policy
in Schools, 3(4), 275-294.
Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Broadley, T., & Weatherby-Fell, N. (2016). Building
resilience in teacher education: An evidenced informed framework. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 54, 77-87. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.016
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNultyk, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
130
Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation
despite risk and adversity. In M. Wang & E. Gordon (Eds.), Risk and resilience in
inner city America: Challenges and prospects (pp.3-25). Hillsday, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions
from the study of children who overcame adversity. Development and
Psychopathology, 2(4), 425-444.
Masten, A. S. (2009). Ordinary magic: Lessons from research on resilience in human
development. Education Canada, 49(3), 28-32.
Masten, A. & Obradovic, J. (2006). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1094(1), 13-27.
Masten, A., & Powell, J. (2003). A resilience framework in research policy and practice
of resilience and vulnerability. In S. Luthar (Ed.), Adaptation in the context of
childhood adversities (pp.1-25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Masten, A. S. & Reed, M. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C.R. Snyder & S.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74-88). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Maulding, W., Peters, G., Roberts, J., Leonard, E., & Sparkman, L. (2012). Emotional
intelligence and resilience as predictors of leadership in school administrators.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 20-29.
McLarnon, M., & Rothstein, M. (2013). Development and initial validation of the
workplace resilience inventory. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(2), 63-73.
131
Meeks, A. (2016). Below the Surface of Special Education Administrator Turnover;
Dissertation in ProQuest.
Meyer, M., & Macmillan, R. (2011). Principal succession and the micropolitics of
educators in schools: Some incidental results from a larger study. Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 117, 1-26.
Miller, A. (2009). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education
Review, 26, 60-76.
Miller, P. (2016). Cultures of educational leadership: Researching and theorising
common issues in different world contexts. Cultures of Educational Leadership,
1, 1-23.
Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity:
mediating the role of creative self-efficacy and moderating the role of knowledge
sharing. Management Decision, 53(5), 894-910.
Moore, M., & Diamond, M. (2000). Academic Leadership: Turning vision into reality.
Ernst & Young Foundation, 2000.
Moskovitz, S. (1983). Love despite hate: Child survivors of the holocaust and their adult
lives. New York, NY: Schocken.
Munir, F., Nielsen K., Garde, A., Albertsen K., & Carneiro, I. (2011). Mediating the
effects of work-life conflict between transformational leadership and health-care
workers’ job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Nursing
Management, 5(10), 1-10.
132
Negis-Isik, A., & Gursel, M. (2013). Organizational culture in a successful primary
school: An ethnographic case study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,
13(1), 221-228.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team
and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job
satisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: a cross
sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, (46)9,
1236-1244. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.03001
Norton, M. S. (2003). Let’s keep our quality school principal on the job. The High School
Journal, 30, 50-56.
Notman, R., & Henry, D. (2011). Building and sustaining successful school leadership in
New Zealand. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(4), 375-394.
doi:10.1080/15700763.2011.610555
O’Dougherty W., Masten, M., & Narayan, A. (2013). Resilience processes in
development: Four waves of research on positive adaptation in the context of
adversity. In S. Goldstein & R.B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience (pp. 15-
38). New York: Springer.
ODR. Inc., (1996; 2001). ODR Personal resilience profile feedback. Atlanta, GA: Conner
Publications.
Odumeru, J., & Ifeanyi, G. (2013). Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories:
evidence in literature. Journal of International Review of Management and
Business Research, 2(2), 355-361.
133
Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: a self-
efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 472-458.
Palmer, P. (1990). Leading from within: Reflection on spirituality and leadership.
Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Office of Campus Ministries.
Partlow, M. C. (2007). Contextual factors related to elementary principal turnover.
Planning and Changing, 38, 60-76.
Patterson, C., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. (1996). A quantitative review of research on
charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78(1), 271-287.
Patterson, J. (2001). Resilience in the face of adversity. School Administrator, 58(6), 18-
24.
Patterson, J., Patterson, J., & Collins, L. (2002). Bouncing back! How your school can
succeed in the face of adversity. New York, NY: Larchmont.
Patterson J., & Kelleher, P. (2005). Resilient school leaders: Strategies for turning
adversity into achievement. Alexandria, VA: Sage.
Patterson, J. (2007). Strengthening resilience in tough times. Principal. 86(5), 16-22.
Patterson, J., Goens, G., & Reed, D. (2009). Resilient leadership for turbulent times: A
guide to thriving in the face of adversity. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (2003). All those years ago...Shared leadership: Reframing the
hows and whys of leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the
effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,
directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors.
134
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(2), 172-197.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172
Pepe, J. (2011). The relationship of principal resiliency to job satisfaction and work
commitment: An exploratory study of K-12 public school principals in Florida.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida). Retrieved on May 29, 2013
from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford Press.
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T.E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools.
Educational Leadership, 56(1), 28-30.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006) Transformational leadership and job behaviors:
the role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-
340.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Moorman, H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 1(2), 107-143.
Pounder, J. (2003). Employing transformational leadership to enhance the quality of
management development instruction. Journal of Management Development,
22(1), 6-13.
Rafferty, A., & Griffin, M. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership:
Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329-354.
Ragins, M. (2013). Resilience: The science of mastering life’s greatest
challenges. Psychiatric Services, 64(5). doi:10.1176/appi.ps.640509
135
Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Hall, J. S. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of adult resilience. New
York: Guilford Press.
Reivich, K., Seligman, M., & McBride, S. (2011). Master resilience training in the U.S.
army. American Psychologist, 66(1), 25-34. doi: 10.1037/a0021897.
Reivich, K., & Shatte, A. (2002). The resilience factor: 7 essential skills for overcoming
life’s inevitable obstacles. New York, NY: Random House.
Richardson, G., Neiger, B., Jensen, S., & Kumpfer, K. (1990). The resilience model.
Health Education, 21(6), 33-39. doi:10.1080/00970050.1990.10614589
Richardson, G. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58(3), 307-321.
Robinson, V. M. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities:
Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 44(5), 635-674.
Rotter, J. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological monographs, 80(1), 1.
Rutter, M. (1979). Psychsocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316-331.
Rutter, M. (2008). Developing concepts in developmental psychopathology. In J.
Hudziak (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology and wellness: Genetic and
environmental influences (pp. 3-22). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Journal.
Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and Psychopathology,
24(2), 335-344. doi:10.1017/S0954579412000028
136
Sameroff, A. J., & Rosenblum, K. L. (2006). Psychosocial constraints on the
development of resilience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094(1),
116-124. doi:10.1196/annals.1376.010
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of schools and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Psychological resilience in sport performers: A review
of stressors and protective factors. Journal of Sports Sciences. Milton Park,
Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis.
Scheer, M. (2011). Resilience in the spiritual. Brewster Baptist Church Publications.
1(5), 10.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Seligman, M. E. (2007). Coaching and positive psychology. Australian Psychologist,
42(4), 266-267. doi:10.1080/00050060701648233
Selye, H. (1938; 1950). The physiology and pathology of exposure to stress. Montreal,
Canada; Acta, Inc.
Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(3), 46-51.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Senge, P., McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Dutton, J., & Smith, B. (2012). Schools that learn: A
fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about
education. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.
Sergiovanni, T. (1993). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
137
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558-589.
Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703-714.
Siebert, A. (2005). The resiliency advantage. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Smith, B. W., Tooley, E. M., Christopher, P. J., & Kay, V. S. (2010). Resilience as the
ability to bounce back from stress: A neglected personal resource? The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 5(3), 166-176.
Snowden, P. E., & Gorton, R. A. (2002). School leadership and administration (6th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Southwick, S., & Charney, M. (2012). Resilience: The science of mastering life’s greatest
challenges. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical
evidence. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73-91.
doi:10.1080/13632430220143042
Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2010). Positive psychology: The scientific
and practical explorations of human strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. The ERIC Review, 3(3), 2-4.
Starr, K. (2008). Increased demands on principals. Directions in Education, 17(4), 1.
Hawthorne, Victoria; Australia: Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008). Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance
coping strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of
American College Health, 56(4). doi:10.3200/JACH.56.44.445-454
138
Strumpfer, D. (2003). Resilience and burnout: A stitch that could save nine. South
African Journal of Psychology, 33(2), 69-79.
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E.
Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 94-
110). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Sylvester, M. (2009). Transformational leadership behaviors of frontline sales
professionals: An investigation of the impact of resilience and key demographics.
Capella University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3387358.
Szabo, S., Tache, Y., & Somogyi, A. (2012). The legacy of Hans Selye and the origins of
stress research: A retrospective 75 years after his landmark brief “letter to the
editor” of Tedeschi, R., Park, C., & Calhoun, L. (Eds.) 1998. Posttraumatic
growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Theron, L., & Engelbrecht, P. (2012). Caring teachers: Teacher-youth transactions to
promote resilience. In M. Unger (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A
handbook of theory and practice (pp. 265-280). New York: Springer.
Tirozzi, G. N. (2001). The artistry of leadership: -the Evolving role of the secondary
school principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 434-439.
Tirozzi, G. N. (2013). Stop the school bus: Getting education reform back on track. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tolan, P. T. (1996). How resilient is the concept of resilience? The Community
Psychologist, 29(1), 12-15.
139
Tran, H. (2017). The impact of pay satisfaction and school achievement on high
school principals’ turnover intentions. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 45(4), 621-638. doi:10.1177/1741143216636115
Ungar, M. (Ed.). (2012). The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and
practice. New York: Springer.
Vickers, M. H., & Kouzmin, A. (2011). ‘Resilience’ in organizational actors and
rearticulating voice. Public Management Review, 3(1), 95-119.
doi:10.1080/14616670010009478
Waite, P., & Richardson, G. (2004). Determining the efficacy of resiliency training in the
work site. Journal of Allied Health, 33(3), 178-183.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J.
(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based
measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.
doi:101.1177/0149206307308913
Wang, J. (2008). A study of resiliency characteristics in the adjustment of international
graduate students at American universities. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10(10), 1-24. doi: 10.1177/1028315307308139
Wang, M., & Gordon, E. (1994). Educational resilience-in inner city America:
challenges and prospects. Los Angeles, CA: Routledge.
Warner, R., & April, K. (2012). Building personal resilience at work. Effective Executive,
15(4), 53-68.
140
Wasden, S. (2014). A Correlational Study on Transformational Leadership and
Resilience in Higher Education Leadership. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Idaho). Retrieved on February 5, 2018 from ERIC (#ED575034).
Waterman, R. H. (1994). Toward a career resilient work force. Harvard Business Review,
72(4), 87-95. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1828
Werner, E. (1993). Risk, resilience and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauaii
longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 503-515.
Waxman, H., Padrón, Y., & Gray, J. (Eds.). (2004). Educational Resilience: Student,
Teacher, and School-level Perspectives. Greenwich, CT: IAP
Wolin, S. J., & Wolin, S. (1993). Bound and determined: Growing up resilient in a
troubled family. New York, NY: Villard.
Yammarino, F., Spangler, W., & Bass, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and
performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-
102.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the
workplace: The impact of hope, optimism and resilience. Journal of Management,
33(5), 774-800. doi:10.1177/0149206307305562
Zautra, A., Hall, J., & Murray, K. (2010). Resilience: A new definition of health for
people and communities. In J. R. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds).
Handbook of Adult Resilience (pp. 3-30). New York: Guilford.
Zolli, A., & Haely, A. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York, NY: Free
Press.
141
Zunz, S. J. (1998). Resiliency and burnout: Protective factors for human service
managers. Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 39-54.
doi:10.1300/J142v22n03_03
142
Appendix A
FACEBOOK/INSTAGRAM
Good morning Facebook friends! So grateful for all of you! Hoping you all will assist
me as I complete this final work in my doctoral dissertation…
This is a request for all public or private school K-12 administrators (superintendents,
heads-of-school, principals or administrators) OR administrators that you KNOW (on
Facebook or on email) to participate in a BRIEF survey study on the role of resilience in
the lives of administrators leading change!
This survey is now “live!” Please help me to connect to as many (legitimate)
administrators as possible from across the country (tag them on Facebook here or email
them this direct link) to help me grow the sample size I need for higher reliability in my
findings! THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP WITH THIS!
Please message me email addresses (if the administrator you know is NOT on Facebook)
or email your administrators directly with this link. If YOU email them, they are more
likely to complete the survey! Connections are powerful and you have administrative
connections I don’t have!
143
Any K-12 administrator who is an acquaintance, a friend, a principal or superintendent at
your child’s school, YOUR current administrator (if you haven’t graduated yet) would
ALL be amazing participants in this study. Please share the link with them- AND THEN
have them share (please) with THEIR Administrator friends!
So grateful for your “connections” and your willingness to connect me (and this survey)
to your K-12 administrative connections from anywhere or everywhere!
Blessings and SO MANY THANKS!
Gratefully,
Paige Wescott
144
Appendix B
For use by Paige Wescott only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on January 15, 2018
Permission for Paige Wescott to reproduce 1 copy
within one year of January 15, 2018
www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following
copyright material for his/her research:
Instrument: Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Authors: Bruce Avolio and
Bernard Bass Copyright: 1995 by Bruce
Avolio and Bernard Bass
Five sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a proposal,
thesis, or dissertation.
The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any published
145
material. Sincerely,
Robert
Most Mind
Garden,
Inc.
www.mindgarden.com
© 1995 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass. All Rights Reserved.
Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com
146
Appendix C
Dear fellow administrator, Head of School or Superintendent of Schools!
Thank you so much for all you do. Thank you for choosing a life and career of
service, empowerment and continual challenges; I pray God's favor on you, as you
lead change, and model and inspire academic, personal, social and spiritual
growth!
My name is Paige Wescott and I am a doctoral student, finishing my doctoral
dissertation research at Seattle Pacific University. I am currently a principal in a
Christian School in Washington State and I would love for you and your
administrative staff to complete an anonymous twenty minute survey (see the link
below) that will investigate the role that resilience plays in transformational
leaders leading change in schools. Your data is critical to the research process in
order for our studies to be able to adequately "sample" the population.
Please know how much your participation means to this research study; if you can,
please share this link with other (public and private) K-12 administrators you
know and encourage them to participate and complete the survey, too!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WescottResearch
147
Thank you for your time, your leadership and your devotion to Christ!
Gratefully,
Paige Wescott; SPU Doctoral Student
Communication*Activator*Input*Positivity*Responsibility
Learner*Achiever*Woo*Maximizer*Empathy
148
Appendix D
Dear Paige,
Thank you for your application, Resilience and Leadership Practice. Your protocol has
been approved under exempt review. It was approved as it met the following criteria:
45 CFR 46.101(b)(2)
2. ___X_ Research uses survey or interview procedures or observations (including
observations by participants) of public behavior AND at least one
of the following conditions exist:
a. _X__ Human participants cannot be identified directly or through identifiers code
or numbers
OR
b. __X__ The participants¹ responses or the observations recorded, if they became
known outside research, cannot reasonably place the participant at
risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the participant¹s
financial standing or employment
OR
c. __X__ The research does not deal with sensitive aspects of the participant¹s own
behavior, such as illegal conduct, drug use, sexual behavior, or use of alcohol
Your study has been assigned IRB number 171801008.
149
Please note:
1. The study number should be included on all documents relating to your study,
including any electronic recruitment material such as emails.
2. Your approval under exempt review remains until you make modifications to your
protocol. Please ensure that any changes to the questions are submitted directly
to the IRB. As an exempt study you do not need to perform an annual review
unless something changes.
Please contact me when you have completed collecting data for your study so that I can
close your file.
Please use your study number (171801008) in any further communication regarding this
study.
This is the only documentation that you will receive regarding your study¹s approval.
Please print it out and add to your study¹s documentation.
Best Wishes in the Completion of your Research
150
Appendix E
151
Appendix F
Scatter Plots
The following scatter plots describe the differences in the responses among the
administrators in relation to gender and embodied transformational leadership dimensions
as included in the preceding discussion.
152
153
154
155
156
Appendix G
ACSI Administrator Invitation:
Dear fellow administrator, Head of School or Superintendent of Schools!
Thank you so much for all you do. Thank you for choosing a life and career
of service, empowerment and continual challenges; I pray God's favor on
you, as you lead change, and model and inspire academic, personal and
spiritual growth!
My name is Paige Wescott and I am a doctoral student, finishing my
doctoral dissertation research at Seattle Pacific University. I am currently a
principal in a Christian School in Bothell, Washington and I would love for
you and your administrative staff to complete an anonymous twenty minute
survey (see the link below) that will investigate the role that resilience plays
in transformational leaders leading change in schools. Your anonymous data
that will add to the research being conducted to improve pre-service
administrative training at universities across the United States. Your data is
157
critical to the research process, in order for our studies to be able to
adequately "sample" the population.
Please know how much your participation means to this process! If you can
share this link with other (public and private) K-12 administrators you
know, and encourage them to participate and complete the survey,
please do!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WescottResearch
Thank you for your time, your leadership and your devotion to Christ!
Gratefully,
Paige Wescott; SPU Doctoral Student [email protected]
Communication*Activator*Input*Positivity*Responsibility
Learner*Achiever*Woo*Maximizer*Empathy